1903-08-25

INTERCOLONIAL CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for copies of cablegrams between the hon. the Secretary of State for the colonies and His Excellency relative to the publication of the proceedings of the colonial conference.
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the transportation commission which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (sir. Borden, Halifax) called my attention yesterday, I have to inform my hon. friend and the House that after the intimation by Sir Wm. Van Horne of his inability to accept the position of chairman of the commission, we applied to another gentleman to take the place. I have reason to believe that we shall have his official acceptance, and that the commission will be issued tomorrow.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. WM. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister to an order moved for by me and passed on the 1st day of June, which has not yet been fulfilled. It was for a return with reference to the appointment of members of parliament to positions of emolument under the Crown.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: 1 beg also to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that a return with regard to Intercolonial Railway passes, moved for by me in March, 1902, has not been brought down.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I will make a note of these returns.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House
[Stage Direction]
to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, and the motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto.
Hon. WE ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: stead of iron. They would have to be renewed and renewed in a great many instances.
The position was one of difficulty. The chief engineer was desirous of avoiding all cause of difference with the commissioners ; but his deliberate opinion was on record. The ground assumed by him had not been lightly taken, and the more the subject was considered by him, the more convinced he felt of the correctness of the principles of construction which he had advocated. No argument, however, which he could advance, appeared to have the least weight with the commissioners. They had determined to make certain changes ; that the recommendations of the chief engineer should be set aside ; and that iron should not be used, but that timber should take its place.
In January, 1869, the chief engineer made his first appeal in the matter, to the premier, Sir John A. Macdonald, and he submitted at length the arguments why iron and not wood should be used. This letter was referred to the commissioners in the usual course. It has never been replied to ; and the arguments advanced in that communication remain to this day without refutation.
He was not then treated with the ordinary courtesy that was due him of having his letters answered,, because, notwithstanding that his communications were of such great importance and that they were from so important a man, it was not deemed worth while to reply to them.
But the decision of the commissioners was sustained. Five of the bridges were, however, exempted from the principle originally laid down by the commissioners ; otherwise, the order was given that all the bridges should be built of wood.
In May, 1870, the chief engineer recurred to the question, in a statement prepared for submission to parliament. A complete list of the bridges was given, and it was there set forth that the cost of constructing them of iron would fie but slightly in excess of building them of wood, and accordingly he recommended that iron should be used.
The railw'ay commissioners still adhered to the view they had previously expressed, for, in a majority report, signed by Messrs. Brydges, Chandler and McLelan, they repeated the recommendation that, with the exception of five bridges named, wood should be used throughout the line. This report is dated July 3. Mr. Walsh, however, the remaining commissioner, and the chairman of the board, on July 5, gave his opinion in favour of iron. The matter was thus again brought before the government, and on July 7, an Order in Council was passed, affirming the decision of the majority that wood should be used. The chief engineer took another opportunity of appealing to the authorities on the subject. On July 25, he wrote to the premier, Sir John A. Macdonald, and on August 22, to the commissioners. In the latter communication he asked a delay of ten days for some work in progress, so that the matter could be reconsidered by the government.
In September, Mr. C. J. Brydges, one of the commissioners, addressed, on his own account, a commuiiication to the Privy Council on this subject. He argued that the fear of wooden bridges catching fire was groundless ; that, in his experience of eighteen years as a railway manager, he had known no instance of a wooden Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).	'
bridge having been injuriously affected through the cause assigned. He contended that the chief engineer's calculations of quantities and cost were erroneous; that iron bridges would cost at least $300,000 more than the sum named, and their introduction would probably add $500,000 to the cost of the line and would cause delay and confusion.
Mr. Fleming replied to the communication. He cited two instances of bridges on the Grand Trunk Railway, under the management of Mr. Brydges, having been destroyed by fire, but a few weeks before the date of Mr. Brydges' statement. Mr. Fleming contended that his estimates were correct, and challenged examination into their accuracy : and he further made a final appeal in favour of iron bridges.
After an examination which established that the estimates of the chief engineer -were correct, the commissioners eventually withdrew their objections and recommended that all bridges over 60 feet span should be built of iron. But, the chief engineer persisted in his efforts to have every bridge, down to the smallest span-24 feet-made of iron, and at last, by an Order in Council, dated May 12, 1871, authority was given to have them so constructed.
With the exception of three structures built of wood by direction of the commissioners, against the protest of the chief engineer, all the bridge spans, of whatever width, throughout the line, have the superstructure of iron.
You will therefore see the big fight that the engineer had with the commissioners in order to get iron bridges on the Intercolonial Railway instead of wooden ones, but at last he succeeded and he was in the right.
The statement that the new line of railway is to parallel the Intercolonial Railway is just a kind of by-play, because when the facts are inquired into you find that in most instances the two railways are a long distance apart. Mr. W. E. Thompson, a competent engineer, states that for from 20 to 100 miles they are 35 miles apart, and in some cases they are 60 miles apart, and so on. The new line of railway runs through a well-wooded and well-watered country, and it will open up a territory for settlement through New Brunswick and Quebec that will be occupied by the people of both provinces. The French people of the province of Quebec are attached to their homes and are not fond of emigrating, and when they find in their neighbourhood opportunities to earn a livelihood they will readily avail of these opportunities. The French Canadians are the only people on the continent of America who have fulfilled the command of the Lord : to multiply and replenish the earth. They have done that to a larger degree than any other people in British North America, and when they find that this railway will open up a well-wooded and well-watered country they will settle along its line. This new road will pass through seven thickly settled counties in the province of Quebec, and as it is separated by long distances from other railways, there will always be a considerable amount of local traffic that will go to the advantage of that road. I shall not enter into the details

of this great scheme that has been promulgated by this government, further than to say that it has my entire approval. At the outset I was foolishly carried away with the idea of government ownership and government management, but I have found that 1 was mistaken. I read the history of the Australian government railways, and I found that they had to send to Montreal for a Mr. Tait to go to Australia to manage their railroads and to try if he could stop the loss of $5,000 a day which they were incurring by the operation of government railways in that country.
The history of the intercolonial Railway in the past shows us that that railway was not run on business principles, but, on the contrary, that it was run according to the interests of the different political parties, and was to a considerable extent used as a political hack. To the credit of the late Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) be it said that he has done more to take that road out of politics than any other minister who ever had control of it. The management of the Intercolonial Railway in former days was not creditable to any government or to any party. If a railway conductor or any other employee was suspected of having Liberal leanings, he would be sent out of the district on polling day so that he could not cast his vote, but I know that there was no interference of that kind by the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), or by those under him, during the last two elections. I have nothing to say against the gentlemen w'ho manage the Intercolonial Railway, and I can say that for my own part I have received from them every fair consideration. I am in the unfortunate position of representing a county 120 miles long, bounded by the ocean on one side and the Bras d'Or lakes on another, and that whole county has only eight miles of railway. My friends from Prince Edward Island are like the horse leach, and it is : Give, give, with them all the time ; and when they ask for more railways, and more steamboat communication, and more wharfs it is time for me to speak up for my own county and to look forward to the time when the government will interest themselves in building a railway from the rich, fertile parts of Inverness county, through Margaree and through the fertile valley of Middle river and Baddeck. I look forward with interest to the time when something of this kind will be done, but meantime the government have quite enough in hand to see this new road opened up and in working order. No person can foretell or foresee what the future of this great railway is going to be. The opposition to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway came largely from the people of Ontario, and the opposition! to the present project comes from the same source. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) suggested that some of the people of Ontario should go down
to Truro to have their minds enlarged and to be instructed in the duties of citizenship, in dealing with public questions. I think it would be well that they should take broader views on questions of this kind. I believe it will be found that little objection will be raised by the people of Nova Scotia, to the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ; the representatives from Nova Scotia as a rule are broad-minded and they are always willing to support what they consider to be great improvements in the country. The attempt is made to frighten us with the bugbear of debt, debt, debt. I heard that cry for eight years in the province of Nova Scotia ; the debt was increasing, we were going to be taxed and going to be ruined. Now is there any person in this House, any person with intelligence, who will say that a man, woman or child in the Dominion of Canada will ever be called upon to pay a cent for the sup port of this great railway ? The government of Canada is quite capable of building this railway and it will be built in a way that will be satisfactory to the people of Canada, without a claim being made upon a single individual, and the persons who will go about the country preaching that this is going to be a cause of debt and that people are going to be called upon for taxes for this railway, have too low an instinct to be public men, and they should be hooted o.ut of society, because they know that, when they are preaching such politics as that, they are not telling the truth.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) asked why a railway was not built along the Ottawa river. If he would go up the Gatineau lie would find a railway there built quite close to the Gatineau river, bringing down the products of the farm and the forest in that country into the city of Ottawa and when this railway is built through a rich and fertile country it will be found that villages, towns and cities will spring up in what is now a wilderness.
I should like to read to the House what Mr. Hawkes, of Carnduff, Assa., a leading Conservative, says :
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will, in my humble opinion, be a boon to Canada at large, and to no part of Canada more than to the Ter>-ritories. As an old resident of the Territories, I welcome it as the best and most encouraging event that has ever crossed the horizon of the prairie country, and if I might venture a word of advice to my fellow residents in the Territories, it is to study the matter on its merits and refuse to allow any more questions of party to influence them when the development, and to a large extent the whole future of the Territories are in the balance, for if we do not get this road, what else is there in sight that will do one tithe as much for us as we may reasonably expect from this trunk road.


Mr.  W. A.@: Wier, a member of the legislative assembly of Quebec, addressing the members of the Manufacturers' Association of Montreal on the resources of northern

Quebec, took occasion to quote, with respect to the wood and clay belt north of the height of land, the very reports now being quoted in defence of the Quebec-Winnipeg project. Mr. Weir made this remarkable citation from the meteorological records :
The average temperature Irom May to October, inclusive, is one degree warmer at Moose Factory on James bay, than- at Dalhousie, in. New Brunswick, and twenty-one degrees warmer than at Rimouski, on the lower St. Lawrence. Abitibi, the centre of the clay j>elt, is seven degrees warmer still. In the matter of snowfall Abitibi has 105'5 inches in the year, Montreal 139:2 inches.
Mr. Weir quoted from the reports of Mr. O'Sullivan, the Quebec explorer, this description of the Hudson's Bay factor's garden at Wasanipi in the clay belt:
I never saw better cabbage, carrots and turnips, and he gave me samples of wheat which compare favourably with wheat grown in any other part of the province. The surrounding country is all level, rich clay land. At Moose river, Mr. O'Sullivan found in Bishop Newn-ham's garden, * splendid celery, tomatoes, vegetable-marrow' weighing 15 to 40 pounds each, kohi-rabi, carrots, parsnips, turnips beets, pease, beans, cabbage, cauliflower, rhubarb, red and black currants, lettuce, radishes, herbs, all a good size, some not to be beaten anywhere.
Mr. Weir also quoted the following information furnished by the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) as to the extent of this country.
Proceeding westward from Quebec, one comes across, according to reports made to the Geological Survey, 3,000,000 acres of agricultural land fit for settlement in the St. Maurice river section. In the Upper Gatineau district the country is generally level, with occasional rocky hills, sandy loam soil, timber abundant. The whole country is a flat undulating plain, with good flats of farming land. And again, further West, back of the rocky land through which the Lake Superior division of the Canadian Pacific now runs, there is a belt of fine agricultural land, clay and sandy loam, which forms part of the great clay basin of Moose river, and its numerous tributaries, which take their rise near the Canadian Pacific line, north of Lakes Huron and Superior. The headwaters of the rivers are well timbered, and the country is described as an undulating plain, gently sloping towards James bay. Soil is good for farming throughout the greater portion of the country.
I think enough has been said to prove that this railroad is going to pass, not through a scrubby, bare country, full of muskegs, morasses and swamps, but through a rich, cultivable tract. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), in describing the condition of the country, reminded me of the spies sent out to spy out the land. They came back with an evil report; but when the honest, truthful spies were sent out they found very different conditions; they came with a branch of the grapes of Eschol. so large that they had to be carried on a pole, on the shoulders of two other men, which showed the character of the country they were to occupy.


William Ross: This reminds me of the speech of my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. Mackie), who went to that country, and saw for himself the forests of great pine trees there. Admiring these splendid trees, he would naturally say : I would like to have a railroad into this region. I might make selection of a limit here and make another fortune to add to what I have already made in the timber business. Why it is the timber business that has built the city of Ottawa and has made its millionaires. And a new generation of millionaires will be made out of the vast country through which this road Is going to pass. Let us not be discouraged as to the result of this great undertaking. I was amused at the remarks of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson). That hon. gentleman said that the result of building this road would be to make multimillionaires in the future. Well, the result of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway has been the making of titled lords on the other side of the Atlantic. And if this road is going to be so successful that fortunes of this kind are to be made out of it, the fact that these results are looked for is a very good omen for the future of the undertaking. Then, hon. gentlemen on the other side enter upon the most elaborate calculations as to the cost of this road. They throw millions of dollars here and there as though they were matters of no concern. Sometimes they tell us this road is going to cost the government .$150,000,000, at other times it is to be $250,000,000, and so it has gone on until one hon. gentleman has reached the sum of $500,000,000. These calculations are utterly without basis, for not one of these hon. gentlemen has gone into that district to learn what the nature of the country is or what the road is likely to cost. The only man who has given the calculation correctly is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), whose figures can be always accepted as correct. That hon. gentleman secures expert information before lie attempts any calculations of cost. I do not think it is necessary to say much about this road, more than has already been said. We had first the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), with his magnificent speech, which I am happy to say is being freely distributed throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion. And I am proud to say that I have sent a copy of it to every elector in the county of Victoria, whether he be Tory or Liberal. Then we had the speech of the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who went thoroughly into the details of the calculations with respect to this road. Then we heard the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), who made one of the ablest speeches, perhaps the ablest speech, delivered on this subject. His knowledge of the country gave him that advantage of information 'which many others did not possess. Then we had the speech of my hon. friend the Minister

of Finance, wlio always speaks well and with full consideration. Everything he says can be relied upon as gospel truth. He exaggerates nothing. What he says is within the bounds of truth in every instance.
But hon. members of the opposition were perplexed. The scheme was so complete, the contract drawn up so carefully, that they could not raise any reasonable objection to it. They did not know what to do. They were like the two boys who were upset in the river. As they clung to their boat, one said to the other : ' Can you pray T ' No,' was the answer, ' I can't pray.' ' Well,' said the first, ' something must be done, and
that 

soon.' The opposition were in such
a plight that they did not know what to do. The result was that they promulgated a scheme that nobody else understands and that they do not understand themselves. The hon. leader of the opposition had a hard part to piny. But it is a pleasure to compliment that hon. gentleman on the courtesy which he always displays when he addresses this House. He is too much of a gentleman to say anything unworthy of a gentleman. I wish I could say as much for the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), when he accused his former friend the Prime Minister, of being influenced by Senator Cox. Is there any man in this House having any claim to gentlemanly feeling or aspiration who would think for a moment that the Prime Minister of Canada could be influenced by any Senator in his conduct in regard to this undertaking ? Why, the man is too high above anything of that kind for it not to be even thought of, and the man who says such a thing descends to personalities that are unworthy of a member of this House.
The hon. member for Peel was surprised at the stand taken by us on this side of the House with respect to the late Minister of Railways, when that hon. gentleman threw in his influence with hon. gentlemen opposite. If the hon. member for Peel were to leave his party and come over to this side of the House, what 'would his friends think of him ? What would they say of him V They would say, of him everything that was bad, and very properly so. The late Minisister of Railways and Canals professed to be a Liberal, and I sometimes think that if he were asked to be the head of this proposed commission, we should find him still supporting the government, instead of conducting himself as he has done. He gave us one speech and then he ran away as if he were afraid to face the members of this House again. No doubt he had in mind the old saying :
He who fights and runs away May live to fight another day ;
But he who fights until he's slain Will never live to fight again.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) No, it is not carried. But this railway scheme is
going to be carried, carried by a large majority, and carried by the unanimous vote of the supporters of the government. Let the members of the opposition lay that unction to their restless souls. We are going to carry this measure and this road is going to be built, and I hope myself to have a pleasant ride over it from Moncton to the Pacific coast. We do not know the possibilities which are in store for us in this country. We do not know what the requirements of our great railway will be ten years hence ; and it is in order to meet some of those requirements, it is in order to provide requisite facilities for carrying our surplus agricultural products to our seaports, that this road is to be built. People indulge in all sorts of pessimistic theories. They say that no wheat can be carried over this line, that it will never pay, but let the road be built with easy grades and let the rates of freight be as low to Moncton as they are to Portland, and you will see a large portion of the products of the North-west going over this road to St. John and Halifax. Once you build, the road to Moncton, then you have to reduce the length of the Intercolonial Railway, as I have said, you have to level the grades so that Heavy loads may be carried with ease and passenger trains run with greater speed, and then you will find trade going to the proper channel. Take the case of a hundred cars of cattle. At present these cattle go to Moncton, but by going to St. John they would save about four hours time, and by going to Halifax thej' would save on the distance to Liverpool or London some 250 miles. And once they got on board a steamer at Halifax, whether in the middle of the night or day, that steamer could sail at once without any reference to the tide. I am not going to say a word against the port of St. John. Perhaps I did so before, and I wish to take it back, for the people of St. John deserve a great deal of credit for their enterprise in improving their harbour. It has been considerably improved since I was there. I remember when I had a barque loading there for Melbourne, and at that time St. John was not the best harbour in the world, but great improvements have been made since, and greater will follow, and I am sure that there is not a man in this House from Nova Scotia who would oppose any grant or any subsidy for the improvement of that harbour.
The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals spoke about the destruction of the machine shops at Moncton. They were going to be dismantled and sold as scrap iron. Why, that is just like the old story we used to hear about the tall chimnies which were going to be smokeless when the present government introduced its tariff. But Moncton, Sir, will in ten years double its population; and instead of its machine shops being dismantled, they will be enlarged to meet the requirements of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I am not afraid that this new rail-

way is going to injure the Intercolonial Railway, because in the winter the produce of Ontario goes largely over the Intercolonial Railway to Halifax to be shipped thence to the west and east and elsewhere. A wrong impression, I am afraid, prevails among Ontario members that the Intercolonial Railway was built for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia. In my opinion, it has been of more advantage to the people of Ontario because Ontario sends all her manufactured goods in the winter down to the maritime provinces over the Intercolonial Railway, and when Ontario wants to send exports to Trinidad and Jamaica and other British West India ports, she sends them to Halifax. Our steamers there are loaded with flour and other products of Ontario for export, so that the Intercolonial Railway has been built for the benefit of the Ontario people just as much as for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia. Of course we benefit by the local traffic largely, but we do not benefit by the traffic going west, because the people of Ontario and Quebec do not buy anything from us. The fact is that the people of Nova Scotia have to export their products to the West Indies in order to procure the money with which to buy the goods that they require from Ontario and Quebec. Some people are carried away with the idea that the rates are too low. is there any man in this House who would want the rates on the Intercolonial Railway to be raised ? If they were raised, that would be to the injury of the western provinces, because they are the ones who benefit by the low rates.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Does the hon. gentleman say that the people of Ontario and Quebec do not buy anything from Nova Scotia V
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I am not aware that they buy anything.


George Taylor: Why, hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid for iron and coal brought to Ontario and Quebec from Nova Scotia. I am a large purchaser of iron from Nova Scotia every year.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) That is quite a different thing. There is no coal coming to Ontario, I am sorry to say, from Nova Scotia.


George Taylor: We buy lots of steel and iron and coal too.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) It is news to me that coal from Nova Scotia is sent to Ontario I am very glad that that* is the case.


