1903-08-17

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simcoe).: I have noticed that several hon. members much more competent to deal with this question than I am, and much more accustomed to speaking, have made apologies for the length of their remarks. Let me say, while possessed of all reasonable modesty, that I esteem it to be my duty to be guided rather by what I think is proper and necessary to be presented to the House than by the question .of the time which my remarks may occupy. The question that is presented for our consideration is one so broad, so far-reaching that, if we had months to consider it, aye, if we had months to debate it, there would yet remain aspects of the question which would be useful to be presented and valuable to be considered. But I will endeavour, having regard to the importance of the case, to confine my remarks and my criticism to as reasonable a space as I can. I believe in the future of Canada. I have as great confidence in the future of Canada, perhaps, as any hon.

gentleman in this House. I belong to a party that has always had faith in the prosperity and achievements of Canada. As firmly as I believe in the rapid advancement of any part of It, I believe and look for the rapid advancement of the great west. I believe that, as representing a constituency, and as representing also the interests of Canada as a whole, it is my duty and the duty of every hon. member of this House, irrespective of politics, to see to it that the west has reasonable facilities for transporting to market its enormous product. And I will not be behind any hon. gentleman in conceding reasonable facilities to the west, or any other part of Canada, consistently with our duty in administering honestly and fairly the resources of the Dominion and in controlling the federal exchequer.
The Speaker, who closed the debate, was the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).
I have greatly admired the manner in which the hon. gentleman presents his arguments, although I have not often been able to see the cogency of his argument. X admire very much the 'forcible, earnest and sometimes, if X may say so without offence, the almost dictatorial manner in which he presents, as the ultimate conclusion of the matter, the view he happens to take of it. However, I do not propose, on this occasion, to deal with the manuscript which the hon. gentleman presented the other night. It contains five introductory sentences, and twenty ' becauses ' ; or four introductory sentences with one ' because,' and one other sentence containing twenty ' becauses,' as you prefer the punctuation. If his reasons are good, his statement is unanswerable. But the strength of his ' because ' depends upon the cogency of his proposition. If one of them is good and broad enough to cover the whole proposition, the proposition is sustained. It is like presenting a number of reasons to the Court of Appeal-if you have one strong one, you may abandon the rest. I do not consider that the time of the House would be well occupied in discussing these ' becauses.' And the reason is 'because' all the hon. gentleman merely gives is twenty texts. He advances not one proposition, not one argument, not one fact in support of these twenty texts. It would be as easy to formulate forty texts, and I believe you can subdivide these forty into forty others in dealing with a great proposition such as that before us. It reminds one of the case of puss and the fox. I do not remember the story very well ; the younger members of the House who have been more lately under instruction than I, will recollect it more clearly. But as I remember it, it was something like this : Puss, with her usual modesty said she had one method of getting clear of dogs. But the fox said he had ten in hand and ten times ten in a bag. Just then the baying of a hound was heard. Puss ran up a tree ; and from the top of the tree she had the
satisfaction-I presume it was a satisfaction, because we all condemn boasters-of seeing a dog's nose very close indeed to the fox's brush. Now, these reasons or texts of my hon. friend from Alberta, I am afraid, are somewhat the same as the fox's methods. I am afraid that, if put to the test, they would hardly answer. For instance, take the hon. gentleman's because ' of two miles of shortened distance. I am afraid that, upon investigation, that would hardly bear criticism.
Now, I come to the speech of the hon. member for (JaspG (Mr. Lemieux). If there is an hon. member of this House whom I enjoy listening to, an hon. gentleman who, I think, delivers his addresses in a graceful and pleasing manner, one who makes the most out of a bad case, if he happens to have a bad case-and sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, he very often has a bad case- it is the hon. member for Gaspe. But while, like the hon. member for Alberta, the presentation of his case is admirable, I fear that also like the hon. member for Alberta, his logic is not always conclusive. An hon. friend near me suggests that it is very limpy, and so it is. Let me refer to some of the hon. gentleman's statements in support of that proposition. The hon. gentleman says that under our parliamentary system, the opposition exists for the very purpose of opposing any measures which are not desired by the people. Now, I forgot to say that it will be my pleasing duty to concur in a great deal'of what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I give my full concurrence to this proposition of the hon. member for Gaspe. He says that the function of the apposition-and he stated that he did not blame us for discharging our function-is to oppose any measure which might not be desired by the people. That is exactly what this measure is. Canvass this country from one end to the other, go where you will and the preponderating voice is, and the overwhelming voice will be when the scheme is fully understood, absolute condemnation of this measure. The hon. member for GaspG says it is also the duty of the opposition to criticise any measure which may be considered as unduly pressed. It was evident that the right hon. leader of the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) realized the weakness of his case in this respect and sought to defend himself by urging the immediate necessity for relief and the demand of the public. My hon. friend from GaspG also realizes that this measure, which he himself describes as the most momentous that has been introduced into parliament since confederation, and which is introduced at the eleventh hour, at the very end of a long session, should not be brought before us now. It is unduly pressing the measure ; it is unduly exercising, not the right, but the power of the administration, when a measure of this kind is brought in at this stage and pressed through parliament.

Now, the hon. member for Gaspfi says that the policy of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is to run down the great lone land of the great North-west and the policy of his friends is to represent the country through which this railway shall run as a country of muskegs and rocks. Let me just interject, in passing, the question : What does the hon. gentleman mean by ' the great lone land ' through which this railway is to run. 1 thought that the proposition of the leader was to build a road to carry out the millions of bushels of grain awaiting transportation and to alleviate the congestion that exists. A great lone land, forsooth. And yet the hon. gentleman talks in this way as regards a great proportion of this enterprise. A great lone land for the present it certainly is, in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, along the borders of Lake Huron and Lake Superior; a great lone land it is as concerns the mountains west of Winnipeg, a great lone land it is from the mountains to the Pacific ocean, and it must necessarily be so for many years to come. But I refer to this because the hon. gentleman, and other hon. gentlemen upon the government side of the House, have been, to borrow his own language in reference to the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), indulging in imagination. They have been imagining that which they wish to exist, they have been trying to show that members on this side of the House have been belittling the west. AVhy, Sir, I challenge the hon. gentleman, I challenge any hon. gentleman supporting the government, to show one instance where one hon. member on this side of the House, either in this debate or in any previous debate in the House of Commons or out of it has decried or made little of the land which the Conservative party opened up and developed. But what are facts. Is it a fact that the member for East Grey did decry the great lone land ? It will be in the judgment of the House whether it was the bon. member for Ga spe or the hon. member for East Grey who did so. The hon. member for East Grey, in the course of his magnificent presentation of the case, made this statement:
I understand very well that our North-west is a great country. I do not underestimate its value and importance. I know that the great future of Canada is bound up in the west, and I believe it will be necessary in the future to provide for a development that has been unparalleled in the history of this country.
Is that decrying the west? Is that withholding from the west those legitimate means of transportation which it has been the policy of the Conservative party in the past to give, and which it will be the policy of the Conservative party in the future to give. If'the Conservative party should, ever renounce that policy, I would cease to remain a member of it. He says too that is the policy of ' his friends.' Well.


Haughton Lennox: if it is I think I have answered it pretty fully, if not effectually. Is it the policy of his friends in the great lone land he refers to ? Sir, is it the policy of the man in the west who more than any other man in the Dominion of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Roblin, a gentleman who sat upon the floor of the House the other day, and who has been instrumental in obtaining for the west a policy which is magnificent beyond description, a policy which has done much to solve the great transportation problems in the west.
The hon. member for Gaspe announced, with what he meant to be a flourish of trumpets, that he had a mandate from the people upon this question, and I believe that some hon. members supporting the go'Yern-ment are foolish enough to imagine that they do have a mandate upon this question. I would like to ask thoughtful and considerate members on either side of the House whether any one of them-of course we know the right hon. leader of the government said he had a mandate-I would like to ask whether if any hon. member of this House has really a mandate from the people in regard to the proposition that is before us at the present time. Why, Sir, it is known that this scheme was created, it was bora, and I think it was stillborn, within a few hours, or a few weeks of the time it was presented to this House. Not one hon. member, I venture to think, has ever presented the question to his constituents. Nay. I may say upon the authority of the right hon. leader of the House, that not one member on his side has presented this question to his constituency in any shape or form, for the right hon. gentleman announced that his own following did not know what the policy was. A mandate, forsooth. Then, the hon. gentleman refers to the challenge, as ho called it, made by the member for East Grey. He says that if the government accepted it they would win out. He says that from one end of the country to the other the people would rally to their support. Well, Sir, why not accept the challenge ? Call it a challenge, call it a request, call it a prayer, if you like, on behalf of the people of this country, in justice to the people of this country, in the name of fair-play to the people of this country; I ask the question, and at the same time I make the request, why not give the people a chance, why not give them a ehance to say whether this vast expenditure shall or shall not be incurred by the government. It is right, it is constitutional, it is fair-play ; the opposite course is not in harmony with the constitution, not in harmony with the equitable working out of the principles of responsible government. I invite the leader of the government to consider this proposition. He says he has no ear for those who say, To-morrow, and to-morrow and to-morrow he has no ear for those who say, ' Wait, wait, wait ' ; he has

no ear for those who say, ' Pause, consider, deliberate.' The hon. gentleman can give this oportunity to the people without losing one hour of time. He can, in the meantime, fortify his position if it is tenable at all; he can in the meantime send properly equipped exploring parties into the country and give us that adequate information which we are now denied. Hon. gentleman tell us of the vast resources in northern Quebec and northern Ontario. I do not deny them. They make rosy pictures, I do not dispute them; they give glowing accounts, X do not dispute them. I merely say I do not know, and I eeho the sentiment, the honest sentiment, of the majority of the members of this House, when I say so. Remember that you have not the whole intelligence of the country represented in this parliament, you have not all of the true sentiment of the great body of the electorate who sent us here to be their servants. And I again ask the right hon. leader of the government, would it not be wise, would it not be judicious, would it not redound to his credit in the future, if he accepted the request of the hon. member for Bast Grey and gave the country an opportunity to pronounce upon this great question?
But the hon. member for Gaspe is too zealous, and like all too zealous friends, he proves too much. The right hon. leader of the government gave us to understand that this was a new proposition; the bon. member for Gaspe gave us to understand that it is not a new proposition. He gives us to understand that it is identical with the trans-Canada Railway. He says that was endorsed years ago by the government of the country, as I understood him. Well, this is news to us. But I question both his facts and his conclusion. I do not think this scheme is identical with the Trans-Canada. There is no proposition there to go to Moncton, there is no proposition there for this system of half government ownership and half company ownership, there is no proposition there to form a partnership, and a very questionable partnership it is, between the Dominion of Canada, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Rail-vray Company and Senator Cox-there is nothing of that kind. But on the other hand, there is this in the Trans-Canada, that they made promises, according to the hon. gentleman's own quotations, which were of vast importance to this country if implemented, and which are not to be found in the proposition now before the House. Their first proposition was-
To construct the entire road with steel rails and with steel bridges of Canadian manufacture, thus offering to the new gteel and iron works at Sydney, Midland, Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton and immediate market for an immense quantity of steel.
Hon. gentleman on the other side will take nothing for granted, it appears, at the
present time. They say: Oh, but there is the same thing in the agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as with this other company.


Mr. COCHRANE.: No.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) says no. Any schoolboy fifteen years of age will say no, and the country will say no, but, my word for it, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will say yes, because they have said it before. But the fact is that it differs in this particular :
To construct the entire road with steel rails
and steel bridges of Canadian manufacture-

in so far as we can, in so far as it is
possible. These contracts differ in this most important degree.
To give free transportation from Quebec to any point on its line for all immigrants and bona fide new settlers and their effects.
That is a pretty fair proposition, because that scheme was launched as a colonization road, and that was its main purpose, as this one is if you reduce it down to its essence, and the only thing it really is. When reduced to its proper proportions, it is a colonization scheme only. This is a sample of the kind of argument which, with all its grace and all its beauty, the hon. gentleman presented to the House, and this shows what it amounts to upon being analysed. But the hon. gentleman has not yet displayed his great weakness. Here is a better specimen of it. He is not far behind the right hon. leader of the government in that respect. The right hon. leader of the government said:	We have mountains of
information, the people are entitled to what information we have, they are entitled to know just where we stand in this regard. I am not attempting to repeat the graceful sentences of the right hon. leader of the government, because the right hon. gentleman, I need not say, has a manner of turning his sentences which it is hard to equal. I am only giving the substance of his argument. He says : I will give you the proof, and then the right hon. gentleman proceeds to give the proof, and he gives us instances of a number of gentlemen who, from 1700 and something down to 1793, had made explorations in the west. The efforts of these devoted men, these men of selfsacrifice, of great endurance and of heroic purpose, are not to be discounted within their sphere, but the right hon. gentleman fails to give us that data and the only data from which we can form any intelligent conclusion, that is actual surveys made upon the ground,-actual measurements of the heights and the depths over which we have to pass, that reliable information which would guide intelligent business men in considering whether this proposition is a feasible one or not. I do not stand second

to the right hon. gentleman in admiration of the distinguished men whose names he has mentioned, but, when it comes to a railway matter, as the right hon. gentleman was speaking of a time before railways were known, aye, before Watts, if it was Watts, discovered the powers of steam, and (before Stevenson had invented thp steam engine, before railways were thought of in the Dominion of Canada, to bring proof of this kind before this House is to acknowledge the weakness and fallacy of the proposition. The hon. gentleman with whom I am particularly dealing now follows in the same strain. He tells of the vast resources. of northern Quebec and northern Ontario. I am not disputing that what he says may be all correct. I am saying that we do not know. But he calls as witnesses, whom ?-surveyors, engineers, experts ? Not at all. He calls as witnesses gentlemen whose veracity, whose fairness, whose candor or integrity, will be questioned-clergymen-four clergymen, or five-it does not matter about one or two clergyman, more or less, upon a question of this kind. He calls as a witness a learned doctor, too, and upon this he rests his case. Is this not showing the weakness of his case ? I submit that no greater condemnation of a scheme could be afforded than is afforded by this hon. gentleman. But let me refer to one gentleman who might be considered an authority cited by mv hon. friend. He is Mr. Henry Sullivan, F.R.G.S.


Mr. BENNETT.: Not ' Cap.' ?


Haughton Lennox: No ; I will refer to the ' Cap.' afterwards.


William Humphrey Bennett: 'Cap.' will be in for a contract.


Haughton Lennox: This gentleman is only speaking of a small section of the country, and he says :
Prom what I have seen by following a number of the water courses and occasional runs inland

That is not a very extensive exploration- * occasional runs inland.' Then, [DOT] omitting that which is irrelevant, he says :
Unless extensive swamps exist on the level plains between the main waterways there is no reason why the greater part of the country would not be fit for settlement should climatic conditions prove favourable.
In other words, the qualifications are much more important than the main proposition. He says he made ' occasional1 runs inland.' How far or for what purpose we do not know, and he says :	If there are no extensive swamps. There are likely to be extensive swamps, and then he says that if climatic conditions are favourable lie sees no good reason why there should not be settlement. Hon. gentlemen opposite were charmed with the untested generosity of


Haughton Lennox: the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William .Mulock) the other night. Suppose he says : I am going to give you, by reason of your services, $1,000 less $090. That is about the meaning of this report. Having gone over the hon. gentleman's quotations, I am inclined to think that he hardly did justice to the case. I want justice done in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, and when we read these reports the conclusion of the whole matter is that there is a good deal of pulp wood up there, that there is a chance that we can raise potatoes, that we can raise oats, and that in some regions we can raise barley, and stops there and leads to the conclusion that the conditions of northern Ontario and northern Quebec are not better than that, I protest. I believe they are better. I am not behind my hon. friend, I am ahead of him, in appreciation of the resources of this northern country ; but I say, granting all that has been said, there is no basis upon which we can form a conclusion ns to whether the possibilities of the future of that country are -such as to justify the government in rushing in with mad haste to construct an enormous work of this kind. So far I have been in harmony with my hon. friend. I see very much along the same lines as he does. I have not endeavoured to entice him from the beaten path, but my hon. friend makes a proposition here that I am inclined to agree with again. I agree with every word of it, almost ; I agree entirely with the conclusion of the matter. Let me, before referring to that, refer to a peculiar coincidence. I said that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver)- it is only just to that hon. gentleman that I should refer to his speech or to his manuscript-divided his becauses under twenty heads. My hon. friend with whom I am dealing divides these advantages thus : 1, 2, 3, 4; then again : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ; then again : a, b, c, d, e, f, g; total 18. This is not quite coincident with the speech of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), but it shows such a remarkable family likeness as to lead one to infer that perhaps these two speeches were prepared in the same camp.
Mi'. BROCK. In the same caucus.


Haughton Lennox: In the same caucus my hon. friend suggests. Another hon. gentleman suggests by the same man. But that is not the gist of the matter with wlich I have to deal. The hon. gentleman said- and I agree with him in his conclusions :
' But I go further and I say the baigain is advantageous.' Advantageous to whom ? To the country ? Oh, no, that is not what he said. ' But I -go further and I say the bargain is advantageous to the Grand Trunk Pacific.' Does anybody deny that ? The Grand Trunk Pacific people, call them what you will, are at all events shrewd business men, and you may bet your last dollar that

the bargain will be advantageous to the Grand Trunk Pacific and to all who are allied, with them. The hon. gentleman says : ' It must be so, because the company would not have engaged itself '-then comes the subdivision :	' (a) to build the western
section ; (b) to operate the whole line.' Let me transpose these for the purpose of directing the sense of the House to the great cogency of this argument : ' It must have been advantageous, otherwise the Grand Trunk would not have agreed-to operate the whole line.' What marvellous self-denial ! A company willing to operate the whole line and willing to build the western section. If they had been willing to build, and if the government had been astute enough, and had been enough alive to the interests of the people of this country, to require them to build, the eastern section, then the hon. gentleman would have had some foundation for talking. But they are to build the prairie section, in the country which is to be inhabited in the almost immedate future by teeming millions of people, the country which the hon. Minister of the Interior describes as unequalled, not in Canada, but in the world. Go in and possess that land. And they have agreed to operate the eastern section, which is to be built for them without the expenditure of a single dollar, and placed undettheir control. I have always thought that if you were making an absolute gift to a person, it was not good manners for him to ask the price or to pry into the question where you got it, or tol say, I will go and select the article myself. But here we have a government making an absolute gift, in reference to this eastern section, of nearly $70,000,000 to this company, and this company, according to the hon. member for GaspS (Mr. Lemieux), has engaged to operate it but only upon condition that they supervise the construction. What magnanimity ! And they have agreed ' (c) to pay 3 per cent per annum on the cost of the leased property '-from fifteen years from now, barring strikes, barring delays, barring quibbles at the end of the construction period ; for, when the work is completed there will bei a delay of another year and the company will say, it is not yet completed. About sixteen years from now the people of this country will be in a position to demand a balance sheet, and a final settlement of the account, and then God knows what an amount this country will have been committed to. They have also agreed, the hon. member says : ' (d) to submit to government control of rates.' My hon. friend is a lawyer and a most astute politician-an old member of this House. Does he not know! that all railways in this country, except the government railway, have to submit to have their rates controlled by the railway commission ? And yet he advances this statement as an argument. They also agree, he says :	' (e) to concede running rights ; (f)
to quote as low rates to Canadian ports as
to American ones.' I hope my hon. friend does not show any particular astuteness as a lawyer, because lawyers are all honourable men, and are particularly candid. But he shows the astuteness of a politician when he says that this company has agreed-not to carry produce at the same rates to Canadian as to American ports, but to quote rates as low to Canadian ports as to American ports. One day when I asked an old Irishman who was collecting an account, what he had to say about a fraudulent entry made by his opponent, he said ' Why, paper won't refuse ink.' And this paper of the railway company will not refuse the quotations which the master hand of the railway enterprise shall see fit to put there. But quoting rates and giving fair terms are two different things ; in other words, the control of discrimination and the stoppage of discrimination are entirely different propositions from the mere matter of quoting rates. But I come again to the part with which I agree, completing the connection. The hon. gentleman says :	' But
I go further, and I say, the bargain is advantageous to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It must be so, because-to have accepted those conditions is the evidence on the part of the company that it is convinced that there is a vast business to be done, and done at a profit.' I agree with that. I agree that it is a profitable bargain for the Grand Trunk. I agree that it is a bargain likely to result in the further enrichment of the millionaire who is engineering this thing through at the present time, and his camp followers who are supporting him in the measure. But what I call the attention of the House and the country to is that it is going to be too profitable to the promoters of the scheme and vastly too unprofitable and unfair to the people of the Dominion of Canada.
Now, what is the price ? I have a1 little book here. It is not a Bible, but it is a good book ; and from it I get the price. I am glad I have this book. Hon. gentlemen upon the government benches, the hon. members of the government, the right hon. leader himself, have failed to give the House that enlightenment or the country that information, which it reasonably demands on this important question :	What is to be
the price ? But I am within the fact when I say that the hon. members of the government had in their possession this little book, which was presented to them as the initial move in this vast transcontinental, all-Canadian line ; and if they had consulted this book, or if they had seen fit to see what is in it, we would have known better at this stage what the price is to be. This is a book issued by the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific, I do not know which. Where any hon. member can draw the line between these two companies I do not know. It is also issued! by ' the interests,' whatever they are,

*which are promoting the scheme. Whether that means Senator Cox or not I do not know. Hon. gentlemen are as able to form their conclusion as I am. Hon. members of this House will remember the assiduity with which members of the Railway Committee endeavoured to elicit from those who were promoting the scheme in the committee whether or not a subsidy was required. They were dumb as a porcupine, somebody says.
You would think that they had not formed a conclusion, that in their innocence they bad come to the railway commission without having thought of the matter, but back of that, when this matter was first discussed in the newspapers, in November last, this pamphlet was issued. It may have been ready before that, but I have no reason to suppose that it came to the notice of the government before that day. It is headed :
' government aid or subsidy required.' The lion. Minister of the Interior tells us that throughout the Dominion there is a demand for another railway, that there is an outcry in the west and in the centre and repeated right down to the sea for an additional railway. There is a demand, no doubt, a demand which is at the back of this whole matter, and to which it owes all its impulsion, and that is the demand of Cox & Company on the government for a subsidy, as set forth in this pamphlet. Before setting forth in the pamphlet this demands these gentlemen tell us of ' the Dominion's needs.' Evidently they thought the government did not know. These railway promoters have evidently not a very high opinion of the government, and they perhaps know and understand the members of the cabinet better than we do. Under the heading I have mentioned, this little pamphlet goes on to say :
The unanimous report of all explorers who have travelled over the territory north of the Georgian bay and Lake Superior, is to the effect that it will not in the immediate future furnish business sufficient to support a railway, and it would not, therefore, he a business proposition to build one there.
That is what we find in this pamphlet. But it is a business proposition I am after. If the proposition be not a good business one, I do not care whether it emanates from the Grand Trunk Railway or anybody else.
I shall not support it. If this be not a business proposition, it will not work out with the business men of the west. These men are sharp to look after their own interest, they are bound to progress, and if my hon. friend thinks he is going to gain favour with the people' of the west by an unbusinesslike proposition, if he thinks he is going to secure their support by appealing solely to sentiment. I am inclined to the opinion that he is reckoning without his host. This pamphlet gives a black picture of the country through which this projected railway is to pass-a picture altogether out of harmony with the glowing one given by Mr. LENNOX.
my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Eemieux). It proceeds to say :
It would not therefore be an unbusinesslike proposition to build one there unless it was used as a link to reach the more fertile lands of Manitoba and the North-west ; the mileage through this unproductive section is estimated as 1,000 miles.
The line from Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains for a distance about oue thousand miles, will pass through a fertile territory but without population, or business, which must be created, but which is undoubtedly capable eventually of sustaining a very large community. It is, therefore, considered, by the interests presenting this proposition, as not unreasonable for the government to assist in tho undertaking, which will guarantee the road being built in a first-class manner, and up to modern standards in all respects, as to roadbed, bridges, stations, equipment, &c.; and assure the development of as virgin and as more extensive section of country north of the Canadian Pacific Railway than was opened for settlement by the construction of that railway, and extending north of the boundary line.
Here is tlie point as to the subsidy :
It is. therefore, quite as much in need of, and entitled to aid from the government, on its merits, at this time, as the Canadian Pacific Railway was at the time it was constructed, about eighteen years ago.
Here we have a definite proposition from this company at a time when they did not intend to run that unprofitable branch from Levis to Moncton, and they demand from the government, as a condition of their constructing the line, a subsidy equal to that granted the Canadian Pacific Railway. This will be, I submit, a measure of the cost which we may expect to incur in the constructiou of this road, now that practically the whole burden of construction is assumed by the government. What did tlie Canadian Pacific Railway cost the country ?	$65,000,000 in cash and $75,000,000
in land, is about the lowest estimate of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not disposed at present to controvert their figures. I might, if I wished, show that they are valuing the land at more than it was worth at the time the c mpany obtained it. But let that go. $140,000,000. we will say, is the amount paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and definitely and specifically this new company was formed on the proposition that they should receive equal aid. What do the facts go to show ? Do they go to show that this undertaking will cost the government as much as $140,000,000 ? I shall again appeal to the authority of the Grand Trunk Railway. taken from this pamphlet, in support of the proposition that the road will cost every dollar of $150,000,000 before it is completed. I attach no importance to the fact that, as to the western section, there is only a guaranty, whereas the eastern section is to be paid for directly by the country. The government assume the total liability, and it is! not to be supposed that it will ever be wiped out. The government build the eastern section, and three quarters

of the prairie and mountain section, and the total outlay, the total guarantee of the government, is the proper measure to be used in estimating the liability of the government expense to the country. But the First Minister and the Minister of the Interior answer us that the government have absolute security and absolute immunity from the possibility of having to pay. They point to the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway assets amount to ?150,000,000. Well, admit the $150,000,000, and I am still doubtful. I do not like the way this thing has been launched. I do not think it is npen and above board. With whom are we dealing ? We have been told time and again that we should not deal with a company which is not in existence. But we know that we are dealing with such a company. Worse than that, we are dealing with two companies, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and il l man on earth can discover the line of demarcation between them. It is like the case of : heads I win, tails you rose. This is a cover which is always used when men want to reap the profit, if profit be made, and slink out if loss be incurred. It is the sleeping partner business. It is not profitable to the country. It may be profitable to the company ; but should there be disaster. that disaster will be loaded on the country. What is the security of the Grand Trunx Railway ? If a man comes to me and wants to borrowi $1,300 and I ask him for security, and he says he will give Mr. Brown, and if Mr. Brown borrowed from me $1,500 in 1865 years ago, upon which he has paid neither a cent of capital or interest, would I not be justifiable in refusing to take him as security 7 Could you blame me 7 It is said that a man will pay his own debt when he will not pay a suretyship debt, it is a common tendency in such cases for the man to say :	I am not called upon to pay;
let the creditor lose who took the profit. Then, what is the position in which the country stands in relation to this proposition ? We- are offered the security of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Can-ala. In 1865, they borrowed $15,000,000 from the people of this country. They have not paid it back. Worse' than that, like the debtor I have spoken of, they have never paid a single cent of interest, and, on the 30th June last the amount due stood at $58,308,179. I have no word to say against the Grand Trunk Railway^ Company. I recognize that, side by side with the great Canadian Pacific Railway, they have done much to develop the interests of this country, and, of course, they have done it to their own great advantage. But when it is put forward as a business proposition by any hou. member of this House, when it is put forward by the right hon. leader of the House and the chief members of his cabinet that we are secure in a contract of
this kind because we have the security of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I ask what reason is there in believing, what common sense is there in believing, that the position and action of that company will be better in the future than it has been in' the past 7 What guarantee have we that we shall be better treated in the future and in this new deal than we have been in the past 7 And if the treatment accorded us should be the same, at what untold millions will the amount of their indebtedness to the people stand ? Now, I have a further word to quote from this little book of facts ; -bear in mind, ' facts '-not theory, but cold facts as set forth in this book issued by the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself, the company that has the certificate and endorsement and guarantee of the government. You cannot dispute the honesty of your own witness; you cannot cavil at the respectability of the man you put in the witness box. And I know the government will dispute the testimony of this veracious chronicle.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Voracious 7


Haughton Lennox: Veracious and voracious too. We are told here that the railway from Quebec to the Pacific coast will be 3,025 miles long. This is made up by specifically giving the distances five hundred odd miles to North Bay, and the remainder for the western stretch. At that time, that is what the railway company contemplated building ; and it should never be forgotten by members of this House who wish to give an honest, fair and full consideration to this measure that we are dealing now not with a proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, not with what they wanted to do, but with that proposition and an unprofitable tail tacked to it, forced upon them reluctantly, forced because of political exigencies and political necessity, as a means, as the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Eminerson) would have us understand, of rallying under his banner and to his support, as against the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) in a solid phalanx, the voters of New Brunswick. We shall see how it will work out. I do not wish the hon. minister-no, he is not a minister yet-I do not wish the hon. member for Westmoreland any worse luck than he had in the delivery of that speech ; I do not wish him any worse luck than he will have when 'he meets the ex-Minister of Railways, if that hon. gentleman thinks it worth while to lift him up, shake him a little and drop him into one of the bottomless ravines over which this new railway from Levis to Moncton is to pass. We have no absolute guide as to what the length of the Levis to Moncton road will be. I will not take the extreme. The right hon. first minister said that it will shorten the distance from 80 to 120 miles, as compared with the Intercolonial. The hon. Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), I think, put it at sixty miles. The ex-Minister of Railways puts it at 77 miles. The distance by the Intercolonial is 488 miles. Let us take about the average of these estimates of saving and take off the odd 88 miles. This would leave us with 400 miles of railway to construct here, making a total construction of the whole railway from Moncton to the Pacific coast of 3,425 miles. Now, I have to refer to another key to unlock the hidden mystery which contains the secret of what this railway is to cost us. The government has not seen fit to tell us what it will cost, so we have to find out the facts for ourselves. The interests presenting this scheme-' scheme,' I think that is the very proper phrase used-further states :
According to the reports of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year 1901, the present railway, with a mileage of 1,301 miles, and a capital account of $63,640,028 cost the country, $48,900 per mile. On this basis, to extend the government railway through to the Pacific coast as has been proposed in some quarters, would cost the country $141,810,000, entailing an annual interest charge at three per cent rate paid by Canada of $14,254,000.
This is a business proposition. The voice of the people from all quarters had not been heard by the right lion. Prime Minister at that time. He had not felt the throb and beat of the heart of this country, of which lie speaks. They are dealing with cold, hard propositions of fact. Does the government want to throw doubt upon the word of this member of the Senate ? For the Senate is not wliat is was in years gone by. Time was when, according to gentlemen opposite, it was useless, worse than useless, a drag upon the interests of the country, a menace to our best interest that ought to be wiped out and a clean slate made. All this we were told by lion, gentlemen opposite at one time. But tlie Senate is all right now. We have the certificate of the right lion, leader of the government that the Senate is the very thing required. As rapidly as Conservative Senators die out, the Senate is filled from the ranks of the truly elect. So the government will hardly say that this is a shahi and a fraud, that it Is a hold-up, that it is intended to intimidate the government, and that it is for this reason it is stated that, at the rate the Intercolonial cost the country, it will cost over $141,000,000 for the government to extend its railway, not from ocean to ocean, but from Quebec to tbe Pacific. The government dare not say that, these gentlemen were doing otherwise than presenting a conservative and reasonable estimate of cost, as they were bound as honest men to do in endeavouring to make a deal or bargain with the government representing the people of Canada. Tlie government will not dispute the testimony of this witness. So, you have a mileage of 3,425 miles from Moncton to the Pacific coast. At the rate given by the promoters of this scheme, Mr. LENNOX.
$4S,900 a mile, you have a total cost of $107,482,500. The company undertake to pay one-quarter of the cost of the western section from Winnipeg to the Pacific. If we estimate this at 2,000 miles, we get a total cost for that section of $97,800,000, and one quarter of this would he $24,450,000. And, deducting this amount from the total cost, we find that the government's share, according to the estimates of the Grand Trunk Railway ' Facts,' to be $143,032,500. Leaving a total cost in excess of the 25 per cent which was paid by the company as estimated by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, of $143,032,500, coming pretty close to their figures when they demanded that they should stand upon the same basis as the great colonization road, the great iron link between the provinces from the east to the west, the Canadian Pacific Railway-$140,000,000 on the one hand, and $143,000,000 to be paid by the government on the other, and a paltry and miserable excess of 25 per cent upon the western branch to be paid by the Grand Trunk, and which is alone to be paid by them.
But this is exclusive of a lot of things that they would naturally like to leave out. To get the true amount we must consider them. I am not going to take into consideration the fees which we have to pay to the London agents in negotiating a loan, the expenses of the Finance Minister in his journeyings from Canada to London and from London to Canada-at an enormous expense to this country-in endeavouring to float this loan; but I am going to count the interest. Now, five years is the time estimated for construction. We will not want the whole of the money at once, but we will want some of it almost at once, and we will want all of it before the road is completed, so I average it at half the time. So that instead of charging five years' interest at 3 per cent, I charge two and a half years' interest at three per cent, and we have on that account-and those who are familiar with matters of this kind can correct the figures if they are wrong, but they are approximately correct-we have $10,025,000 for that interest account. That brings us down to the time when it is supposed that the road will be completed. But we have to take into account the prevalency of strikes and setbacks of that kind. We have to understand that in a scheme so gigantic as this, it is hardly conceivable that it will go along without a hitch ; so it is questionable whether it will be completed at the end of five years. But let it go at that. Say at the end of five years we will have expended on principal and interest account, $153,657,000. Does it end there ? The right hon. gentleman said, when he was adducing his proof the other day-which turned out to be of a fallacious character, of the ornamental character that I have referred to-he said,
' This is not all.' Let me say, this is not all. Yon have to add the interest at

three per cent lost on the seven lean years, which equals 21 per cent for the period. You have to compound it. Why ? Because you have to borrow every dollar of the money required, and when a man has to borrow he cannot pay back, and whether you call it additional interest on principal or interest upon interest, it all comes out of the same treasury and comes to the same result-it will not cost less than 25 per cent of the funded amount at the end of the construction period, namely, $153,657,500, not less than a quarter of that sum to carry it through those seven lean years-and I do not think there will be any fat years in this case-the years while the government is allowing this company nominally and actually to have this property for nothing. That brings us to a total of $38,414,375. Talk of $13,000,000 as being the outlay to this country ! I have shown-and the figures, though they may not be right in detail, in principle they are incontestable-I have shown that down to the end of the time when the company say that possibly they will begin to pay, down to that time we have expended in interest account alone not less than $48,000,000. Well,
' this is not all,' as the right hon. gentleman says. We have three years during which the company may or may not pay something on account. We do not know, no one knows, the government do not know ; the future alone can tell. But we have to stand idly by for fifteen years from to-day and keep pouring our money into what may prove to be a bottomless pit, and at the end of fifteen years when the account is made up, then for the first time the country will know and realize what an enormous expenditure this has been of the resources of the people.
Now, ' this is not all.' It may be said- and in dealing with a proposition of this kind I am determined not to say one word beyond what I actually believe, I will not stretch one argument beyond what I believe, and history, the great vindicator, will verify what I say-it may be argued, I say, and fairly argued, by the government, that we won't have to pay $48,000 a mile for the western section, because the guarantee is limited to $13,000 a mile for the section from Winnipeg to the mountains, and $30,000 a mile for the section west through the mountains. I have, however, preferred to make the account on the first view of the matter advisedly. for this reason, that there is no man who has even a limited knowledge of politics, or parliamentary government, whether parliament be led by the right hon. gentleman or whether it be led by the hon. leader of the opposition-who will soon be on the other side of the House-I say, let it be led by one party or the other, once this scheme is launched, you cannot invoke the condition as to $13,000 and $30,000 a mile as the limit of our liability. Why ? Because once they have enjoyed in construction and reached this limit, the company says, We cannot go on, we must have more money-why, then it must have more money, the absolute cost will have to be met by the people of this country. So I am right in presenting the proposition as it is presented by the friends of the government and by the company which is negotiating this project, and I am right in availing myself of their figures.
But in order that I may make no mistake, in order that I may be quite fair, I imt it the other way. It has been said by a good many hon. members that the distance from Winnipeg to Moncton is 1.800 miles. The figures I have, show 3,025 miles of the original mileage by the Grand Trunk from Quebec to Port Simpson, and it is 400 miles as I have mentioned, from Quebec to Moncton. I estimate the 1,800 miles from Moncton to Winnipeg at $48,900 a mile, what the Intercolonial cost. This is a fair account of the known difficulties, the peculiar difficulties of the new line, of the haste with which it is going to be constructed, and on the basis of the statement made by experts of the Grand Trunk Kailway. This makes $88,020,000. I said when I was beginning that the useless branch, that worse than useless branch, the branch that is going to militate against the interests of the Intercolonial, would cost not less than $70,000,000. Now, the 1,000 miles of the prairie section at $13,000 a mile, makes $13,000,000, and 625 miles of the mountain section' at $30,000 a mile, makes $18,750,000, so you have a total expenditure far beyond the line suggested by the Grand Trunk Company, of $119,770,000. Add the two and a half years' interest on construction account, compounded equal to say 881 per cent, equal to $10,080,450, and you bring up the sum that is to bear interest to a total of $129,850,450, at the end of the construction period. This will have to bear the interest for the next seven years, during which, the railway will be absolutely and admittedly unproductive to the people of Canada. I count the interest as amounting actually to twenty-one per cent which, capitalized, will be not less than twenty-three per cent, or $29,865,603. making the total capitalized amount at the end of the seven year period $159,715,083. Then comes the period of uncertainty. If the railway begins to pay, if it pays enough to pay all its officers, to pay all the contractors and all their * needs and all the incidentals it will then begin to pay the government, but there will be the question of the construction account and accounts of that kind and this company will not begin to pay if they have in their minds what I think they will .possibly have in their minds at the end of the ultimate period. There is $14,374,357 that it will take to carry the account at simple Interest, for the three years of uncertainty, making the total $174,089,440. Will hon. gentlemen say this is speculation,. It is, buti it

is speculation upon a sub-stratum of facts greater than any presented by any lion, gentleman from the government benches. It is speculation and computation based upon the best information available in the House of Commons to-day. It is computation based upon the figures of the gentlemen with whom the government is dealing. It is computation based upon the figures of a gentleman who can do no wrong to Canada-a senator of Canada. There cannot be any doubt about it. Now, Sir, let it be uncertain; its range is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200.000,000 down to $150,000,000. What may happen ? Where are we at then ? That is what no man can tell. The right hon. leader of the government says :	We had to construct the unprofitable end of the road and we had to give them the land of promise so that we might be able to control the rates. I have not heard the criticism of that feature of the scheme answered yet. and I do not think I will hear it answered unless I hear it in this which perhaps is the key to the whole situation. Those who have the immediate control of the matter find themselves subject to forces that stand behind the throne in the matter of elections, they find that party exigencies, in view of the fact that elections are coming on, compel them to submit to those who are in a position to dictate their terms and to say to the government :	That is what you have to do.
Give us a subsidy equal to the Canadian Pacific Railway, give us a contract-upon the basis we have presented to you, upon the basis of the Intercolonial Railway. Take the unknown section along the shores of Lake Superior, take this section which we refuse to construct, take the section from Levis to Moncton and we will take that which has been well described as the garden, agriculturally speaking and minerally speaking as respects a certain portion of it, perhaps, of the world. The government say that they have confidence that these gentlemen will redeem their pledges. I have no confidence. The right hon. gentleman says that they have taken the unproductive sections so that they can control the rates. Could he not have taken the western section just as well as the sections east of Winnipeg ? Sensible thinking men outside of this House-you never can convince some men in this House-sensible men outside of this House will fail to respond to 'the argument presented by the right hon. gentleman. You could, as my hon. friend from Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) says, control the rates if you took over the other end. Every member of parliament knows that, and every man in this country, before the elections come on will know it as well or the Conservative party will be recreant to their duty to the people of this country. The company are given the productive end; they have the reservoir, they have the fountain source of supply. It is not very fax-down hill from Winnipeg to the international Mr. LENNOX.
boundary. The American boundary is riddled with railways and southern Manitoba is in the same state. Where will the right hon. gentleman be and whei-e will his government be-thank God they will not be in power fifteen yeai-s hence-but whei-e would they be if the company should say at the end of fifteen years :	Take your key, take your
controlling section, take your bloomin' ' spout,' take your eastern section, keep it, we have the source of supply, we are the masters of the situation, we have the cards and we will play them as we have played them before; take your bloomin' end, take that or take a compromise of twenty-live cents on the dollar or we will switch the products of the land we have developed in the west, we will ship the products of the garden of the west, not by your line, not by the unpaying line which you forced us to take against our will, but through the United States to American ports. Who comes down ? The coon comes down. You are powerless. I attribute no wrong to any government which may be in power at that time. It matters not whether it is the Conservative or the Libex-al party which are in power at that time, the situation is inevitable, and those who are then in control will have to succumb V That is what in all probability will happen, and that is what, I venture to say, is in the minds and hearts of lion, gentlemen opposite. The right hon. gentleman talks about the heart of the people; that is what is in the minds and in the hearts of these gentlemen at the present time.
Now, I will come to what I have said in reference to the question of better terms raised by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux). I aixi sorry he brought up that question but he did bring it tip. He spoke of the colonization question and also of the question of subsidies to local railways. I do not propose to say that under no circumstances will I consent to subsidies. I will wait until a definite scheme is proposed. I do not say that under no circumstances will I join in granting money for colonization purposes, but I do say that it appears to me that the question, for instance as respects northern Ontai-io or northern Quebec, of granting subsidies to railways for the purpose of colonizing these portions of the country is one that should not be favourably entertained by the members of the Dominion government without good cause clearly shown. It is local in its nature and whilst we have necessity for every dollar we have for the development of Canada as a whole it seems to me that we should not apply ourselves so vigorously as in the past to the subsidizing and promoting of colonization i-ailway schemes. Now, that is the more manifest when we consider that we have awaiting us in the west vast untenanted ti-acts of prairie which will return a rich i-eward to all who go in there to settle. But, I am not in any case

In sympathy with better terms. It was said by the hon. gentleman that Ontario had joined with the other provinces in the raid for better terms. I say all the more disgrace to Ontario's premier, if Ontario did. Ontario surely knows that the larger proportion of that which is given by way of better terms comes out of Ontario itself. Ontario does not want better terms for the purpose of colonizing or building railways if the resources of the province are fairly administered. I had no sympathy with the leader of the Ontario government when he announced the scheme that he did announce with such a flourish of trumpets on certain political .platforms in the campaign in North York. If they had fairly and honestly administered the resources of the province of Ontario, if they had not rejected the appeals of Sir William Meredith and others to conserve the timber interests of the province, if they had not squandered its resources on the Captain Sullivans and American citizens and men of that stamp, the province of Ontario would not to-day be taxed as it is. The government would not be taking her railways for provincial purposes to the detriment of the municipalities; taxing her insurance companies, and so to an additional extent depleting the pockets of the insured, taxing dead men in their estates; taxing the people by all sorts of devices for the purpose of raising money to administer the affairs of the province, which if-properly administered would not require any better terms or any of these illegitimate ways of raising a revenue.
The hon. Minister of the Interior corroborates the hon. member for Gaspfi in saying that the Grand Trunk Company and Senator Cox have a snap. I think it is only just to the hon. Minister of the Interior to give his exact words; but, like the hon. member for Gaspg, he is very zealous, and he proves too much. He proves that the country through which this railway is to pass is such a garden that it is the most iniquitous proposition to give the company a subsidy. It is not denied that we are giving them a subsidy. It is not denied that we are giving them 513,000,000. Why $13,000,000 is mentioned more than any ofher figure I do not know, because it has not come out in any computation that has yet been given.


Edward Cochrane: An unlucy number.


Haughton Lennox: An unlucky number as my hon. friend says. This railway according to the hon Minister of the Interior, is projected through a fertile country, the best part of Canada, with the best immigration swarming into it that has come into any country in most part, so that if there has ever been a case where a railway should be selfsupporting, where there should not be a subsidy, it is this case. The Americans have not granted aid of any kind in support of their magnificent railway development since 1871 ; and if they can forego that very expensive luxury and still have a magnificent system, it is time for Canada to pause and consider where it shall draw the line. Although I do not say that it should be drawn hard and fast in every case, I shall scrutinize every scheme very closely before 1 consent, as representing the county of Simcoe, to giving one dollar of the hard earned money of the people for the promotion of a railway of this kind. The hon. Minister of the Interior said :
The net profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ending the 30th of June, 1902, were $14,085,000, and last year its net profits were $15,000,000. The company have made of their railway enterprise a magnificent success, and if they were called upon to-morrow to incur the liability to pay back every cent of public subvention which they have received, and all the money which they have received for lands, notwithstanding that, the Canadian Pacific Railway company would be a good, sound, and solvent concern. Compared with that enterprise, the route from Quebec to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is a better route	The Canadian Pacific Railway, on the contrary, was built around the north shore of Lake Superior. It. was built through a rocky country which did -not then, and does not now, produce a single pound cf traffic.
Then, speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway line across the prairies, he said :
It runs through the very worst portion of the territories. You could not select a line that could be very much worse unless you got right down close to the international boundary. But this new line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will run from Winnipeg to the Mountain pass through a territory, every mile of which is fertile and productive. It is hardly conceivable that such could be the case, yet the information in the possession of the government amply justify the statement I have made. There -is no such fertile stretch of country in the world.
Hon. gentlemen probably thought 1 was father exaggerating when I was talking of gardens ; hut I am taking the cold, calm, deliberate, judicial statement of tlie lion. Minister of the Interior. With regard to the route through the mountains, he said :
Now take the British Columbia part, for some reason best known to themselves, which nobody has ever been able satisfactorily to explain, the Canadian Pacific Railway chose the Kicking Horse pass, which is the worst pass in the whole lot, and it went through a line of territory which perhaps, of all the different belts that could he opened up through the Rocky mountains is the least productive.
So that we have all the cream left. The Canadian Pacific Railway took the skim milk, and the cream is to go to the Grand Trunk.
And it suffered in consequence. For years it got no traffic, except what its own construction gave, out of that portion which goes through the eastern part of British Columbia. The Grand Trunk Pacific, on the other hand, will go from the Rocky Mountain pass to the coast through as rich a timber and agricultural country as there is in Canada-a country rich in