George Taylor: If it will require fifteen trains per day of thirty cars each in 1911 to move tlie products of the west to the sea, I think it can be fairly argued that either one of these railways could run that number of trains if they had the equipment. They could run fifteen trains a day, yes, they could run twenty-five trains upon their railways every day. We have now two existing railways and each one of these railways if equipped could run at least fifteen trains per day over their lines, and so we would find by investigation that the railways already existing in that country, if properly equipped would be able to move the quantity, to put it in the mildest possible form, that the hon. minister argues that will be required to be moved at a time as far as postponed from to-day as the year 1911. He was pleased to refer to the cost of the alternate scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and it was argued by hon. members on the government side of the House that this scheme would in all probability cost far more than the scheme which is advocated by the government. I would point out to hon. gentlemen which is an important feature that for every dollar which it is proposed to be expended on this scheme offered by the hon. leader of the opposition and which is supported by hon. members on this side of the House wo will have one dollar of assets and that there is a broad distinction between that and the scheme which is proposed by the government. The scheme as proposed by the government is one on which it has been estimated that $150,000,000 will be expended by the country and after that expenditure is made the road will be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for a period of at least fifty years. I was somewhat amused a day or two ago in listening to the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), when, in concluding his remarks upon this question, he was pleased to use the following language as reported in the city press:
He concluded by saying that the Liberal party would go to the country with the words, ' Laurier, prosperity and victory," emblazoned on its banner.
It occurred to my mind when I read the report of the speech of the hon. gentleman that his position was similar to the position of the Irishman who was -watching a procession passing down the street with the words emblazoned upon Its banner ' God bless Ireland.' I think the remark made by the Irishman at that time is very apropos when applied to the statement made by the hon. member for Cumberland. In referring to the words upon the banner as I have to the words to be emblazoned upon the banner of the Liberal party, the Irishman made the remark that the banner was not complete, but that there should have been added the -words


Mr. PORTER.: ' God save Canada from the likes of ns.' There is an old fable in which it is related of an individual who was the possessor of one of those long eared quadrupeds of the horse family that he had occasion to make a lengthy journey through the country and in making that journey was obliged to pass over a bridge of considerable length. The bridge was very unsafe but the possessor of the animal had no knowledge whatever of its insecurity. It is also related of that individual that he possessed a very vacillating mind and with his animal and his vacillating mind he started upon his journey. And it is related that he got fairly well across the bridge before he discovered bis weakness and the peril in which he and his animal stood ; and his vacillating mind did not come readily to his rescue, and he sought the advice and the assistance of His friends. Those before him urged him to come on, those behind bim urged him to turn back, and in his endeavour to compromise between the conflicting advice that was given by his friends on the one side and on the other, it is related that the old man in trying to please everybody pleased nobody and lost his ass into the bargain.
Now, Sir, the old fable fairly illustrates the position that the government of the day will occupy after they have passed this measure. With the Trans-Canada on one hand, with the interests of the supporters of the government from the maritime provinces on the other, and with the Grand Trunk Railway in the middle, pulling in all directions, I venture to believe that the government will repeat the experience of the old man to whom I have just referred. I used the expression ' after the government had passed this measure,' for, Sir, I entertain no reasonable doubt but that the government will, notwithstanding the want of merit of this measure, and notwithstanding any opposition that may be offered from this side of the House ; they will pass that measure by the force of their majority, and that, irrespective of merit or any consideration of the advantage or disadvantage it may be to tbe country. In the discussion of this question it has pleased the government supporters to urge upon the House and especially upon the opposition, that this Bill should be considered apart entirely from every political consideration and upon broad national grounds.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mi-. PORTER. An hon. member says ' bear, hear.' Does he realize the position in which the government has placed him ? Does he know that the government has had this contract signed, sealed, and delivered, and that after all this is done, they ask their supporters to confirm the act which they have already done ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Order them to support it.


Edward Guss Porter: Yes, as my hon. friend suggests, tlie government order their followers to support this measure. The government has tied the hands of every supporter of theirs in the consideration of this measure, and the only thing left for them is to try and justify as best they can the course adopted by the government. They have only the alternative to discredit this govement for the act they have perpetrated, or stand up when this vote comes on and deliver the goods. But, Sir, one member of the Liberal party in this House has had the courage to stand up for his rights; one member of the government has refused to be gagged and refused to allow the cabinet to do his thinking for him. He has refused to allow them to deprive him of his manliness, and he has shown his willingness to sacrifice his own personal advancement in order that he may advocate in the parliament of this country, at least, what he believes to be right. And, Sir, I take this first opportunity of tendering, humble though it be, my heartiest congratulations to the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) for expressing the courage of his convictions upon this momentous question. Let me say that it would be very much to the advantage of this country, and it would be very much to the honour of the members on the government side of the House, were they to follow the wholesome example that has been set them by the exMinister of Railways in this matter. The speech of the hon. Mr. Blair was delivered in this House on the 11th of August last, and since that time, although I have followed the debates in this House as carefully as it has been possible for me to do, I have not heard any single one of the reasons urged by him against this measure, answered by any member of the government. His objections were stated so precisely and so clearly that one might reasonably expect that members of the government would at least make an attempt to answer the arguments of that hon. gentleman. But, Sir, their silence leads one to the logical conclusion that the arguments advanced by the ex-Minister are unanswerable, that the government feel they are unanswerable, and so they are driven to the contemptible alternative of heaping abuse and calumny on the head of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair). That is the kind of answer the cabinet and their supporters have resorted to, and that is a case of history repeating itself, for I have yet to see a criminal condemned and convicted who has not abused his judge and his accusers.
And, Sir, the arraignment of the government by the ex-minister, and the uncontradicted evidence tendered by him in support of that condemnation and the argument used by him must convince the public that he is right. The louder gentlemen on the government side of the House denounce 301
the ex-minister, the more convinced will the public be of the justice of the conviction of the government, and the more confidence they will have that the ex-Minister of Railways has spoken and acted in the best interest of this country. It is a sorry spectacle to have presented to this House-an hon. gentleman who so recently occupied one of the most important positions in the councils of the nation ; a man who was trusted and who was applauded and who was honoured by his colleagues in the cabinet and by his followers alike ; in the twinkling of an eye, without any reason having been advanced by members of the government for doing so, we see that hon. gentleman derided, decried, ridiculed and accused of improper motives by the very friends whom he has served so faithfully, so long, and so well. And why do these gentlemen now condemn the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals ? Simply because he has had the courage of his convictions and has stood up for what he, at least, believed to be right and in the interests of the country. While that is the position of hon. members on the government side of this House, hon. members on the opposition benches are in an entirely different position. They are not bound by any fetters ; they are not subject to the dictates of any minister or of any combination of ministers, they are untrammelled by the exigencies of the occasion they are not afraid to speak and act as seems best to each and every one of them, and I have no doubt that every member on this side of the House has approached this question and has considered it with an eye single to thd advancement of this great country, single to the development of those great resources, those unlimited resources which nature has so lavishly bestowed upon the Dominion of Canada.
But, Sir, 1 regret, as other hon. members on this side of the House have had occasion to regret, the lack of that scientific knowledge upon this all important question which would enable members on both sides of the House to pass the very best judgment upon it. It is remarkable that while opposition members feel themselves circumscribed in their action for want of such scientific knowledge as would enable them to fully investigate the whole situation in regard to this transcontinental railway and the whole question of transportation, hon. members on the government side of the House, notwithstanding the fact that they are not possessed of any greater knowledge, although they are in practically the same position as members of the opposition, still, without any excuse, or without any reason so far advanced, are willing to rush into this matter and to push through, if possible, this transcontinental scheme. It would have been, in my opinion, very much better for the government, very much better for the country, very much better for the opposition members, had the government fulfilled the promise made by the hon. the First
revised edition

Minister at the opening of this session ; he was pleased then to announce to this House and to the country that the government had been considering this great transportation question, and that they thought it advisable to appoint a commission to investigate the Whole matter and to report to the House during the present session. Now, without that knowledge which they then declared they should possess before undertaking to solve this transportation problem, suddenly, blind-folded so far as surveys are concerned, blind-folded so far as the advantages or disadvantages, the cost, the difficulties or the possibilities of this railway are concerned, blind-folded in regard to all these matters, we find this government willing and ready to rush in and construct a transcontinental railway, involving, as it does, the expenditure of millions of dollars, pledging as it does the credit of this country by the guaranteeing of the bonds of tbe Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for millions of dollars more, involviug the possible destruction or the crippling of the Intercolonial Railway, involving as it does the possibility of our not being able to profitably work the great canal system o>f this country, involving the credit of Canada and the commercial life of this country-I say that they have shown a disposition to rush into this project without a full and fair consideration of it. Let me ask, in the words of my honoured leader, who addressed the House upon this question a few days ago, why has this sudden transformation taken place ? What magic wand has been wafted over these gentlemen to inspire them to go on and construct this railway without the knowledge which they themselves declared they ought to possess before undertaking it ? This question has been asked many days ago and it was asked in all earnestness by the leader of the opposition, yet no answer has been forthcoming from the government from that day to this. They have not answered the leader of the opposition nor have they shown to this House or to the country why they have changed their minds so suddenly. Sir, there must be some reason either good or bad. 1 would not undertake to accuse lion, members of having been influenced in this matter by improper motives, but I shall await with anxiety, as the country is waiting with anxiety, for this government to disclose a good reason influencing them to take this action. The hon. the First Minister lias declared that it is a bold and fearless policy ; it is a bold and reckless venture, I would say, which is leading this country to-I can scarcely say destruction-but in a direction that will not be to its advantage, and it is time now, before it has gone too far, for this parliament to stop and consider well this proposition before endorsing it or saddling this great responsibility upon the country.
During the course of this debate hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House have


Edward Guss Porter: taken occasion to quote the resolutions of the boards of trade throughout Canada expressing their opinions upon this question. They have also quoted from the newspapers published in the interests of both political parties and from independent newspapers. To my mind the want of scientific knowledge, the want of that knowledge which the government of the day promised this country and this parliament we should have before we would be called upon to decide upon this matter, is the very thing that has caused such a wide divergence of opinion among the boards of trade and in the newspapers, and in the public mind of this country ; it is the very strongest possible proof that can be offered in that regard. Let me refer to an editorial in the Toronto ' Evening News,' a newspaper which cannot be said to be favourable to the opposition in this parliament, one which is well known to be, in fact, favourable to the government of the day. In its issue of August 22nd, on Saturday last, speaking in connection with this subject, it uses the following language :
The whole question demands very thorough discussion. There are undoubtedly great public advantages to he derived from the extension of the Intercolonial to the lakes and the nationalization of the Canadian Pacific North Shore road, if that line can he brought up to standard at any reasonable expenditure. We want much fuller information than we have yet obtained as to the efficiency of the projected road between Quebec and Winnipeg for grain carrying purposes, and particularly as to the feasibility of the route from Quebec to Moncton. The government's plan for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific across the prairie and through to the Pacific is an improvement upon Mr. Borden's proposition, but it is by no means so clear that the proposals to extend the Intercolonial. to nationalize the Canadian Pacific from North Bay to Port Arthur, and to improve the existing lines to Winnipeg do not offer a better solution of the transportation problem than the government's proposition for an air line from. Winnipeg to Moncton, and it must be remembered that great as might be the cost the country would have substantial assets for almost every dollar that would be invested.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Edward Guss Porter: 960S
it has also been suggested, and I am not disposed to quarrel with the suggestion, that railway contracts are a most prolific source for replenishing a depleted election fund treasury. Happily, it does not rest entirely with this parliament to determine this question. The leader of the government must appeal to the country and ask it to endorse the course which they have pursued in this important matter. And I venture the opinion, and entertain the hope, that the country, when it is appealed to and this question is brought forcibly and formidably before it, will answer with no uncertain sound and say to this government that they have betrayed the interest of the country, they have played to the gallery, so to speak, they have favoured one individual interest as against the interest of the whole country, they have forfeited the confidence of the people, and for that reason they stand condemned.
Now, this agitation, which has been going on in the west, is not a new thing. It has been going on for the past two or three years. And during the course of that agitation, and notwithstanding all that has been said pro and con in regard to the matter I have not yet heard it mooted, nor have I seen it discussed in the newspapers of this country, that there was any difficulty in the way of carrying the products of that great western country to market, once they had reached the head of Lake Superior. The difficulty, so far as I have been able to discover, has been in getting the products of that great western country down to the head of Lake Superior to be carried by the various means of transportation already existing from that point eastward to the sea. I have heard no complaint that the railway and canal system of Ontario and Quebec are not sufficient or not sufficiently equipped to handle all that product once it is at the head of the lake. Nor is such the case. And let me, for a moment, direct the attention of the House to the position we in the older provinces occupy in relation to that matter. Some hon. members have made comparison between the government's policy and the results of railway operation in some of the states of the great union adjoining us. Such comparisons, I submit, are not fair, because on the one hand it is sectional while on the other hand it is national. On the one hand is taken a state with a dense population, with all its resources developed to the greatest possible extent, while on the other hand is taken the entire country, the whole Dominon of Canada, developed but a little beyond the state of nature. By such comparisons hon. members on the government side of the House have endeavoured to belittle and disparage this great Dominion. They have endeavoured to show that Canada has not taken a position in railway development that she should and could "have


Edward Guss Porter: taken, and that she is fully justified in undertaking to build this great transcontinental railway on the basis of the proposition laid down by the government. If a comparison is to be made at all between the two countries, it should be made between one nation as against the other, and permit me briefly to do so. Canada is larger than the whole of the United States, excluding Alaska. The population of the United States is said to be 78,000,000 of souls, the population of Canada is only 5,500,000 of people ; in other words, the population of the United States is fourteen times greater than that of the Dominion of Canada. The per capita wealth of the United States upon the same basis is fourteen times greater than the per capita wealth of the Dominion of Canada. Now, Sir, if Canada is justified in building this transcontinental railway line, the United States, with fourteen times the number of our people and fourteen times our wealth, should have fourteen transcontinental railways, or fourteen times as many as Canada. So the absurdity of the argument adduced by hon. members on the government side of the House by a comparison of the States of the Union as against the whole Dominion of Canada, becomes apparent. It is useless to argue from such a hypothesis with a hope of drawing any just or proper conclusion.
Now if hon. gentlemen opposite would, in making their comparisons, take into consideration the province of Ontario as agaiust any state in the union, I venture to say that their investigation would turn out to be largely in favour of Ontario. Let us lock at the financial aspect of such a comparison as hon. members opposite have drawn between states of the union and the Dominion of Canada. Such a comparison in respect to the burden of debt that is being imposed up m this country by the government proposition. is really appalling. If Canada builds this proposed line it will mean an expenditure for construction-and I add the cost of equipment, because the hon. gentlemen who preceded me in this debate have confined their remarks almost entirely to the cost of construction. But we have to take into consideration, besides the cost of construction. the cost of equipment of this railway, and I think I am placing it well within the mark when I say that the construction of tliis railway will cost at least $150,000,000. I am told that the average cost per mile of tiie eastern section for construction alone cannot be less than $40,000 a mile, and I am told that by gentlemen who have had large experience in railway construction, not only in Canada but in the United States. Now if we would be justified is assuming such a debt as $150,000,000, the United States, to be put on an equal basis, would have to assume an additional debt for railway purposes alone fourteen times as great, which would reach the enormous sum of $2,210,000.000, a sum almost equal to the greatest amount the war debt of the United States

lias ever assumed. Such a proposition would Stagger even so generous a people as those who inhabit the United States of America; and while it would stagger them, it is enough to bury the smaller number of people that we have in Canada.
Let me pursue this inquiry a step further. The proportion of railways in Canada today is greater that the proportion of railways in the United States per capita, without taking into consideration this proposed new line. With a population of 78,000,000 the United States has 202,000 miles of railway ; with a population of 5,500,000 the Dominion of Canada has 19,000 miles. Canada to equal the United States' per capita would require to have only 14,000 miles of railway; in other words, the Doininon of Canada to-day has 5,000 miles of railway in excess of the mileage of the United States per capita, with all its boasted progress and advancement. But if Canada does not suffer by a comparison with the United States in her railway development, no more does she suffer by a comparison in other respects. According to the area of cultivated lands that we have in the Dominion of Canada, we produce more than the United States can produce, and in industrial pursuits likewise we produce a greater percentage than do the people of the United States. Our revenues are greater in proportion than the revenues that are derived by the United States of America. So, Sir, I refuse to allow any man to point me to the United States as an example to Canada. On the other hand, I am bold to point out to Canada as a proud example not only for the United Sates but for the whole continent of America.
Now, Sir, one has only to look at the map of the older provinces of Canada, or to refer to statistical reports, to become convinced that these provinces are already a perfect network of railways as far east as the port of Quebec. Consider also the waterways and the canal systems already in existence, while there are now under construction other canals in the province of Ontario, and still others that are contemplated by the government. I refer particularly to the construction of the Trent valley canal, upon which large sums of money have already been expended with a view of bringing the products of the great western country down to the St. Lawrence water-way. I also refer to the project which has been spoken of in this House by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ; that is to construct a great water-way by way of the French river, Lake Nipissing and the Ottawa river, thereby increasing the water transportation facilities of this country. Let me for a moment refer to the development that has taken place in railways and canals in these older provinces. I do so because it assists us in arriving at a proper conclusion as to the solution of this great question. Take
the railways of the older provinces of this Dominion and we find from the statistical reports that Ontario has now 7,139 miles of railway, Quebec has 3,445 miles, New Brunswick has 1,444 miles, and Nova Scotia 1,051 miles, making a grand total in the older provinces of 13,079 miles. These railways are so situated that they reach out in every direction in these various provinces and most of these railways have direct connection with the water-ways of this country* Let me refer for one moment to the great canal system of the Dominion, and I only refer in this connection to the system known as the St. Lawrence canal system. I find upon reference to the statistical Yearbook that we have the Lachine canal which has a mileage of 8J miles ; Soulanges canal, 14 miles ; Cornwall canal, 11 miles ; Far-ran's Point canal, 1 mile ; Rapide Plat, 3$ miles ; Galops, 7$ miles ; the Welland canal, 26| miles, and the Sault Ste. Marie canal, 1J miles, or a grand total of over 52 miles of canals. Let me ask the attention of this House for a few moments to the further consideration of this railway and canal system. Towards aiding the construction of these railways this Dominion has contributed in subsidies alone since the subsidy system was inaugurated in 1883, no less a sum than $52,831,830, and upon the construction of canals the government of the Dominion has already expended $83,000,000, making a total expenditure for the construction of railways and canals in the older provinces of $135,831,830. This sum does not include the cost of the Intercolonial Railway, or of its connections. This is a most enormous expenditure. These distances that I have stated that are covered by the railways and canals of this country might be described as magnificent distances, but to all that expenditure must be added many millions of dollars of the capital that has been invested by private individuals in the construction of the railway system of the various provinces, and the expenditure of the provincial governments as well. One can scarcely grasp the magnitude of these expenditures. Let me ask in connection with this : Why has all this expenditure been made ? Has this expenditure been made for the accommodation of local conditions only ? Do local conditions in the province of Ontario, or the province of Quebec or in the maritime provinces, require such an expenditure of money as that which I have already pointed out V No, Sir, but that expenditure has been made by the government of the country, and by the capitalists not only of this country, but of foreign countries, because they saw that great development was going to take place in the North-western portion of the Dominion, and that there would be need of the lines of railways and canals that were being constructed in the older provinces, and they saw that these lines of railway and these canals that have been constructed