timber, mineral and soil. Then we must not forget that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was projected, there was no movement of settlement from the outside.
Then he <points out the vast influx of settlement that there is to-day and the teeming millions we must expect in the future, and he sums up by saying :
What is the position now ? We had an immigration into the North-west of 30,000 people last year. If it keeps on at that rate for the next ten years, think what that will mean for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
I need not pursue the matter further. What plausible reason can the most fertile imagination suggest why we should give to the Grand Trunk Pacific admittedly $13,000,000, probably $150,000.0(10, besides entering into an unknown liability, in the face of this testimony from a man so prominent in the counsels of the party, and one who should know the west and what it can produce, if any man in the government does ? Why should we give a subsidy at all in such a case ? We have the hon. Minister of the Interior showing the vast resources of the west, which are fully capable of sustaining any railway, and we have, on the other hand, but upon another branch of the case, the most capable and qualified member of the government as it existed until a few weeks ago, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, denouncing the scheme as wholly indefensible upon the financial side as well as upon all others. And we have the most meagre information as to those parts of the railway about which it is important to have information-the passes in the Rocky mountains and that section which extends along the northern shores of Lake Superior and Lake Huron.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Haughton Lennox: When you left the Chair at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with some statements made by the Minister of the Interior. I was pointing particularly to the fact that he, in common with many supporters of the government, had painted the west and the future of this country in glowing colours. In that respect, I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman. It would be strange indeed if I did not. I would be forgetting the principles I have imbibed during a long period of years from the history of the Conservative party. I am not a whit behind the hon. gentleman in believing that there is a great future for this country. If the affairs of this country are administered as they ought to be, that great future is not far distant. And if I am impressed with the progress and the development which are at hand for the older provinces, I am equally sensible of the great future, the great prosperity, the great aggregation of wealth-1 wealth beyond the dreams of avarice '-which await the sturdy, Mr. LENNOX.
energetic and capable settler of the great west. With regard .to a statement made by the Minister of the Interior, which he seems to take great pleasure in repeating time and again, that the members on this side show uncompromising hostility to the scheme before the House, let me say this : I have no brief to speak for hon. members on this side. I have no mandate to express their sentiments. I am merely voicing my own opinions. But I have ears that can hear and a modicum of understanding, and I have failed to find any utterance on this side which bear the construction given by the hon. gentleman. But what I recognize is that, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, there cannot fail to be, to a large extent, uncompromising hostility to the scheme before us. But there is a most important difference between uncompromising hostility to this particular scheme-and L notice that hon. gentlemen supporting the government, with remarkable unanimity, speak of it as a scheme-and no better word could be used to describe it-and hostility to a well devised measure for the relief of our great west. While there may be uncompromising hostility to this particular scheme, I am not aware that there is any hostility in the ranks of the Conservative party, in or out of this House, to a carefully considered policy for the development of this great country as a whole. One and all, we recognize that the providing of every reasonable facility for bringing to the markets of the world the produce of the great west is of paramount importance and necessity. Tlie hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemienx) asked, in concert with the Minister of the Interior, whether Canada was able to bear the expense of this scheme. Let me say to the House that Canada can afford to pay for everything she needs, for everything that will tend to her development, for everything for which she will get a fair return. Therefore, speaking for myself-and I believe I am in harmony with the consensus of opinion on this side- I am prepared at any time to support any expenditure so long as it makes for the general development of this country. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, and my hon. friend the member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) are close partners in another regard, and partnership, Mr. Speaker, is the order of the day. We have in this scheme the most complicated system of partnership ever devised in connection with parliamentary government in this country. Each of these hon. gentlemen by a singular coincidence, unearthed all the newspapers of last November to show that several gentlemen of prominence, of commercial standing, whose opinions are weighty, have expressed the opinion that a properly devised and financed scheme for the speedy development of the west would be in harmony with their views. They quoted the hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Brock)-and there is no

gentleman in this House for whom I have a greater regard. What they quoted from that lion, gentleman had the merit of brevity. But I imagine there must be a context to it, and I would like to hear the whole of it; but even if that hon. gentleman had declared himself unreservedly in favour of the present scheme, if he had not merely limited himself to saying that he would endorse anything that made for the general development of the country, I would still, without any abatement of my regard for his sincerity refuse to go with him to that length. But even if hon gentlemen opposite could quote hon. gentlemen on this side as endorsing the scheme before us-and they have not so far succeeded in so doing-that would not be a convincing proof of its merit. One swallow does not make a summer ; and taking the word in another sense, one swallow, even if it be $13,000, as announced by the right hon. leader of the government, will not satisfy the insatiable thirst of Senator Cox and his camp followers.
I now come to a question upon which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior stands alone, so far as I have been able to observe. He tells us a story about the Mexican cattle.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is the Texas Steer.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, the one-eyed steer. He tells us that the west required last year 50,000 stockers, and that 25,000 were obtained in Ontario and the other 25,000 had to be sought for in Mexico. Why ? Because of the lack of adequate railway facilities. If I am not mistaken, he said they could not be got in the province of Quebec because we had not the requisite railway facilities. We could obtain 25,000 in Ontario, but not the other 25,000 in Quebec. Of course, we must give the hon. gentleman credit for veracity. We must credit him with a desire to tell the truth, and we want to give him credit for an ordinary common sense. But it is difficult to account for his making the statement I have just drawn attention to, except on the hypothesis that he had been led astray by an exuberant imagination. Have we not the same facilities for transport from the province of Quebec that we have from the province of Ontario ? The assertion is a mistake. It is found upon investigation that the hon. minister is not correctly informed-for I certainly assume that it is only owning to incorrect information- and even a little study of the situation would have set him right. Here is the statement:
There is another line of trade to which Jus' one word of reference may be made. It is the cattle trade. I want to call the attention of this House to a fact or two with which I think they are not acquainted, because they are not likely to have ever been brought to their attention. I want to call attention to the fact that one of the great industries of the Northwest Territories is grazing cattle, as contrasted with raising cattle. Last year we imported 277
into the North-west Territories no less than
50.000	head of what are called stockers, that is, young cattle, bought by the ranchers for the purpose of being finished and perfected for the English market. Where did they get them ? They got 25,000 from the good province of Ontario, and our friend Mr. Crawford, the Conservative member for one of the Torontos in the provincial legislature, says they have not at present facilities for sending their cattle to the North-west, and he wants the Grand Trunk Pacific built so that they will have more facilities. * * Where did they get the rest. They got them from Mexico. * * Here we have
25.000	stockers in one year coming from far away Mexico, because we have not the shipping facilities to take them from Eastern Canada.
I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Crawford. I have known him as a public man ; I have had the pleasure of reading his speeches. But if speeches are an indication of men's minds-and if they are, God help some of these hon. gentlemen on the other side-if a man's speeches are a measure of the calibre of his brain, I take Mr. Crawford to be a sensible, intelligent, practical man. That is the reputation he has. I know that in a county where I was stumping-some hon. gentlemen will say that what I am about to say is no great certificate of Mr. Crawford's ability-it was recognized, where I and some others were going to speak, that if we could get Mr. Crawford, we should have an exceptionally strong man.


Mr. CLARKE.: He is a good man.


Haughton Lennox: Do you think that Mr. Crawford ever, in the Ontario legislature or elsewhere, was ass enough to ask the people of Canada to build a railway costing from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 for the purpose of carrying stockers from Ontario to the great west ? My hon. friend says that the difficulty about the carrying of cattle was a want of cars. We know something in this House, and the.people outside know a good deal more ; and I am quite willing to leave it to the country to say whether the hon. gentleman's information is correct when he leads us to understand that there is shortage of transportation facilities from the east to the west. If there is, we have never heard of it. I have understood-and I have some reasons to know something about it-I have understood and known, that the freight cars are going back to the west empty. Our great measure of prosperity will be attained when that western country is so thickly settled that return cargoes by land and water will be carried from the east to the west. In the same line the hon. gentleman tells us of congestion in the west which has retarded the trade of merchants there. He would have us understand that, these merchants having bought their goods in Europe, or in the great wholesale houses of Montreal and Toronto, the movement of west-bound freight has been so great that there has been a blockade and the merchants could not get their goods. I do not doubt the



honesty and good faith of my hon. friend. He is in a worse position to judge of this measure than even some other members pf this House. He has been away for the greater part of the session. He has come in in a hurry. He has taken his food, as it were on the wing. He lias not digested his argument. And it is asking the people too much to ask them to digest some of the arguments he used. Congestion in westward bound freight upon the railways ? I will be glad enough when that is realized. That will be the acme of our prosperity, when, upon the great lakes and upon our railways, it is found they are as busy in returning goods to the west as they are in carrying out the products of the west. Any one who has studied the question, auy one who lias read the article a few months ago- or it may have been even a year or more ago-in the 'Canadian Monthly' by Edward Farrer, must see the importance and the significance of the fact, which I trust the hon. members of the government will take note of. and the time when we shall have complete control of our 'carrying trade and complete satisfaction in it, the time when we shall be able to reduce the cost of carriage by land and water-that is by land and water combined, which, I say, is to be the ultimate scheme for carrying the products of the west to the east-will come when we have the return cargoes to be taken to a large population in the west.
Now, the Minister of the Interior attempted to show what the first Minister found it important to show, but failed in showing- that there is a demand and a need for the construction of a railway such as they propose. When I come to that, I will produce my proof, and I do not intend to advance anything of which I shall not present proof, or, if not absolute proof, evidence which it is reasonable to present to a deliberative assembly. Before I deal with this point of the Minister of the Interior I want to say a word with reference to the older provinces. I say, and I have said before, that we are prepared to do justice by the west, we are prepared to do even more than justice to the west, as we are ready to act In anticipation of the strides they are making. The people of the west do not want proof of this for they have faith in that Conservative party as was shown in the recent election in Manitoba. For the record of the Conservative party is an unbroken record of good faith of belief in the country and of earnestness and liberality In carrying - out what they have professed. But while I say that for the east and the west, and speaking as I do In a sense for the centre, I want to say something for the older provinces of On-ario. I want to say that the fortunes of the west and the east are bound together. In the larger sense there is no east and there is no west, there is no north or south, it is one combined country, and the sooner you obliterate those boundaries, the sooner Mr. LENNOX.
we make one bold, grand fight like Britons for the general good of all, the sooner we will bring about a realization of the roseate pictures which have been drawn for us by lion, gentlemen opposite.
Now, we have forty-five cities and towns served by the present Grand Trunk system. By the census returns, which I dare say are not padded in the interest of the province of Ontario, those cities and towns have a population of 1,000,940 people. Among them are some Quebec cities. For instance, there is Three Rivers, the only debateable one in reference to my proposition. But I want to say that in those forty-five cities and towns, aggregating over a million people, aggregating almost a million people, if you take out the province of Quebec with its 68,840, if you push through a scheme providing for the shortest route for the raw material out of Canada by this new line without breaking bulk, if that is the policy rather than the policy inaugurated in 1878 to develop a varied industry, to develop agriculture as the handmaid of commerce, and commerce as the handmaid of agriculture, I say if you are to develop that policy, you will give the go-by to these forty-five cities and towns and leave them and their artisans, and their skilled mechanics, land their merchants, without the profit that should come to them mutually by a turn over of this commerce. Have lion, gentlemen opposite lost sight altogether of the fact that the west is not going to be solely an agricultural country ? Tlie people of the west have the energy and the pluck to build up tall chimneys, a large population is going in there to consume the products of the west. It is not by taking the shortest route to the seaboard upon a 3,000 mile haul that you are going to encourage the development of varied industries. Mining, for instance, will furnish an enormous home market for a portion of our products. The great scheme developed in 1878 by Sir John A. Macdonald did not mean a mere tariff policy-and that is where my hon. friends make such a great mistake- it meant not only a protective tariff, but a development of all the great industries which were adapted to the circumstances of this country. Therefore, I do not want a policy which will have the effect of crippling a vast portion of the wealth-producing class in the Dominion of Canada. We have our cities and our towns to consider in Ontario and Quebec, and in a large measure, to the extent of a million souls, the effect of this policy will not be to develop, but to injure, the cities and towns I have mentioned.
The government saw the weakness of the scheme later on. You will recollect. Mr. Speaker, that this Bill of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been so altered and mutilated that its political godfather, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) can now hardly recognize it. As the government proceeded with it they endeavoured to make off-shoots, and try to satisfy the various

cities and towns to tlie south of the proposed line. Well, I venture to say that this policy will not be very beneficial. You may as well try to cut off a rapidly flowing stream by digging a trench at right angles as to try to control the through traffic over that railway, as the hon. gentleman suggests it shall be controlled by aid of the branches to these towns. As a measure it will go through, but the effect will be felt, and I call the attention of the champion of the labour element at this stage to the disastrous effect the government scheme will have upon the workingmen. While I desire to help the hon. gentleman as far as I can, my policy would be to strengthen the centre, to build up the country as Britain built up the empire, by bringing the product of all her colonies and dependencies into the centre, to benefit each other by an interchange of commerce. Now, in that view the Conservative government inaugurated its policy. They deepened and widened our waterways, upon which a large expenditure of money has been made. We have, since the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and since extending our shore line along Lake Superior to Lake Huron, continued to develop our waterways and to expend enormous sums of money. Shall we now have to right-about-face and do away, to a large extent, with the results of that expenditure of money ? I say no, for the locality I represent, I say no, for the localities in which I am interested-I need not say perhaps for the town of Collingwood, because I see my hon. friend from North 'Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is here, and I have little doubt that he will realize the importance to Collingwood of the scheme that is proposed. I know my hon. friend has .been longer in the House than I have. I know lie occupies a unique position, I know he is the leader of a great party-the McCarthy party. My hon. friend, I understand, rather laughs at me because I adopted the leadership of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), when I said I was proud to be under the leadership of a gentleman who fought as long and persistently as he did in favour of a certain question. It is true that my hon. friend's party is smaller than it was. Mr. Stubbs has gone to his reward. The other hon. gentleman who was at one time a supporter of his, is a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, and I will not further refer to him.
But my hon. friend has the satisfaction of leading a united party. They all vote the same way and when you get a party in the House of Commons that all vote solidly that is the balance of power. Talk about the balance of power in the old days ! Still there would be stragglers, there would be those who would not follow party lines. But, my hon. friend occupies an exceptional position, a position that is unique in the history of parties. Therefore, I would not, 277i
I Suppose, be wasting time if I endeavoured at this stage to try to win my hon. friend and his party back from the pernicious course they have adopted, a course which is 'detrimental to our county as a whole, a c ,urse which will rob Collingwood of the benefit of every dollar that has been expended on its harbour, a course which will make a sham and a delusion of every dollar that is spent there, a course that will rob this county of every dollar of the benefit which otherwise would result from the subsidy granted for the construction of vessels granted last session. I can hardly believe that my hon. friend, although he does not think as well of me as I could wish, although he 'deplores my acceptance of the leadership of a gentleman probably who is not as old as myself, will turn a deaf ear to my appeal. If he is deaf to my entreaties I hope he will not be indifferent to the interests of the county which I in part represent, a riding which did him the honour to elect him when he Was quite a young man and which did him that honour in a large measure-and I say it without any disrespect to the h iii. gentleman-because of the respect and esteem in which that county held the late gifted Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I speak of this because I want to get the whole party.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: You got enough of the party in 1896 to suit you.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order..


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman, has taken occasion to refer to 1896, and I do not pretend that I do not know the significance of the reference. The hon. gentleman refers to the election of 1896, when I was a candidate and was woefully defeated. The hon. gentleman refers to the election of 1896 when the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, whose memory I greatly honour, although I did not see politics in the same light as he did, was a candidate and when he was strong in the personal affections of the people of North Simcoe, whose affections he had earlier secured for advocating a grand policy for this country. There was a triangular fight in which you do not know where you stand. Mr. Stewart, the present superintendent of the forestry branch, was a candidate of the reform party, so-called.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) but I think this is a little outside of the question before the House.


Haughton Lennox: It is a good story.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, I know you would not stop me were I not going beyond the limits of the question. I will only say that I received the support of some of the best men of the Conservative party in North Simcoe and that I am proud of my achievement on that occasion. I was

beaten, but tbe people know better now. They now know bow to recognize a good thing when they see it, and I venture to state that when the elections come on again that they will rec gnize a good thing and that it will not redound to the benefit of the hon. member for North Simcoe. But, I am not a man who bears resentment. I remember the hon. gentleman in other days and speaking as regards the attitude of the hon. member for North Simcoe upon this question I confine myself to a suggestion which I think will be in harmony with the views of all hon. members in this House. I have to admire the consistency with which ' the party ' I refer to has followed the present power. I do not know that it is inconsistent with anything the hon. gentleman has hitherto done or said. Independence, in the sense In which the hon. gentleman professes it, generally means independence of the wishes of the electors, independence of traditions because I have no doubt that my hon. friend bears no resentment to this side of the House from which in the past he derived great political advantage. I have no doubt that when we come to power again we shall have a large measure of support from him. * Notwithstanding what has happened may I hope that my hon. friend will desert for a time the Grand Trunk Railway interest and vote in the interests of North Simcoe ? I have the right to speak upon that question. Will he do this or will he deny the interests of North Simcoe and rob Coilingwood, the large township of Not-tawasaga and the surrounding territory generally of the benefits that have been conferred upon it by the Conservative government in the past and by the present administration in more recent times ? The labour interests are represented by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir. Wm. Mulock). The interests of the city of Toronto are identified to a large extent with the interests of the large constituency of North York. The hon. Minister of Labour represents that constituency and he also represents the labouring classes in this country. Will he vote for this measure which will not only be detrimental to the city of Toronto, and to the constituency of North York which he represents, but detrimental also to the great labouring classes whose champion he should be ?
I said that the hon. Minister of the Interior had attempted to show that there was a demand for and a need of this railway policy that the government have propounded. I have referred to the fact that in support of that contention he lias confined himself to quoting extracts mainly from the' papers of November last. I prefer a better source of information. I want to go as much as I can to the best source to find out what are the needs of the west. I have been out west recently, and I have communicated with many gentlemen in the west. I have also what to my mind is the


Haughton Lennox: authority of probably a gentleman best qualified to speak for the west, a gentleman who has proved himself to be capable of grappling with the transportation problem as it affects Manitoba and the west. I refer, of course, to the Hon. R. P. Roblin. On the 10th August he granted an interview to the ' News ' in which he said :
The people of Manitoba and the Canadian west are strongly opposed to the governmet of Canada granting one dollar of the public money or an acre of land to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as an all-Canadian route from coast to coast because they do not see any material advantage in its construction to the people of Western Canada.
'It appears to be an undertaking in the interests of Senator Cox and others,' said the Hon. R. P. Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, to a reporter of the ' News,' at the King Edward Hotel this morning.
This gentleman has been through a recent election in Manitoba, he is in constant touch with the people of the west, and he if any one ought to know the feeling in the west. He says the people there do not see any material advantage in the measure, and if they do not, how can the government see a bonanza in it ?
Continuing, Mr. Roblin stated that the feeling in the west was for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Depot Harbour, by government purchase of the Canada Atlantic. They further favoured the construction of an addition to the Canada Atlantic from a point near Parry Sound to a point on the Canadian Pacific main line, near Sudbury, in order to shorten the all-rail trip between Ontario and Manitoba. The view of the west regarding the extension of the Intercolonial was exactly expressed by Hon. Mr. Blair in his speech in the House of Commons yesterday. The people of Manitoba were ' commercial ' in their ideas, and the proposed construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway had failed to awaken any great public interest, simply because the people could see nothing in it for Manitoba.
Speaking of tbe railway from the Canada Atlantic near Parry Sound to Sudbury, I may say that on the very day of this interview I was at Sudbury, and I found the promoters of that railway actually on the ground. The engineer was there organizing the office, and he told me that some sixty miles of that railway would be constructed this autumn.
But would not its construction as a competing line to the Canadian Pacific benefit the eastern merchants and manufacturers as well as the western merchant, by lowering the the freight rates between Ontario and Quebec, and Manitoba ?' asked the reporter.
'I do not think so,' replied Mr. Roblin. 'The road would, to all intents and purposes, be a Grand Trunk one, in spite of the statements of the government to the contrary.' He went on to say that there was not the slightest indication on the part of the government that the freight rates would be in any manner improved except by the natural course of events.
* Where is the demand for the construction of this road/ continued the Premier of Mani-

toba. ' I fail to find it anywhere.' Manitoba to-day needed no more railways, for the average distance from the_farmer to the railway in Manitoba was but five miles. The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern would be quite able for the next twenty years to supply all the railway necessities of the west. What was wanted was an increased equipment, especially in rolling stock.
Now, I will give the House some statistics on the matter of rolling stock. Railway authorities agree that the measure of a railway's capacity to perform the service for which it is created is gauged by its ability to provide suitable equipment. Taking the returns for 1902 as given in ' Facts ' by
the promoters of this	scheme, we	find thatall the lines of railway	in Canada,	combined,had tlie following equipment :	Total in No. per 100	Canada.	miles.Engines	.. 2,344	12Passenger cars .. ..	.. 2,644	13Freight cars	.. 68,875	365
Tlie freight cars were distributed among the great railways of Canada as follows :
No. of Freight No. per 100 cars.	miles.
Grand Trunk Railway..	24,462	775Intercolonial Railway..	9,689	774Canadian Pacific Railway	
21,342	291Canadian Northern.. ..	1,760	141
The equipment of engines was as follows :
No. of No. per 100
engines, miles.
Grand Trunk Railway..	..	705	22Intercolonial Railway..	..	280	21Canadian Pacific Railway	745	10Canadian Northern	
47	4
I propose for a moment to analyze these statistics. The Canadian Pacific Railway, taking its total length, is 140 engines short of the average of engines possessed by all the railways of Canada; and when you reflect on the many little local lines which have only one or two engines in some cases, you realize the necessity that exists for increased equipment on the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Northern is 100 engines short of the average. The total shortage of tiiese two c mpanies in this respect is 240. In the matter of freight cars the Canadian Pacific Railway is below the average by 5,402 and the Canadian Northern by 2,800, making 7,202 in which these two companies are below the average equipment of the railways of Canada. Is there any reason why the equipment of these two great lines should not and will not in the near future equal that of the Grand Trunk V We have the Intercolonial in equipment side by side with the Grand Trunk, a magnificent asset, purchased, I admit, at a very considerable expense to the people of this country, to begin our work of developing anew tlie products of the west. The Canadian Pacific Railway, to have an equipment in
the matter of engines equal to that of the Grand Trunk, requires 883 more engines than it has, and the Canadian Northern requires 225 more engines, or a total between these two companies of 1,108. The Canadian Pacific Railway freight equipment is below that of the Grand Trunk by 33,872 cars, and the Canadian Northern freight equipment is below that of the Grand Trunk by 7,925, or a shortage between these tjyo railways of 41,794 cars. Looking at the congestion and the delay in transporting the products of the west, is there an hon. gentleman here who is not convinced that even if the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern Railways obtained a tithe of this equipment, there would be abundant facilities for transporting the products of the west for many years to come ?
You will have then 1,900 instead of 792 engines upon those lines, 64,900 cars instead of 23,102, or you will have practically the present rolling stock of those two railways multiplied by three. Let me not be misunderstood. In giving these figures I am not casting the slightest reflection upon either the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway. The Canadian Northern Railway is in the process of rapid development. It is showing an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of Canada. It has hitherto been devoting its energies to construction rather than equipment, but it }s now coming to the front; and by the time we next meet in this House, no doubt the rolling stock of the Canadian Northern Railway will be vastly increased. Then as to the Canadian Pacific Railway, although it has not cars equal to the Grand Trunk Railway In mileage, it has an aggregate of freight cars and engines almost equal to the Grand Trunk Railway. When we reflect that the Grand Trunk Railway has been in existence over half a century and the Canadian Pacific Railway only comparatively a few years, and that it operates in a country which is full of engineering difficulty-difficulties that were declared by hon. gentlemen opposite to be absolutely insurmountable-when we take these things into consideration, we must give the Canadian Pacific Railway credit for the position in which it stands to-day. We have been told that the Canadian Pacific Railway have ordered 2,000 additional cars and two hundred and twenty-five additional engines. These are probably in its service at present, and will relieve to a great extent the congestion in tlie west. What is wanted it not additional roadbed, not to multiply the roadbeds and to duplicate tlie expense of the system, but to consolidate, as far as possible. and to provide efficient equipment upon all these great trunk lines-equipment at least equal to that of the Grand. Trunk Railway.
I have read the well considered statement of the boil. Mr. Roblin, who emjoys tlie confidence of the people of Manitoba to an extent seldom accorded to any public man. I

hardly think, however, that the government would care to adopt Mr. Roblin as a witness.	There is not a bond of
concord between them, but I shall produce a witness between whom and the government there is a strong bond-a gentleman whose authority they dare not dispute, a gentleman whom the right hon. the leader of the government publicly announced as the best railway authority in the Dominion of Canada or on the continent of America, a gentleman whom the government desired as chairman of the Transportation Commission. I refer to Sir William Van Horne. What does he say ? He says :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other all-Canadian route will never voluntarily carry a carload of wheat by the all-railway route around the great lakes to an eastern Canadian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it will never pay any road to do so. Nor will the transportation problems in the west ever be solved by the construction of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.
I cannot conceive what testimony could be more convincing than that of this gentleman who was selected to solve the transcontinental problem. His declaration I take to be a condemnation, as square and fair as you can imagine, of the government's scheme. Sir William Van Horne went on to say :
That the Canadian Pacific Railway shipped every carload of wheat that it was possible to ship by their steamship lines on the great lakes from Port William to Owen Sound, and thence east by rail, or else by way of Buffalo and the Brie canal. The long haul around the great lakes was dreaded, because it was unprofitable and the bulk of the grain brought uy that route was carried during the winter months, and used by the millers of Ontario to keep their mills in operation during the cold season. There was altogether too much talk of an all-Canadian route by people who were entirely ignorant of the situation.
That is rather cold justice meted out by Sir William Van Horne to the right lion, gentleman who leads the House. He further said :
He considered that in discussing the allCanadian route, a great mass of the people seemed to forget what it cost to construct a road through such a country as that around Lakes Huron and Superior. They also seemed to forget that such an unprofitable piece of road had to be maintained and kept in the best of order. Such a piece of construction was like a bridge ; there was no profit in it, but it had to he constructed and maintained. The Canadian Pacific Railway had been practically forced to expend their $25,000,000 grant from parliament in constructing their line through the rough country, and part of the money derived from the sales of their lands in addition.
Sir William declined to say anything upon the fast Atlantic service, or directly on the railway situation at Ottawa, 'in fact,' he said, 'I simply don't read what is written about the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project.'


Haughton Lennox: Let me direct the attention, especially of lion, gentlemen on the government benches, to where we are at. We have Mr. Roblin claiming that this scheme is not demanded, ' not needed,' says Mr. Roblin, ' not effective even if constructed.' That covers the ground pretty well. The only point hon. gentlemen have to ascertain is whether Mr. Roblin is in a position to judge. ' It IS not a solution,' says Sir William Van Horne, ' not practicable, not reasonable.' No one can doubt Sir William Van Horne's competency in these matters. He has been giving bis attention to railway matters for years. He was requested to take the chairmanship of the commission which was to solve the transportation problem.
I have another source to quote from, and this ought to be testimony, if not for the cabinet, at all events, for the following of the cabinet-a gentleman whom these hon. gentlemen were accustomed and proud to look up to, the ex-Minister of Railways. He too joined in saying that, while he severed his connections with great reluctance and without a vestige of reason except the question of the interest of the country and the difference of the policy of the government, while his relations with his colleagues were friendly and all that could be desired in that regard, an'd while he appreciated the position he had, yet he was forced to resign from his position because he had come to the conclusion, that, to use his own words, the scheme was absolutely and utterly Indefensible. Nor is that all. We have the statement of the promoters of this railway. I will not read it again, it covers practically the same ground as that which I quoted you this morning. But what I quoted then with regard to another point will apply to this, that there is no population in what we will call the lake section, there is no population in the prairie section, and there is no population, while there are great engineering difficulties, in the extreme western section. In all these statements, there is not a suggestion of relieving any congestion in the territory served by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. The road is launched as a colonization and immigration road. It is pointed out, how much the Canadian Pacific Railway has done to people the west, and it is suggested that this railway would have the effect of increasing the rapidity of inflow of population into the country served by this road. Now, am I right


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Haughton Lennox: If hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, are through with their interruptions, I wish to say that there have occurred instances of men shouting before they are out of the hush, and I am inclined to think that those who shouted a few days ago, when this measure was introduced, will raise a different note when they face the electors. I do not think they will feel

quite so hilarious. I see the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)


Mr. GOURLEY.: Hit him again.


Haughton Lennox: No, I am only going to appeal to him. I see that hon. gentleman always in the front rank of those who wish to interrupt me. I suppose that his interruptions proceed from the best of motives. I suppose it is to give me encouragement. I know it must proceed from some worthy cause. Rut he leads the interruption. I wish him merriment of it when lie comes to North Simcoe again. There, as suggested by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Benne.tt), he has got rid of his native town of Barrie.


William Humphrey Bennett: The electors there would have given it to him.


Haughton Lennox: I was going to say : Am I right in concluding from the facts that the question of blockade in the west, as the cause of the government proposed like the question of bonding privileges, was an afterthought and a. myth ? I think that those who study this question in cold blood, not answering to a party lash, will come to the conclusion that both the suggestion of a blockade in the west and the suggestion of our being on the eve of losing our bonding privilege are afterthoughts and makeweights, a padding in the effort to defend the scheme, which, as the ex-Minister of Railways has said, and proven, is absolutely indefensible. I like to give my hon. friends of the government credit for the best motives. I notice that the hon. member for Gaspfi (Mr. Lemieuxl claimed that the exMinister of Railways had shown in the debate great warmth and a spirit of hostility. I am not concerned with that. I have only to say that we have the certificate of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) that absolutely no motive actuated the Minister of Railways but the loftiest motives and the desire to promote what he believed to be the best interest of the country. I leave the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Gasp 6 to fight out that question of motive. I want to know, do the government know they are on the wrong track ?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: No.


Haughton Lennox: Well, they will know it in a few minutes, and on very high authority. There is a good deal the government do not know, and when you travel from the ministry to some of their following, it is across the mountains and over vast ranges of country. Hon. gentlemen can go on interrupting if they think fit. I say the government does not know that except in equipment, we have ample facilities for the carriage of western grain, and that this fact has been definitely stated by ministers of the Crown. Then, where are we at ? Are we going to have another resignation ? A minister who was in the House this morning, and a strong member of the cabinet, has said so. We have lost two of these strong men this session, and three before this session. The late Sir Oliver Mowat went out while it was perfectly safe. Sir Louis Davies went out for a safer and better position. And we lost the late Hon. David Mills, who was promoted to a position on the bench. I do not refer to men who died in harness, but those who left the cabinet voluntarily. This session we have had two men who have left the cabinet because they did not find the policy of the government such as they could support. Are we going to lose another ? I said he was a strong man. I presume the House has anticipated of whom I speak, for you naturally pick out these men. I refer hon. gentlemen to the debate on the 7th of May, last session, an excellent speech had been made by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Mac-Laren) on the question of transportation, more particularly as affecting the waterways. I refer to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture to that speech. He is the strong member of the cabinet, who, I think, will probably be forced to resign unless he has changed his opinions since then. He says at page 4377 :
The waterways of Canada are far superior toto those of the United States	But
that the government have already taken steps to remedy, and to-day there are large contracts being carried out for the improvement of Port Colborne, at the completion of which I venture to think that port will seriously rival the port of Buffalo in the facilities and advantages which it will afford for the transhipment of grain and other products from the ships plying on the great lakes to those which ply on
the canals	This fact of Itself makes
our waterways far superior to the waterways of the United States where no such cargo can be carried from the interior of the continent to the seaboard without breaking bulk at Buffalo and transhipping into smaller vessels to pass through the Erie canal.
That is only Introductory. Now the hon. gentleman makes his confession, and he then and there deliberately proclaimed that we needed no more railways and no more shipping facilities, no more improvement to our waterways, but that what we wanted was rolling stock and ships. He went on to say :
But putting politics aside entirely, let me say that Canada as a whole, both this government and its predecessors,' has devoted enormous sums of money to the solving of the transportation problem and has never shrunk from doing what the country thought necessary in order to provide transportation facilities. Our canal system is probably the greatest on the face of' the earth. Our government railway, the Intercolonial, and the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, both of which have been largely assisted by this country are probably, in proportion to our wealth and population, the greatest railroad system [DOT]n the globe. Canada has borne, and is to-day bearing the burden, by paying the interest on the debt incurred for the purpose of perfecting

our transportation facilities. These facilities are not at all utilized to their full extent. Our canal system is not at all utilized to the one-hundreth part of its capacity. If the enterprising capitalists of this country would undertake to supply the necessary vessels, there is nothing to prevent our canals being utilized in a way hitherto undreamed of, and I have bo doubt that the investment would prove profitable both for the promoters and the country.
Under these circumstances I venture to think that neither the government or the people of Canada can be looked upon as recreant to this part of their duty or lacking in enterprise and determination to advance along the lines of material progress. If these facilities have not been utilized to the utmost possible extent, it is because the people of Canada have been devoting themselves to other things-the farmers to the production of goods, the merchants to selling these goods to advantage, and now they are beginning to see and understand that greater facilities in the way of transport are necessary, not in the shape of canals, not in the shape of railway tracks, but in the shape of improved rolling stock for the railways, and of ships for the utilization of the canals which now exist.
I need not refer to any more of the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. I commend them to that hon. gentleman, and I hope he will digest them before he records his vote. I say deliberately that it will be a pretty sharp turn for the Minister of Agriculture to take, after expressing these views only a year ago, to vote for this railway deal now, to take hack all that he said then, unless he is willing to confess that he was wrong then and that he is right now.
Now, other gentlemen have spoken in support of the government and have been replied to pretty fully, as a rule. I wish to refer to one gentleman who stands in the relation, we may say, of parson to the party, and of parson to the government, a gentleman of extreme moral attainments, a gentleman who, whenever there is a difficulty, steps in and smooths the troubled waters, and gives good advice, gives us the benefit of his long experience in the House, a gentleman who has, I think, occupied pretty nearly every side of every question that has been presented to the House of Commons for a number of years-I refer to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) When that hon. gentleman tells us what we ought to do, and gives us facts and figures his record is such that I like to look carefully into the matter before I decide to accept his facts. I will not say a word against that hon. gentleman, but I will quote his own language and give his own description of himself. Speaking on the budget debate in 1902. I find his saying, on page 1523 of the Debates :
There is one thing in connection with that administration which I think the administration in power may properly take into consideration. We had in Canada in the early years of the Mackenzie administration, a strong protectionist feeling.


Haughton Lennox: They never let it out for a long time. The hon. gentleman was giving a warning to the Finance Minister of the present administration, calling his attention to the mistake they made in 187(1 or 187S, and urging him not to repeat that mistake. He goes on to say :
There were in the Liberal party, among the supporters of Mr. Mackenzie, a number of members who believed that the duties should be advanced and that the government should adopt a protective policy of a moderate character and to a limited extent. This policy was advocated by the members for the city of Hamilton who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Montreal, who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Toronto, by the member for South Brant and by myself.
We never heard of it. He goes on to say :
These demands, it is not necessary t* say, were of the most moderate character. There were good reasons for adopting this policy. The revenue of the country was insufficient to meet the expenditure even with the careful and economical administration of Mr. Mackenzie.
He then goes on to point out that certain gentlemen coming from the maritime provinces, Mr. .Tones and others, threatened the government if they raised the duties, and that the government surrendered to the threats of the members from the maritime provinces. He goes on :
Our chances were thrown away. I fought for an increase in the duties, for I believed that the salvation and existence of the Liberal party depended upon the government taking the course that my friends and myself then advocated. We failed. The .duties were not increased	I went to my constituency-
Let me pause here. The hon. gentleman has shown us that he had a conviction in favour of a protective policy, that many other members of the Liberal party held the same conviction, but that a different policy was adopted. Now we come to see what he does. Does he, as an honest man, go out and announce that he is a protectionist ? Let him speak for himself :
I felt it. I went to my constituency and held meetings for the two years that elapsed before the elections. I held twenty or thirty meetings in each year, because I felt that my position was in danger. I felt that as a supporter of the Mackenzie government I was liable to be defeated, and in June, 1878, I wrote to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. I had previously implored our friends to go into the field, to hold meetings to combat this new principle, and I had warned them if this was not done they were in danger.
That is the description that the hon. gentleman gives of himself. He says while he believes in protection that for two years he held twenty or thirty meetings in each year and that at these meetings he proclaimed free trade and denounced protection. He was deceiving the people, and his speeches were being quoted from one end of the

country to the other as the speeches of an honest man. Then the hon. gentleman goes on :
Now, the mistake of the government of that time was simply this. They underrated the force of the currents of public sentiment that pervaded the country. They did not realize how strong a hold this doctrine of protection had taken upon the public mind. They failed even to take advantage of the circumstances they might have taken advantage of, by combating vigorously in every riding in the Dominion this so-called heresy. They failed to do it, and they were beaten.
This moralist, this lion, gentleman who comes to guide this House, is the same hon. gentleman who for twenty-five years occupied as false a position, politically speaking, as an hon. gentleman could assume, and yet this hon. gentleman comes now and asks us to accept his doctrine and facts and conclusions upon a matter as Important as this. He continues :
Now, I am afraid I shall be considered an inconsistent man.


Mr. EDWARDS.: There is no trouble about that.


Mr. CHARLTON.: My hon. friend says there is no trouble about that. I must confess that I cannot hold on to the doctrines of absolute free trade, as my hon. friend does, in the light of the experience I have passed through and the knowledge I have obtained.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: X am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) is not discussing the question which we have to examine. I would remind him that we are discussing the question of the transcontinental railway.


Haughton Lennox: This is along the same lines, but X will be guided by you, Mr. Speaker. However, I had about concluded my remarks on that point. I was referring to this matter for the purpose of informing the country who it is that is giving it advice and information upon these matters of grave importance. It is important that we should be in a position to judge whether we should take that hon. gentleman's statements without any question or not. The hon. gentleman is not without a record upon the immediate question before the House. The hon. gentleman attended the Railway Committee of this House on the 3rd June last, and he spoke upon that occasion. He lias since spoken. The other day when he spoke I understood from what he said that he endorsed with much praise the policy which is now proposed by the government, including the extension from 1-6 vis to Moncton. What did the hon. gentleman say, and he said a good deal more that I will not bother with ? On the 3rd June, 1903, in the Railway Committee, in the presence of hon. members who may be here in the House, the hon. gentleman said :
I do not believe in saddling five or six hundred miles on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to make a connection at Moncton, to compete with the government railway making that property valueless.	-
A pretty sharp turn.
The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) commented upon the fact that hon. members on this side of the House applauded the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) when he was outlining what lie believed to be the proper policy in regard to railways and was criticising the present policy, and showing that it was not in the interests of the country. Why should we not applaud ? Has the exMinister of Railways and Canals become suddenly wicked and bad ? He was an honourable man until a few weeks ago. Everybody then on the other side of the House would applaud him. He could not speak without rounds of applause from the government benches. Have hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House not only no toleration for anybody who is speaking, but no toleration for any man who differs from them in his views and who once belonged to their party ? I am inclined to think from the moment that any lion, gentleman of their party asserts his independence he is to be drummed out of the House. He is to fee avoided, calumniated and defamed, and lie is not even to have the consolation of the Conservative party applauding him when liis words commend themselves to the sound sense of the Conservative party. The hon. member for Westmoreland made rather a long speech, but not too long, and I will tell that hon. gentleman that if he will begin to talk good, sound, common sense in the interests of the country, although he has been a great transgressor, we will applaud him too.
Now, I come to a point which it is not pleasant for me to deal with, but in connection with matters of this kind we are not to be guided by our heart, but by our common sense, and we are to discharge our duties in the light in which we deem to be in the best interests of the country. Nobody can sit in this House without having a great deal of admiration for the great ability and the very unique powers of expression possessed by the right hon. leader of the government, but in this case there is a very great question involved in the attitude of the right hon gentleman. Referring to the bitterness which is said to have characterized the speech of the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, let me say. on the other hand, that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals lias gone out of his way on all occasions to certify to the bona fides and good intentions of the right hon. gentleman, as I am quite aware, when he opened his speech in the way in which he did. It showed great generosity and an inability to be petty or small. But I occupy a different position, as regards the duty I am called upon to discharge, and I have the right to place before the country the position, so far as the record shows it. in which the right

hon. gentleman stands in regard to this question which is now before the House. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, in his remarks the other day, referring to the question of his not remaining in the cabinet at a time when it was desired that he should remain in the cabinet, directed attention to the letter which he wrote on the 10th July to the right hon. First Minister. In that letter he says :
The suggestion which was made to me when I stated to council my inability to become responsible for the policy which the government was apparently determined to adopt with reference to the transcontinental railway project, that I might delegate to some other minister, or that you yourself might take charge of the carriage of the resolutions and measures in parliament, appears to me more impracticable the more I consider it. It does not seem to me possible that, while declaring myself in Council as disapproving strongly of the government policy on this question, and therefore unable to support the same in parliament, I could retain my position in the cabinet a*d avoid the public advocacy of a proposition which it would be especially my duty as Minister of Railways to present to parliament and defend before the country. This course of tacitly accepting a measure which my judgment strongly condemns I consider, on reflection, as neither fair to the government as- a body nor just to myself.
Tlie bon. gentleman says that he exonerates the right hon. gentleman from having in person asked him to remain. There can hardly be any hon. gentleman so obtuse to what Is due to himself as a member of parliament as to say for one moment that the offence is to be condoned of asking or urging or consenting to a member of the cabinet remaining in the cabinet when it is known in the cabinet that his views are diametrically opposed to those of his colleagues on a large question of policy which is about to be introduced. Therefore it is important to the country to know just where the cabinet stands in regard to that question. Did the cabinet or did the cabinet not desire that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals should remain in the cabinet, knowing his views to be hostile to the measure, and so desire to deceive the public during the entire passage of this Bill ? The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) said :
I am pleased, however, Sir, to be able to avail myseif of the present opportunity of exonerating the right hon, leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) from the charge which has been frequently made against him since this difficulty has originated. The right hon. gentleman has been charged with having made a suggestion to me that I should, having the opinions which I entertain with respect to the railway scheme that the government have determined upon, remain a member of the government and should quietly and silently continue to act as a colleague with him in that administration. The charge which has been preferred is that this proposition was made by himself to me. I am hound to say, in justice to the right hon. gentleman, that the proposition did not emanate from him, and I Mr. LENNOX.
make this statement, not at his instance, but as a matter of fair play to him and of fair play to myself. In the correspondence which ensued pending my contemplated resignation I referred, as you will remember, to the circumstance that such a suggestion had been made in Council, and I mentioned the reasons which I thought had rendered it impossible for me to favourably entertain such a suggestion. I did it because I thought that there were perhaps members of council who would think I was over punctilious in declining to pursue that course, and I was glad afterwards that I had mentioned it in the correspondence, because there are many warm personal friends on the government side who. between the time that my resignation was known and the time that the explanations were made, have criticised me because I had not pursued that very same course. I say, therefore, that I very gladly avail myself of the present opportunity to make that matter straight.
The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has made the matter perfectly straight, as to whether the suggestion originated with the right hon. leader of the government or not; but that does not alter the position of the matter. I regret to have to say, that if the leader of the government srts in the cabinet council and hears a nefarious proposition such as this enunciated, silence is not enough. That public morality, or the semblance to it, shall be maintained, requires that any member of the cabinet who respects his position, and much more the leader of the government, shall at once rise in his place and say, so long as I am a member of the cabinet, so long as I am the leader of the government, no such thing can be or will be tolerated by me. That is all I wish to say on this subject. It is not a pleasant subject, because in many ways I have the very highest esteem, personally speaking for the right hon. leader of the government; but it is a matter of public importance that I should refer to it.
Now, it would perhaps be virtually an impertinence on my part, at least it would be assuming a great deal, if I attempted to criticise the able speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the government, recognizing- as I do that our esteemed leader is to speak upon this question. I would be arrogating to myself a position which can be much more ably taken, not only by our leader, but by others who are to speak after me. But there are isome matters in the right hon. gentleman's speech that are so easily answered that I may perhaps refer to two or three of them. Speaking of the. question of the proposed line from Levis to Moncton paralleling the Intercolonial, 1 do not want to discuss whether in the strictest sense it is a case of paralleling or not. I assume that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has dealt with that question; and if he has, that is a sufficient reason for me not attempting to improve upon what he no doubt ably handled. This is not a question of a play upon words; it is not a question whether there are two lines


at equal distances. It is a question of whether this new road, as a transcontinental line, will or will not divert a large or some considerable proportion of through traffic from the Intercolonial Railway. Can there be any doubt about that? Can any lion, gentleman on the government side of the House argue that the effect of the construction of this railway will not necessarily be for a long time to come-for all time to come-to divert that western traffic to which the Intercolonial would otherwise be entitled, a large proportion of it at least, to the new line ? I am not at all concerned with the argument of the right lion. leader of the government in regard to the large mountain ranges which lie says lie between the Intercolonial and the proposed location of the new line. That may well be. From what I hear, and from what I have been able to read, I think there are plenty of mountains thereabouts. There may be dividing mountains, and I think there are mountains that will present almost insuperable difficulties to the passage of this proposed line. But that is not the question. It is not the local traffic we are talking about. It is the question of the great transcontinental trade; and the inevitable result of this policy must be, as bon. gentlemen who are candid must admit, largely to divert the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway.
Now, let me refer to an incident which 1 think will become historical, that is, the right hon. gentleman standing on the shores of the Georgian bay at Depot- Harbour in 1890. Depot Harbour is situated on an island, and I can almost imagine the scene of the right hon. gentleman looking out upon the waters as being a parallel to that of the great Napoleon when he stood looking out from his lonely island. The incarceration of Napoleon on the island of St. Helena had a very marked influence on the history of Europe, and the cogitations of my right hon. friend upon the occasion when he looked out on the angry waters of the Georgian bay, are going to have a very important influence-a very disastrous influence I think-upon the destinies of this great Dominion, unless the people stop it. I hope they will stop it. I am not going to indulge in any pious exclamations. I am not a particularly pious man. I am sorry for it. I will not say, ' grant heaven that it may not be too late.' But I will say, in all candour and all earnestness, that I hope the hon. gentlemen who usually support the government will study this question so fully, will give it such unprejudiced consideration, that it will not be too late to prevent this measure being pressed through this House at this time. I do not want it to be permanently stopped in one sense. All I want is that the people shall have an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. Stay it for the present. Do you think time will be lost ? The right hon. gentleman refuses to listen to
those who say to-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow.
He turned a deaf ear to these who asked him to wait. He repelled the advice of those who counselled deliberation and care. There is no time for that, he said, this is the time for action, this day, this hour, this very minute must be taken advantage of. It is all very well for the right hon. gentleman to become dramatic, but I claim that investigation here is action in its very highest form, the highest act of which moral man can be capable of is a well considered, deliberate system of thought, and evolving from thought a great measure which otherwise would not be given to the world. This is a time for action, but action of the mind rather than of the hand. The time for that kind of action which would bring together in one focus all the information that can be got upon this gigantic scheme. Then if it be demonstrated-and I do not believe that possible-that this scheme is a good one in the interests of the country, in the name of all that is reasonable let it be carried out. But I do urge the right hon. gentleman to reflect and deliberate. I say that until we have proper information as to where this line should be located, as to what are the difficulties we have to surmount, as to what it shall cost, we ought to delay taking action.
Standing at Depot Harbour and gazing at the vast expanse of waters to be seen from that harbour, the right hon. gentleman reversed the policy of his life. IJp to that time, he had a strong bias for government ownership ; but he tells us that on looking upon these waters, he found adequate reasons for reversing that policy. Mr. Booth there told him that he had to create trade, that he had to build elevators, and that he possibly might have to build hotels, and the right hon. gentleman concluded that these things could never be done by a government. Yet we find Mr. Booth, although single-handed and alone, and wearied after the exertions of building a most magnificent railway enterprise, willing to renew his efforts and do what the right hon. gentleman shrank from doing. The right hon. gentleman, backed by such an able galaxy of cabinet ministers as, assembled here in 189(5, was frightened at the prospect he described the other day, and what has been the result ? The result has been a complete reversal of the policy of the government on the transportation problem. Ever since 1896, we have been expending money at a very rapid rate in the development of our waterways. In 1896 we expended on canals and waterways, out of capital account alone. $2.-i77.000. In the subsequent years, we spent as follows :
In	$3,419,000
"	1899	
4,225,000"	1900	
3,093,000"	1901	
2,941,000"	1902	
3,885,000
Making an aggregate of upwards of $20,000,000 expended out of capital alone. I have not included 1903 or 1904. We have made the expenditure to 1903 and are committed to the expenditure of 1904. To what end have we expended this money in deepening our canals, improving our docks, enlarging Fort Colborne and improving our water-' ways generally, sums vastly exceeding what I have mentioned, because there are large sums paid out of consolidated revenue as well? To what purpose all this expenditure, if we are to adopt this policy, which will thoroughly cripple, for all time, the development and utilization of our waterways ? This is not all. We have expended upon the Intercolonial Railway in these years an amount aggregating $14,000,000, making a total expenditure on these two sources of about $35,000,000, or if you included the expenditure on these two sources of 1903 and 1904, you will have an amount reaching nearly the figure of $50,000,000. I say in all earnestness, if the right lion, gentleman at that time, when he knew that tliis great transportation problem was before the people of this country, when he knew that thoughtful men had realized that perhaps more than another question worthy of the attention of the greatest minds of this country was the question of transportation, when he knew that the money of the people was being expended with a generous hand upon the development of waterways and the equipment of the Intercolonial Railway, so that to-day the Intercolonial Railway stands side by side, in equipment and in every particular, the peer of the Grand Trunk Railway, making a part of a great chain by which we hope in the near future to relieve any congestion in the west-I say if the right lion, gentleman then intended to change his policy, was it not the part of reasonable prudence that he should have given some indication of his change of heart to the House before we arrived at this stage of things ?
I was referring to the matter of the Intercolonial Railway, which brings me to the question of ail all-Canadian route. I have referred to that in connection with another branch of the matter, and I may say, speaking only for myself, that whilst I realize that it is very desirable that we should have an all-Canadian route. I recognize too that wre have an all-Canadian route. We have, in fact, two all-Canadian routes. We have the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal, we have also the railway operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which leaves Riviere du Loup and proceeds down to St. John, so that we have only to double the track from Levis to Riviere du Loup, and we have two complete and perfect all-Canadian routes. I would prefer to have a Canadian route, with no portion of it in American territory. Yet, the matter that seems to me most important is not. as the right lion, minister says, that it shall be every foot and every inch