would be a proper means of relieving any congestion that might exist as it is said to exist In Manitoba and the North-west Territories for want of proper communication. The predictions of the government, the predictions of the capitalists who have invested their millions of dollars in these various enterprises have come true, and to-day we realize the fact, that they were far-seeing at the time when they made up their minds to expend these enormous sums of money in properly establishing and equipping the railways and canals of these older provinces to which I have referred. But, no sooner are the hopes of the capitalists and the government realized than we see the government of to-day entering into a contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and if the expectations which have been expressed in the speeches that hon. gentlemen opposite have delivered during this debate are to he realized we will see all the efforts of the capitalists and of former governments which have been striving for years to provide proper transportation facilities, brushed aside at one stroke. Hon. gentlemen opposite hope to establish a new system by which the legitimate trade, that, under the circumstances as they now exist would be filtered down through these older provinces to the advantage of the older provinces, will be diverted from its natural and legitimate channel and carried, as they tell us, through the wilderness, through the northern part of Ontario and Quebec, with the result that the millions of money which have already been expended in the development of the railway, and canal systems of the older provinces will be allowed to take care of themselves, and the people who have invested this money must do the best they can. This government-this business government, as they have been pleased to call themselves-are about to expend no less than $150,000,000 to wipe out and destroy all that capitalists and governments have been striving to do for years. Let me point for one moment to a matter that I think ought to weigh heavily with the government in the determination of this question which is now agitating this House. It is only a few short weeks ago since the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) came down with his budget speech. In his budget speech he was glad to announce to the House and to the country with a great flourish of trumpets, what the government was doing for the advancement of the interests of this great Dominion of Canada. One thing which he specially advocated was to make the whole canal system of the Dominion of Canada free to any one who might see fit to use it. On the 16th of April, in this House (' Hansard,' page 1421) the Minister of Finance used this language in his budget speech :
The Dominion has spent a vast sum of money in the construction of canals and in the improvement of our waterways from the great Mr. PORTER.
lakes to the ocean, by way of the St. Lawrence river. Some years ago, these canals had but little depth of water. It was deemed wise to enlarge and deepen them, at a very heavy cost to the Canadian treasury. The canal system is now about complete, and we are looking to it, as well as to our railways, to carry the great volume of traffic which must pass between the western and eastern portions of Canada. Those who are most closely associated with the operation of the waterways are naturally anxious that every possible obstacle may be removed and every reasonable encouragement given for the transportation of our products through these channels to Montreal and other ocean ports. A large deputation of gentlemen interested in the traffic recenty waited upon the government and urged that, with a view to giving greater encouragement to the business, canal tolls should be abolished, and the inland waters mado as free to ships as the ocean is. The government have given the subject very careful consideration. There is room for some doubt whether the tolls that are charged are large enough to be a serious obtsacle to the traffic.
	This, as I have said, we will try
as an experiment. We hope it may be justified. and we reserve our right as to what may be done a,t the end of the two years. We think that a trial of that kind will be all that those more particularly interested in this matter can ask us to do, and we do it with the desire that our great waterways shall carry the traffic which nature has destined they should carry.
After making such a statement to the House on the lGth of April last, with regard to our canal system, what apology has the Minister of Finance to offer for being one of those who originated and adopted a project that must be the means if the hopes of the government are realized, of diverting the trade which he says legitimately and properly belongs to the railways and canals of the older provinces ; diverting it to the wilderness of northern Ontario and Quebec, and thus by one scheme destroying the other.
The Canadian Pacific Railway has been alive to the great needs of our west and North-west; the Canadian Northern Railway has also been alive to the situation, and both of these extensive railway systems have been, to the very best of their ability, improving their equipment and extending their lines to meet the wants of that western country. Not only have these two railway companies been interested in the matter, but the Trans-Canada Railway came forward with a project which to a large extent, if not altogether, met with the support of the people of this country. The Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada have also been alive to the necessities of the situation. But not until the Trans-Canada and the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and all these interests combined, pressed this matter upon the attention of the government did the government feel that it ought to act and become interested. The proposition as at first advanced by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is one which I think would meet with the approval of the electorate of this whole Dominion. The Grand Trunk Pacific

llailway seeing the great needs of the west and the North-west of Canada, did not enter into this enterprise without having carefuliy examined the situation. I have no doubt that with the able experts which they have at their command, and with all the resources they could employ in an investigation of this question, the Grand Trunk Railway Company before coming to parliament carefully investigated the whole matter, and using the best skill they could and with unlimited means at their disposal with which to construct a line of railway that would not only relieve the west and the North-west but would also be advantageous to them from a financial standpoint, they came before the government with their proposition. That first proposal of theirs was not a proposition to build a great transcontinental line from ocean to ocean. After having satisfied themselves not only of the requirements of our western country, but of the possibility of constructing a line that would not ouly relieve the west but that would be remunerative to them, they came before this government, and proposed to build a railway from the Pacific ocean, extending east only as far as North Bay. I have no doubt that the Grand Trunk Railway saw that by the construction of their main line through Manitoba and the Territories they would secure traffic that would feed their lines of railway now in existence in Ontario and Quebec, and at the same time using as an auxiliary our splendid canal system. I have no doubt that they saw that by the construction of the line as far east as North Bay, they would be able to offer the very fiercest competition to the existing transportation companies. Had the first proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway been given effect to, this enormous traffic would continue to filter down through the settled portions of Ontario and Quebec, and as the Minister of Finance truly said in his budget speech, it would give to these old provinces the trade that justly and properly belongs to them. The completion of this project as first advanced by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would have been of inestimable value to the people of the west and the North-west, not only from the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific in constructing their line in that way would be able -to offer keen competition to existing railways which must affect the rates charged, but it also would be of great advantage to the people of the western provinces because of the rapidity with which their products could be handled in the immediate future.
The government had perhaps the best opportunity 'in that proposition that will ever be offered in this country of applying the remedy to the spot that had the pain. Granting that what was originally asked by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was not sufficient to relieve entirely the difficulties experienced by the people of the North-west, the government was not driven to the alternative of building a transcontinental railway. They could have, and they should have, aided the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to get into that western country upon very favourable terms. They could have, and they should have, encouraged the Grand Trunk Pacific in building this main line through those western provinces and in extending its lines north and south for the purpose of relieving the people who were going into that country and colonizing it. If that was not sufficient to relieve the needs of the province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, there was still another alternative left to the government which would not have involved the expending of millions of dollars and the saddling on this country of a debt which it must feel for many and many a long year. There are now completed two lines of railway from Winnipeg to Tort Arthur and Fort William, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. The government could have gone to these two railway companies and made this proposition to them : we will assist you in double-tracking the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, or if need be in converting these lines into four-tracked roads from Winnipeg to Port Arthur and Fort William and securing running rights for any other railway over them. Mr. Speaker, that is the only point in the whole system of railways at which congestion has been felt, and the government could have relieved the North-west by adopting that plan. This would have many advantages, to my mind ; it would have afforded material relief, and almost immediate relief, to the western people, and that is what they want. They do not want a scheme by which relief would come to the people of the great western country five or seven years from to-day ; they want a scheme evolved by this government and assisted by this government that will bring relief at once.
Let me for a moment consider the proposition made by the government in regard to the relief that they are proposing to the western country. If the only relief that is to be given is such as will come from a scheme of the kind advocated by the government, that will require at least five or seven years to carry out, what are the settlers of that great portion of the Dominion to do in the meantime ? The congestion that existed in that country and of which so much complaint was made in 1902, will no doubt be greatly augmented in 1903, and, with the immense immigration that has been going into the country this year and which we expect to see continue year after year, the congestion that will exist from 1903 to 1908, a period of five years, will be very serious, and I ask the government what is to become of the people who will suffer from that congestion ? There is only one result, one conclusion, to be drawn from such a state of af-

gested trade conditions existing in our western country, wliereas the government policy postpones for fifty years even an attempt to control the situation. The scheme of the government has a detrimental effect on the existing railway systems of the older- provinces, and a most detrimental effect upon the waterways upon which, as I have already pointed out, so many millions of dollars have been expended, by diverting into another channel the trade which legitimately belongs to them and which, if undisturbed, would naturally benefit the provinces through which these railways and these canals run. And, Sir, the policy of the government refuses immediate relief to the west and postpones the possibility of the west receiving any relief for at least a period of five, and possibly seven years. And, with regard to the policy that has been announced by the hon. leader of the opposition, I would trouble the House by referring to a few comments by leading newspapers with regard to them. Let me first refer to the St. John ' Globe,' which is a Liberal newspaper. It says :
The speech of the leader of the opposition is one with which the government party can And little fault.
The Montreal ' Witness,' a paper most friendly to the First Minister, spoke of the policy of the leader of the opposition in this way :
Mr. Borden, the leader of the Conservative party, has performed -the feat of his life in his great speech against the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, and in offering in exchange therefor the policy we have so much urged of developing to the utmost the connections between the lakes and tidewater and between the harvest fields and the lakes. He has been specific and urges the Blair policy of extending the Intercolonial to the lakes, and also the acquisition and improvement of the unprofitable section of the Canadian Pacific from North Bay to Fort William, using that line, which is capable of carrying ten times the business it now does, as a common highway for the all-rail traffic of all the railways to the prairies and the coast.
Let me refer also to the Montreal * Herald.' In discussing the policy announced by the leader of the opposition, it said :
Mr. Borden does, at all events, discharge the prime duty of an opposition leader in circumstances like the present by submitting an alternative proposition, and one which, it were useless to deny, has some features of merit.
The foregoing is from the paper of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). Now let me refer to the Ottawa ' Evening Journal,' which claims to be an independent paper, hut which is well known to favour the party in power. It speaks of the policy of the leader of the opposition in this way :
He is for immediate control by the people of Canada of the transportation outlet from the west, where the Liberal government is merely for control fifty years hence.
Mr. Borden says, in effect Let us have at once-and it can he had at once-a government Mr. PORTER.
road from Halifax to Port Arthur, the head of the great lakes ; let us arrange-and it can be done-for immediate control of running rights from Port Arthur to Winnipeg; and at Winnipeg let us offer transportation facilities east to all western roads, ready and able advantageously at any moment if desirable to carry a government road clear across the continent.
Winding up the article, the 'Journal ' says :
Practically, it seems to us, Mr. Borden is for immediate government ownership of a nature which would give to the people of this country a splendid check at once and for all time upon all transportation business and rates in Canada. Practically, it seems to us, the Liberal government is for a railway scheme which may gain nothing for the people for fifty years save some local convenience along a route a great part of which is barren ; and moreover a scheme which meantime will inevitably hinder early redress of transportation grievances by any other plan of government action.
Now, Sir, I do not consider that I should be confined in my quotations to newspapers that are friends of the government. It is well recognized that the public press of the country, be it Liberal or Conservative, represents the opinions of the people, while it is also a moulder of public opinion, in this Dominion as in any other country. Let me for a moment refer to the comments made by the ' Mail and Empire,' a Conservative paper, upon the policy announced by the leader of the opposition. The ' Mail and Empire ' closed its article in reference to the alternative proposition offered by the leader of the opposition, as follows :
Mr. Borden has propounded a really national policy on this great subject. He will bring the Grand Trunk Into the west, and open up new territory there. He w'ill give us three transcontinental lines instead of two. He will mako us independent of the bonding arrangement. He will conserve the Intercolonial, and he will bring Canadian trade through Canadian channels to Canadian ports. The whole will be accomplished without mortgaging the country forever. This solution is the wisest that could be propounded. It looks to development, to cheaper rates, to increasing business for the merchants and the manufacturers of Canada, to trade for Canadian ports, and to prosperity for all lines of Canadian effort. It opposes waste and national loss, and is in harmony with the great policy of ' build up Canada.'
Let me go a step further towards the west and quote the opinion of the Hamilton 1 Herald ' :
Mr. Borden has taken a bolder step than has-been taken by any other party leader in Canada with reference to the question of transportation. He has committed himself, and as leader of the Conservative party he has committed that party, to the principle of government ownership and control of a transcontinental railway system. His speech has raised and strongly defined a great dividing issue between the two political parties. It was, therefore, one of the most momentous speches ever delivered in parliament.
Let me go still further west and read from another Winnipeg paper. I have al-

ready read from the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' the opinion of one of the leading Liberals in that city; now let me read from the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' itself, a Conservative paper.
Mr. Borden's great spech in parliament last night reveals to the Canadian people for the first time the full statute of his statesmanship. With the occasion has come the man. Those who know Mr. Borden personally know that he is a worthy successor to the great leaders of the Conservative party. All Canadians know it now. Need it be said that the Conservatives o' the west will be delighted with the sound, competent, courageous and genuinely patriotic policy he has announced and not only Conservatives, but the whole west, with the exception of those who havo the misfortune to be entangled inextricably in Liberal party organization.
Canada from sea to sea will, we are sure, applaud the great unifying, upbuilding national railway policy announced by the Conservative leader.
Now, let me refer to an' Interview that was held between a newspaper reporter and the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Itoblin, who has lately come back from the country endorsed by a very large majority of the electorate of that province, who have not only sanctioned the general policy of his government but has approved of his railway policy, that he advocated throughout that province. The interview took place on the 19th of August :
Premier Roblin, asked as to the feeling in Ontario about the Grand Trunk Pacific project said :
Sentiment in Ontario, so far as I was able to judge it, is against the government building the road and then giving it away without securing any practical or material advantage for the people. In fact the people in the east appear to think there is no guarantee that the so-called Grand Trunk will operate the road from Winnipeg to Moncton unless it absolutely appears in their own interest to do so.
The fact that they are proposing to build a road from Moncton to Winnipeg, north of the height of land through the country of which Laurier and every other member of the government who has spoken has admitted that they have made no railway survey, seems to have created doubt as to the reality and genuineness of the whole scheme, particularly when it is remembered that one provision of the Bill gives the Governor in Council power to stop all construction until the meeting of parliament.
Not to belittle that great friend of the government, Senator McMullen, let me quote from some remarks made by him in the Senate upon this question :
He thought the increase of population in the North-west and the desire to keep the trade arising from that would justify the construction of the line. At the same time he believed the bulk of the grain would be brought out by the canals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that my remarks have not been intended nor have I any desire to belittle the scheme advanced by the Grand Trunk X'acitic Company when it first came before the government with a proposition to afford relief to the west, and to the north-west portion of this province, as well as to benefit itself.
I am not opposed and have never been opposed to reasonable assistance being given by this government for the construction of such a line of railway as they then proposed. In fact I think it was the duty of this government to give such assistance, and I think the opportunity then offered was one which they should have embraced, and that they will regret having tacked on to that proposition such conditions as will render the operation of that railroad neither profitable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company nor advantageous to the people of this country. 1 am not opposed to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but i am opposed to the scheme that is offered by this government, particularly to that portion of it respecting the eastern division, which will be of no possible advantage to the country, but which must be on the contrary a great detriment to it. I oppose it because it will cripple the railways that are already established in the older provinces; because it will destroy, or at least cripple, the great canal interests of this country; because it will injure if not destroy the government system of railways in connection with the Intercolonial; because it postpones for a period of at least five years the granting of relief to that great western country; because it postpones even an attempt to place the key of the situation of this great transportation question in the hands of the people for at least a period of fifty years; and because it imposes a burden of obligation upon this country which is wholly unnecessary, and which is contrary to the interests of the Dominion. Sir. I support the policy which has been advocated by the leader of the opposition because it obviates those difficulties and disadvantages that I have pointed out in connection with the government policy. I support the policy of the hon. leader of the opposition, because, Sir. while the Conservative party of the Dominion of Canada inaugurated a national fiscal policy for this Dominion, the honoured leader of the opposition to-day has inaugurated a national railway system for the Dominion of Canada and I support that policy because it is a policy of preservation and development as against a policy of waste and national loss.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate it would be a mere waste of time on my part to enter into anything like an elaborate discussion of the financial or commercial details of this matter more especially because both these aspects of the question have been already handled and admirably well handled by my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and by m,v hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton) as well as by many other hon. gentle-

men on tills side who have addressed the House on this subject. What I more particularly desire to do on the present occasion is to address a few words to the House and to the country as to the general policy pursued by the Liberal party in times past on this, great question and also as to the merits of the general policy which the leaders of the Liberal party have now the honour to propound for the consideration of this House and of the people of this country. It is just two and thirty years almost to a day since this question of a continental railway was first propounded in this chamber for the consideration of the people. Probably of those who then took part in the discussion, there are remaining at this moment scarcely as many as I could count on the Ungers of one hand in both chambers of parliament, and bearing in mind that we had not then provided ourselves with the same facilities for recording the opinions of both parties that we now have, it is not unreasonable or unnatural that considerable ignorance should prevail, I may say, on both sides of the House as to the true position which the Liberal party adopted on that occasion and as to the policy which, when they succeeded in displacing the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. they were prepared to recommend. Now, Sir, I have noticed in some sections of the press, and I have noticed among some weak-kneed brethren even in the Liberal party, a disposition of which I do not at all approve to intimate that the Liberal party were to be blamed for the criticisms that they bestowed on the government policy as regards the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Sir, for myself, I desire to say that I have no apology to offer and bo retraction to make as to anything I may have said in condemnation of the course of the Conservative government on that occasion. My opinion is that the Liberal party were right then and that the Liberal party are right now*. I am prepared on the floor of parliament or on the hustings before any Canadian audience from Vancouver to Halifax, to maintain that the events of the last seven years, that the events of the last five and twenty years, not to say of the last two and thirty years, have most amply justified in every respect and justified to the hilt all the objections that the Liberal party brought forward against the policy of their opponents at that time and most amply justified the policy which they were prepared themselves to recommend. It is not very long ago since,
I believe, with the approbation of both sides of tlie House, we raised a statue to my honoured friend the late hou. Alexander Mackenzie on the grounds of this paliament, and I am not prepared here and I do not think the Liberal party are prepared, having done that, to underrate his ability or to depreciate the policy which was pursued by him. More than that, I want to say, as I Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
have the right to say, and I know whereof I affirm that I have the right to say, that while Mr. Mackenzie disapproved and disapproved very strongly, as I disapproved very strongly, of the terms and conditions under which the Canadian Pacific Railway was originally constructed, when he became a minister of state and Premier of this Dominion no man could have applied himself more diligently, more zealously, more earnestly or with better results to the task before him of preparing the way by the making of proper surveys and by the construction of the essential link required to bring the two sections of the country together than Mr. Mackenzie during his term of office, and if the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed within a reasonable space of time after ins leaving office those who were concerned in it would I think endorse in full what I am stating here that it was very largely due to his energy and enterprise that they were able to bring that work to a successful termination at the time they did. I distinguish, and I think the House and tlie country should distinguish, between the men who conducted the Canadian Pacific Railway to a successful termination and the politicians who originally made the bargain under which the road was constructed. Scarcely too much can be said in praise of the energy and enterprise displayed by the one and scarcely too much can be said in condemnation of the short sighted policy which marked the proceedings of the other. These gentlemen have said that the Canadian Pacific Railway was a colossal undertaking and having reference to tlie resources of Canada at that time I am inclined to agree with them. It was a colossal undertaking but the blunders which marked it on tlie part of those who carried it on were colossal too. However good the record of the Canadian Pacific Railway niay be looked at as a commercial undertaking. I think the future historian of Canada would bear me out when I say that no possible combination of blunders could be conceived or could have been more injurious to Canada than those which marked the initiation of that enterprise. I say in the first place that the bargain which they made In 1871 with the people of British Columbia by which, without the smallest knowledge of the actual circumstances or of the facts that they ought to have known, they bound themselves within ten years by a treaty with that state, unasked for by them, to construct that railway, was a fatal mistake, a mistake which resulted in a very great injury and very great loss to the people of Canada and which in its direct result seriously affected the permanent usefulness of the road. I say further, and I say it witli full knowledge that their conduct in entering into that undertaking, and in proposing the construction of that railway without any consultation with the English government of the day. also showed great recklessness