Haughton Lennox: upon Canadian soil, but that its ports shall be Canadian. I recognize that it cannot be just as profitable to us to have it pass through American territory. I recognize that it is to our interest in building up our various industries and jiromoting the wealth and progress of this country. But. as to whether a few miles of it shall be through a foreign country, why, if that is a complete bar, then the policy of countries in Europe and elsewhere must be all wTrong. Who has heard of any agitation in favour of such a principle among the protective countries of Europe ? Certainly I have not. Of course, others may have had more experience than I, but I would certainly be surprised if such a thing obtained.
This brings me to the question of the bonding privilege ; and when I have referred to that-and very briefly-I shall conclude. And I shall do so without making an apology, because I rather committed myself to not making one when I began. Otherwise, I should certainly make an apology now for occupying so much of the time of the House. I will make a kind of apology, I will say that, whilst I do not regret dealing with these questions from the standpoint I have taken, and in the best way I could, I do regret that, having such magnificent material, I have not been able to present it better. I recognize that if I had handed to some hon. gentleman on this side of the House, the brief, if I may call it so, that I have here, and given them a few hours to look it over, probably a more effective service would have been done. But that is not practicable under our system. All that I have to do and all that any hon. member of this House has to do is to advocate those principles which appear to him in the best way which he can. And I think the House will exonerate me from any charge of having failed through lack of endeavour to do the best I could with the material I had, or through not having given time to gathering and selecting material. Now, as to the bonding privilege, I said that I disliked very much dealing with that question where I am to be followed by speakers, on this side of the House, such as I have referred to. But I have very strong convictions on this question of the bonding privilege. Let me tell the right hon. Prime Minister, that, when I find that the government have been in power for seven years, and when I remember that long before they got into power the accusation was made against hon. gentlemen opposite that they were too much hand-in-glove with our American neighbours; when I find that during their terms of power no intimation has been given of this matter ; when I find that in the speech from the Throne this session. nnt one syllable of suggestion has been made that we had to grapple with what must be, should it arise, a very significant and important question ; when I find that the ex-Minister of

Railways, who, above all, would be cognizant of the matter, declares that he has never heard a single syllable of suggestion, not only from the House, but even from the cabinet, or even from the right lion, gentleman who leads this House, that there was any danger in this respect ; when I find that there is no evidence in the papers forthcoming that there has been negotiations or even communications between this government and the American government in recent times on this subject ; and when I recognize that matters of this kind are matters of state record ; and when I find, turning up the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the very document from which my right hon. friend quoted, that it is pointed out that the privileges are mutual, that there is advantage to the people of the United States as great as to the people of Canada, that this privilege is a mutual necessity and a necessity of commerce upon modern lines ; when I find all this, I cannot help but conclude, even if I was not aided by this little book from which I have quoted, I cannot help concluding. reluctant as I am to do it, that this argument of the bonding privilege, is as I have said, an afterthought, a makeweight, for the purpose of trying to force through this measure, many features of which are, even as must appear to the ministry wholly indefensible. Now, what is the position of this question of the bonding privilege ? Speaking from my own standpoint, I believe it is absolutely out of the range of possibility that there will be any trouble. I do not think it is consistent with the attitude of the United States or with the requirements of the United States. And I think that if it was not to be apprehended in years gone by, when there was a much less friendly feeling between the United States and Great Britain, and a much less friendly feeling between Canada and the United States, than there is today, we need not begin to apprehend trouble at this time. I have strong convictions upon this matter, and upon one aspect of the case I feel as competent to judge as the right hon. Prime Minister himself. And that is upon the expediency and propriety of introducing this matter into a discussion in this House. I think that no more disastrous statement could have been made by the leader of the government or a cabinet minister than was made by the Prime Minister on that occasion. It was an inviting of difficulties with the United States. And the only excuse that I can find, after thinking of it a good deal, is that the right hon. gentleman was so confident, beyond the possibility of doubt, that there was no danger of friction arising, that he thought it safe to mention it, as it would not do any harm anyhow. I said there were mutual interests involved. But there is more than that. We have built the Canadian Pacific Railway through the state of Maine. They
have built their railways throughout our territory. We have built the Canadian Northern through the south of the Lake of the Woods, through American territory. There are other Canadian lines through American territories; and vast Canadian railway interests are centred in the United States, as there are vast railway interests of the Americans centred in Canada. Now, if the bonding privilege is abrogated, that abrogation works both ways. Supposing that we sent a .despatch to Washington tomorrow saying that we suspended the bonding privilege, wliat would be the result ? The result would be that after the American government remonstrated with us they would declare war against Canada, or we would have to back down or fight. Is there any hon. member of the House who doubts it ? I take no lower ground for Canada. I say we have a just right to these privileges. We built the Canadian Pacific Railway through the state of Maine upon the implied condition of a continuance of these rights, as the Americans built their railways through our territory. And, although I am not slow to recognize the power of numbers in the United States, and the superior wealth of that country, yet Canada, like the little communities in Europe, the Swiss and others, is not to be gauged by numbers. While I throw out no defiant note, I say that Canadians should stand by their rights upon this northern half of the American continent. For my part, as a Canadian, I do not believe in acknowledging ourselves beaten until we are pretty nearly beaten. I am not going to tell the United States that we are afraid of them in respect of this question ; I am going to say to the United States :	We recognize
in you people of the same race with ourselves ; we recognize that you are engaged with us in building up a great community on this continent; we recognize that you and we are working together for the best interest of humanity, and we will expect from you just and neighbourly treatment. We cannot imagine that you would do such an act as was contemplated by the right hon. gentleman, if in fact he did contemplate it seriously.
As the clergymen sometimes say-I say in conclusion of this whole matter of the bonding privilege, and in conclusion of what I propose to say upon this railway question, that if there was any stage in the argument at which I recognized that the case of the government was absolutely weak -and you can hardly take up one argument in that case where weakness does not manifest itself-I say if there was a stage at which weakness was peculiarly manifest, it was in regard to the bonding privilege. Am I right in thinking that this is the opinion of many of the government supporters ?. It is a" significant fact condemnatory of the action of the leader of the government, that so far as I can ascertain not one gentleman

wlio has spoken in 'Support of the government yet has dared to deal with the bonding privilege, they drop it like a hot coal. They recognize that it was a mistake, a tactical blunder on the part of the right hon. gentleman. I sympathize with the right hon. gentleman, who has suffered from such momentous desertions in the past few months, in this additional evidence of the luke-warm support which he is receiving from his friends.


Mr. A. MORRISON (New Westminister).: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall not take up anything like so long a time as the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has taken up in his speech. I shall not presume to refer to what is known as the eastern section of this Grand Trunk proposition, because that has been dealt with far more ably than I could pretend to deal with it. It has been covered fully by the able speeches of hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House, culminating with the very excellent summary made by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) on Friday night After hearing that summary I would have concluded that the last word had been said in favour of this scheme, were it not that in my opinion there are one or two aspects of the case as regards British Columbia and the western portion of this proposed route that were not touched upon quite so fully as I would like. I listened with a great deal of patience to the speech which has just been delivered. The hon. gentleman, in his references to the route which it is intended this new transcontinental road shall take, reminded me very much of the character of the country, as he pictures it, which will be traversed by this road. The hon. gentleman, in his four and a half hour speech, travelled over mountains of distorted facts, he passed through canyons of ignorance of the facts of the present, he crossed plateaus of assurance, muskegs of plagarized statements of his political mentors, dreary wastes, not exactly of verbosity, but of reiteration, statements which were nothiug else than parrot-like repetitions. He traversed lakes of the same old charges against the Liberal party, forests of the same old misstatements of existing conditions, and exhibited gusts of the same windy strain-while he endeavoured to speak louder than his predecessors on that side. The whole was enveloped in a droning atmosphere of language which you would expect from a man who does not seem to realize the growth of a nation or the movement of events. Every unprejudiced, responsible person, having a knowledge of the facts surrounding this proposition, hold directly opposite opinions to those of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and the gentleman who spoke before him from that side of the House. I repeat that every responsible and unprejudiced person having a personal knowledge of the route and of Mr. LENNOX.
the facts connected with this proposition, state exactly the opposite of what these hon. gentlemen have stated. I shall not pretend to explain any of the absurd things that they allege as solemn truths, nor why knowing them to be untrue, they still continue to repeat them. I shall leave it to the public to decide whether their intelligence is at fault or whether it is their political honesty.
Now, a measure of opposition appears to have arisen in the province qf British Columbia to this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. As might perhaps have been expected, that opposition emanates from the party of hon. gentlemen opposite-not from all of them, because, as I shall show presently, a very important element of the Conservative party in that province, and perhaps the most important element in it, are supporting this measure. But in reply to that element who are opposing this measure and raising a factious opposition to it, I crave the indulgence of the House for a short time while I refer to the terms of the contract which justify me in saying that it appears to have been drawn with a single eye to promoting the interests of the province of British Columbia. so far as this measure is concerned. The whole contract discloses the fact that the Liberal party have apparently, for the first time recognized a cardinal principle which seems to underlie our constitution, and one which heretofore has been ignored by hon. gentlemen opposite, namely, the subordination of transportation corporations to the sovereignty of parliament. We find that principle crystallized in this contract which is placed before the House and the country, and which is being delayed in its execution by efforts such as the one we have just listened to. Paragraph 10 of this contract reads as follows :
The work of locating and constructing the said western .division shall be commenced forthwith after the ratification of this agreement by the parliament of Canada, and shall proceed with the utmost despatch, and shall he completed within five years from the 1st day of December, 1903.
Now, that is a reply to the statement circulated by some of the Conservative papers of British Columbia that the road will not be commenced within seven years, and that probably it will never be completed, and that there are no terms obligatory upon the government even to commence it or complete it. Clause 11 reads :
The company shall lay out, construct and equip the said western division of the said railway to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada between Montreal and Toronto, so far as may he practicable in the case of a newly constructed line of railway, but this section shall not be held to oblige the company to construct a double track railway.
There is a clause compelling the company to construct the Pacific division from the Rocky mountains west to Port Simpson, or

whatever the port may be on the Pacific ocean, in as workmanlike and as efficient a manner as the excellent piece of road between Montreal and Toronto, perhaps one of the best pieces of road on the continent of America. Section 12 reads :
The company shall, within-thirty days after the passing of the Act confirming this agreement and of the Act incorpora.ting the company hereinafter referred to, deposit with the government five million dollars in cash or approved government securities, or partly in cash and partly in such approved securities, at the company's option, as security for the construction of the western division.
13. The government shall return the said deposit to the company on the completion of the construction of the western division and the first equipment of the whole line of railway, according to the terms hereof.
Showing that not only are the terms put into the contract for the speedy and efficient construction of the road but that there is also a further inducement and incentive placed in the contract, nay, one of the terms of the contract, to urge the company to finish that .portion of the road by the return of this $5,000,000 deposit upon completion.
18. The cost of construction of the western division shall include the like classes of expenditure as in the case of the construction of the eastern division.
Again, showing that no stone lias been left unturned to have the western part of the road properly constructed.
22. The company shall equip both divisions of the said line of railway with modern and complete rolling stock suitable and amply sufficient for eflicient operation and the handling of all classes of traffic to the satisfaction of the government.
.	24 ((d)- Securing to any railway company, desiring to make use of the same, running powers and haulage rights over the said western division, or any portion thereof, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the companies, or, in case of their failure to agree, then upon such terms as may be deemed reasonable and just by the government.
28. For the purpose of aiding the company in the construction of the western division, the government shall guarantee payment of the principal and interest of an issue of bonds to be made by the company for a principal amount equal to seventy-five per centum of the cost of construction of the said division, as defined and ascertained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph eighteen hereof ; but such principal amount shall not, in any case, exceed thirteen thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the prairie section, nor thirty thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the mountain section, although seventy-five per centum of such cost of construction may have exceeded the said respective sums per mile.
34. Inasmuch as the bonds to be guaranteed by the government only make provision for a part of the cost of construction of the western division, the company hereby agrees that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee bonds of the company for the balance required for the construction of the said western division, exclusive of the said twenty million dollars required for first equipment, which
the company is required to provide under paragraph twenty-two of this agreement, and the company may issue a second series of bonds, to be guaranteed as aforesaid by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada to be a second charge upon the property described in paragraph twenty-five (b) hereof, and to be subject to, and to rank upon, the said property next after the said bonds so to bo issued and guaranteed by the government.
37, The company shall purchase all material and supplies required for the construction of the western division and the equipment of the whole of the said line of railway from Canadian producers, when the same are produced in Canada and when such material and supplies can be purchased in desired quantities and of equal quality suitable for the purpose required, and for prices and upon terms equally advantageous with those procurable elsewhere.
39. The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company upon any part of the said railway shall be under the control of the Governor in Council, or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
41.	At all times during the terms of the said lease, the company shall continuously and efficiently operate both divisions of the said railway, giving due and sufficient service for the accommodation of all traffic to the satisfaction of the government.
42.	It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels.
43.	The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
46. The government shall procure to be granted to the company, in so far as the same are vested in His Majesty in right of the Dominion of Canada, such lands as may be required for the right-of-way of the western division, and for all stations, station grounds, workshops. buildings, yards and appurtenances required for the construction and working thereof, and shall also procure to be granted to the company, upon such terms as may be agreed upon, in so far as the same are so vested in His Majesty, such lands fronting upon and covered by navigable waters touched by the line of the railway as, in the judgment of the government, may reasonably be required for the use of the company in connection with its operations. The right of the company to obtain such lands without compensation shall cease when the said division is constructed and equipped as required by paragraph twenty-nine hereof.
Mr. Speaker, reading that contract, it is impossible for any fair minded critic to allege that regard has not been had to the interests of the extreme western province of British Columbia. In addition to that and in order to reply to the criticisms from

the Pacific coast, I beg to refer to tbe ' News-Advertiser ' of Vancouver of July 3], and I am quite sure that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) will feel like modifying if not withdrawing the categorical statement which he made during the course of his speech the other day that the province of British Columbia did not want this road when he reads what the ablest Conservative writer west of the city of Toronto has to isay oil this matter. I refer to Mr. Carter Cotton, of the ' News-Advertiser ' of Vancouver. In that paper on July 31st, he says :
The ramifications and connections with the Grand Trunk Company make it the most de-. sirable railway organization that could undertake such an enterprise as far as the interests of this section of the Dominion are concerned, and it is fortunate for British Columbia that this particular corporation should have put forth its proposition at the time it did otherwise there is no knowing to what a reckless government and an incapable legislature might not have come into the province.
That refers to the crass and plantigrade policy of the late premier of the province of British Columbia and of his administration.
We must await the arrival of the Bill itself before we can be certain of all the conditions of the proposed agreement. It seems, however, that the government has taken rasonable precautions to secure the fulfilment of its contract by the company. While it may be quite true that a large part of the region to be traversed by the line between Moncton and Winnipeg may be of such a character that it will not be likely to yield much local traffic, the through traffic must pass over that section of the railway, and if the views held as to the probable future development of central and western Canada are sound, that implies a large traffic. Besides the history of the last twenty years should make any one cautious in declaring that any part of the Dominion possesses no natural resources capable of sustaining a population and of becoming the scene of industrial activity. Furthermore, if that part of the line is built under proper supervision and at the moderate cost at which such work on the Canadian Pacific road was done its capitalization should be low. As the railway will have to pay interest on the cost of the Moncton-Winni-peg section, it will be likely to scrutinize closely every item of cost. Assuming that the road will be built under thoroughly businesslike arrangements, securing full value for the money expended, and the fact that the company will only have to pay three per cent interest on the capital, we are inclined to think that fixed charges on this section will not he more than half what they are on a corresponding mileage on the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Also in the same paper of the 7tli August, Mr. Cotton again ideals with this proposition. The article which I am about to quote is in reply to an agitation that has been attempted to be raised against the extension of the road to Port Simpson by people in the southern part of British Columbia on the ground that it will create a rival city and destroy to a certain extent the progress of Mr. MORRISON.
Victoria and Vancouver. Here is what Mr. Cotton, whose paper is published in Vancouver, says in reply to that :
That this will prove to be a very important factor in the opening up and development of the northern section of this province there can be no doubt. The foundation of another important seaport several hundred miles north of Vancouver will not, in our opinion, be at all detrimental to the progress and prosperity of this city. The new town and port will not only develop business for itself, but it will create new business and traffic with Vancouver and other coast towns. The Grand Trunk Pacific management will reach out for business, and there is np doubt that that of the Canadian Pacific will not he found napping in regard to the operations of its influential and aggressive rival. Although the coast termini of the two roads will be several hundred miles apart, the distance between them can be covered by the cheapest of all systems of transportation-that of water carriage. In the cost of carrying freight across the continent by railways, the charge for the carriage by water from Vancouver to Port Simpson (or wherever the northern railway's terminus may be), and' vice versa, will be a comparatively small item. We are familiar with similar traffic methods in American freight from San Francisco brought from there by steamer to Vancouver, and then carried from here over the Canadian Pacific Railway to its destination in cities in the eastern states.
This, I submit, ought to be at present a sufficient answer to tbe objections to this proposition, so far as the Pacific coast is concerned.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was referring to the statement made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that there was no demand for the projected transcontinental railway from any of the provinces. Well, it may be that none of the provinces wanted the road in the sense of clamouring for it in the hysterical way in which some of the papers in the country and some of the hon. gentlemen opposite imagine that enterprises of this kind should be asked for ; but the fact is incontestable that every province of the Dominion of Canada requires this road, and perhaps more than this road. The province of British Columbia certainly not only wants it. but requires it. The value of any country to its inhabitants depends largely upon certain well-recognized conditions. The province of British Columbia, the western terminus of this road, has to a very great extent one of these conditions which are so essential to the progress of a nation, namely, a producing capacity. The capacity of the province of British Columbia to produce for the requirements of the people is very well known. The province is the largest province in area in the Dominion of Canada. The Dominion of Canada has a superficial

area of some 3,750,514 square miles. The province of British Columbia has one-tenth of that-372,630 square miles. There are 640 acres in a square mile, so that we can see by a ready computation that British Columbia contains some 300,000,000 acres of land, with a population that gives us something less than one person to the square mile. These figures show the vast territory that is there to be peopled, and the necessity that exists for something being done to give a larger population to that part of the Dominion. In this vast acreage, which is not by any means all mountains, as some people would like to have us believe, we have unexcelled water power-perhaps the most valuable water powers in the whole Dominion of Canada if not in the whole continent of America. We have limitless tracts of timber lands. We have millions of acres of rich agricultural land requiring no artificial treatment to make it produce abundantly. We have large water stretches abounding in edible fish and game. We have undeveloped mining regions. We have a variety of climate suitable for every condition of life. To satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite, who think there is a paucity of information about that country, I would refer to the numerous explorations that have been made from the remotest times in the history of this country. One of the most valuable reports pertaining to that country is the report of Mr. Marcus Smith, so well known as a surveyor and engineer. Then, we have the reports of Mr. Macoun, of the Geological Survey, particularly those made in 1877. We have the reports of exploratory and colonization surveys made by Mr. Gauvreau, Mr. Poudrier, Mr. Strathern, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Going, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Jennett, Mr. Corrigan, and numbers of others. All these reports are available. I will make simply a short summary of the reports of these men upon the very land which will be traversed by the proposed railway, showing beyond doubt that the country has not only been well known for many years, but is one of the most productive parts of the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Gauvreau and Mr. Poudrier, in their reports on this part of British Columbia, say :
In the Immense district lying between the Cascade range and the Rockies, to the north of the Fraser, to which the name of New Caledonia has been given, immense opportunities exist for profitable settlement, there being large areas of good agricultural and, as well as immense reaches of grazing country. The district would supply a growing home market among the miners of the district, which district is rapidly opening up, as well as having open to it, as soon as a railway is built, the larger markets of the world.
Referring to one of the valleys along which this road will pass, they say :
The valley of the Slceena-,-
Which is practically the terminus of this
railway on the Pacific coast