and great folly and great short sightedness on their part in not availing themselves of the advantage of the position they possessed. Some years after it fell to my lot to endeavour to retrieve that blunder and I very well recollect that after bringing the matter before Lord Carnarvon and the late Lord Salisbury, who was then Indian Secretary, I was referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, to whom I made the request that the British authorities would at least come to our assistance to the extent of guaranteeing the sums which were necessary for us to raise for the purpose of building that road. 1 very well recollect that when I came to lay my proposition before Sir Stafford Northcote, while he admitted the substantial truth of my suggestion that the road was of imperial concern, that, its construction would be a great benefit to the whole British empire; he told me nevertheless in so many Words: that although he believed that my request would have been acceded to at once at the time 'that the union of British Columbia was affected, yet, that as we had chosen to bind ourselves by treaty to the people of British Columbia to build that road within a certain period of time, it was cut of his power under the circumstances to propose to the British parliament to grant us any assistance.
Over and above all that, 1 say that the whole future of the North-west was for a great many years most seriously hampered and impeded by the atrocious land policy-I can use no milder term-which the Conservative government put in force, not merely by the granting of huge quantities of land for the purpose of constructing the railways, which might have been excused, but by the extraordinary folly which induced them, in a country in which it was of the greatest importance to prevent settlement from becoming straggling and scattered, and where it was eminently desirable that we should concentrate settlement, their policy brought about such a state of things that for a long period of time a great portion of the whole North-west was practically held in mortmain, and no settler, unless he was a man of means and able to purchase a large tract of property in the Immediate vicinity of his farm, could be nearer than, from a mile to a mile and a half to his next neighbour.
There is not the slightest doubt that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a great enterprise. There is not the slightest doubt that the managers of the Canadian Pacific Railway showed great ability. On the whole, the work that they performed reflected very great credit on their enterprise and on their energy, and to my certain knowledge they did not spare, many of them, to risk their whole fortunes in the prosecution of that enterprise. But, Sir, while I grant that to the full; still I say that as regarded the chief object and end of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway
looked on as a colonizing enterprise, was for a period of 18 years at least, a most lamentable failure. If ever there was a case of the end being sacrificed to the means, it was in the policy which was pursued by the late Conservative government with respect to that same Canadian Pacific Railway. The object that the people of Canada had in view ; the object which alone, in my judgment, justified the huge sacrifices that they were called upon to make, was a two-fold object, namely, the filling up of the North-west, and the stopping of the exodus which we had so much reason to deplore, and which went on in Canada, as everybody knows, for a period of nearly 20 years.
How stand the facts ?-and I am willing to be judged by the facts. In the IS years to which I refer ; if you include the value of the railway that we gave the Canadian Pacific Railway ; if you include the money we spent; if you take the value of the laud we gave ; we expended in money or money's worth, about $100,000,000 for the avowed purpose of colonizing the Northwest. And what did this government find when they took office, in 1896 V I have the facts here from the Department of the Interior. They are noteworthy facts, they are facts which I trust every man who wants to know how the policy of the present Liberal government and of the Mackenzie government, and how the policy of our Conservative predecessors in office contrasted, will do well to bear in mind. What did we find in 1896 ? We found that all over Canada immigration had come to a dead standstill ; we found all over Canada that the settlement of the North-west had likewise come to a complete full stop. In 1896, the last year, bear in mind, of our predecessors' regime, the total number of homesteads taken up in the North-west had sunk to the pitiful figure of 1,340. I have to-day received from the Department of the Interior their list of homestead entries for the year ending the 30th of June, 1903, and they amount to 31,383, as against 1,340 in 1896, just seven years ago. Some of our friends opposite are fond of comparative statements and I suggest for their consideration that that Is a fair comparative statement as between Liberal performance and Conservative promise-as 1,340 is to 31,383, so stands the policy of the two governments, in respect to each other.
And what has been the contrast with regard to our trade and commerce In these 18 years to which I have referred, our trade and commerce had come to almost a standstill. From the year 1878 to the year 1896 the volume of our trade and commerce increased in the ratio of two per cent per annum-36 per cent in all for the 18 years. That is very considerably less than the growth and increase which has taken place during one single year of the present Liberal government. And, Sir, what to my mind

is worse still, during tliat same period of 18 years our population, if the truth had been known, was barely increasing at the rate of one half of one per cent per annum. I doubt very much if the natural increment to the population of Canada from 1878 to 1896 exceeded 30,000 a year, which would be about one-fourth of what ought to have been the natural increase of a population like ours in a country like Canada. And if you refer to the records of my own department it is not too much to say that during these 18 years, Canada was nowhere, while to-day Canada is first In the march of progress among the nations of the world. 1 do not intend to inflict any great number of statistics on my friends here, but I had lately placed in my hands a. short summary of the progress of Canada from the year 1896 to the year 1903. It varies slightly from the one I gave before, but it is worth repeating as a sort of illustration of the progress made during 18 years of Conservative rule and of the progress made during seven years of Liberal rule. It also confirms the ground upon which my hon. friend
beside me (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has deemed it right to assure the people of Canada that they may, without undue pressure on their resources, hope to construct this railway on the terms that he has laid before them.
In 1896 (the year concluding on the 30th of June), the gross trade of Canada, coin and bullion excepted, amounted to $211,000,000 ; in this present year of grace, the trade of Canada amounted to $439,000,000, being an increase in these seven years of 107 per cent. Next to us comes the Wttle kingdom of Japan, with an increase of 97 per cent, but if you turn to the great republic of the United States, you will find that their total increase during these seven years instead of being 107 per cent, was a bare 47 per cent. Canada had grown more than twice as fast as the United States in the volume of trade and commerce. If you compare with England or France or Germany you will find that in the case of England the total increase of trade in these years amounted to just 26 per cent, while in the case of France it amounted to 21 per cent, and in the case of Germany to 38 per cent:
Statement showing the Trade of the following Countries (Merchandise only) during the years 1895 and 1902, together with the Increase and Percentage of Increase.
-	1895.	1902. (unrevised).	Increase, year 1902 over 1895.	Percentage of Increase, 1902 over 1895.8	8	8	Per cent.Canada (a)	211,739,913	439,212,202	227,472,289	107'43Japan	133,084,033	262,443,241	129,359,208	97 20Cape Colony	146,281,249	233,312,649	87,031,400	59 50United States (a) (6)	1,612,925,161	2,417,983,175	775,058,014	47-18Italy	429,424,191	626,893,133	197,468,942	45 99Germany	[DOT]	1,770,379,422	2,453,491,000	683,111,578	38-59Belgium	591,708,471	797,746,000	206,037,529	34 84Argentine Republic	207,633,480	272,637,574	65,004,094	3131Switzerland	304,788,030	380,543,454	81,755,424	2(3'82Great Britain (6)	3.128,380,466	3,950,834,168	822,453,702	26-29.France 	1,369.084,100	1,669,960,000	300,875,900	21-98
Note.-Years ended December 31, 1895 and 1902 unless stated otherwise ; Imports for Consumption and Exports of Domestic Merchandise, unless stated otherwise.
(a.) Years ended June 30, 1896 and 1903.
(b.) Includes Total Imports, not Imports for Consumption.
Sir, I said just now, during eighteen years Canada was stagnant and still ; had practically made no increase at all for the increase of two per cent per annum during these years can hardly be considered as anything worth taking seriously into *accovmt, and that both as respects the present growth of the population and as respects the growth and volume of our trade, It is absolutely and literally true that we are advancing now almost as fast, in one year as we were doing before in ten years.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: What was the policy that my friend Mr. Mackenzie desired to inaugurate i I have alluded to it before and may repeat it now. Mr. Mackenzie pushed forward with all his power the construction of the essential link between the waters of the great lakes and Winnipeg; he pushed forward, with all his energy, the surveys which it was absolutely necessary to make if the Canadian Pacific Railway was to be constructed at all, but, above all and before all, Mr. Mackenzie had placed before him the necessity of establishing, in the case of Manitoba,

a strong central province from which the Canadian Pacific Railway would radiate east and west as occasion demanded, and I say here now, having fully considered the whole situation, 1 say here now, with the additional experience of the last five and twenty years, that I fully believe that had Mr. Mackenzie's policy been carried out, had he remained in office, that Manitoba and the North-west Territories at least would have been as far advanced in 1885 as it is to-day in 1903. What we are doing now is practically, and literally almost, to repair the shortcomings which were committed during these eighteen years, and it is not an Insignificant thing, it is not a slight thing, that the very track of these railways that we are now considering goes as nearly as possible over the line which had been selected five and twenty years ago by Mr. Mackenzie, and which I well believe the gentlemen of the Canadian Pacific Railway regret exceedingly that they had not been required to adopt themselves.
Now, Sir, we have had placed before us two schemes; there is the scheme of my right hon. friend the First Minister, and there is the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition. With respect to that, I might say with some degree of truth that whereas the hands are hands of Esau, the voice is the voice of Jacob. My hon. friend, peradventure, had been instructed-I will not say dry-nursed, as he objects to that phrase-he had been instructed apparently by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in propounding that scheme to the House. There are two or three things that strike one forcibly on looking at that scheme. I had not the advantage of hearing my hon. friend, but I read what I believe is a correct report of his speech. One suggestion that occurred to me was this, that as Canada east of Montreal had practically ignored my hon. friend and his followers, lie thought it would be a good piece of policy to ignore Canada east of Montreal. That was not natural, but I do not know that it was good policy. Looking at the whole scheme, according to such lights as I possess, it struck me forcibly that the leader of the opposition, whatever else he *might or might not have done, had certainly supplied my right hon. friend beside me with a very excellent argument in favour of his scheme. So far as I could see, the hon. gentleman proposed to spend a great deal more than would be necessary for us to spend, on any fair construction of the contract we are* making with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He proposed to spend a great deal more than my right hon. friend beside me proposes to spend, and he likewise proposes to get a great deal less for our money. If I followed him correctly, he wants to buy a large portion of the *Canadian Pacific Railway line, which he would not get for nothing ; he also proposes
to double-track it-a somewhat expensive operation-he is willing to purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway, and I suppose doubletrack and improve that, also an expensive operation. He has views at some convenient time, not stated, but which he might find would come upon him soon, of building a railway along the height of land, too. I am told he is willing to expend a very large sum of money for the purpose of constructing and owning and operating also-an expensive amusement, I may venture to state-the section of road from Port Simpson or some other point on the coast to the edge of the Rocky mountains, and lie will likewise, I believe, be prepared to provide for the railways that would be required for the development of the prairie section. Take it all in all, I am inclined to think that for one penny my right hon. friend's scheme would cost, the plan of the leader of the opposition would cost us ten. However, that is a matter which we can discuss or which has been discussed already, and will be further discussed, on another occasion.
Now, Sir, with respect to our policy, I would like to point out to the hon. gen, tlemen opposite that there is more than one object to be aimed at in this project which is now before the House. Our objects are threefold : we desire in the first place-and that, of course, lies at the base of the scheme we are proposing to the House-to develop, and develop early, the whole of the North-west. We desire, in the second place, to knit together, as far as in us lies, the several sections of this Dominion ; and in the third place, to prevent the diverting of traffic, which unless some such project as this can be carried into effect, is almost certain to occur, I believe to the very considerable detriment of the i>eople of Canada.
Now, under these circumstances and granting that these are worthy ends, worthy of a great party, and a policy to be desired in itself, there are two questions to be asked of us : first of all, can we afford it under the circumstances, and, in the second place, is this the best method. Here, Sir, I will pause for one instant to review an argument preferred by an hon. gentleman on the other side. Now, I hate discussing these questions from a sectional standpoint. I think that in a federated commonwealth like ours, that is the very worst policy ; we must view these questions as a whole, as they will affect all Canada, not as they will affect one or two sections, however important. But if it is necessary to have regard to sectional arguments, and if my hon. friends opposite ask what Ontario is to gain under this project, I must for-once answer them according to their own line of argument. I say Ontario has a great deal to gain under this project. I say, Sir, speaking as an Ontarian, that, in the first place, about 1,000 miles of this projected

railway are to be constructed through the northern portion of Ontario, no insignificant advantage, on the whole, to that province. I say, in the second place, that the construction of that road on the terms on which we propose to construct it will bring almost every town and village of the smallest Importance in Ontario into direct communication with the whole of the Northwest Territories. I say, Sir, in the third place, if there should be any foundation at all for the statement made, apparently on good authority, by the government of Ontario, that the construction of this railway will open, to the advantage of the province and of the Dominion a very large and important section of territory in Ontario, which otherwise might remain for a whole generation lockedrup and useless. Sir, if I correctly followed the hon. gentleman who spoke last, I would judge that he approves of about 75 per cent of our scheme. If I followed him correctly, he would find no fault, I think he said he would find no fault, with the construction of this road from North Bay to the coast of the Pacific. It is not very often that a great project can be brought forward by one party and exposed to the criticisms of the other and get as many as 75 per cent good marks. It is some time since I stood my examination in the hall of any college, but if I recollect aright, in my days a gentleman with 75 per cent on his papers generally got first-class honours.
The true objection, although the hon. gentlemen opposite do not dwell very much upon that phase of it, the true objection as far as I could judge and I do not pretend to be a thought reader, that they had to this bargain of ours was that it was too good a one. They would have preferred we should have brought down a vey much worse one. Some of them hinted broadly-and I think inconsiderately-that the bargain is so good, they do not believe that the Grand Trunk Railway will ever live up to it. Well, I am not one of those who believe it to be necessary, in order that a bargain be a good one, that the other party to it should be defrauded or injured in any shape or way. I believe that a really good bargain may be one which is to the advantage of both parties. I think that this is notably an instance of the sort. The Grand Trunk Railway could not finance conveniently a transcontinental railway on its own resources. Strong as may be the hold, it undoubtedly has on a large section of the English public, I think that is rather beyond its power, and the government guarantee is worth many millions to it, if not absolutely indispensable. On the other hand, I equally strongly believe that the government, by the terms it has made, by the mode in which it proposes to deal with this great question, is likely to escape from a sea ot difficulties. Sir, were the government to own and operate, as has been suggested, Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
this transcontinental railway, and in particular to own and operate a section so remote as that west of Winnipeg, there would be no end to the demands that would almost of necessity be made upon it for the construction of branches here, there and everywhere, for the lowering of rates, and for concessions in every possible shape and form. I have seen enough in my time of government management of railways, and I do not hesitate to say that, in the present condition of Canada at any rate, under the form of government which subsists in Canada at any rate, it would be highly impolitic and prejudical to the best interests of the country for the government to own and operate a great system of railways. So far our experiments have been costly and not altogether satisfactory; and although I could understand that, under certain and totally different conditions, the policy of government ownership might be a fair subject for discussion. I beg leave to say that, as a rule, if the government is to own and operate railways, it must own and operate them all. I beg leave further to say that our present system of government is one which imposes no end of difficulties in the way of the successful operation of railways.
Not to take the proposition exactly of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, but to take the proposition advanced by several of his followers, what would we have if we had stopped at North Bay V Given the desirability of having an all-Oan-, adian route, it is plain that we have taken the only possible way in which that can be attained. In this business, I hold that it is idle, and worse than idle, to discuss the commercial side alone. While 1 grant that that is a very important side of it, still after all it is but one side of a great national question like this. That is the greatest difficulty which besets us in the task of opening up and settling and consolidating the various sections of this Dominion. Every man who has traversed that country, or who has examined the map, will agree that the greatest practical and pressing difficulty in the matter of consolidating the interests of the various portions of Canada, lies in the huge gap we have to bridge which extends from the borders of Manitoba nearly to the province of Quebec. At this moment that bridge, as it was described lately by Sir William Van Horne, can only be traversed by one single track railway. The difficulty is accentuated by the fact that there is a large influx of immigrants coming in from the; United States. In many respects those are the choicest we can get, the very best settlers that can come in. They are men of experience and capital, who will not be daunted by a single frost or disaster. They are, in every respect perhaps but one, the very best immigrants that can be had. One thing too may be said of them, that a very large number are men or descendants of men who, in former years, left Canada, and whom we

will be all delighted to welcome back to our territories. But while that is perfectly true, we must also remember that these men, from the necessity of the case, unless they are provided speedily with rapid means of communication, will tend to throw their traffic and commerce southward instead of eastward. That everybody will admit, and the circumstances are such that it is comparatively easy for them to do it. That, in my opinion, is the justification for the government of Canada incurring very considerable expense and taking very considerable risk for the purpose of securing as soon as we can, and on the best terms we can, another line of railway communication from older Canada to the new settlements. If we can create settlement along that new line, as there is reasonable hope we may do, no doubt we can go a very long way towards overcoming these difficulties. But my right hon. friend was perfectly right when he said time presses. At the best it will be some years before we can put this railway of ours into operation. In the meantime, population is pouring into the west, I am happy to say, at the rate of from 100,000 to 150,000 per year, and there is every reasonable probability that they will continue to do so (if they find railway facilities are being provided for them) during the next four on five years. At this moment, although a very large number of the immigrants who have come in have hardly had, time to break the sod, the resources of the two systems, which are now operating in the North-west, are taxed, as everybody knows, to the utmost to meet the demands of the settlers. What will they be five years hence when five hundred thousand or six hundred thousand of additional settlers will have found their way to the prairies of the Saskatchewan or the Peace river valley ? It is impossible for us to entirely prevent the tendency of trade to go south, and it would be absurd for us to attempt to prohibit it, but we have it in our power to provide other channels, and for this purpose, the aid of the Grand Trunk Railway is likely to be invaluable. For this purpose, we require, as in former days, the Canadian Pacific Railway required, to establish a system bringing our new line into communication with the majority of the people of Canada. Any man who knows anything of the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway knows that it was in the greatest difficulties until it had supplied itself with a system, such as the Grand Trunk Railway now has ready made; and my right hon. friend never showed his statesmanship better than when he seized the opportunity which the Grand Trunk Railway placed in his hand-the opportunity of securing the aid of a going concern with ramifications extending throughout the Dominion. Why, at the very outset a great volume of trade will be supplied to this new line of railway, which could be obtained by no other means whatever.
And, there is another consideration which it may be as well for the House to bear in mind. The Grand Trunk Railway has numerous connections. It is already extended to Chicago; and if we were to refuse to cooperate with it, if we were to refuse to accept the hand which is stretched out to us, the Grand Trunk Railway, beyond all question, would find its way into Manitoba and the North-west, but not through Canadian territory.
I do not know whether my friends opposite, I do not know whether my friends beside me, have appreciated the full significance of this fact, that, as the crow flies, the distance from Winnipeg to Chicago is just 700 miles, if the Grand Trunk so desired, it would be quite possible for it to obtain a very easy and effective entrance into the North-west through American territory. It is quite true-and there is the advantage we possess-that in any such attempt as that it would be impossible to get aid from us for the construction of a transcontinental railway. But, I repeat that if we do not choose to accept the offer they make, we should only have ourselves to blame, and we could not reasonably pass censure upon them if they avail themselves of their present connections and run their line to the North-west in that way.
Let me review the objections which my hon. friends opposite have brought forward. Those objections, as I took them down are in brief as follows :	They demand that
we shall have surveys and that we shall take more time. They allege though, I think, inconsiderately and without fairly estimating the value of the concessions which have been made to us by the Grand Trunk, that the price is much too high. They allege that we ignore great centres of commerce. Some allege that this road should be owned all through by the government, some that it should be owned and operated all through by the government. Now, Sir, as I have said, I was one of those who, two and thirty years ago, took part in the debates on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Unfortunately, there are few left to bear witness to what took place then, but I assure the House that we know at the very least, a thousand times more of the route we are proposing to traverse than did the gentlemen who agreed, in 1871, to build the Canadian Pacific Railway within a period of ten years. Why, Sir, it took ten years before they could find a practicable route through British Columbia; and it is my profound belief that, as the late lamented Sir John A. Macdonald did not know, when he made the treaty of Washington, whether lie had the right to navigate the Yukon or not, so neither he nor his colleagues, when they made that bargain with British Columbia, knew whether they would have to cross one ridge of mountains or twenty. Certainly, surveys should be made, and they will be made and are being made; and most as-