278	^
-the benches above Quatsalix near Hazelton, the valley of the Kispyox, the upper branches, without counting the valley of Watsonka, and the part included in Mr. Gauvreau's field of exploration, after very careful computation, would give 300,000 acres of farming land, more or less wooded.
Then he goes on to say :
One of the half million acres would be about the correct estimate of the grazing land available.
Further on speaking of the other opportunities of that district to be traversed by this road, he says :
The Bulkley valley is wide and open, well watered by several mountain streams and well adapted for stock-raising or dairy farming down to the 66th-mile station. ... A very large proportion is open prairie with luxuriant grass, and where there is timber it will be easy to clear. The soil is good and vegetables of all sorts and all serials except wheat could be grown. As grazing land, the district's areas cannot be surpassed, and where timber has been burnt the numerous varieties of grasses growing show that areas of pasture could be largely increased. . . . Along the river are good hay meadows which the Indians have utilized for years. Tremblay lake, of which Middle river is a principal feeder, offers very rich open lands, with good pastures. The soil is clay loam, covered with vegetable matter, while there are bluffs of poplar, small birch and willow ; from Tremblay to the small lake above, the country is open and grassyabove that lake the land is thickly timbered with Douglas fir, balsam, spruce, cottonwood and poplar.	[DOT]
Then he goes on to describe the very important district of Omenica. Referring to that district, be said :
Mining is the industry of the district, and no doubt when mining operations shall have gained larger proportions, extensive tracts will be utilized for the growing of hardy grains and vegetables, and cattle-raising will become an important industry.
These reports date all the way from 1877 down to about 1897. Mr. Bell, who made his susvey in 1895, said :
The eastern flank of the coast range he pronounces to be pastoral land of exceptional excellence, the winter feed giving it a highly favourable character. This feed can be cut on the extensive natural meadows. Some of the land in this section only requires irrigation to make it admirable for farming purposes, and there are streams at hand tQ supply the water. Mr. Bell thinks that it is the lack of means of communication which keeps this section from being immediately occupied by settlers. .	. .
These observations cover the whole country between the coast range and the Fraser.
He'*******#
In the valley of the Klena-klena river, in the vicinity of Port Neville, considerable exploratory survey work was done in 1894 by Mr. A. F. Cotton, P.L.S., who found on his arrival at Knight's inlet on the sixth of June that oats and potatoes were already up and the season much further advanced than even in the Fraser valley.
In addition to that we have the fact that in 1866 the Western Union Telegraph Company,



in its attempt to extend its line of telegraph up the coast of British Columbia to Behring Strait to meet the Siberian line which was being projected across Asia, got as far as Skeena near the present terminus, when as you know, it got news of the successful laying of the Pacific cable and suspended operations. We have also the surveys of Gauvreau and Poudrier, made in the interests of colonization, and these gentlemen report that the foothills and the country generally were exceptionally rich and fertile. We have further, advantage of the surveys and examination made by several local lines, which were projected in British Golumbia, for instance the road known as the; British Pacific which had explorations made in the early part of 1890, also the Pacific Northern and the Omenica Railway, another corporation, which made a survey of its own.
In addition to all these extensive tracts of productive arable land, the province of British Columbia has another justification for having this road extended through it, which perhaps would be sufficient if there were no other arguments In favour of the projected line. Take the fisheries of that province. The Fort Simpson, Skeena and Naas rivers are the great grounds of the fishing industry outside of the Fraser river in that province. This road will tap directly those important fishing grounds. As far as the deep sea fisheries of the province are concerned, those are the grounds, and they are practically unexploited to-day. It is estimated that the deep sea fisheries of the British Columbia coast are the most valuable in the world, and none the less valuable because they have not been exploited. You may be surprised to know that the capital invested in the British Columbia fisheries, exceeds that invested in Nova Scotia, which province, up to the present, took the lead in that respect by a long way of the other provinces. The total value of the vessels, gear and appliances of various kind in 1901, according to the report of the Marine and Fisheries Department in British Columbia, amounted to $3,360,000 in that province, whereas the value of the same property in Nova Scotia was but $3,319,334. The salmon fisheries which are the great fisheries of British Columbia, and which are to be touched by this road, are the most valuable fisheries, according to the same report, in the Dominion. That industry last year employed in our province 18,541 persons and preserved 59,000,000 cans of fish. The seal fleet of that province, consisting of 39 schooners, 139 boats and some 236 canoes, is valued at $370,000 and gives employment to some 900 sailors and hunters. The total value of all kinds of fish from the province of British Columbia, according to the same report, in 1902, was $7,942,000, as against $7,989,000 in the province of Nova Scotia. We are creeping up to the province of Nova Scotia. A few years ago we were milllions behind in the value of our fishing indus- I Mr. MORRISON.
try, but to-day we are within a few hundred thousands.
I wish, without being invidious, to refer to the fact that in some quarters it is claimed that the extension of transportation facilities to the Pacific coast will have to be done at the expense of the eastern provinces. We frequently hear, I am sorry to say, from the great province of Ontario, that the expenditure of federal money in British Columbia is mainly borne by that province, because that province is the greatest contributor to the federal exchequer. That, Mr. Speaker, is not according to the facts. In the one matter of fisheries alone, the revenue derived from the province of British Columbia in 1902, was some *$42,000, whereas the expenditure by the Dominion on that industry was only $18,000. The revenue derived from the province of Nova Scotia for the same industry was only $6,000, whereas the expenditure was $32,000, showing an inexplicable difference between the revenue from and the expenditure in that province as regards this industry. As far as the general expenditures in the province of British Columbia are concerned, I find that from 1885 to about the time when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, the excess of revenue from British Columbia to the federal exchequer over expenditure by the federal government, amounted to some $16,000,000, or on an average, to over $1,000,000 a year, and that excesssive revenue over expenditure has been increasing every year since, until now we have an excess of revenue derived by the federal government for the province of British Columbia over expenditure, of some $2,709,000.
From 1872 up to 1901 the Dominion government received $42,375,000, and paid back to us in the various expenditures I have referred to only $28,968,000, leaving a balance in our favour of about $13,500,000. When you are told here by the right hon. leader of the government and by other hon.. gentlemen on this side that the Grand Trunk Pacific will cost this country only $13,300,000, we can see that the surplus revenue paid into the exchequer from the province of British Columbia will a little more than cover the amount. Therefore, it is not true to say, if hon. gentlemen are disposed to say it that the province of British Columbia is to get this extension of the great trunk line at the expense of the eastern provinces, and, incidently I may say that this great increase of revenue from 1885 up to the present time is perhaps, directly attributable to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the incidental development of mines and lumbering since that date. Therefore, I can fairly argue that that great development and increase of revenue to the federal government arising since 1885 being attributable to the extension there of the Canadian Pacific Railway, our revenue will be doubled and perhaps trebled within ten years in consequence of the con-

struction of this new line, so that it is quite justifiable so far as this province is concerned. Our conditions in justifying the ex tension of this road are not confined to the two elements I have referred to. We have the lumber industry. With as accurate an estimate as can be, made by reputable authorities, it is clear that British Columbia has the largest compact area of merchantable timber on the North American continent. One feature of that resource is its density. As high as 500,000 feet of lumber have been taken from a single acre. Those not familiar with the lumber industry will be surprised to know that in Ontario and the eastern provinces generally 20,000 feet to an acre is a good average. It is estimated that there is in sight in British Columbia from 40,000,000.000 to 50,000,000,000 feet of lumber. Now these are not idle figures. As I stated, it is a matter that can be estimated with almost a mathematical exactness. When you consider that only 1,175 square miles of timber is under lease and that, according to the Dominion returns there remain 285,554 square miles, you can fancy what a tremendous source of revenue and what a tremendous opportunity for development remain in the timber of that province, In order to get out that tremendous wealth which we have at our door you can see the absolute necessity for at once furnishing even more facilities than are proposed in this measure. Then, I come to the great industry of the province, and the one that is always associated with the name of British Columbia, the mining industry. We have that yet practically undeveloped. The province has gone through a severe test; it has been the vicarious victim of stupid inexperienced speculators from eastern Canada and the old country. We have had the misfortune of not having the attention of reputable investors directed to the province up to this time to the extent we deserve. The fault was not with the province, but with those who have attempted to take advantage of the great mineral wealth there. And I refer, of course, in these remarks, to the gold mining side of the industry. We have . great coal areas in that province second to none in the Dominion. The two companies operating on the coast of British Columbia have a monthly pay-roll of $230,000, or an annual pay-roll of $2,760,000 ; I do not include in this the Crow's Nest and Fernie coal mines. The value of gold, silver, copper and lead mined in British Columbia in 1901 was $13,500,000. So again I am justified in saying that this development is mainly attributable to the transportation facilities we have been afforded up to the present time. Generally, apart from these sources of wealth in British Columbia we have every evidence of tremendous resources west from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. I will refer particularly to a few statements made by independent and unprejudiced parties con-2784
cerning the prairie country and British Columbia. One authority says :
If I were a young man, with such opportunities within my reach as are offered in the Canadian North-west, I would make all possible haste to get a plough into the rich soil of these fertile prairies and would soon be reaping the fruition of my labours in 40-bushel- to-the-acre wheat and in herds of the finest cattle the world ever saw. I believe that region is the very acme of God's best gifts to man in the soil and climate, and in health, wealth, and comfortgiving opportunities, upon the face of the earth to-day.
That, Mr. Speaker, has reference to a part of the country through which this Grand Trunk Pacific will pass. Sir Richard Cartwright, in a speech he made iu 1901 stated :
The Red River valley, the Saskatchewan valley, the Assiniboine valley, and the Peace River valley are realities, and the progress Western Canada has made is a reality, too. We have room for a population of at least 50,000,000. We have marvellous water power, the value of which we are just beginning to realize ; we have immense mineral resources ; all we need is men. I believe that the record of the next five years will surpass that of the last five years, good as it has been, as fully as the record of the last five years has surpassed that of the last fifteen years.
Sir Richard Cartwright in making these statements made them with the full knowledge of the facts. That hon. gentleman is Minister of Trade and Commerce and was ill council when this Grand Trunk Pacific was being discussed. That being the case, the accusation of hon. gentlemen opposite that the members of the cabinet rushed into this with lack of knowledge, without knowing what they did, apparently falls to the ground. Another authority is quoted as saying :
One who. has not studied the matter can have no conception of the great natural wealth of the Canadian North-west and of British Columbia. Almost everything ministering to the comforts and necessities of mankind is found there- some of the finest forests in the world ; inexhaustible sources of iron and coal ; gold and silver, and, in addition to all this, the finest grain-growing district in the world is in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, while the whole of the Canadian North-west is adapted for small farms and cattle ranches. In fact, the capabilities of the Canadian North-west with its magnificent pastures and unlimited quantities of natural hay, to produce the very highest type of animal life-horses, cattle, and sheep-are practically unlimited.
A prominent American authority says :
Canada has resources equalling, if not exceeding, those of the United States, in agricultural and mineral wealth and in industrial possibilities. It has millions of acres of fertile farming land, rich mineral deposits, and transportation possibilities far ahead of ours. . . It does one good to see the crops they are raising up there. Wheat, barley, and oats are raised in immense quantities, and occasional patches of good corn. . . . Canada will develop pro rata the same way as the United States has grown.

Then we have the authority of the Department of the Interior for the following : Wheat has been successfully raised at Fort Simpson in latitude 62 degrees north, which is as far north-west of Winnipeg as Winnipeg is north-west of New York. Rye and oats are grown 200 miles farther north, and 200 miles still farther north barley and potatoes are successfully produced.
I stated that one of the conditions for the welfare of the inhabitants of the country is the producing capacity of the country. Another is its exporting capacity. The province of British Columbia has that capacity to a very large extent. Not only has it large exporting capacity, but it has great facilities as regards foreign commerce. The ports of Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster, Port Simpson, and whatever other ports may be opened by the extension of this road have advantages far in excess of those of Puget Sound ports, Oregon and San Francisco. When I show you the extent of the exports from Puget Sound and the Oregon and the California ports, which are not so favourably situated so far as the wheat belts are concerned as are our Pacific coast ports, you will readily see the tremendous advantage to the western ports of Manitoba and the North-west Territories which will be conferred by the Grand Trunk Pacific road. The wheat exports from the Pacific coast ports in 1901 amounted to some 36,000,000 bushels; the flour exports from Puget Sound and from Seattle and Tacoma amounted to some 2,000,000 ban-els. Full particulars of these exports can be found in the American Trade and Navigation Returns of this year. From Montreal, Portland and St. John during tlie same period, 30,941,000 bushels of wheat were exported. From San Francisco alone there were 14,000,000 bushels exported. Those of you who are familiar with the geography of the western part of the continent will recollect that the Coast and the Cascade ranges of the Rocky mountains are further removed from the American coast than they are from the Canadian Pacific coast. As you go north the range converges to the Pacific coast, not only converges to the Pacific coast when it gets into the province of British Columbia, but it gets lower in altitude, affording an easy access across and low grades, and it comes within a few hundred miles of Port Simpson. So that the great wheat belt of the North-west Territories extends to within a few hundred miles of Port Simpson as against a distance of some thousands of miles from the western wheat belts which are tributary to the ports of San Francisco and Puget Sound and Oregon. It is therefore obvious that the great cost of the exports of western wheat of the United States to the Pacific coast ports is far in excess of the cost of the export of wheat of the Canadian belt to the Pacific coast and from there to the foreign ports. The competition that will be afforded by the Grand Trunk Pacific in rates will enable
the great wheat belt of the North-west Territories to be tapped. The wheat and grain belt of Canada will be within easy and cheap distance of the markets of the world. The Asiatic market we all know is growing in importance. The Puget Sound ports export large quantities of produce raised in territory similar to that of British Columbia and along which this road will traverse. They are exporting large quantities of their products to China, Japan and other ports of Asia. The port of San Francisco last year sent to China products of the value of $16,703,000, and to Japan, valued at $4,000,000. China, Japan and the Asiatic ports are .five or six hundred miles perhaps a thousand miles nearer us than they are to the American ports which have this splendid export trade already. All we want is some cheaper means of getting our wheat to the Pacific coast. It is absurd to say that by the Canadian Pacific Railway, great as are the advantages which it affords to the coast, you can haul wheat across the Rocky mountains and over the grades which characterize this road in competition with the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific roads. There is no question that an impetus will be given to the exports of wheat by way of the Pacific ocean that is almost inconceivable at the present time. In addition to all the other advantages to which I have referred, we have open ports the year round; so that I am not over sanguine in expecting that within ten years the bulk of the export of grain from the Dominion of Canada, and perhaps from the American continent, will be by way of the Pacific coast and by our own Pacific ports.


Mr. BROCK.: In what way will the building of a road from Winnipeg to Moncton decrease the expense of sending wheat from the wheat belt to the Pacific ocean?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: As I stated in my opening remarks, I am quite satisfied to leave the justification of the action of the government respecting the Moncton and Winnipeg branch to the gentlemen who have preceded me. It would be a work of supererogation on my part to add one word to what has been "so ably said by the gentlemen who have treated that point. There is still another justification for the extension of the road to the Pacific coast and that is the matter of freight rates. The province of British Columbia is suffering at the present time, and unless this Grand Trunk Pacific road is extended or we have some other line to the coast, we will continue to suffer from excessive freight rates. To-day you can send farm implements or any other products to the Antipodes cheaper than you can send them to Vancouver or to Edmonton. That is a condition of affairs that ought not to exist, and the present administration are proceeding to remedy that grievance. The passenger rate in British Columbia from station to station is five cents, while east of


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Manitoba and. as far as Nova Scotia, pass' eager rates are only three and two -cents.


William Rees Brock: Did the hon. gentleman vote for a two cent passenger rate to the Pacific coast that was moved here the other night 7


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I have always had regard, in a matter of that kind, to the methods by which a thing is introduced into the House, and particularly to the individual who introduced it. So, having regard to both those circumstances, I thought it was not incumbent upon me seriously to consider the pro-position made by the hon. gentleman at that time. Now, in addition to these considerations to which I have referred, there is another very important element in our favour, aud that is the climate. Between latitude 49 and 59, which embraces pretty nearly the whole province of British Columbia, we find Great Britain, the Northwest of France, Belgium, Holland, North Germany, Prussia, Denmark, South Sweden, the Baltic provinces, the coast of Russia and the Gulf of Finland. I suppose there is no man in this House but knows what that means, that within these latitudes on the continent of Europe, is contained what is said to be the cradle of civilization, producing the sturdiest types of humanity. There is no reason in the world why, with the influx of people which the Minister of the Interior is assuring us in that province, and the facilities afforded by the government of which this project is merely an earnest, we will have in that province the most populous and most prosperous part of the Dominion of Canada within a very short period.
Generally speaking, we will not only render assistance by the construction of this line in the development of that important part of Canada, but by the development throughout the whole of Canada which will result from the adoption of this proposition we will bring back some if not all of the 1,183,225 Canadians who are in the United States to-day, according to the census returns of the United States of last year. There are 1,183,225 Canadians in the United States, 787,798 of whom come from provinces outside of the province of Quebec, while 395,427 are from the province of Quebec. There are 1,183,225 stalwart, worthy Canadians who want to return to Canada and who will return if the resources of this country are made known and facilities are provided for their development. I shall not take up the time of the House any farther. I should like extremely to dilate upon the very alluring topic of the position of the province of British Columbia in relation to the other' provinces in the Dominion of Canada, but in view of the long speeches that we have already heard and in view of the fact that there are a number of hon. gentlemen who wish to speak, I will conclude by reciting a piece of advice that was given
many years ago by that eminent philosopher Bacon. He said :
That which is past is gone and irrevocable and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come ; therefore they do but trifle with themselves that labour in past matters.
I, therefore, trust that hon. gentlemen on tile other side who may see fit to address the House will let bygones be bygones, and devote a little more time to present conditions, and to the future.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Morrison) who has just addressed the House, like a number of his predecessors, seems to make a point of discussing everything except the resolution before the House. He has given us a very beautiful description, in part, of British Columbia. Other hon. gentlemen have portrayed in choice language the beauties of parts of the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. Extracts have been read from clergymen's essays and reports have been presented covering the ground all the way from Labrador coast to James bay, and hon. gentlemen have discussed everything but the merits of their measure. These hon. gentlemen seem to take it for granted that they have discovered there is a climate in Canada, that there is soil, and that there is an opportunity of building another transcontinental road. I am not surprised at the language we now find them indulging in. These hon. gentlemen have for many a long year been engaged in belittling this country, and in providing speeches to be used by our friends in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and other southwestern states to deter emigrants from going to Canada, and It is, therefore, difficult even yet for some of their own friends to have faith in Canada. I want to point out to these hon. gentlemen, however, that it is quite unnecessary for them to speak to the country upon this topic as far as the Liberal-Conservative party is concerned. I am merely one member of the Liberal-Conservative party, but I want our hon. friends to recall to mind what they must well know, that the Conservative party have always pointed out the advantages of Canada, that they have always had faith in our great North-west, that they have always recognized that there is a large tract of fairly settleable country in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, and that it is possible to get a line-I will not say a short line-of railway from Levis south-westerly or easterly down through the province of New Brunswick. These hon. gentlemen are very far behind the times. If they go up to the Railway Committee room and look at the map they will see that there are at least a dozen charters authorizing the construction of railways by routes which are marked across the continent of North America, showing that for many a long year there are men in Canada who

have had faith in the country, and who recognized the fact that at some future date there will be another transcontinental line running across the Dominion. My hon. friend from British Columbia, as I said, has devoted himself chiefly to a description of his adopted province, and I must congratulate him upon his effort. But, how. the southern part of British Columbia wilt' be benefited by the construction of a railway three or four hundred miles north is something that I fail to see. I also fail to see what his quotation from the Vancouver newspaper edited by Mr. Cotton has to do with this matter. Mr. Cotton, as he himself says, had not read the contract and practically knew nothing about it. What Mr. Cotton speaks of is what every man in Canada who is cognizant of the advantages of this country should welcome and that is a proper scheme of opening up our own country. But, Sir, in discussing the development of the country we are not at all endorsing the iniquitous contract which is now before the House. The last speaker remarked that this contract was drawn with an eye single to promote the interests of British Columbia. I regret that he did not show where the single eye was, but I am glad that there is one part of the Dominion of Canada that the contract is drawn with the object of benefiting. It certainly is not the province of Nova Scotia, it is not the province of New Brunswick, it undoubtedly is not Quebec nor Ontario, it cannot be the North-west Territories ; therefore, as our hon. friend says, it is singly drawn for the benefit of British Columbia, and he regrets the delay in the execution of the terms of the contract by speeches such as that which has been delivered by my hon. friend for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I do not think that my hon. friend from South Simcoe has occupied any more of the time of this House than the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) or the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) on the other side of the House. One of these hon. gentlemen took about two days of the time of the House, and the other a day and a half, and I am satisfied to leave the country to judge between the speeches of these three hon. gentlemen. If there is not more solid, logic, more fact and more criticism in the speech of my hon. friend from South Simcoe than in the de-. fence of the measure contained in the two speeches of these hon. gentlemen, I will let the hon. gentleman's remarks pass unchallenged. My hon. friend from British Columbia took up the contract and he read a few paragraphs from it. One section of which he spoke particularly was section 10, and he also referred to the deposit of $5,000.000. However, as I propose to take this matter up as I proceed. I will not now refer to his remarks upon that point at any further length. I want to point out to our hon. friends opposite that the Liberal-Conserv-


James Joseph Hughes: ative party is not criticising the route of this railway. The Liberal-Conservative party has long been upholding the advantages of the Dominion of Canada and the various advantages both of the east and the west. It is not the question of route, but it is the question of the terms of the contract and the effect this contract will have upon the finances and the development of the country that we are basing our criticism upon, or at least I am criticising that feature of the proposition, and I think in that I voice the general sentiment of the friends of the Liberal-Conservative party, both in the House and out of it. We are not belittling the soil of the province of New Brunswick, of Quebec, or of Ontario-very far from it. On the contrary, the Liberal-Conservative party has been the leader in this House in drawing attention to the advantages of this country. For many long years our hon. friends opposite were unfortunately engaged in belittling Canada. We are not criticising the climate of this country. I myself took the liberty last year and the year before of pointing out why I thought the North-west Territories and the northern part of British Columbia were well adapted for settlement, and I have on other occasions pointed out why I think that northern Ontario, in future, when opened up from the colonization view point, will afford homes and employment for many thousands of people. Nor have we criticised the people of the country as some hon. gentlemen have endeavoured to do. We recognize that the people of the maritime provinces and of Quebec as well as of the whole of Canada are amongst the best that the world has produced with rare exceptions from the immigration view point in recent years, which I shall not refer to here. Therefore, I shall proceed to show the objections that we have to this scheme.
Nine months or a year ago an item appeared in a Minneapolis paper-and I think it was telegraphed to some of the Canadian papers-to the effect that the Senator referred to by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was about to exploit a new scheme. It was stated that he had attempted to become a member of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and that, having failed in that attempt, he was going to launch a scheme which involved the extension of the Grand Trunk Railway from its connections with St. Paul and Minneapolis into Winnipeg, from which point it would carry its main line to the Pacific coast, with branches all over Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Application was made to the legislature of Manitoba, and the newspapers in the city of Winnipeg, one with its whole front page, I remember, showed the plan of this great railway scheme ; and the name of the Hon. George Cox was mentioned publicly in the press and on the streets as being prominently connected with it. The reasons why that gentleman had

formed an alliance with the Grand Trunk and was pressing forward this scheme were almost semi-officially given. The plan was that the railway was to be entirely independent of either of the great western Canadian roads, the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Pacific. It was to extend from the Grand Trunk terminus in Chicago to Minneapolis, by controlling one of the American roads ; and, if the facts were known, I have no doubt that it would be found that the Grand Trunk Railway has to-day control of a line into the city of Minneapolis and into the city of St. Louis. It would not be polmc to let it be known, however, that the Grand Trunk is so near the Canadian border in the North-west until this Bill is passed. There was to be a branch built from the line between Minneapolis and Winnipeg to Duluth, to connect by a fleet of steamers witli the Midland system of the Grand Trunk, and become their principal grain line. It was announced at that time that the project was to have the endorsation of the Canadian parliament, almost identical with the endorsation this scheme is receiving here to-day. I want to say that I regard that as a very good scheme. I have no objection to it whatever. If the Grand Trunk Company would be content to accept a fair endorsation of a scheme which is only partly Canadian, I am not one to oppose it. I do not think, however, that such a scheme should get anything like the support that would be due to a scheme which would to a greater extent develop the Dominion of Canada. Some said that the object of all that demonstration was merely to force the Canadian Northern Railway Company to surrender.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No surrender !


James Joseph Hughes: No surrender was their motto, I believe, and I understand that no surrender is their motto to-day. Hon. members know that during this session items appeared in papers in the United States and also in the Montreal papers, to the effect that the Canadian Northern was about to surrender ; and this rumour was kept constantly before the public until only a few weeks ago. But, Sir, they came to the conclusion that the Canadian Northern Company could not be got to surrender, and they tacked on the patriotic end of the scheme, and the next move was that the Grand Trunk Company were going to extend their line from North Bay or Graven-hurst, paralleling the proposed line of the Canadian Northern to Winnipeg, and proceeding thence across the country to the coast. Still the coon did not come down. I presume that the hon. Minister of Justice happened to get wind of what was going on ; and, not content with the line from North Bay to Winnipeg, he saw a chance to secure some benefit for the friends of the Quebec bridge and some little encouragement for the province of Quebec ; and the
next proposition was that the line should run from the city of Quebec, through northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, to Winnipeg. Still another move was made, and our friends the enemy from the maritime provinces took a hand in, with the result that we now have the proposition for a road from Moncton to the city of Winnipeg, and thence onward to the coast. This is called the short line extension to Moncton. I regret that the right hon. First Minister is not in his place. I have always had the highest respect for that right hon. gentleman, both as a citizen and as a member of the House of Commons ; and when I heard that some transcontinental railway scheme was being evolved, I had perfect confidence in my own mind that the right hon. gentleman, in whose patriotism I have always had faith, though I never knew what his business capacity was, would produce a scheme that would at all events have a few clauses in it to commend it to this House and the country. I regret, Sir, that I have been disappointed. So far as the Grand Trunk Railway is concerned, I am not opposing that company. I regard Mr. Hays, its general manager, as one of the greatest railway men in the world ; I regard our old friend Mr. Wainwright as one of the most genial of men ; I regard Mr. Mc-Guigan as one of the ablest railway construction men in North America ; and the venerable Senator is a life-long friend of mine. So that if my personal feelings were to decide the matter, they would certainly lead me to support any scheme with which these gentlemen were connected. But I find in this scheme a pretense to build up our Canadian seaports, when I will show before I get through that its traffic will go to Portland, Boston and other American centres. They profess to reduce rates, when I venture to say that those who live ten or fifteen years hence will bear out my statement that not one cent per bushel'will be taken from the cost of the transportation of wheat through this proposal. They profess to solve the transportation problem, when they only confuse it. They profess to serve the interests of Canada, when they will load the people down with a burden which our children's children will not be free from, and which will tie the country up for many a long year to come. Many see in this scheme all sorts of jobs. It undoubtedly means the ruin of the Intercolonial as a national work. It means the burdening of this country with many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for the maintenance of that road, because its earning power will be greatly diminished as soon as this new line is constructed. We see in this proposed line an attempt to make the Quebec bridge profitable : and, if I am informed aright, that bridge has already cost as much money as the plans and specifications indicated that the whole bridge would cost, although the

piers are scarcely above the water yet. I wonder what the upshot will be when the government blow a few more millions into it. It will undoubtedly be well watered. By this scheme they are side-tracking the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario, as well as the city of Montreal and all the southern part of the province of Quebec ; and yet, when the facts of the case are known, the city of Quebec will not receive from it so much benefit .as the gentlemen would have us believe. The question naturally arises, who has perpetrated this job ? Who. has delivered this gold brick to the Prime Minister ? There is undoubtedly a certain clamour about the transcontinental roa'd, but I do not think that alone would be sufficient to justify the celerity displayed by the right lion, the Prime Minister and a number of his colleagues, in whom many of us have had every confidence. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said that the fact of the matter was that Senator Cox could not wait. Well, where was our friend the Minister of Labour and Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock)? Some suppose that he, rising above postage stamps and dabbling in labour problems, looks about for a vaster field in which to exercise his great genius, and has visions of being the leader of the great Liberal party in Canada in the near future. Some suppose that he is endeavouring to supplant the Minister of Finance and is really the father of this scheme. Others maintain that it is the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) who, with the energy of his race, wishes not only to be the leader in his native province, but the leader of the party in the Dominion. Certainly we have not yet any precise knowledge as to who the father of the scheme really is.
The scheme, at all events, is devoid of merit. It consists of two branches. The branch to the east from Winnipeg will not be constructed for at least ten years. It will not benefit Ontario or the city of Montreal or the maritime provinces, and I would, therefore, appeal to the Postmaster General to take the first minister in hand-if the hon. gentleman is not endorsing the scheme as its father-and induce the right hon. gentleman to withdraw it before the country is irrevocably committed to it. What are the details of the scheme ? There is to be nominally a government road from Moncton, in the province of New Brunswick, to Winnipeg, passing by the St. John valley, crossing at Quebec, onward through the northern part of Quebec and the northern part of Ontario, as far as Winnipeg. This section is to be built and owned by the government, but leased to the Grand Trunk Railway. It will pass 250 miles north of Montreal, over 400 miles north of Toronto, and from 120 to 180 miles north of Port Arthur and Fort William. That part of the road will be 1,900 miles long, and it will


James Joseph Hughes: cost anywhere from $60,000,000 to $80,000, 000 to construct. Then the next division, from Winnipeg to the Rockies to be assisted to the extent of $13,000 per mile, and through the Rockies to the coast to the extent of $30,000 a mile, and the government is to pay all the interest for a period of ten years, and give the company all the station lands, frontage, ports and harbours and terminals it requires. This section from Winnipeg to the coast will be absolutely the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
After fifty years the lease of the eastern part terminates, and supposing this to be the honest scheme, hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe it is, at the end of fifty years the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will find themselves with a line stopping at Winnipeg. But the fact is that this is only a pretense, and the real scheme is as I shall show. The Grand Trunk Railway is now in the city of Chicago, and undoubtedly has arrangements made whereby it can readily get entrance into Minneapolis. It will then only be 470 miles from Winnipeg. It purposes building into Winnipeg, and will own a through-line from Portland, in Maine, to Port Simpson, on the Pacific coast. It will have a branch to Duluth, and that branch will connect with the Port of Midland, as a lake and rail route for grain. Now, the distance is not so very terrible after all, and it will be a magnificent road with a perfect road-bed, and I doubt whether it would be possible to get a finer transcontinental road. From Portland to Montreal the distance is 298 miles, thence to Chicago 840 miles, thence to Minneapolis, 420 miles, on to Winnipeg, 471 miles, and thence to Port Simpson, 1,600, making a total mileage from Portland to Winnipeg of 2,029, from Montreal to Winnipeg, of 1,731, and from Portland to Fort Simpson, of 3,600 odd miles. There is the transcontinental Grand Trunk Railway scheme. It is a scheme that I would heartily endorse, were it not that I object to the price we are paying for it. The North Shore line is absolutely not in the mind of the Grand Trunk Railway. The Grand Trunk Railway do not care a farthing about it. That company may put up its little guarantee, but it never intends running a line north of the lakes. Our lion, friend who preceded me pointed out, as one of the grand clauses of this contract, section 10, which provides as follows :
The work of locating and constructing the said western division shall be commenced forthwith after the ratification of this agreement by the parliament of Canada and shall proceed with the utmost despatch and be completed within five years from the first day of December. 1903.
What does that mean ? One year from that date, or one year from the passage of this Bill, the Grand Trunk Railway will have a certain number of miles of its own road built. What will it do with its freight?

Store it in Winnipeg ? At the end of two years, it will be a good way on to Ed-mundston. What will it do with its freight ? In three years it will be over the mountains. AVhat will it do with its freight V And in five years, when it will have reached the Pacific ocean, what will it then do with its freight ? As regards the road north of the lakes, from Moncton to Winnipeg, the surveys will not be completed at the end of the five years, much less the road constructed, and in the meantime where are you going to deliver all the freight that will have gathered along the line in the west ? The grain freight will simply go down by the Grand Trunk Railway to Duluth, and the passenger and ordinary traffic will go via Chicago to Portland. That is the plan of the Grand Trunk Railway. The only thing I object to is that these .men have not the honesty to tell the House that that is their plan. I am surprised the Grand Trunk Railway do not come up and let us know that that is their honest plan. The advantages of this route are many. In winter time, from one. end to the other, with the exception of a very few miles at this end and in the mountains of British Columbia, it will be free from snow. From one end of that road to the other, by the time Mr. McGuigan gets his grades completed throughout the province of Ontario-and he is about done with them now-the Grand Trunk Railway will have a small grade of about one-half per cent, and the finest road-bed in the world. From one end of the road to the other, there will be local traffic passing from Boston and the other cities on the sea coast and the cities and towns of Ontario and the interior of the United States-especially the great city of Chicago-and with its lines to St. Louis, the Grand Trunk Railway transcontinental system will be able to originate at local points more traffic for a through-line than any other transcontinental road on the continent ? It will also be a through-route, and there is no other route crossing the Rocky mountains in the United States which could begin to compare with it in distance and speed on account of the magnificent road-bed which it will have. More than that, from one end of that road to the other, coal and other necessary railway supplies would be found close by, and that, Sir, is a matter of great importance to a railway company crossing the continent. There is the scheme. No man who knows anything about the business believes, for one second, that anything else is the scheme; and the government need not attempt to befool us into believing that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would commit themselves to such a job as the general tenor of the resolutions would lead us to suppose. That is really estimating the intelligence of this House at too low a standard. If the Grand Trunk Railway, instead of building its line to Duluth, would build it to Port Arthur or Fort 'William, I would be willing it should
be liberally assisted. If the Grand Trunk Railway wanted assistance for a line from Wininpeg to Port Simpson, even a line that would not be looked upon as a national road, I do not believe that this country would object to giving it legitimate assistance.
Of course, I presume that the promoter of the road, the master mind, the genius, whoever he may be, who is behind this whole business, whether it is the senator or one of the ministers, or the man in control of the Grand Trunk, will be quite willing to accept a railway 1,900 miles long, built by the people of Canada, and maintained by them for fifty years, as a little gift. But that is not the main scheme. To show what their intention is, I have referred to section 10 to show that the western end must be built in five years and they must find an outlet for their traffic. I will now turn to section 42 to show that in it these gentleman show their hand to some extent. Section 42 says :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accept the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of railway or its branches

Miud you this line originates in Canada and does not touch foreign soil from Port Simpson to the Atlantic seaboard.
-not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined to points in Canada be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Will you tell me, Mr. Speaker, how they are going to carry it any other way if they do not intend to have a route through the States. How are they going to get it there any other way or how are they going to get it to any other port unless they intend to have a route through the United States? Undoubtedly, clause 10 and clause 42 together show clearly as the sun that they intend to have an American road. And it is equally clear that the government lawyers or the cabinet must have been very dense in making this contract, or else they are a party to it all. I have already pointed out the time it will take to construct this eastern road. I venture to say it will be ten years before it will be constructed, after which they have it free for seven years, and after that' for three years, the amount they are to be charged for interest will be added to the capital account. I presume. Mr. Speaker, that you and I will be taking a perpendicular look at the business by the

time they are ready to begin paying anything.


Mr. CARGILL.: IJp or down ?


James Joseph Hughes: Down, always down. I shall not at the present time refer to the clause respecting running rights other than to say that any one who knows anything about railroading sees through it and smiles at it. But I will venture to say that, in case the northern line is constructed, and the Grand Trunk Pacific operates it- I am at liberty to put in these provisos, because one of the chief clauses of the contract I find punctured with provisos-the charges for freight in Grand Trunk cars and Grand Trunk Pacific cars running over the government section will more than pay the rental that would be charged against the company. Section 37 was pointed out by my predecessor, who said this was a specially strong clause in the contract. I would like my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) as a Canadian manufacturer to consider, and I want all Canadian producers to consider, how they are going to be benefited by this clause.
The company shall purchase all material and supplies required for the construction of the western division and the equipment of the whole of the said line of railway from Canadian producers-
And when the hon. gentleman had read that far, he looked around as though to say, ' This is the place for you to cheer me.' And then he read the rest :
-when the same are produced in Canada and where such material and supplies can he purchased in desired quantities and of equal quality suitable for the purpose required, and for prices and upon terms equally advantageous with those procurable elsewhere.
How much are our Canadian producers going to sell on that western section if it does not suit these gentlemen to buy ? But that point has been handled before. I shall not take it up. Now as to the clause guaranteeing the running rights. Is it to be supposed for a second that the Grand Trunk owning a line absolutely from Portland to Winnipeg, and owning a line of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, are going to ruin their property or cause its deterioration by running a pound of freight over the road owned by the government and in which they have no interest, sending the freight to Moncton, and thence under a separate agreement to the sea ? It passes my comprehension how any ministry in this enlightened period of the world's history can bring down such a measure and lay it before the people and expect them to be bamboozled by it even for a moment.
I would again suggest to the government that they should withdraw this scheme in the best interest of the country. They make a great pretense that this scheme is in order to get out wheat from the west to the seaboard. As I shall show you in a little while
the distance from Winnipeg to Moncton, which is not the seaboard, is 1,900 miles. Let us assume that that is the distance to St. John. On the other hand from Winnipeg to Port Simpson the distance is 1,000 miles. If the railway is to be a grain-hauling institution why not haul to the Pacific ocean. And I can tell you that the freights from Pacific ocean ports, San Francisco and Puget Sound ports vary from $4.50 to $8 per ton. Wheat going in large quantities can be profitably carried from Port Simpson around Gape Horn to English markets, as it is now carried every year from American ports to Great Britain. But, Sir, it will be a very few years before there is a road constructed to Hudson's bay, and then the grain from our prairies arid that of the American west will be sent by that route to Liverpool by the time it would reach the city of Montreal coming down this way. Now, in order to put the figures before the House, I shall give the mileages computed as carefully as possible from the statistics available. In giving the distance from Quebec to Winnipeg I have taken the great circle distance which is by all odds the shortest, as any one acquainted with geography knows. I have allowed only from ten to twelve per cent-depending upon the section of the road-for loss of distance occasioned by curves in avoiding obstacles. The usual percentage through a country like that is fifteen per cent. I shall take the Grand Trunk Railway scheme before the House, which is from" Portland to Winnipeg. I wish to treat the House fairly, and undoubtedly that is the scheme before it. Well, from Portland to Winnipeg by Chicago and Minneapolis is 2,029 miles. From Montreal to Winnipeg via Chicago is 1,731 miles, I take Winnipeg as a common point. The Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Winnipeg by the north shore of Lake Superior is 1,424 miles. Here let me point out that in the long haul the question of the difference of mileage of even 300 or 400 miles counts for nothing at all. If that statement is disputed, I can show you that the rates from Chicago to the seaboard on the same identical grain hauled in the same cars-the long-haul grain-are just the same whether it is taken to Montreal, Quebec, Portland or Boston. These four cities constitute one group, and cars by the hundreds are hauled weekly to Montreal and on through to Boston, the rate being exactly the same whether they go through to Boston or whether they are stopped at Montreal. It is 1,424 miles from Montreal to Winnipeg via the Canadian Pacific Railway, by the same road from Montreal to Halifax, 756 miles. From Montreal to St. John is 481 miles ; therefore from Winnipeg to Halifax via the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial is 2.180 miles, and from Winnipeg to St. John by the Canadian Pacific Railway is 1.905 miles. The new line through the north of Quebec and Ontario, supposing
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria),

8S86
it( should ever be built, will be 1,450 miles long from Quebec to Winnipeg, or nearer 1,500 miles when it is constructed, and allowing 12 per cent for curvatures. From Quebec to St. John by the new line I am allowing 450 miles. So the total from Winnipeg to the city of St. John via the city of Quebec and this new line all through, is 1,900 miles. From Winnipeg to Quebec by the new line is 1,450 miles, from Quebec to St. John by the Intercolonial, 577 miles, making a total of 2,027 miles, within two miles of what it'is from Portland to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk and Chicago.
The next route I will take is from Winnipeg to Quebec by the new line, 1,450 miles ; from Quebec to Halifax via the Intercolonial, 673 miles, total 2,123 miles. The next route is from Winnipeg to Quebec via the new line, 1.450 miles; to Halifax by the new line and the Intercolonial, 636 miles, total 2,086 miles from Winnipeg to Quebec via the new line. But there is an alternative route, the Grand Trunk has in case they should find it convenient to operate that North Shore road. Portland is over 100 miles nearer than St. John,, From Winnipeg to Quebec via the new line is 1,450 miles; from Quebec to Portland over the Grand Trunk's own line, making the shortest road from Winnipeg to Portland, is 1,767 miles. From Quebec to Portland, 96 miles to Richmond, and from Richmond to Portland 221 miles, total 317 miles. Therefore, by this new road the distance will be nearly 150 miles less to Portland than to St. John. Supposing they build the road, is any one simple enough to think they are going to depreciate their millions' worth of property in the city of Portland for a fifty years lease, for a moonshine scheme like this ? No, Sir. The nearest route is to St. John, 1,900 miles via the North Shore, that is taking the new road to Quebec and any road to St. John; the shortest distance is to Portland, 1,767 miles ; therefore Portland is 133 miles nearer by their own pet scheme than is St. John, and 200 miles nearer than Halifax. Yet we are asked to swallow a scheme like this.
Now, the Finance Minister pointed out that this new route was the ' central route.' He said that Sir Sanford Fleming had designated three routes. I will read what the bon. gentleman said. His speech was a marvellous production. I knew the Minister of the Interior could fix the thing up about right, but I never dreamed the Finance Minister was possessed of ingenuity sufficient to make such a fair presentation of so abominable a scheme. He says :
I may say that there are three routes described-the southern route near the State of Maine, the central route, which is the subject of the present discussion, and the route along the Baie des Chaleurs, which was afterwards adopted for the Intercolonial Railway.
Then he goes on and tells us what Sir Sanford Fleming said. Now, I will show you what this ' central route ' of his is like.
It starts from a point eight miles south of Trois Pistoles on the Intercolonial and runs to a place called Apohaqui on the St. John river, fifty miles from Moncton. The distance is 337J miles from the point of starting. Add the eight miles, and you have 345| miles via this great central route, and plus 50 miles, makes it 395 miles to Moncton. But by the old Intercolonial it is only 346 miles from Trois Pistoles to Moncton, a saving by the present Intercolonial -of 491 miles. The present Intercolonial Is 491 miles shorter than the line that the Finance Minister calls the great central route. I want to point out that the central route as surveyed and referred to in the report of Sir Sanford Fleming, if the figures that are given here are correct


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. gentleman is not at all following the route that this proposed scheme is going to follow.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know who is the boss, whether the Finance Minister or the member for Bellechasse. I know where the proposed route is. I presume there is not a parish, either in Bellecliase, Dorchester, Temiscouata, ICamouraska, L'ls-let in any of the counties along the border of Maine, that will not have a road running right through it. But I am here stating what the Finance Minister said himself, speaking as a member of the government, and the hon. gentleman will find it on page 8549 of 'Hansard.' revised edition. The hon. gentleman must not blame me, he must blame, the Finance Minister of the Liberal party. And what is that central route ? It is 50 odd miles longer than the present Intercolonial. On this famous central route, these are some of the grades which will be found : It rises 1,575 feet, goes down to 1,105, goes up to 1,533, and down to 465; a few miles further it rises to 1,105, goes down to 415, then up to 1,100 and so on-a beautiful road. It would almost do for a bucksaw. I am reading from the official report, page 105, of the altitudes in Canada, taken from the official surveys in the Department of Railways and Canals. Now the grades on the Intercolonial from Halifax to Quebec reach only 700 feet at two points. But this central route climbs up mountains and down again a hundred times; at a hundred points on that road it will be higher than at any point on the old Intercolonial from L6vis to the sea-coast. Yet they tell us this Is a fast short line railway.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Would not the track be all down hill ?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know which track the hon. gentleman refers to. I have not the slightest doubt that these hon. gentlemen will endeavour to make it appear to the people that the track will run down hill both ways. Those two points that are 700 feet high are in the Matapedia val-

ley. Now, will the hon. member for Bellechasse himself tell me that it was not the central route that they had in mind.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It was fifty miles from there.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for Bellechasse himself corrected the hon. Minister of Finance and told him he did not know his business.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. Minister of Finance never said that; he never alluded to It.


James Joseph Hughes: I am merely stating the facts from the hon. gentleman's remarks. The hon. Minister of Finance said : We are taking the central route. There is his speech and the hon. member for Bellechasse can find it in ' Hansard.' The hon. member for Bellechasse does not occupy any ministerial position, but he gets up and tells us that the hon. Minister of Finance does not know his business and that the road is going by way of the Maine border route. Well, we will deal with the Maiue border route. The Maine border route traverses the counties of Levis, Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny, L'lslet and Kamouraska, in Quebec. Then it turns into the province of New Brunswick, and follows the valley of the St. John river. Any one who has ever been at Levis knows what the country is like in that neighbourhood. The people of Canada know what it cost to construct a little line eight or ten miles long to connect the Levis station with the Intercolonial Railway at St. Charles Junction a few years ago. We know what it cost to construct that little line through the hills to St. Charles Junction. I want to call the attention of the House to the topography of the country. The highlands between the waters flowing into the Atlantic and the Bay of Fundy and the waters flowing into the St. Lawrence


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not mind. These hon. gentlemen are squirming because they are hurt. The topography of the country is this : The rivers some distance east of Lf>vis flowing into the St. Lawrence flow in a north-easterly direction from the mountain range such as the Riviere dti Loup, River Ouelle, and all those other streams flowing in a north-easterly direction. They do not flow north or north-westerly. The trend of the valleys is north-east and southwest. All you have to do is to look at the map to see that. The rivers on the other side of the mountain range flow in a converse direction. They flow almost due southerly until you reach the border of New Brunswick, when they flow southerly. What that means is that if the railway travels in a south-easterly direction it will have to cross at right angles the valley of every stream. As I have pointed out, the route runs from Quebec not in an air-line at all, as
our hon. friends try to locate it. It will run southerly from Lfivis thence it trends off south-easterly and thence trends off easterly, thence north-easterly until it gets round the point of Maine and thence easterly again. The Geological Survey reports state that the mountains are very rough, that hills are cigar-shaped and piled in irregular heaps. Even the eloquence of my hon. friend from Westmoreland cannot take the tops off these mountains and place them in the valleys. As this is rather an important discussion, I shall take an opportunity of placing on record from official reports of the surveys of the United States survey department a statement as to the topography of the country. Unlike the British and Canadian governments, the United States is alive to this question, and at the present time I venture to say they have a topographical map of Canada. We know that the Canadian government and the British government never do get anything except they get it from some other source. The American government, many years ago, made a very accurate topographical survey of the northern part of Maine and of the province of Quebec north of Maine right up to the shores of the St. Lawrence. I will take Kamouraska county first, and deal with it by townships. I will deal with the counties by townships and will give the passes and elevations in each case :
Elevation
Kamouraska-	feet.
Parke tp., near pass of River Verte..	2,231
Pohenagamook, north-west corner small lake. This is near extreme
end corner of Maine	  ..	1,662
Chabot tp., south of pass and
mountains north-east corner	 1,849
Woodbridge tp., north of pass, southeast corner	 1,878
Painchaud centre, Manix River pass.. 1,936 Chapais tp., near Lake Ste. Anne,
pass	  1,868
L'lslet-
Lafontaine tp., north-west part River
du Gue pass	 1,600
Garneau tp., north-east corner over
pass	 1,898
Fournier tp., south-west corner, eight
miles from St. Lawrence	 1,440
Arago tp., north-east corner over
mountains	 1,410
Arago tp., east of Lac d'Apique over
mountains	 1,567
Arago tp., west of Lac d'Apique, pass 1,664 Montmagny-[DOT]
Patton tp., over mountains	 1,403-1,720
Montmagny tp., east part, pass.. ..	1,727
Bellechasse-
Roux tp., north-east part	 2,358
Roux tp., lot 35, concession B	 1,972
Dorchester-
Ware tp., lot 5, concession XIV.. .. 1,995 Lake Etchemin, surface	 1,213
From Lake Etchemin and River Ouelle, minimum 1,306, maximum 2,854.
I may point out that there is a good deal of farming land in the townships just north of the Maine border. The mountain range