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: That is rather rough on some of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues who read newspaper extracts.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have not noticed that my hon. friends read newspaper extracts. But, I have here an opinion from a Conservative journalist and a gentleman who, I believe, gave a considerable amount of trouble to some of my friends at the recent election.
I will read what a Conservative journalist and aj Conservative speaker of considerable merit, I believe, had to say in respect to my right hon. friend's scheme. That gentleman writes :
_ The inhabitants of the territories would he justified in welcoming the Grand Trunk if for one reason only. That reason, which stands out. to my mind, in bold and convincing relief is that not one of the burdens or abuses which the territories have complained of in the Canadian Pacific Railway charter are to he found in the Grand Trunk proposal.
If the territories were asked to contribute of their remaining wild lands to the Grand Trunk, then might we well pause, and ask ourselves whether we were not paying too great.' a price for the road. But the territories do not give an acre. There is no cash bonus ; and the territories do not give a dollar. We shall have the Grand Trunk with spur lines and branch

lines opening up the country north and south of it ; rye shall have the evil spell of monopoly and one-road ascendancy broken absolutely without any first cost to ourselves. With another outlet to the two oceans, and the control of the rates in the hands of the government, should we not be even as the ass that brayeth, if we troubled ourselves very much about the Intercolonial, or hybridization, or any such secondary matters ? Truly we should.
If there were any exemption from taxes we might have cause to kick vigorously. But there is no tax exemption. The Grand Trunk will come in as a great taxpayer. It will contribute its share to the expense of schools and roads and bridges. Instead of being a legalized pirate, preying on the labour of the people, it will be a help to school districts, local improvement districts, and to towns and villages. This seems to me an important consideration ; and who in the territories would like to assume tho responsibility of keeping out this company which will help develop the country as a taxpayer as well as a common carrier.
If the Grand Trunk were receiving a cash bonus, then we in the territories might complain, and say we had given enough of our lands to the Canadian Pacific Railway and other railroads, without paying a toll of cash to tho Grand Trunk. But as before said, the territories pay not one dollar.
If tho Grand Trunk were coming into the territories with power to impose whatever rates it chose on the people of the territories, then I would indeed be the first to call a halt, till the people had protection. But the Grand Trunk will not be like the Canadian Pacific Railway. It will not have a free hand and a cloudy charter under which it can demand whatever tale of brick it chooses to levy. There will be government control of rates.
If the Grand Trunk were coming in with a monopoly of any kind we might well consider whether we had not just cause to look with suspicion on its advent. But it has no monopoly. No disallowance agitation will ever be necessary.
The Grand Trunk Pacific will, in my humble opinion, be a boon to Canada at large, and to no part of Canada more than to the territories. As an old resident of the territories I welocme it as the best and most encouraging event that has ever crossed the horizon of tho prairie country ; and if I might venture one word of advice to my fellow residents in the territories it is that they study the matter on its merits, and refuse to allow any mere question of party to influence them when the development, and to a large extent the whole future, of the territories are in the balance.
For if we do not get this road, what is there in sight that will do one tithe as much for us as we may reasonably expect from this new trunk road?
I think, Sir, that testimony, from a consistent opponent of the government, both with his pen and with his voice, is not to he entirely disregarded.


Mr. HEYD.: Who was it ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: A gentleman by the name of Hawkes, the editor of a Conservative paper somewhere up in the Territories.


Mr. DAVIS.: At Carnduff ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I dare say my hon. friend (Mr. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
Davis) knows something of him. I think he has heard from Mr. Hawkes of the delinquencies of the present government on more than one occasion, as I have knowledge. Now, Sir, as I have said, given these conditions, it appears to me that the future of the North-west is reasonably assured. It appears to me that every cent we may expend we are justified in believing we will have returned to the public treasury tenfold by the policy we have entered into. If the scheme is carried out on the lines we have laid down, then, Sir, I venture to say that before five years have expired, by the end of which time we expect a large proportion of this road will be in active operation, the trade and commerce of this country will have increased, thanks to the production which we may reasonably expect to follow, to such a degree that the duties we will receive on our additional imports will probably in one single year more than implement the entire sum we will require to lay out on this road. And, Sir, in conclusion let me say, that if in 1871, when the revenue of Canada amounted to barely $20,000,000, when the trade and commerce of Canada collectively amounted to barely $17,000,000, we might have had cause to hesitate before we committed^ ourselves to a project Involving a gift of $100,000,000 for the construction of a little over 2,000 miles of road, it does not follow, that in 1903 when the trade and commerce of Canada amounted to $440,000,000 in place of $17,000,000 and the revenue to $66,000,000, in place of $20,000,000 we cannot afford to donate $14,000,000 for the construction of a road 3,500 miles in length.


Hon.   .T. I. TARTE@Montreal, St. Mary's: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise with the hope of saying anything new in this debate, because the question under discussion lias been dealt with from all standpoints. But tho position I have occupied and the attention that I have endeavoured to give to the transportation question make it a duty forme to ask the indulgence of the House on this occasion. One thing is cheering. We have not heard anybody during this long and interesting debate talking blue ruin or talking about the absence of the credit of this country. On both sides lion, members of tire House have expressed the fullest confidence in the future of Canada and in its ability to grapple with the biggest problems. Mr. Speaker, we possess in the North-west Territories a vast and fertile domain. Last year 100,000,000 bushels of grain of all kinds were grown in those territories, 53,000,000 bushels of wheat in Manitoba, and 14,000,000 bushels of wheat in the territories. During the last couple of years we have heard a good deal about the condition of trade in the west. Complaints have been made to this parliament over and over again. It was said that there were not enough elevators, not enough granaries either in the Territories or at the ter-

minals. The railways had not foreseen the great development that was coming on. They had not supplied themselves with the equipment which they could have, perhaps, provided. Undoubtedly, there was, as I have said, not enough elevators, not enough granaries, and undoubtedly there was not enough rolling stock at the disposal of the rail-way companies. The congestion existed from the wheat fields to the outlets. There was no congestion from the outlets to the seaboard. About the same congestion took place in the American territories, not quite to the same extent, but a good deal of congestion took place there. The evils of others do not cure our own. I fully recognize, and all men who have given some attention to the condition of affairs in this country have recognized that something ought to be done. I do not share the views of some of our colleagues in this parliament when they say that there has been no question of another transcontinental railway. The question was discussed in the press. It was discussed, specially, perhaps, in the province of Quebec, where the Trans-Canada Railway Company was organized four or five years ago, with the object of constructing a transcontinental railway. However, I do not mean to discuss that side of the question now. Let me call to the attention of parliament the geographical position of Canada. Our North-west Territories are tributary to Lake Superior, differing in that respect from the American states or from a good many of them at any rate. Some of the American states are tributary to Lake Superior, some others are tributary to Lake Michigan, and some others are tributary to the Gulf of Mexico. Our territories are tributary exclusively from the water-way standpoint to Lake Superior. We have no share in the ownership of Lake Michigan. During the last ten or twelve years the tendency of the grain and flour traffic has been towards Lake Superior. 'The construction of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway which was completed in 1888, contributed greatly to make Duluth and West Superior more and more the head centres of the grain trade. Let me quote from the ' Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance ' of the United States :
Spring wheat markets, reporting for eleven months, including Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Duluth, and Chicago, have thus far this year received 162,675,462 bushels, against 172,717,364 bushels in 1902 and 146,508,740 bushels in 1901. A marked feature in the wheat trade of the North-west is the concentration of the crop at Minneapolis and Duluth, at the former point for milling and at the latter for lake shipment eastward. More than half of the total receipts have gone to Minneapolis, and there is a steadily increasing volume drawn to that centre of consumption. Duluth likewise has gained in wheat receipts from 18,002,583 bushels in 1901 to 41,465,290 bushels in 1902 and 34,008,376 bushels in 1903. On the contrary, Chicago has been handling a steadily diminishing volume of
wheat. From 43,391,337 bushels in 1901 to 38,007.346 bushels in 1902 and 34,761,870 bushels in 1903 is evidence of the change that is gradually taking place in the course of the country's grain trade.
Chicago will, of course, be always one of the most important trade centres for wheat, corn and flour, because it is at the outlet of the corn and soft wheat belt Our Canadian railways are drawing a good deal of the trade from Chicago, and let us hope that when we have carried out contemplated improvements we will draw to Canada more and. more of that western trade. But, again, Lake Superior, is the natural outlet of our Canadian North-west, and the great trade from the American states is being diverted gradually towards Lake Superior. That is the clearest evidence of the strategic importance of Duluth in a commercial sense. Lake Superior is the key of the St. Lawrence route. It is the first link in the great water-way through Canadian channels from the west to the east. From the very beginning of civilization on this continent, the waters between Montreal and the upper lakes were recognized as the natural trade route. In 1798 the North-west Company built the first lock at Sault Ste. Marie to be used by the fur traders in French bateaux and in English boats. That first lock was 38 feet long by eight feet wide, and Mr. Clergue has renovated that interesting relic as a curiosity for those who visit Sault Ste. Marie. I feel that it is unnecessary to say much in support of the superiority of waterways as a means of transportation. That is self-evident, but the two transportation systems, the railways and the waterways are not enemies; they are allies. They must be made to work in harmony. There lias been a very severe struggle- between the railways and the waterways in the United States. In 1861 the lakes were carrying the greatest quantity of grain and flour, but in 1865 the railways began to encroach on the lake vessels for the carriage of these products, and especially flour. In 1881 Qie railways were carrying 96 per cent of all the flour transported, and had practically the whole trade in their hands. From that date, however, the lake vessels increased their flour shipments year after year, and to-day they are carrying 40 per cent of the flour from Chicago, as well as a large quantity of corn and a larger quantity of wheat. A great deal of that trade is carried to Buffalo. Chicago has lost ground. I was not in the House when the Minister of Agriculture made his excellent speech, but I notice that he gave figures to show that a large quantity of grain, and flour especially, as well as other products, were being carried from Chicago. Chicago will always be a large centre of trade, as I have said, and the many railways that are centreing there will always bring to it a trade in grain and flour. But it is undoubtedly a fact that Chicago is losing its grain

trade year after year, and for tire excellent reason that the wheat fields of some years ago are being displaced, and that the northern states are to-day the wheat-growing states par excellence. Chicago is exceptionally well located as far as railways are concerned. The distances are favourable to Chicago. The distance from Chicago to Buffalo by rail is a little over 500 miles, and the distance by lake is 889 miles. In spite of that, the lake vessels are carry ing from Chicago to-day about 40 per cent of the flour and 70 per cent of the wheat, not quite 70 per cent but over 60 per cent of the wheat. The same thing may be said of Milwaukee. In 1900 only 12 per cent of the flour from Milwaukee was shipped by rail; 39 per cent was shipped by the transit lines and 50 per cent all lake. Let us not lose sight of the fact that a large quantity of the traffic which is represented as being carried all rail is destined for local points for local consumption. Nearly all of the grain, especially of the wheat and corn, which is destined for export is carried by lake. The railways must necessarily carry grain to ports that are not reached by the lakes, and that is the reason that such a large quantity of rail traffic still appears to the credit of Chicago. I have insisted on these points to establish, to the best of my ability, the superiority of water transportation.
Let me quote on that point from the report of the proceedings of a conference that has been held in the month of June of this year. I will quote the words of Mr. Alfred Noble, who is president of the American Society of Civil Engineers :
The average haul during the season of 1902 on the lakes has been 827-4 miles. The freight was 0-89 mills per ton mile.
If the freight had been carried by rail the average could hardly have been less than three mills per ton-mile.
On this basis, the saving in transportation by the water route during one year was nearly $63,000,000. This amount of saving on Lake Superior commerce alone-, during a single year, is within $5,000,000 of the entire amount appropriated by the United States for all harbours and waterways on the lakes above Niagara Falls from the formation of the government ; if the commerce between Lake Michigan and Lake Erie be included, the annual saving greatly exceeds the amount thus appropriated. Indeed, the savings during one year on a single article, iron ore, would repay all the money expended up to this time on the waterways and harbours which it traverses on its way from mine to furnace. Viewed in this way, no great investment was ever made by a corporation or government with such a magnificent showing of profit. But a far broader view may be taken justly ; this water route has not merely afforded inexpensive transportation, but has been creative of a large part of the wealth of the nation. Without it, the development of our manufactures of iron and steel and other industries dependent on them, related to them, all constituting a great share of the national wealth, would have been retarded or impracticable ; without it, Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I
the prairies of the North-west would have remained unproductive and unpeopled for a much longer time. With these broad considerations in view, we may place to the credit of lake transportation a sum perhaps hardly definable, but compared to which the largest above mentioned is a mere trifle.
My hon. friend the Minister of tbe Interior has quoted some rates from Kansas City to Chicago. I did not intend to say anything at all on the question of rates which has been so fully dealt with by many members of this House, but in view of the statements made by the hon. minister, I shall refer briefly to this question. The rates on wheat from Chicago, Duluth, Port Arthur and Fort William to Meaford, Midland, Owen Sound, Goderich and other lake ports this season are between 1J and li cents and even 1 cent. The highest rate between Chicago and Buffalo in 1902, has been 2i cents. The lowest rate has been If cents, an average for the season of 1-5 cents. Let me compare the rates by rail and canal. The average rate from Chicago to New York by lake and canal in 1900-and the rates were about the same last year-was 4-49 cents ; by lake and rail, 5-10 cents ; by all-rail, 9-96 cents ; The comparison is worth noting.
In 1901 by lake and canal between the same points, that is from Chicago to New York, the rates were as follows :	By lake
and canal, 5T1 cents; by lake and rail, 5'54 cents ; by all-rail, 9-88 cents.
The Duluth rates are the same. I could quote from the reports of the Chicago Board of Trade and of the New York Produce Exchange, but I will not worry the House with quotations of rates which are available to any one who wants to look them up. They all prove in the clearest possible manner that the difference between railway transportation and lake transportation is about 60 per cent in favour of lake transportation, at least 60 per cent.
So far I have quoted the rates of to-day, the rates that have been in force. What are going to be the rates of the future ?
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: For about five cents a bushel of corn or wheat is carried from Chicago to New York. We should not forget that Chicago is only 912 miles from New York and about 800 miles from Baltimore and Philadelphia, so that it is in an exceptionally favourable position for railway transportation. What are going to be the rates In the future ? As I have said, grain is carried at the rate of five cents per bushel to-day between Duluth, Chicago, New Yprk, Philadelphia and Boston. Our American friends do not mean to stand idle. They do not intend to rest on the laurels they have gained. The legislature of the state of New York has adopted a project

by which $100,000,000 will be spent on the Erie Canal. That canal was started as a ditch. It began with four feet depth, when Governor DeWinton opened it- in 1825, and was only able to carry vessels of seventy-five tons capacity. It was subsequently improved and is to-day seven feet deep. A few years ago the state legislature voted a pretty large amount to deepen it to nine feet. The work was stopped because it was found too expensive, but last year the legislature voted $100,000,000 to deepen it to twelve feet. If. the electorate of the state of New York ratifies the vote of the legislature, the canal [DOT] will then be able to accommodate barges of a thousand tons capacity. The average rate on a bushel of wheat in the Erie canal to-day is 2-J cents ; and it is estimated that when the improvements to which I have just alluded, are carried out, the cost of carrying a bushel of wheat will be reduced to one-half cent or one cent per bushel. Then where will you be ? It costs one and a-half cent from Chicago, from Duluth, from Fort William and the Georgian Bay ports to Buffalo, to carry a bushel of wheat. It has cost so far three cents or three cents and a-half in the summer to carry a bushel of wheat by rail to Buffalo and two and a half cents by the Erie canal. If the rates should be reduced to one-half or one cent between Buffalo and New York, I ask again where you are going to be and what you are going to do ? Our American friends have improved their organization on the lakes in a marvellous manner. I had the advantage of making a round trip on the lakes last year. I visited nearly all the American harbours on those inland waters. I was amazed at the energy and activity that the Americans have displayed. Their organization is simply perfect. We must not be surprised at the great volume of lake trade. Lake vessels have been built with great rapidity. In 1881 the number of American vessels on the lakes was 4,000. In 1890 that number had increased to 10,555. In .1899 the number of American vessels in the lakes had risen to 20,255, and at this moment, if I am not mistaken, the number of American vessels on the lakes is 22,000. They have improved the St. Mary river and the Detroit river and deepened it to a depth of nineteen feet. Their vessels carry to-day, thanks to those improvements, as much as 250,000 bushels of grain. The size is increasing year by year. The Americans are contemplating adding an additional foot of depth on the St. Mary and Detroit rivers. Instead of nineteen feet, they will have twenty feet, which means an addition of ten per cent to the capacity of their large ships. Those waterways, the St. Mary river, the Detroit river, and the lakes, are buoyed and lighted up as the streets of Montreal and Toronto. Ships of the largest tonnage can navigate those channels just as safely at night as in the day
time. The result of their improvement has been simply marvellous. I have just given the number of ships that are navigating those waters. They number 22,000 now and the rates have been decreased from year to year as fast as the improvements have taken place. When there were only fifteen feet of water from Lake Superior to Lake Erie, the freight rates, for instance, on iron were $2 per ton. As soon as there were nineteen feet depth, the rate fell to $1 per ton. In every port of any importance, there are elevators of the most modern kind. Duluth and Lake Superior ports are gaining rapidly on Chicago, as wheat and flour centres. Duluth and West Superior have twenty-two elevators, with a capacity of 34,000,375 bushels. Buffalo has twenty-eight elevators, with a capacity of 21,390,000 bushels. St. Paul and Minneapolis have forty-two elevators, of a capacity of 34,475,000. In connection with those elevators, there are flour mills in Duluth, West Superior, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Chicago, Buffalo-in fact in all the harbours worthy of mention. Those elevators are not all of the elevating kind, but there are storage elevators, which are used in connection with elevating machinery. I think that the best elevators in the United States are at Duluth. How are those storage elevators used ? All the grain from the west cannot possibly be shipped in two or three months. Shipments of grain begin in September and terminate in December at the outside. The reason why the Americans have equipped Duluth, Chicago, West Superior, St. Paul with these elevators of more than a million of bushels capacity each, is because they have realized that they cannot possibly ship all their grain in two or three months. They ship all the grain they can in the season of navigation, then they store in their elevators all the grain that the different railways carry from their wheat fields. A good deal of that grain is used for milling purposes. A certain quantity is shipped to the seaboard, but very little. Let me remind all those who take some interest in the transportation question, that very little grain is handled in the winter months. Let my hon. friends look at the reports of the Chicago and Duluth boards of trade and the New York Exchange, and they will find that the largest quantity of grain is handled in the summer months, especially September and October. The grain that is shipped in the summer season is shipped to the different ports. We speak often of New York, Boston and Portland. But let us not forget that Philadelphia, Baltimore and Newport News are also very important reshipping points indeed. In the winter months, as soon as the season of navigation is opened, the railways raise their rates. I said a moment ago that the rates between Buffalo and New York were between three cents and three and one-half cents during

the season of navigation. But the very day the season of navigation closes the rates go up to five cents.
Mr. ItOOHE (Halifax). Will my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) permit me to ask him a question V


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Does that refer to wheat or to corn V Corn shipped from American ports is generally grown south, and shipped earlier than wheat, which grows further north.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Chicago is the most important centre, of course, and rates are about the same for corn as for wheat, and they are about what 1 have quoted. There may be a fraction of difference at times, but the rates are just about as I have given them.
Well, Sir, bearing these facts and figures in mind, bearing in mind the plain and undeniable fact that grain is carried by our American competitors for the rates I have quoted, what is our position and what are we going to do '? My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) lias built up an argument by quoting the rates between Kansas city and Chicago. He told us that wheat had been carried for five cents per bushel between these two points.


Mr. BROCK.: Five cents per hundred pounds '!


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has made a mistake, unwillingly no doubt. The regular rates between Kansas city and Chicago are nineteen cents per 100 pounds. Let me say immediately that the rates from points on the western Canadian side and the American side are about the same. A good deal has been said in this parliament as to the hign rates charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. Without quoting the figures, let me say, in a general way, that the rates are practically the same for the same distance. Or rather, I should say that the American railways, the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern, for instance, have a shorter haulage than the Canadian Pacific Railway has. Yet, their rates for that shorter haulage are about the same as the rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway for about double the haul.


Sir. BODRASSA.: If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir. Tarte) wiil permit me, may 1 ask if he is speaking of the through rates from the west or the local rates V


Hon.   S@: I speak of the rates from the wheat fields of the American west and of the Canadian west to the outlet on the lakes. The rates are about the same. Well, I ask again, what are we going to do ? Are we able to compete with our American friends ? In my humble opinion we can, by taking the proper means. If Hon. Mr. TARTE.
we want to compete with them, I think we must take our lessons from them and from our own experience. Some of our hon. friends on the other side of the House have often told us and some have repeated the statement during this debate, that the present cabinet never did much for transportation. Well, I am, to a certain extent responsible for what has been done and what has not been done. All that I wanted done has not been done. I will refer to that later on. But the question of what we have not done is, after all, of less importance that the question of what we ought to do. In what position are we ? We are joint owners of the great lakes, except Lake Michigan. Now, here are some figures showing relative distances :
Miles.
Chicago to Depot Harbour, via lakes.. ..	579
Depot Harbour to Port of Montreal, via rail	 379
Total		958
Chicago to Buffalo via lake	 889
Buffalo to New York via New York Central	 440
Total	1,329
Difference in favour of the St. Lawrence route and the port of Montreal, 321 miles.
Miles.
Duluth to Depot Harbour via lake	 644
Depot Harbour to Montreal via rail.. ..	379
Total	1,023
Duluth to Buffalo via lake	 997
Buffalo to New York via New York Central	 440
Total	1,437
Difference in favour of Montreal, 414 miles.
Miles.
Port Arthur to Depot Harbour	 510
Distance to Midland about the same.
New York to Liverpool	3,105
Montreal to Liverpool	2,821
Difference in our favour	 284
Sir, nothing is better fitted to educate us than facts. Let us see what Mr. Booth is doing to-day. Mr. Booth is a simple individual, a gentleman of large means, but he is only one man. He has built a railway. He started it as a colonization railway, and a railway to serve his own lumber business, but to-day he is carrying a vast amount of grain. I shall never forget an occasion when I was making an address at a banquet in the city of Montreal. My neighbour to the left happened to be a railway magnate. I had studied with some care tiie location of Mr. Booth's road and had given a good deal of attention to our geographical position. In my address I said that in my opinion Mr. Booth's road was destined to a great futrue, that it would before long carry millions and millions of bushels of grain. I was interrupted by my

neighbour in a voice loud enough to be heard ' rot.' I kept cool, but I felt that 1 would have my revenge by and by. A couple of years after, Mr. Booth published a statement saying that he had handled 20 million bushels of grain by the Canada Atlantic Railway. I took the statement to the railway magnate, one of my best friends, and I said to him ' rot.' He asked me what I meant, and I reminded him of his interruption. Mr. Booth is competing to-day with the great American railways, not only for the grain trade and the flour trade, but for trade of all kinds. He has a fleet on the iakes of six boats ; four are under American register, for the good reason that he is handling not only Canadian trade but a larger volume of American trade, and is consequently obliged to use American registered boats. Mr. Booth will carry this year over twenty million bushels of grain from Depot Harbour. He would handle fifty million bushels of corn and wheat if he could get accommodation in Montreal or elsewhere. That simple but eloquent fact is the strongest evidence of what we are capable of doing if we only do the right thing and do it now.
Lake Superior is the headquarters of the trade, but at the same time all the lakes are tributary to the St. Lawrence route. The distance from Milwaukee, from Chicago, from Duluth is shorter to Canadian ports, to the port of Montreal, than to the ports of Buffalo and New York ; in other words, a bushel of grain can be carried cheaper from those ports to the Georgian Bay ports than it can be carried to the port of Buffalo-It cannot be carried, at any rate, at the same rate, because the distance is longer than by our route. Depot Harbour is not the only harbour on the Georgian bay, all the harbours on the Georgian bay can be trade centres for grain and traffic. There are to-day, Midland, Colling-wood, Meaford. Owen Sound, and on Lake Huron, Goderich-all these harbours are reservoirs of grain. A large quantity of grain is carried, not only from Canadian points but especially from American points, to these Canadian harbours. Why is it so ? Because they are located in such a way that they offer more advantages. If they were equipped as the American harbours are equipped, they would handle a great deal more trade.
To help us to compete with the Americans we have two systems :	The all-water system through our lakes and canals, and the lake and rail system. I had the honour of being Minister of Public Works six years and a half. A year ago last January, I presented to the right hon. gentleman, then my leader, and to my colleagues, a memorandum which was the result of my investigations on the transportation question. Before the estimates were discussed I thought it my duty to place before my colleagues a report expressing my views, and giving
the result of the attention I bad bestowed upon the transportation question. I then advised my colleagues to take up energetically the question of the waterways from the head of Lake Superior down to the sea. Starting by the all-water system I advised the equipment of Fort William and the further equipment of Port Colborne. Fort William and Port Arthur are the natural and necessary outlets of our North-west domain. It would be necessary in my humble opinion to spend a pretty large amount of money to place those two harbours in a proper condition to handle trade.
The Department of Public Works is carrying out a certain amount of work now. The Mission river, which is the outlet of the Kaministiquia river to the lake should immediately be widened and deepened to a depth of 20 feet for the reason that the ice accumulates at the entrance of Port Arthur harbour. By deepening the Mission river we would certainy get two or three weeks' additional navigation in the fall months which would mean a good deal indeed. I suppose a half a million dollars could accomplish that particular work at Fort William. I beg to call the attention of my former colleagues to the statement I am making now. I have studied the question carefully,
I have been to the spot on several occasions and let me tell them that 1 know what I am talking about. Then, following our way down the lakes, I would say that all the waters should be overhauled. We should have on the lakes testing machines, as we have on the St. Lawrence, so as to be sure that we have the depth of water that we say we have in our reports, and so as to be sure that there is no obstacle to navigation. At Port Colborne a couple of million dollars should be spent, and I will tell the House how, in my humble opinion, it should be spent. The Public Works Department is completing the breakwater on the north side of the harbour. That breakwater will not be sufficient. That port cannot be used by ships for loading and unloading unless there is another breakwater on the other side. The waves on Lake Erie are nearly as big as on the Atlantic ocean, and unless you protect the ships you cannot possibly handle the trade there. I was advising my colleagues in the memo, which I hold in my hand, that an elevator and warehouses ought to be built at Port Colborne, and that the port should be equipped as a national harbour. Before I started for the Paris exhibition my colleagues were good enough to permit me to place in the estimates of the Department of Public Works the sum of $250,000 for an elevator at the port of Montreal. I had advised, and my advice had been accepted by my former colleagues, the building of an elevator at Port Colborne, at the port of Montreal and at I.Ovis. I Will explain later on why I gave thnt advice then. At Port Colborne we should ' immediately make the necessary expenditure

to provide a harbour that would allow the large boats in the carrying trade on ,tlie lakes to load and unload. On the American side, Buffalo, with its 22 elevators, with its magnificent improvements, with its good and safe harbour; on the Canadian side, nothing. We are in that position. We are public carriers. We have spent $80,000,000 in building our system of canals. It is not surprising that we are not handling more trade in our canals. We have no equipment. It would be necessary to spend a couple of million dollars to make Port Colborne what it should be. There is an obstacle at that point to which I have called the attention of the House. When a ship loaded too heavily to go through the Welland canal arrives at the entrance it is obliged to light its cargo. The Grand Trunk Railway Company has a small elevator at Port Colborne and another one at Port Dalhousie. The Grand Trunk Railway charges 2 cents a bushel to carry grain for 27 miles ; in other words, it costs more to carry a bushel of grain between these two points, 27 miles apart, than it costs to take it from Chicago to Buffalo, Port Colbourne or to Depot Harbour. That state of affairs should be put an end to immediately. The government should either acquire that piece of railway or take some means to give relief to the trade. If we want our water-ways to compete with the American water-ways we must take means to bring about that result. The distance between Port Colborne and Montreal is 807 miles, out of which there are 63 miles of canals, and the balance is composed of lake navigation. As I have said, that part of our Canadian system of navigation should be overhauled with the greatest care. The Department of Railways and Canals has had charge in the past of these water-ways.
I do not want to make any unfair reproach, but I know that our water-ways have not been overhauled and taken care of as they should have been taken care of. The government should overhaul them without delay. The channels should be made wider, they should be made deeper-, and they should be made as safe as American waters are. Now, we have reached the port of Montreal.
I advised my former colleagues in the same memo, to make in that important harbour the necessary expenditure to make it free as far as it is possible to do so. Montreal is not a local port. It is the head of navigation. It is the centre where the trade from the lakes accumulates and it is also the centre where ocean navigation comes up. AVe have, in the port of Montreal, been borrowing money on which the harbour commissioners have paid interest so far. The trade is increasing and there is no doubt whatever that the harbour commissioners will be able to continue to pay their interest. They will honour the obligations that they are incurring. There is no doubt as to that, but that is not the point. If by not making the port of Montreal as free as Hon. Mr. TARTE.
it can be made, we oblige the trade to pay tolls, that is an impediment in the way of the development of our trade. The debt of the port of Montreal, with the advance that parliament has allowed this year, will reach the very large amount of $10,000,000. Bet me ask my former colleagues in the House to weigh my humble words. This is a mistake that parliament Is committing. The St. Lawrence route, if we want to compete with the American route, must be made as free and as cheap as it is possible to make it. I do not mean to say that there shall be no charges at all in our national harbours. But we should only exact tolls sufficient to enable us to pay the cost of maintenance and nothing more. Let us make our national ports free as we have made the canals free. It would be necessary to spend in the port of Montreal at least $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 to properly equip that port. The warehouses that must be built, if we want to handle trade, will certainly cost $3,000,000. The wharfs that are being built to-day are not sufficient to give accommodation. The Grand Trunk Railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway will tell you that they cannot direct more trade to the port of Montreal because they have no accommodation there. That fact is indisputable. I had advised my colleagues in that memo, to expend the money necessary to build an elevator, to build new wharfs, to equip the port with cranes and every other modern implement that we find in every well equipped harbour in the world. Since that memo, was handed to the right hon. gentleman, the harbour commissioners of Montreal, under the direction of the Department of Public Works, have started to build an elevator with borrowed money. Sir, the government should lose no time in assuming the debt of the port of Montreal to the extent at any rate of every future expenditure including the advance that has been made this year. 1 am not speaking from a Montreal standpoint ; I am speaking from the standpoint of the St. Lawrence route from beginning to end.
In speaking of the elevators in the west I forgot to mention that it cost four cents a bushel to store grain the whole winter season in Duluth, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul. I make this statement now because it will be necessary to refer to it later on.
AVe should not, I say, lose any time in carrying out the necessary policy to make the port of Montreal as free as it can be made. Let us not borrow any money. Let the government assume not only the debt, but the management of the port of Montreal. Alontreal is the terminal of our Canadian canal system. Is it reasonable that this country, having spent $80,000,000 on canals, and spending large sums of money to-day to equip our harbours on the lakes and to deepen and widen the St. Lawrence

river; is it reasonable that the terminals should not be in our own hands ? Is it a good policy ? I have nothing to say against the Montreal harbour commissioners, but I do say that the system is bad,' I have been long enough a minister to know that the system is thoroughly inefficient. Twelve or thirteen men meet there a couple of hours a week ; business men who have their occupations waiting for them. They discuss matters in a very light way at times. I do not make any personal allusions, for I speak of the past commissioners just as I do of the present ones. The work costs at least 30 per cent more than it should cost, and the work is not attended to as it should be. There is nobody responsible. I am speaking within hearing of friends from Montreal who know that I am speaking the truth, and not all the truth either. The commissioners are men of good-will, but they are not competent for that kind of business. A minister is responsible to this parliament; the government is responsible to this House; you can lay your hand on them when they make a mistake, but the harbour commissioners are irresponsible, and you cannot do anything with them. They do the best they can, but I repeat that they are not competent to handle a large proposition like the most important harbour of this country. Last year the trade of the Montreal harbour reached the wonderful amount of $191,000,000, being nearly half the total trade of this country. Is it reasonable that such a harbour should not be under the control of the nation itself? ,
I had advised my colleagues to equip the ports of Three Rivers and Quebec; the St. Lawrence route for me is all the one thing. I had advised the building of elevators at Three Rivers and at Levis. The government lias reduced the plans that my department, under my direction, had prepared for the harbour works at Quebec. I believe they made a mistake in reducing these plans, but nevertheless they are doing a useful work. In Quebec they are perhaps a little better off than we are in Montreal; they are, of course, not handling the vast quantity of trade that Montreal handles, but nevertheless the port of Quebec is not eqpip-ped as it should be.
I had also advised the beginning of what is called the Georgian Bay canal. I do not advise the whole project immediately, but I did advise the immediate improvement of the French river. The distances have not perhaps been given the attention that they should receive, and I propose to state what they are here. From Fort William to Buffalo tlie distance is 750 miles, and from; Fort William to North Bay the distance is 543 miles, difference in favour of North Bay of 207 miles. The distance from Duluth to Buffalo is 857 miles, and from Duluth to North Bay 575 miles, a distance in favour of North Bay of 282 miles. The
distance from Milwaukee to Buffalo is 716 miles, and from Milwaukee to North Bay 463 miles, a difference in favour of North Bay of 253 miles. The distance from Chicago to Buffalo is 733 miles, and from Chicago to North Bay 520 miles, a difference of 213 miles in favour of North Bay.
That work from the mouth of the French river to North Bay would cost in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000. It has been represented to me on several occasions that the distance to Midland, another Georgian Bay port, is about the same as to North Bay, and there is something in that point.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Depot Harbour the same.


Joseph Israël Tarte: friend the Prime Minister himself to the immediate necessity of better buoying and better lighthouses and better fog signals on the St. Lawrence from the straits of Belle Isle up. Let me tell him that after the numerous trips I have made on the St. Lawrence route from Belle Isle up, 1 have come to the conclusion that the St. Lawrence route has not been attended to as it should have been and that it is not to day receiving the attention it should. The Prime Minister himself should take that matter in hand. The Department of Marine and Fisheries should be strengthened.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I mean strengthened as far as officials are concerned. We had better have strong officials ; let us have officials who would listen to instead of resisting arguments. I have nothing to say against the present officials. I know one thing, that when the minister does not travel himself he is making a mistake. Now, we have accidents-we will have accident after accident, unless better attention is given to the St. Lawrence. The pilotage system should be attended to without any delay ; it is bad. The St. Lawrence, I say it again, is not attended to as it should be and what is the result 1 The result is that the insurance rates are higher from the ports of Montreal and Quebec than from American ports. There is no great danger between Quebec and Montreal ; if a boat grounds it only scratches its bottom a little, that is all. But if unfortunately a boat is grounded in the gulf, well, the scratch is a little deeper, the ship is lost and then up go the insurance rates.	.
We should have a system of elevators at Port Colborne. at Montreal and at Levis. How do the Americans handle their business ? First let me remind the House and the Prime Minister, there is not one single American transcontinental line which goes from ocean to ocean. They go to the Pacific ocean but their terminals are at Omaha. St. Paul, Duluth and Chicago. They carry the products of the west, of the wheat belt and the corn belt, to the outlet. They load their elevators with this grain that they hare not been able to carry in the summer months, during the seasons of navigation. In winter the manufactures mill it and flour and grain are carried to the seaports : New York, Boston, Portland, Newport News, Philadelphia and Baltimore, and a certain quantity of grain to fill the boats. My hon. friends from the maritime provinces will perhaps be kind enough to give some attention to what I am now saying. When I was Minister of Public Works I always endeavoured to study their case and their position to the best of my ability.
Now, what are the Americans doing ? They carry grain to Buffalo, to Duluth, to Chicago and in winter months they ship it to their winter ports. Between Buffalo and


Joseph Israël Tarte: New York the distance is 440 miles by the New York Central ; between Levis and St. John it is only 578 miles on the Intercolonial and it will be only 500 miles on the new railway which my hon. friends are asking the House to allow them to build. We will be able to compete with our American friends if we carry the wheat by our waterways as the Americans are doing. What I suggested nearly two years ago not only stands good to-day, but stands better than it did then. Our policy must be a policy of cheap rates, otherwise we will not be able to compete. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior was reminding us the other day that a few steps from the Canadian frontier the American system of railways is working. My hon. friend is perfectly right and the distance between Winnipeg and American ports is not very great. From Winnipeg to St. Paul is only 500 miles ; from Winnipeg to Duluth is only 450 miles ; from Winnipeg to Port Arthur is 440 miles by the Canadian Northern Railway and 425 miles by the Canadian Pacific Railway. From Chicago to New York is only 912 miles. Now we have to be careful. For if we do not provide cheap means to carry our traffic the Americans will get it in the future as they have done in the past. St. John and Halifax, our Canadian winter ports, will get more grain and flour traffic by the waterways than they ever will by any all-rail project. What the Americans have accomplished is clear evidence of what we could do.	Let us not lose sight
of one thing. We have to compete, not only as regards distances, but we have to compete against strongly entrenched rivals. Those ports of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore are great centres of trade. The railways are always sure to get there return cargoes, but the ports of St. John and Halifax have not so far been pro-. Stable centres in that respect. The Canadian Pacific Railway have taken a good quantity of traffic but the east-bound traffic has been always about ten times larger than the west bound traffic. Of course, conditions will improve and they will improve more if we take the means to give to our harbours and winter ports better equipment. Let us equip the St. Lawrence route in the way I am now suggesting. Let us accumulate a grain trade in the St. Lawrence in the fall months, and Halifax and St. John will have more trade to handle. There will always be a certain quantity of through trade handled in the winter months. Cattle will be handled by rail, and the winter months are fairly good for that trade. These are in resume my views on the question of waterways and transportation. I think that there is urgent necessity for us to apply o'Ur energy and our financial means to improving our waterways immediately, otherwise we will lose trade. Holding these views, I awaited with a great deal of interest and anxiety the ministerial explanation on the project before us. I

stand in this happy position that I have no party purposes to serve. I am speaking for myself and without any bias or prejudice.
What is the project we have to discuss to-day ? The Grand Trunk Railway applied during this session for a charter from Quebec to the Pacific ocean. When the Bill was discussed before the Railway Committee, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays positively declined to agree to build the eastern section at the same time as the portion in the North-west Territories. Their views was to build a railway from Gravenhurst or North Bay to the Territories. We had a vote on those points. The Grand Trunk Railway positively, declined to agree to build the eastern portion of this project simultaneously. X quite understand that position in which the government was placed.
I am not going to impute to them any improper motives. That is not my way of discussing questions of broad policy. I quite understand their position. When the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway declined to build the eastern portion, the government were urged by their followers to build the eastern portion from Quebec to the west ? Then our friends from the maritime provinces appeared on the scene and insisted on having the line extended to their territory. The government could not induce the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to take up the scheme. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us to-day very frankly that the Grand Trunk Railway credit could not build the whole enterprise, and in that my right hon. friend was right. No private company could safely build that part of the project. Then the government made up their minds to build it themselves. Let me say here that I do not share the views of those who believe that there are not good agricultural lands in the territories through which this road will go. I cannot possibly agree in the views expressed on that point. I happen to know some parts of that country well. I lived eighteen years in the city of Quebec and took special interest in the Lake St. John district. That was a great colonization district, and at its inception X took a great interest in connection with my newspaper in that part of the province. I can assure the House that from Roberval towards the west there is a magnificent fertile district, splendid lands, lands just as good as any in this country. I see some of my hon. friends nodding no, but let me tell them that I am speaking of what I know. I had properties there, not very extensive, and X have been out there fifty times at least so that I know the country pretty well.
I know that part of the country well, and it was because I* know it well that I urged, with tlie help of my right hon. friend-that we urged upon our colleagues in 1900 to give to the Lake St. John Railway Company a subsidy on sixty miles, from Roberval towards James Bay. I think the government would have done well to increase the distance covered by that subsidy and also^ to increase the rate of subsidy itself, for 33,200 per mile cannot possibly build a road there.
It is a fine district. The Lake Temiskam-angue district is also a very fine country.
I was there some years ago, and I was there again last year. It is a fine district, capable of giving to settlers all the advantages that the best lands can give. The region of Lake Nipissing is also a good district. There are fertile belts, there is no doubt about that, and there are also barren lands. Behind Quebec, on the Ste. Anne river there are some lots fit for colonization, but there is no very great extent of good land. In my younger days I have often been on hunting and fishing expeditions over the height of land, across the Laurentian range. X know that part of the country fairly well. The road will pass through a country, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, in which there are large stretches of cultivable land. Below Quebec, I happen to know the country. Mv hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) made a statement as to the region below Quebec through which the line will pass. I have had the honour to represent L'lslet in this House, and I know the parishes through which the road will pass. They are very, very fine settlements. The whole of that district is good land. The settlers to-day are at a distance of from thirty to forty miles from the Intercolonial Railway. As to this part of the project, I believe that it is wrong to say that the-lands are not good. We have no interest in saying that the lands that we possess are not good when they are good. I will not discuss the project of the government on those lines. Now, having said that much, I will discuss the question from another standpoint.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, told us that the project was imperative, that it was necessary not to lose any time. Well, I shall not say that we have no survey, no information at all, but I would ask my right hon. friend whether we could not have had more information than we have now, whether before embarking on this project it would not have been the part of prudence to get more information? We know that there are good lands through which this road will pass, but no survey has been made for the construction of a railway. We do not know what obstacles are to he met. Nobody knows. Then, nobody knows the financial aspect of the project. It is very well to say that the road will not cost more than $35,000 or $30,000 a mile, but I ask my right hon. friend whether he is sure that it will not cost more ? I am not afraid of spending money. In point of fact I have been accused of being a spender of money. But I find myself a very moderate man indeed in the face of the schemes of the leaders on either side of this House. It is evident that I am not so progressive as these hon. gentle-

men are. Why was this scheme imperative? Was it from a transportation point of view ? I do not think it was imperative, and when my right hon. friend thinks it over, I believe he will agree with me. The road will be useful. I am glad, for one, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company gets into the North-west. I should like to see them there for good. I will deal with the position of the Grand Trunk later on. But the government have resolved to build a railway from Winnipeg to Moncton. For local purposes, it will be a useful road. I never knew of a railway that was not useful. It will develop the part of the country through which it passes-there is no doubt about that. The questions are, first, what would be the cost ? And, second, could we have done better ? As to the project being imperative, I think that the House has made up its mind that it is not so urgent as my right hon. friend said it was. It is not imperative, but the project is an attractive one from certain standpoints. This road will not afford us the means of competing for the trade of the west. It will not cheapen the rates on wheat or any other commodity by a fraction of a cent. Nobody on either side has tried to show that the rates will be made cheaper. It is simply out of the question that the road can have that effect. Let us compare the figures. Mr. Wolvin, to-day is taking grain from Duluth and Chicago to Quebec for less than 3 cents in the summer months. This road will not carry grain at that rate, will it ? It is out of the question. The season of navigation lasts for more than seven months. On the American side very little grain is handled in the winter months. Some is brought down during those months, just as some is brought down over the all-rail route of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But nobody pretends that this new road will cheapen the rates by a single fraction of a cent. No business man, in this House will contradict me on that point. From that standpoint, then, the scheme is not imperative. Would it have been better for the government not to make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk ? What is going to be the result of our policy? The government has made the agreement, and, of course, the House will support the proposal of the government. For that proposal was submitted to a ministerial caucus, and it must be carried now. We may as well discuss things as they are. The scheme is to be carried-it will be carried. There are members of parliament who are not enthusiastic, but, of course, party government is party government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, and when my Conservative friends are on this side of the House the government will be a party government, as it always has been. We are here to talk business, and not to make theories. Well, now, we have no infor-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
mation, the government has no more information than I have to enable them to reach a definite conclusion as to the cost. It may cost $40,000 a mile, it may cost more. The Grand Trunk Pacific is going to pay 3 per cent interest after seven years, and is exempted for three years more in certain contingencies-I think we may safely call it ten years. When the ten years are over, if the road is not paying, then the government will be approached by the Grand Trunk Pacific and will be urged not to exact interest. That is the ordinary course of affairs. It is just as well to look these things in the face. We are undertaking an enterprise that will certainly involve the credit of the country for a large amount of money. It is 1,500 miles from Winnipeg to Quebec, if that cos'ts $40,000 a mile-it may cost more than that- there will be $60,000,000. Add $15,000,000 for the road from Quebec to Moncton, and you have $75,000,000. Well, we must make allowance for contingencies, and I think we may say $20,000,000 without hesitation for interest, &c. We are not very far .from $100,000,000. Now, the country is rich and prosperous, and if the money is well invested we can stand it. But is it a good investment ? Are we sure ? Are my hon. friends on the treasury benches sure that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will pay interest ? They are no more sure of it than I am. We are undertaking, as I said, an enterprise that will involve the credit of the country to the extent of nearly $100,000,000. What I fear is that we are embarking in an enterprise that will prevent us from doing something else that is more necessary. If the government are sure, if my hon. friends who support the government do feel confident that the government are making a safe calculation, I think their duty is to join me in using ail legitimate constitutional pressure on my right hon. friend and his colleagues to induce them to go on with our waterway development immediately. We cannot cheapen transport by the new project, we cannot cheapen rates for our western territories. With the waterways w.e can certainly do it, that fact is indisputable. Our friends from the maritime provinces would derive more benefit for their winter ports through a waterway policy than they will from this railway policy. They will not get any trade from this railway, they would get a vast amount of trade through a good waterway policy.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) What about the winter trade?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am glad of the interruption. The Canadian winter ports will be served just as the American winter ports are served, through the accumulation of trade at certain points, let us sav pur Georgian Bay ports, and Montreal, Quebec, L6vis-these will be fed in the same

way as the American ports are fed. The American ports are fed from Buffalo, most of them.


William Ross: They are frozen, then.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The land is frozen, but the railways are not frozen. If my hon. friend will give me his attention for a few minutes he will agree with me. During the fall months Americans are carrying grain to Chicago, Buffalo and other points, a vast quantity of grain that cannot he shipped to the seaboard. In the winter months they take that grain and carry it to their winter ports. I suggest the same policy for ns. That policy succeeds with our American friends. They could have built through railways from New York to the Pacific Ocean; they have not done so. They carry very little grain in the winter months by railways. In the winter months they feed their ports with the grain accumulated in the fall months. I suggest the same thing. The two projects are not antagonistic. If this project did not cost more than $25,000,000, I would stand it; I would not be afraid of that. But it seems to me the' government are making a big mistake, a tremendous mistake, in overlooking our waterways. Of course, the right hon. gentleman may not have said his last word. Indeed, his attention has been called over and over again to this question of transportation.
Now, what would be the result of a waterway transportation policy ? On the lakes there are 22,000 American vessels carrying, not only grain, but trade of all kinds, developing the North-west and all that region west of and around the lakes. They have easy and cheap water communication between the different states. I suggest the same policy for ourselves. The same thing is being done to-day. What do we see in the St. Lawrence? Every day in Montreal we see ships bringing coal from the maritime provinces. The railway does not carry much coal, the St. Lawrence route carries it. In the winter the St. Lawrence is frozen up, so is the Erie canal, so is Lake Superior. But there is an accumulation of grain before the freezing takes place. [DOT] Now, what would happen if the suggestion that I made to my colleagues formerly, and that I make again to-day, were carried out ? What would be the result? There would be an accumulation of grain in Montreal, in Three Rivers, in Quebec, in Ldvis, in all the ports to which ships come loaded with coal from the maritime provinces. These ships would simply take down the grain to the sea. We would build up a big merchant marine on the St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic Ocean. If we were true to ourselves, if we would only look carefully at the maps, we would realize the great possibilities that are before us. Not only can we command our Canadian trade, but we can
command a large volume of American trade. In spite of the very inferior accommodation we have, we are commanding to-day a large American trade. We are attracting to our shores large volumes of trade of all kinds. Perhaps my hon. friends, and even my hon. friends on the treasury benches, have no conception of the volume of trade that Mr. Booth is carrying, not grain only, but trade of all kinds. We could do the same thing. We could establish a trade that would simply create a revolution. I am afraid that my hon. friends are embarking on a project that will prevent them from attending without any delay to the most pressing needs of this country. Are the government sure of the date at which the eastern portion of the project, that is to say, the road from Winnipeg to Quebec, will be completed ? There is no date mentioned. I would like to have some information upon that point before I give my vote. The contract says that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will have to approve of the grades, that the plans must be submitted to them and that surveys will have to be made. Of course, surveys wiil be made. I grant that the government will not embark upon the construction of that road without making surveys. They mast do it. When will the road be completed ? I would like to have a clear statement on ihat point ? The government are building the road from Winnipeg down to Quebec. Winnipeg is not a wheat centre. It is a big city, a city that is growing bigger every day, but it is not a wheat centre. Will the government have control of the rates that they think they will have ? I have never known as yet of a railway company which has been fully controlled by any government as to rates. After a very long experience I have some doubt as to that. Of course, government ownership would have settled the case. I would like also to have some explanation as to the location of the road in the North-west Territories. I hold in my hands a map of the North-west Territories and of Manitoba. There are already two railways in that country without taking into account the Northern Pacific. These two railways have about 4,000 miles all told of rails laid down. The House, no doubt, would like to know before the vote is taken, from the government, if they are in a position to tell us, where the location will be. That is a very important poiut because we are told that the new enterprise will give additional value to a large quantity of land. There is already a pretty large quantity of land available in the North-west Territories. I think there are about 80,000,000 acres available inside of the two railways. I would like to know what the location of the road will be if the government are in a position to tell us.
I shall be glad to deal shortly with the motion pf the hon. member for Winnipeg

(Mr. Puttee), The hon. member for Winnipeg is asking the House to state that the time has so come for the government to assume the ownership and management of railways. In Europe nearly all the countries are the owners of their railways and I am surprised-I confess my former ignorance-to find out that the statistics prove that the railways managed by the governments are managed cheaper and better than tlie railways managed by private corporations. That is the case in Belgium, it is the case in Holland, it is the case in Germany, it is the case in almost every country of Europe. France is, perhaps, the only country where that statement cannot be applied but the case of France is a peculiar one. In France the government owns only 1,600 or 1,700 miles of branch lines. All the other railways are in the hands of private companies but with this condition that all the railways will come back to the state in 1950. The government has given a guarantee to tdie different railways amounting to lour and one half per cent with a sinking fund. In 1915 the sinking fund will have extinguished part of the debt, and under the system in force in France in 1950 the railways will come back to the state. But, France has taken good care to have the system of transportation controlled by the state. There are 12,000 miles of canals, small streams and rivers which are under the direct control of the French government and competing with the railway companies as to rates. In Germany state ownership has simply accomplished wonders. Not only is it a great military organization, but it is a great commercial organization. The railways are managed in a more democratic way because the people are consulted as to their wishes and requirements. When it is found that certain German commodities are undersold in certain markets of the world, the German management of railways comes in immediately and lowers the rates so as to enable that merchandise to compete. That is business. Well now, before embarking on the scheme that we are discussing, would it not have been the part of prudence to have the commission that has been announced to us take charge of that matter and see what we can do ? I know the feeling on both sides of the House. There is no reluctance to vote all the money necessary to be used in developing this country. The feature of this debate which will tell well in the country and outside of it, is the tone of confidence that we have heard from both sides of the House. An admirable confidence has been expressed in the future of the country. But would it not have been the part of prudence to have paused and to have had the whole matter submitted to a commission instructed to see what we can do and what is the best thing to do. The project will be useful. I hope that nobody, even the strongest opponent of the government, will claim that a railway is not a useful thing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It may be expensive but it is a useful thing. Perhaps it would have been better from a colonization standpoint to have done something else. Perhaps it would have been better to have built railways from colonizing centres. Perhaps that would have accomplished much. I express my views just as I feel them. The country has the right to have the views of those who have given some attention to a great question like this. There is a good deal in that, but for all that, the scheme will be carried out. Now, I have only one word more to say as to the Grand Trunk Railway. The position of the Grand Trunk Railway is a peculiar one. It is partly an American railway system and partly a Canadian railway system. Portland is their chief port; it has been always their winter port and it has often been their summer port. I cannot blame them too much for that, because they could not find accommodation in Montreal or elsewhere in Canada, and they had to ship their goods somewhere. They have not spent much money in Portland itself ; not more than $2,000,000, but they have spent $25,-OCO.OOO in their system between Montreal and Portland. They have a railway from Chicago to Buffalo which is a large carrier of freight and especially of cattle, and where is their future trade going to go ? We will not live long ; even those of us who live to a good old age will not live for a great many years. The same thing is true of the representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway who are negotiating with us. They will leave this world, but the geography of the country will remain the same. The Grand Trunk Railway will never be able to carry grain during the winter months in any large quantities over that new road. What is the Grand Trunk Railway going to do in the future ? Under the administration of Mr. Reeve, the Grand Trunk Railway was altogether an American road. I had several more or less friendly quarrels with him. He was a Portland man. Fortunately, Mr. Hays succeeded him, and wide-awake man as he is, he saw that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would require some friendship or attention from this country and he looked to the port of Montreal. It was I who negotiated with him as to the Grand Trunk Railway settling in Montreal. At my request my colleagues upheld me in declining to give to the Wolvin syndicate the site at the Windmill Point and the Grand Trunk Railway to-day have that site and are building warehouses and elevators on it. Bast year the Grand Trunk Railway carried about 10,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain, and during the last six months ending the first of June they carried 6,000.000 bushels of Canadian grain to Portland. In point of fact we have fed the port of Portland all through, because only an indifferent quantity, say 1,000,000 bushels of American grain, was shipped from that port. The Grand Trunk Railway did this because

they had no accommodation at Montreal, and moreover they are bound to support that part of their system. It is not a question of love with them, it is a question of business, and as they are business men they must support that part of their line. They go all through Ontario and they take pease and oats, &c., and they take wheat from Midland and they ship it via Portland. The government are going to build a line from Winnipeg. The Grand Trunk Railway will not come straight to Lake Superior but they must find an outlet somewhere. Has the government provided for that point ? There will no doubt be a branch line from the government line, but is it sure that the Grand Trunk Railway will ship their trade through Canadian channels-I don't speak of to-day ; I speak of things that may happen in five years or in ten years. If we improve our waterways, if we do our part on a sufficient scale, they may come through Canadian channels, but if not they will not do it. If we do not improve the spout they won't use it, they cannot use it. If we do not improve the port of Montreal, and the St. Lawrence route, and give accommodation on the lakes, the Grand Trunk Railway will not come our way, but they will go to the American seaports, as they are going now. Let me call the attention of my right hon. friend to that point, which is an essential point, and to which I am very much afraid the government has not given sufficient consideration.
My hon. friends on the treasury benches have gone fast. I do not like to lose time. I am not slow myself, but-1 believe they have gone fast. It would have been better for them to wait for another year to give more consideration to this scheme. However, they have not done so, and I therefore call earnestly their attention to these important points. The Grand Trunk Railway will develop the North-west. It is my wish that the North-west should remain Canadian from the transportation standpoint, as well as from the fiscal standpoint. I have always advocated the two policies side by side. Let us do our part from the fiscal standpoint and from the transportation standpoint as well, and then we can rest assured that our country will march rapidly in the path of progress and prosperity.
I have to apologize to the House for having spoken so long, but the question is of great importance. In expressing the hope that before the debate closes the Prime Minister will give us more positive information, especially as to the eastern portion of the project, I am sure that I am expressing the feeling of many members of this parliament. We have not received sufficient assurances to make up our minds. We have no idea as to the location in the North-west, we have no assurances as to the future of the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. And the Grand Trunk Railway being both an American and Canadian concern we have 303
to take more precaution than would perhaps be necessary in another case. I resume my seat, Sir, thanking the House for the indulgence it has extended to me.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with a great deal of interest the speech of the member for St. Mary s (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and I must regret from a psychological standpoint, at all events, that the hon. gentleman has failed to tell us whether he was in favour of the policy of the government or not. On that point, however, I do not feel disposed to reproach him very much, because up to the last few days I will candidly admit that I had no very clear mind as to which way I would vote myself. I may say at once to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that if I have made up my mind to vote for the project of the government it is not because any influence has been brought to bear upon me, as he seems to think is the main reason of all those who support this Bill.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, no, no.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I admit that this question is of such* magnitude that for any man with a will of his own, any man who has an intellect of his own, it is not an easy thing to decide immediately. At the same time I think that a man of the position of the hon. gentleman, a man who has made this transportation question his own question for five years, should, when he comes before the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada to express his views on it, be able to tell the people whether the scheme is good or not. If be cannot make up his mind as to all the good qualities or all the difficulties of the proposal I submit that he might very frankly tell the House that there are some features of the scheme of which he does not approve and some of which he does approve; but at the same time he should be in a position to tell us whether he is going to vote for the scheme or not. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is hoping that as the leader of the opposition is of somewhat the same turn of mind as he is, no vote will be taken, so that if the scheme turns out all right he will be free to say that he was favourable to it and if it turns out all wrong that he was against it.
I am not going to follow the 'm gentleman in his lengthy review of our waterways system. I admit that the hon. gentleman has in the past given to this question a good deal of attention, that he has proposed to the government and to the country at large a good many improvements to our waterways, but I do not think this is the time to discuss that part of the transportation question. As the hon. gentleman has said we have now to decide whether we are going to approve of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme or whether we are going to disannrove of it. The questions of elevator's at Port Coiborne. improving the harbour of



Montreal, deepening the channel of the St. Lawrence, are questions that are not germane to the subject of this debate. Of course when the hon. gentleman discusses the question of the wheat trade I perfectly understand that he may make a comparison between the carrying of wheat by water and by rail ; but I am surprised that a man of the breadth of mind which the bon. gentleman generally displays on political questions, has discussed this question tonight from the narrow point of view of carrying grain. Certainly if the government had come before parliament and asked this House to ratify a proposal by which the credit of this country would be largely involved simply for the sake of carrying wheat I would be inclined to take the position the hon. gentleman has taken, but X would carry it to its logical conclusion and I would say ' I am going to vote against the scheme.' I have been struck during all this discussion with a remark which I may recall to the hon. gentleman, the words once uttered by a man for whom he has a great deal of admiration, whose policy he is now recommending to the people of Canada, a -man for whose intellectual capacity I myself have a great deal of admiration, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain was once explaining to the people of Great Britain his idea as to the change that should take place in the imperial policy of Great Britain and just in the midst of a sentence, interrupting -even the grammatical construction of that sentence, he said :	' Oh that the lack of
imagination should always be the drawback of Englishmen.' X am surprised that the hon. gentleman, who cannot be accused of any lack in that respect, has not realized that a -scheme like this cannot be seen only from one point of view, cannot be studied only from the point of view of the actual requirements of this country. I may say tliat when the discussion on this resolution commenced fifteen days ago X was myself so convinced that this road could not carry wheat that I hesitated a great deal before I made up my mind to support the project. But the more I looked at the question from a broader point of view, from the point of view of the general trade of Canada, and especially from the national point of view of the general benefit of this country, from the point of view of the development of the northern districts of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, and from the broad, general, national point of view that it is better for the government to lend the credit of this country, to expend the money of this country, upon one large national enterprise, than to expend it piecemeal upon small enterprises, the more decided I became-and I am going to express my decision although I still entertain some doubts as to some features of the measure-that X would support the Bill. I might say that the arguments advanced by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) and the hon.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) as to the possibilities of general trade being carried by this railway, had some influence upon my mind; but if a deep impression was made on my mind I must say that the touch of light did not come either from the caucus of the Liberal party or from any expression of opinion from the treasury benches, notwithstanding all the respect I have for the ministers of the Crown ; the one speech which induced me most strongly to uphold the government policy was the speech of my good friend the leader of the opposition. After all, on a business matter of this kind, although I find myself as does the hon. member for St. Mary's -division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) quite often in the deep sea between the two parties, we have to choose between the policy of the government and the policy of the opposition. I do not know if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is going to offer to this House an amendment in which he will give a material form to his policy, and by which he will tell the people of this country that he has a policy of his own and that he will stand by it. If he does not do so, even if I should come to the conclusion that the government's scheme was not a good one and that I should vote against it, I would have to vote to put the accomplishment of this object into the hands of men who profess to a policy but who will not dare to formulate it, even in the mild form of a motion. If the hon. gentleman was sincere and serious in his speech, as I have no doubt he was, he is bound, before this debate is over, to put his policy in the form of a motion, and to have that motion framed on the lines of his speech of the other day so that the people of Canada can choose between the two policies. Therefore, I assume that in the speech of the other day we find the policy of the opposition on the transcontinental railway question ; and it is by making a comparison between the two schemes that I have come to the conclusion that, not being able to find an ideal scheme, I will certainly support the better of the two and to my mind the government's policy is by far the better.
As to the amendment offered by the member for Winnipeg, it is most probably going to be snowed under. At the same time there is no doubt that the hon. gentleman is putting before the House and the country a question which is going to grow in importance from day to day. I can well remember the days when my good friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) was speaking in the desert, when he was laughed at by nearly all the speakers on both sides because he was advocating the principle of government ownership. Now, however, that principle is making its way. I may say at once that I am in favour of it. First, because all the large avenues of trade belong by right to the people just as much as the King's road and the water-ways. We have no right to alienate them for ever.

Secondly, because when the trade and population of the country will have increased to a large figure, our railways might become one of our greatest sources of revenue. My third reason is because the ownership of railways by the government Is the best means of regulating rates. No law we can try to put in force against a company having sovereign right over its property, will be as effective as a right which a government will have that owns the road against a company that merely operates it. In the case of Canada there is special reason why we should stand by the principle of government owership. The geographical conditions of our country are such that it is only by the building of railways we can make one country of it. Without these connecting links, the different parts of our country would be utterly divided from each other ; and it stands to reason that we should protect our integrity as a nation by assuming the ownership of what might be at certain times used as the greatest disruption of the unity of this confederation.
But to adojtt the principle proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) would be going too far, and for a number of years government ownership should be limited to the right of ownership and not be extended to construction and operation. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) made a. comparison with different European countries. Comparisons are always more or less deceitful, but we must admit that continental European countries have given the railway problem much more attention than we have. They have tried different systems and if the hon. member for St. Mary's had gone to the root of the question, he would have found out that government operation of railways has been successful only in cases where you have two things. The first condition is that there should be such an immense amount of traffic that the railways are paying' by themselves, without government support, that the local traffic is such that there is almost no war of rates between the government and other railway companies. The second condition is that you must have a civil service entirely free from any political influence. In Germany the railway service is conducted just as the army is : political influence has nothing to do with it: but it will be a long time, whatever party be in power, before we can adopt such a policy. My hon. friend to my left reminds me that in those cases I have given, the country owns practically all the railways, which is different altogether between the government owning some of the railways and competing with private companies. Besides, in a new country like this, I would not be in favour of closing up immediately the avenues of railway enterprise for the investment of private capital. We should, on the contrary, invite private 303i
capital to come and aid in the operation of railways.
Coming to the present scheme, I would prefer that the government should keep the right of ownership from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that they should give a contract for the construction and a lease for the operation of the line to one private company, under one system of administration from east to west, instead of the dual system which has been adopted. To my mind the lease should have been longer, and a smaller, rather than a larger rate of interest should have been levied from the company as a rental ; or, as an alternative, the company should have been required to invest a portion of its capital, and the state reserve its right to redeem it within a number of years. Anyhow, whatever, might have been the details, what I would have preferred above all would have been unity of system. The reason given against that unity of system is this, that the state cannot go into the building of hotels and branch lines, and equipping ports and fitting up steamers. But that reason applies just as much to the eastern section as to the western section. If the government are sincere in making the eastern section a colonization railway, they will have either to do these things themselves or have the Grand Trunk Railway do them. I know something about colonization. I represent a constituency where colonization has been carried on for twenty years, I have myself opened up lands for settlers, and sold them lands, and I know what arguments attract the settlers. The settler has to be directed, he has to be guided. If you leave him to himself, if you simply open a large tract of land and build a railway, and tell that settler to go there he will choose every time the worst land. He will choose that which is easiest to clear. But the good lands in Quebec and Ontario are thickly covered with wood and these do not attract settlers. You will have to build houses for the settlers, and have government agents to take them to the good land. You will have to build branch lines down the valleys you cross, otherwise you will repeat the mistake made in some districts of the province of Quebec. By settling the country across the valleys and not along the valleys, you will then have the settlement along the line poor and deprived of good land, while the settlers, who went into the valleys along the waterways. will have no railway facilities. To be complete as a colonization scheme, it will have to include the building, not of expensive hotels, but houses of refuge, such as were established by the federal government in several districts of Quebec several years ago. And you will have also to build steamship lines to give communication to the settlers along the water-ways which this road is going to cross.
It has been stated that the line from Winnipeg to Quebec should be built as a national

railway because it would be used as a great highway and a regulator of rates for the carrying of trade from western Canada to the east. But the same reasons that were given as far as the principle is concerned, for state ownership of the eastern will apply as well to the western section.	_
It seems to me that we very often ignore the real facts of the geography of our country. We think of' this line as being a great national highway, and as destined to act as a regulator of rates between the west and the ea'st. But, as proposed, it will simply affect that part of Canada from the centre to the east. Why should not the same principle apply to the carrying of freight from the centre to the west? I have great hopes of the future of British Columbia. I think British Columbia is one of the finest provinces of the Dominion. Certainly, the day is not far distant when there will be as much trade between the prairie country, the wheatgrowing region, and British Columbia, as there is to-day between the wheat-growing region and the east. The Prime Minister has said that we are not legislating for a few years, but for a long time to come. Therefore, I regret that the principle having been adopted of having a national highway and regulator of rates between the centre and eastern parts of Canada, we do not also have a great national highway and regulator of rates between the centre and the west, and that the whole line should not be undertaken and built as a great national highway and regulator of rates for all time to come from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This is enough to show that there are things in this project Which I do not like. On the other hand, there are features that I like. I take the same position as my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver)-not being able to get all that I want, I take what is given to me. I accept this as a great improvement upon the railway policies of all past governments. I take it as a great improvement upon the time when we were giving lavishly the money of the people and the lands of the people also to assist railway companies that were not only free to do as they liked in the opening up of a country and in the carrying of trade, but that were free at any time to connect their railways with American railways and sell the future of this country from a commercial as well as a political point of view. And, when I see that the only alternative presented to the House is the scheme of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), I am bound to say that it takes a great deal from the remorse I should have had, perhaps, in voting for this project.
I have no doubt that, during my absence from the House-I have been absent for some days-a good deal of attention has been given to the project of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden). I have not
followed the discussion. But, in order to make my views quite plain, so far as the financial phase of the1 question is concerned,
I have had some work done for me by a very competent engineer who was, I may say, one of the resident engineers of the Canadian Pacific Railway for the building of that part of their line north of Lake Superior, which is the very part which the hon. leader of the opposition proposes that the country should take over. I suppose the figures have been given to this House, but if I take the liberty of wearying the House once more with a list of figures it is because this estimate that I shall read has been very carefully prepared by this engineer, who overlooked the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway line north of Lake Superior, who knows thoroughly the Canada Atlantic system and the Canadian Northern system, and who has himself made two explorations in the district in which the road here proposed is to traverse. Therefore, I think he is the one engineer in Canada who is most competent to speak both on the project of the government and on the project of the opposition.


Mr. CLANCY.: To whom does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) refer ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I refer to a gentleman who is now the manager, I believe, of the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway, and who was resident engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway on the section north of Lake Superior, Mr. Doucet. I have asked that gentleman to make an estimate of the proposed scheme of my hon. friend, and here are his figures. The first proposition of my hon. friend is to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway and connect at Montreal. His estimate is, first, to construct a railway from Jacques Cartier Junction to Co-teau, 37 miles, at $35,000 per mile, $1,295,000. To purchase the Canada Atlantic system, which cost about $17,000,000, would undoubtedly require $19,000,000. I think this is $1,000,000 less than an estimate that has been placed before this House.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) know how much it has been offered for within two years ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. Mr. Fielding).: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) know how much they are asking for it now ?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not know that any price had been set.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand the price has advanced lately.


Mr. GERMAN.: Seventeen million.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the growing time, you know.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have no intention of giving extraordinary figures. X do not think my hon. friend. (Mr. Borden, Halifax) vrill contradict me on this estimate, when I say that it would not be safe to approach Mr. Booth with a much lower figure now. The hon. gentleman suggested the building of a branch to connect the Canada Atlantic with the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Sudbury. This line would be about 120 miles in length. Estimating it at $30,000 a mile, we find that the cost of this would be $3,600,000. So, this would bring that part of the scheme up to $23,895,000. I may say that Mr. Doucet has forgotten to make an .estimate of the building of the line that would certainly be required from Ste. Rosalie' to Montreal to make a complete system to connect with the Intercolonial. Now, the hon. gentleman has suggested, in order to make the connecting link between this proposed new system of government railway and the railways in the North-west, and realize the idea of giving through transportation, to acquire or' lease from the Canadian Pacific Railway the line from North Bay to Fort William. That is the very part of the line which this engineer was supervising during the time of the building of it. And, as will be noticed, he gave much more moderate figures for the cost of this line than we find given in some newspapers and also given by some hon. members in this House.


Mr. BARKER.: Can the hon. gentleman tell us precisely the position occupied by Mr. Doucet when he was on the line on the north shore of Lake Superior?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I could not state exactly. He was one of the superintending engineers.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman {Mr. Bourassa) knows how many grades of engineers there are ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I know that there are many. But Mr. Doucet is considered one -of the best railway engineers not only in Quebec


Robert Laird Borden: His experience on the line north of Lake Superior was many years ago.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, about eighteen years ago, I believe. He gives the figures here of actual cost, this is not a question of estimate. This is the cost of the line that the hon. gentleman suggested thalt we should buy.
North Bay to Sudbury, 79 miles at $30,-000 per mile, $2,370,000 ; Sudbury to White River, 304 miles, at $35,000 per mile, $10,-<140,000 : White River to Peninsula, 64 miles at $40,000 per mile, $2,560,000 ; Peninsula to Nepigon, 118 miles at $60,000 per mile, $7,080,000 ; Nepigon to Port Arthur, 64 miles at $30,000 per mile, $1,920,000; making
a total from North Bay to Fort William of $24,570,000.
This added to the estimated cost of the Canada Atlantic, as purchased and connected at Sudbury with this part of the line, would be $48,465,000. I am simply giving the cost price. I do not want to give too high figures, because, even by giving the lowest figures, my conscience feels safe when I say that the scheme of the opposition is still worse than that of the government. Now, the hon. gentleman says-I am quoting from ' Hansard ' :
The third point which I would submit to the consideration of the House, as a sound policy is to assist in improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Fort William, upon condition that complete control of rates is obtained, and that the Grand Trunk Railway, as well as the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Fort William into Winnipeg.
Well, this engineer estimates that to reduce the grades on the Canadian Pacific Railway between Fort William and Rat Portage would cost $3,000,000 ; and to reduce the grades on the Canadian Northern from Fort William northward would cost $1,500,000. Now the leader of the opposition has also suggested that in case the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific could not agree, the government should build the mountain section. Here is his estimate, and I think it is a very conservative estimate. It Is divided into two sections: From Edmonton to Dunve-gan, 250 miles, at $28,000, $7,000,000 : from Dunvegan to Port Simpson, 550 miles at $48,000,	$26,640,000; terminals at Port
Simpson, $1,500,000. Total $35,140,000.


James Clancy: That is pretty hard on the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On the mountain section my limit was the $30,000 that is provided in the contract. Therefore my hon. friend from Labelle does not differ from the Minister of Finance.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Now, there are certain other improvements that would have to be made. It is admitted on all hands that between Depot Harbour and Madawaska, in order to make it a wheat carrying road as the hen. gentleman is anxious to do, there should be a reduction of grades estimated at $10,000 a mile. That would mean an expenditure of $1,330,000. Now I have not rend the whole speech of my hon. friend, and therefore I do not know but that he has suggested what I am going to say. But there is no doubt that if his scheme was adopted, if there were any carrying trade of a general character on that line, in conjunction with the carrying of the freight on the Canadian Pacific Railway over their own system, in conjunction with the carrying of freight over the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific to the east, before long a double track would have to be laid on that


Robert Laird Borden: I would not lie prepared to admit that at all. I would ask my hon. friend if he has made inquiries, as his researches seem to have been somewhat extended, as to what the Great Northern Railway of the United States carries over a single track now.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, I have not, but I have been told that if the plan suggested by my hon. friend was carried out, the Canada Atlantic Railway could not do justice to the amount of traffic that would have to be carried over that line.


Robert Laird Borden: In that connection would my hon. friend inform me if he had considered the proposal of the government to provide for double tracking from Winnipeg to Quebec ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, but I will come to that later on. I am simply taking the scheme of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose you will admit that it would be as necessary in the one case as in the other.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: support the line from Quebec to Moncton, inasmuch as the traffic can be carried over the Intercolonial Railway. If a colonization railway is needed let the government aid the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick for the purpose of promoting settlement. Therefore, when the Bill goes to the committee, if a motion is made to amend the contract as far as that part of it is concerned, I will vote for it. On the general question, while I have more or less diffidence in accepting some parts of the scheme and though I do not hail it with as much enthusiasm as that displayed by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton), at the same time there are several features of the Bill which certainly induced me to vote for it, and which certainly permit me to endorse it with very great pleasure.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has any engineer's estimates of any part of the route ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of the Quebec-Moncton line ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and of the line from Quebec to Winnipeg-I mean estimates as to the grades which he says are necessary ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, certainly not, but as I say, I consider the railway necessary there. I consider that we should not simply build a railway in the west without extending it to the east. I consider that the fact that the government own this railway is the beginning of a new policy involving the principle of government ownership, and therefore I am in favour of that part of the line. Let me say to the leader of the opposition, that he himself has made his suggestion without having much information with regard to it. As far as one portion of his scheme is concerned, and that part of it about which we have the most information, namely the purchase of a portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway line, the information which we have in regard to it is sufficient to prove that it is absolutely unacceptable to the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely the hon. gentleman knows that I stated expressly that my scheme would be subject to the best expert advice as to carrying it out.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that all the information we can gather enables us to say that the building of the railway between Quebec and Winnipeg is certainly more feasible than the Conservative government could have declared the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway at the time they undertook it. It is only a question in this case of whether you choose the St. Maurice Valley or whether you come to the head waters of the Ottawa river to cross the height of Mr. BOURASSA.
land. I may say, Sir, that I had no intention to speak on the subject to-night and the debate has been so protracted that I have left aside many other considerations that I intended submitting to the House.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend told us in the early part of his speech that he came to the conclusion that the scheme I proposed was much more expensive than the government scheme. How can he arrive at that conclusion, as he tells us he has no estimates as to the cost of obtaining these grades which he says are necessary from Quebec to Winnipeg ? How does he make any comparison when he has no estimate V


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I admit that the comparison cannot be final.


Robert Laird Borden: I see. I may hope to convince my hon. friend yet.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have given the lowest figure I could get. I asked the engineer to give the lowest figure possible. As far as the proposed government road is concerned we could give very high figures and very low figures, but take the figures that were given by the member for St. Mary's for instance, namely 1,500 miles at $40,000 a mile, and that would make it only $00,000,000 after all, and I believe we would have a better line.


Robert Laird Borden: ' The hon. gentleman has made a very carefully prepared speech and I want to be perfectly clear about it. He has placed an estimate on the lines comprised in my proposal upon the basis of certain grades which he says are necessary for the economic hauling of freight. Can he tell me from any data which he has in his possession, within $10,000,000 of the cost of the government proposal based upon grades of that kind V


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly not.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think not.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I admit the estimate is not complete, but if the hon. gentleman (Mi'. Borden) wants to leave the financial point of view, I may say that even if it were proven to me that his scheme would cost $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 less than the government scheme, I could not support it because-and that is a point which I had forgotten-the great objection made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to the government scheme was an objection that I had myself in mind, namely, the dual system of the project of the government. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) asks parliament to adopt a railway system upon which we have government ownership on one part, joint ownership or lease of the Canadian Pacific Railway on another part, then running over the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern Railway; and again government ownership at the other

end. Under his scheme yon would have government control on part of the line, Grand Trunk Railway control on another part of the line, Canada Pacific Railway control on another part of the line, and this, after fifteen days of protracted debate on the part of the opposition to prove that the government project'lacks unity. Well, Sir, it certainly lacks unity in my opinion, but if there is no unity in the government project what does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) think of the unity of his project ?


James Clancy: I am sure that the Prime Minster who has been a very constant attendant at this debate is not in a mood to listen to a two hours or three hours speech to-night, and I shall ask the right hon. gentleman to consent to my motion that the debate he adjourned.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not like to refuse the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) but if we are to have prorogation before the snow flies we must make some progress with this debate. I understood that it is agreed that the debate would come to an end on Tuesday next. If that is so, then I will agree to the motion of my hon. friend, but it must be understood by both sides that the debate will be concluded on Tuesday next.


George Taylor: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
, Wednesday, August 26, 1903.