James Joseph Hughes: runs through the Canadian counties and the settlers are shut off entirely by the mountain ranges from the Canadian railways. If we had a colonization road by talcing a circuitous route we could reach that part of the country and could even get a freight route through there. There is no reason why such a road should not be built, but it is not going to be an air-line. No engineer will tell me that you can get a railway through a country like that and construct an air-line reaching to the sea. That is the point I am making. These hon. gentlemen are trying to bunco the country by telling them that they are going to save 200 miles, or 140 miles, or 100 miles, or even 90 miles, between Quebec and Halifax by constructing this road. The Temiscouata Railway from Rivi&re du Loup to Edmundston makes an ascent of 1,324 feet. In the early days the British government had a route from Halifax via St. John up through Fredericton and passing by way of Edmundston and they tried all the passes that I have mentioned and found that the only feasible route was that through the Temiscouata pass. They also followed the border of the State of Maine until they struck the Etcbemin river and then came down that stream and also the ChaudiSre. This was an old military road and the only route which they found at all feasible was* through the Temiscouata pass, which is 1,324 feet high. This fact is reported in books in the library, and these reports show that this is the only pass at all available in the entire route.
Coming to New Brunswick, I will take the liberty of pointing out that the country north of the Miramichi and the Nashwaak is very rough. Here is a description of it, at page 160 of the official report, which gives the cross-section of the country running north in the direction which this proposed road will run. Starting at Pickard's Mill, twenty-five miles further up the height of land between a branch of the Nashwaak and Tay rivers is 1,133 feet, then down to 640 feet, up to 1,550 feet, down to 760 feet, up to 1,660 feet, down to 1,000 feet, up to 1,540 feet, down to 316 feet, up to 1,000 feet, and so on, then down to 400 feet at Fall river.
What we want to get are the facts of the case; and when hon. gentlemen stand up in the House, as did the right hon. First Minister and the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), and tell us that this line is going to save 140 miles as compared with the Intercolonial Railway, I tell them that they are talking nonsense, and there is no use of attempting to deceive the public. Here is what the report of the Geological Survey, volume 12, for 1902. says of that country :
The areas of Lower Carboniferous rocks in the Becaguimice and Tobique valleys exhibit surface features which are less diversified than those in the localities Just described, hut at the
northern limits of the latter the Blue mountains rise upwards of 1,720 feet above the sea-a prominent mass of eruptive rocks.
The third area which presents a different topography and has a different elevation from those above referred to, is that occupied by rocks mapped by geological survey as Silurian and Cambro-Silurian which underlie a large portion of the country within the western and north-western limits of the two maps-sheets. The general surface of this area may also he characterized as rolling, though sometimes rising into ridges and mountains. The average height, in and near the St. John valley and west of it, is from 400 to 500 feet, hut towards the north and north-east it is from 800 to 1,000 feet or more. The most noteworthy of the higher elevations are Hainsville ridge, Howland ridge, Pole hill, Golden ridge, Kincardine and Birch ridges east of the St. John and Magundy and Blaney ridges, Dorrington hill, Carroll and Pocowogamis ridges and Oak mountain on the west. The soils over a large part of this area are good.
Traversing this area in the north-east and south-west direction are wide belts of granite and pre-Cambrian rocks which usually have a greater elevation than the formations on either side. Hills and ridges, lake basins, boulder-strewn moraines, and a coarse stony soil are the prevailing characteristics of these granite areas. The country through which they extend is mostly in a forest-clad, widerness condition and unfit for settlement. The northern part of the region embraced in the two map-sheet is largely occupied by these granite and pre-Cambrian rocks and rises into rugged broken plateau from 1,000 to 1,500 feet high or more, the elevation of which increases northward beyond the limits of the Andover sheet. No well defined range of mountains exists in this part of the province, but denuded remnants of that spur or lateral extension of the Appalachian system across it in the north-western part and are to be seen in Mars hill, just west of the International boundary, 1,688 feet above sea level according to the boundary survey, and Moose mountain, east of the St. John, 1,490 feet in height, with other hills about the sources of Munquart river and to the east. At and beyond the northern limits of the Andover sheet (No. 2 S.W.) we reach the south-westerly extension of the interior high lands of the province which trend from here away to the north-east in an irregular range or series of elevations to the headwaters of the Tete-h-Gauche and Jaequet rivers, attaining altitudes in some parts of 2,500 to 2,700 feet above the sea.
The northern part of the Andover sheet covers an area which is still under forest and to a large extent a terra ignota. The south-west Miramichi river and its tributaries drain the north-eastern part, while the Tobique drains the north-western. The country here is, generally speaking, broken and elevated, -with an average height of 800 to 1,000 feet above the sea, but a, number of hills and ridges reach an elevation of 1,200 to 1,500 feet. Mr. Wilson, who examined the south-west Miramichi valley along some of the lumbermen's portage route, says :
' The north branch of the south-west Miramichi flows through a broken, wilderness country, with high hills bordering its banks. The average elevation of the country about the head waters of Burnt Hill and Clearwater brooks is from 800 to 1,000 feet, with hills rising 200 or 300 feet higher, and the height along the portage road from Pleasant ridge settlement to the

Dungarvon is 800 to 900 feet. Along the main river the banks are comparatively low in mans places, but there are numerous high peaks which stand out conspicuously above the surrounding land such as Louis, Otterslide and Todds mountain. At the junction of the north and south branches the elevation is about 800 feet, where the portage road from Green hill crosses it about 700 feet, and at Boiestown, 195 feet.' A large part of the area drained by the south-west Miramiehi and the Upper Tobique is unfit for settlement. Beaufort and Golden ridge, which were at one time supposed to be thriving settlements, have of late been nearly deserted.
I do not point this out for any purpose except to meet the absurd statement from lion, gentlemen opposite that this road is going to save 140 miles. I have seen the saving put at 170 miles by some of their papers. I am free to say that a road leaving Levis and running south-easterly, and crossing the corner of Bellechasse near Dorchester, and by the best route that can be found through the passes, would strike the valley of the St. John river just north of Maine, which is practically cut off from the Intercolonial Railway by the mountains. But it would have to cross every river almost at right angles. In order to maintain a grade sufficiently low to make the road a good, fast freight road, it will have to be increased in length at least 15 per cent beyond the air-line distance; and that being the case, the length of the road from L6vis to Moncton will be from 453 to 455 miles. The hon. member for Westmoreland controverted the statement made by my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) in reference to this matter. The hon. member for Westmoreland stated that the road from Chip-man to St. John via Norton was the shortest route to that city. The contention of the hon. member for King's was that the shortest route was down the valley of the St. John river. The distance from Fredericton to Chipman is 42 miles; from Chip-man to Norton is 44 miles, and from Norton to St. John is 33 miles, a total of 119 miles, whereas the route from Fredericton to St. John direct is 65 miles, making a distance of 54 miles in favour of the contention of my hon. friend from King's as against that of the hon. member for Westmoreland. So that if this road goes down that valley it cannot be regarded as a short air line route. In order to have grades over which heavy freight trains can be hauled economically, its length must be increased in order to decrease its grades. From Quebec to Moncton by the Intercolonial Railway is 489 miles, whereas the shortest route that can be found for the new line is from 453 to 455 miles, a gain of only 36 miles, and in two or three places it will have to climb from 1,300 to 1,900 feet to get over the mountains; and every "time you send a train over a grade so high, you have to use so much extra steam. Under these circumstances, this line, as compared with the Intercolonial, cannot be claimed Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
to be a fast freight line in any sense of the term. The central route referred to by the Finance Minister makes the distance 538 miles, making a saving in favour of the Intercolonial of 49 miles.
Now, we will transfer our attention to the west. We are told that the west is up in arms for this transcontinental road. What is the agitation about ? We had good crops for the last two or three years in the Northwest, a great many new farmers went into the country, and very few of them had granaries. The railways and the grain buyers had very few elevators at the stations, and as a consequence there was a glut in getting the grain out, and there was a great outcry in the country. I think it is a good advertisement for the country in that way, and perhaps those who are interested in the development of the west may not be sorry for it. However, the chief causes of difficulty were that we had abundant crops and the farmers who had more recently settled had not granaries built for its accommodation, so that they had to market the grain in the fall and the railway facilities were not sufficient to get it out in a rush. These grievances have to a large extent been removed. Many of the farmers have in the last two or three years improved their facilities for warehousing grain, and the elevator men have built elevators all over the country sufficient to accommodate many million more bushels of wheat than was formerly the case. It is also a fact that the railways have greatly improved their transport facilities, as well as their facilities for handling grain at Lake Superior ports. In consequence there will not be any great difficulty in handling grain in the future. There is another condition of things which bears to an important extent on the question of the marketing of our grain. I find from the United States report of the Bureau of Industries that in the year 1900 they produced
522,000,000 bushels of wheat, and yet on the first of March, 1901, the farmers held in their granaries out of that crop 128,000,000 bushels, which shows that the farmers in the United States do not rush out their grain in the fall, or in the winter, or even in the early spring, but that they keep it and watch for a rise in the market to sell it to advantage. At the date I have mentioned there were 87,000,000 bushels of grain only in the elevators east of the Rocky mountains, and in this calculation I do not include the 36,000,000 that are raised west of the Rocky mountains. Another point in connection with the shipment of grain is this. There is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that grain does not ripen in Manitoba or the North-west as early as it does in Kansas, and consequently the people of Kansas) are able to market their grain ahead of us. I maintain that it would be to the advantage of our grain dealers in the North-west, and of the farmers as well, that they should hold the grain until after the

period when the market is glutted with grain from the countries in which it ripens earlier than in Canada. Taking one period with another, there may not be much diifer-ence, but if you take one year with another, especially in years of abundant harvests, the price of wheat is depreciated just about the time that our farmers would be selling their grain if they marketed it immediately after the harvest. The following countries have their grain ready for the markets of the world previous to the month of June in each year:	Mexico, producing 9,000,000
bushels ; South America, 87,000,000 ; Asiatic Turkey, 30,000,000 ; Cyprus, 2,000,000 bushels ; Persia, 15,000,000 ; British India,
245.000.	000 bushels ; Africa, 45,000,000 bushels ; Australia and New Zealand, 67,000,000 bushels ; total, 500,000,000 bushels. Iam quoting these figures for the year 1901. Now, the countries that market their grain in the month of June are : Roumania, 72,000,000 bushels ; Bulgaria, 24,000,000 bushels ; Servia, 10,000,000 bushels; Greece and Montenegro, 3,000,000 bushels; Turkey in Europe, 22,000,000 bushels; California, 35,000,000 bushels; Spain, 108.000.000 bushels; Portugal, 8,000,000 bushels; Italy, 146,000,000 bushels ; Oregon, 18,000,000 bushels ; Alabama, 1,000,000 bushels ; Georgia, 3,000,000 bushels ; Kansas, 99,000,000 bushels ; Colorado, 8,000,000 bushels ; Missouri, 31,000,000 bushels ; total of grain marketed in June,
588.000.	000 bushels. The countries that market their grain in July are : Prance, 304,000,000 bushels ; Asiatic Hungary, 184,000,000 bushels ; Southern Russia, 402.000,000 bushels ; Nebraska, 42,000,000 bushels ; total marketed in July, 932,000,000 bushel's. The rest of the world markets its grain during the latter part of August and September and the last months of the year. I know that merchants have to be paid and that the farmers have to meet their obligations, but I believe that our North-west farmers should, as far as possible, hold their grain until a favourable market ; and, generally speaking, it would be to their interest to go in for a system of storing their grain rather than to rush it out when the markets are unfavourable.
Now, a word in connection with the question of rates, and let me draw the attention of the House and of the country to the policy that has been inaugurated recently by the Conservative government of Manitoba, led by the Hop. Mr. Roblin, in controlling, not owning railways-controlling railways, mind you. If I were to have an option as between government ownership on the one hand and government control on the other with private ownership, I would go for the government control. The result in Manitoba demonstrates that private ownership of railways with government control is what the people of Canada should have. Last year there was left in the pockets of the farmers of Manitoba, on account of the reduced rates on the grain
carried by the Canadian Northern Railway alone, a sum of $400,000. This was the beneficent result of government control of that railroad. I had a conversation with Mr. Roblin a few days ago, and owing to the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been obliged on account of the competition to reduce their rates-the result of this government control over this Canadian Northern Railway will mean, on the estimated crop, that the farmers of Manitoba will be the gainers by $1,500,000 on account of the reduced rates secured by the Roblin government. I take the Duluth rate, and if our country develops as we expect it will develop, that rate should prevail in Canada; I find that the rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur is 10 cents a hundred pounds, or 6 cents a bushel ; from Port Arthur to Buffalo 2 cents ; from Buffalo to New York, via the Erie canal, 4 cents, which makes a total of 12 cents from Winnipeg to the city of New York. The ocean rate varies from 2 to 7 cents, depending on the season of the year ; but, at all events, if you take the ocean rate of 4 or 41 cents, you have your grain transported from Winnipeg to Liverpool for 16 cents a bushel, and the people of the town of Lindsay pay very nearly that for the grain which they ship to the city of Montreal. The point I want to make is that freight rates are not controlled by railways, but that the water routes are the controlling influences in connection with freight rates. The rate from Chicago to Buffalo, all rail, in 1902, was 11J cents per 100 pounds, or 7* cents per bushel. Compare that with the all-water route from Chicago to Buffalo,. one and three-fifths to two and three-eights, or an average of one and a half cents a bushel, and you find that the grain by the water haul is five and seven-tenths cents per bushel from Chicago to Buffalo. Take the all-rail route from Chicago to New York during 1902, which was from seventeen and a half to twenty cents per hundred pounds. The exact figure for that year, as given by the Chicago Board of Trade, was 10-62 cents per bushel. That is the exact cost by the all-rail route from Chicago to New York. Take the water route, and I want to point out that the low figure is brought about by competition with the Lake Erie canal. The lake route from Chicago to Buffalo and the rail route from Buffalo to New York make an average of 5-89 cents per bushel. That was the rate from Chicago by water to Buffalo and by rail thence to New York. Now I will take the water all the way. From Chicago to Buffalo, and thence by Erie canal to New York was 5-26 or just about half a cent less than the water and rail route. The lake and canal route was a half a cent a bushel less in round numbers than the lake and rail route, and the reason is this, that the railways were forced to come down owing to competition with the Erie canal. It is pointed out that

tlie Erie canal only hauls 7,000,000 bushels, and the train for Buffalo hauls some 14,000,000 bushels. But all that western grain comes into Chicago before navigation closes, and is carried to Buffalo by those large steamers, and there placed in the elevators. One hundred and thirty-two million bushels of grain were placed in the elevators at Buffalo last year. A11 that has to be hauled by rail in the winter when the canal is frozen. But in summer the canals haul infinitely more than the railways.
Take the all-rail route from Chicago to Montreal, its rate is the same as to New York or Portland or Boston or Quebec. They are all classed in the one grade, and they will haul a train clear through to Boston from the city of Montreal, over Victoria bridge, and they will not get one farthing for hauling it all the distance from Montreal to Boston. In addition to the lakes and canals, what other factors are at work to cut down the freight rates in winter ? From St. Louis to New Orleans by steamer the rate for carrying grain is ten cents a hundred pounds for grain in sacks. For grain loaded in bulk it is four and a quarter cents a bushel to the Gulf of Mexico, and the rates from the gulf ports to the markets of the world are very little more than from the port of New York.
I have here the reports of the industrial commission of 1900. I find on page 578, tlie evidence of a prominent merchant of Chicago, by the name of Carter. On being questioned by representative Lorimer, he said :
Q. (By Representative Lorimer.) (Interrupting.) Just state them in-your own way.-A. As to our water transportation I would say this, first of all, that the future growth of the industries of this country, I believe, and the opportunities for our people to compete successfully in a fair race for the commerce of the world, requires that they should have the best and cheapest methods of transportation throughout this country ; and I think I can place before you a few facts which bear directly on this question, and which show conclusively that water transportation furnishes great advantages to the people of this country over the best that the railroads are able to furnish. I find in the records of the annual report of the secretary of the Board of Trade of the city of Chicago these figures : For the year 1897 the average rate of freight on corn from Chicago to New York city, via lake and canal, including the charges at Buffalo, was 4 53 cents per bushel. That was the average rate during the season of navigation ; and the average of rail rate for the year, taken from the public schedules, was 11'43 cents per bushel from Chicago to New York. The average rate by lake and canal on wheat for that year 1897, Including the charges at Buffalo, was 12-5 cents per bushel. In 1898 we were not able to obtain the charges at Buffalo. They were very irregular, running from three-quarters of a cent to nothing, so I have to exclude that in the calculation of the carrying charges. The charge by lake and canal for the year 1898 was 3-81 cents per bushel on corn and 4'45 cents per


James Joseph Hughes: bushel on wTheat all the way. The all-rail-charge that I have for 1898 was 9-8 cents, and on ! wheat 12 cents. From these statistics it is very easy to deduct these facts, that on the grain that was exported by the producers of this country in the year 1898 the difference be-I tween the charges for carrying by rail and water would approximate $25,000,000 in favour of water carriage.
To show tlie benefit of the New Orleans and the Galveston rates, I might point out that all through the report you can see the influence which the Mississippi steamers and the railway route to Galveston, but especially the Mississippi river, exert on grain freights :
Q. You say that the rates to New Orleans and the Gulf ports affect the Atlantic sea-board rates. To what extent do they affect them?-A. The largest grain-producing states are Nebraska and Kansas, I believe, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas, particularly of co.rn. The rates on grain from Illinois south to Kankakee and New ; Orleans at the present time is 12 cents per hundred for export. That would naturally make the rate from the same territory to the South Atlantic ports. The average difference in the ocean rate is about 4 and a half cents per hundred ; that is, the ocean rates are four and a half cents lower at Atlantic ports than at New Orleans and Galveston under natural conditions. Of course, this varies with the demand for tonnage. Every rate from the west of the Mississippi river up to the Platte river, to a certain extent the north line of Nebraska, is affected by Gulf competition ; that is, more or less of all grain that originates west of the Missouri river and south of the north Nebraska line, and in Iowa west of Des Moines and south. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincey, leading from Des Moines to Omaha, is affected by Gulf competition, and all of Illinois on the line of the Illinois Central only ; that is, I mean it is the only business which does actually move south from Illinois that affects other territory to a very great degree. Prior to the	[DOT]; of tie
Gulf ports, prior to 1889, immediately at the close of navigation at Chicago, the rate on corn to the eastern seaboard was advanced to 25 cents per hundred pounds. The rate I have just given you for export is considerably less, and the rate has not advanced to the eastern seaboard within the last five years after the close of navigation.
Q. By reason of Gulf competition ?-A. By reason of Gulf competition.
Q. Has business through the Gulf ports increased to your knowledge during the last five years ?-A. Very greatly. Galveston has increased in grain more than 1,000 per cent in the last five years.
So that we find that the old Mississippi river boats perform an important part. And when my hon. friend the hon. Minister of the Interior quoted a rate of 5 cents from Kansas City to Chicago, I want to tell that hon. gentleman that I hunted every book on transportation rates in the library and in the city of Ottawa, and I cannot find any such rate. But I can point out to him that the Transportation Committee in the Interstate Commerce Report in 1902. No. 480, page 141. on appeal to the Interstate Commerce Commissison, their ruling is :
8S97

The charge of twenty cents on the one hundred pounds of corn and oats from the Missouri river to Chicago

-that would include Kansas city, because Kansas city is on the border-
-and five cents less to the Mississippi, is excessive-
-that 5 cents is to catch the steamers going down the river-
-is excessive, and to be reasonable should not exceed seventeen cents to Chicago and twelve cents to the Mississippi river, east side.
No. 483 would look as if they want a little more than 5 cents a bushel on grain from Kansas City to Chicago, because, on the haul there of 240 miles they charged 40 cents per hundred. In the same book. No. 483 :
The rates of forty-six cents per one hundred pounds on grain and fifty-one cents on flour and meal between the grain region in Kansas and a large district in Texas are the same for distances shorter than 250 and longer than 800 miles, and are unreasonably high for the longer and grossly excessive and extortionate for the shorter distances.
So it will be seen that these 5-cent rates are not known in that part of the world. Now, the reports of the Chicago board of trade and the Buffalo board of trade, both of which I have here, show that the export rate is considerably less than the local rate in shipping to New York. We find that by rail and ocean, that is, by rail and then by steamer to Liverpool, the rate was 20 85-100th cents per hundred, or 12 51-100th cents per bushel. From Chicago to Glasgow the rate is 21 75-100th cents per hundred, or 13 5-100th per bushel. The same rate is quoted from London. And when we find that the rate from Winnipeg to Liverpool is 16 cents per bushel, we find that our good friends in the North-west have nothing like the reason to complain that the farmers have in the province of Ontario. If our farmers in the North-west had a little better transportation facilities-and undoubtedly they will have them in a year or two-if they had more granaries and elevators at the stations, and if there was not the same need for selling the grain in the winter time, this rate of 16 cents from Winnipeg to Liverpool-I am not speaking of the rate from country points to Winnipeg-compares very favourably with the rate from Chicago to Liverpool, and is far more favourable, considering the distance, than the farmers in my own county of Victoria or in any part of western Ontario can get on their grain by Toronto or Montreal. I claim, mark you. that this is where government action should come in. With every road the government assist, they should make a hard and fast agreement under which they would have the right to reduce rates as in their judgment may be deemed necessary, subject to certain appeal. As was pointed out before, through 279
action of this kind on the part of Premier Itoblln and the Conservatives of Manitoba, the farmers of that country last year saved $450,000. And this year the Canadian Pacific Railway, in sympathy with the lower rates of the Canadian Northern, has been forced to reduce its rates from 74 cents on grain to Fort William, which will save to-the farmers of that country this year noless than $1,500,000. Now, another reason why this northern route, in case it is ever constructed, cannot compete with the Grand Trunk and other routes all-rail to Chicago is this: Observe a freight train going out of any of the eastern centres for the west, and you will see that it is laden with merchandise of one kind or another. The cars come east loaded and they go west loaded. If they cannot carry anything else, they haul coal and commodities of that nature. Where will our northern road have return freights ? They may undoubtedly have, in time, and I hope they will have, freights from the old land to the west. But for many years they cannot depend on any local freight west. They will not be able to haul a ton of coal from the far east of Canada to our western centres, for the coal can be got more cheaply from the west. Therefore. this is another reason why it is absolutely impossible for this great transcjn-tinental road which these people are talking of constructing, becoming a great lreight-hauling road at reduced rates. They r ay haul the freight, but not at reduced rates. When the Minister of the Interior spoke of a rate of 15 cents from Winnipeg to the seaboard, to use a vulgarism, he was talking through his hat. Now, to show him that he is not posted on the question of rates, I will point out to him the rulings of the Interstate Commerce Commissison with reference to rates to points on a number of. great roads, and the names will show at a glance that they are important roads : Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, Chicago and North-western, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Omaha. Burlington, Cedar Rajiids and Northern, Minneapolis and St. Louis, and Illinois Central. These are the rates that were determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission as applicable to the freight lines leading to Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis. I nay say that the Illinois Central was generally from 2 to 4 cents lower :
For the first 160 miles 154 cents ; up to 200 miles, 17i cents ; 240 miles, 181 cents ; 280 miles, 19J cents ; 320 miles, 20J cents ; 360 miles, 21J cents ; 400 miles, 224 cents ;	440 miles, 234
cents ;	480 miles, 241 cents ;	520 miles 254
cents.	'
These are the rates which the hon. gentleman will find at-page 497 of the Interstate Commerce Report, volume 8, from September, 1896, to May, 1898.
Now, reference has been made to the abrogation of the bonding privilege. And I wish to say a word on that. I am not



S899 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
one of those who sit up at nights worrying about what our neighbours to the south are going to do. But I know from association with gentlemen in the United States of America, particularly in western centres, that if the United States government abrogated the bonding privilege or attempted to do so, I do not say that they would go in for annexation to Canada, but I do say they would raise such a row with the authorities of that country as has not been heard since the days of the civil war. More than that, the Chicago board of trade alone would not tolerate it a minute, and that is one of the most powerful organizations on the continent of America. The city of Boston would not tolerate it for a moment, because a large portion of its traffic f oes through Canadian channels. I wi!l show you what the report of the Buffalo Merchants' Exchange says on a kindred question :
While at the present time trade conditions with our neighbours to the north are exceedingly favourable to this country
[Stage Direction]
' Exceedingly favourable to this country.' I wish some of the lieutenants of the right hon. gentleman would make a note of this.
-there is a growing sentiment in Canada that present conditions should not continue and that the sentiment of ' Canada for the Canadian manufacturers ' by the adoption of a protective tariff, is rapidly growing. In view of the fact that Canada is the third best customer of the United States and that our exports to Canada are more than our combined exports to all the countries of South America, it would seem tp be a good reason that the United States should adopt a policy more friendly to our neighbour, and that negotiations should be opened through the Joint High Commission for a treaty that would continue friendly and promote better commercial relations between Canada and the United States.
Similar resolutions would be the mandate of every commercial city north of the 42nd parallel of latitude on the continent of North America. Last year the city of Buffalo alone exported to Canada some $15,000,000 worth of goods. Such a hold has the transportation question upon that city that the state of New York had an appropriation Bill to improve the waterways of the state, that is the Erie canal, the Oswego canal and the Champlain canal. The Erie canal connects with Lake Champlain, and they had an appropriation to give that a thousand ton barge capacity and they were willing to vote $31,000,000 to improve the waterways of that state, that is the Erie canal, the Champlain canal and a little slip into Oswego. None of these canals are open any longer than ours. These people have learned by hard experience the value of waterways, and they know that the only controlling influence you can exert over the railways is to improve the waterways and keep them in good order. Let me show you what they are doing. The city of Buffalo alone last year imported by lake 124,626,000 bushels of
James Joseph Hughes: 
James Joseph Hughes: I have converted my hon. friend from Centre Toronto. I am delighted to be able to announce to the House and to the country that I have a convert in my hon. friend from Centre Toronto, as to the virtues and benefits of the Trent valley canal. In addition to that, I would say that when hon. gentlemen are squandering this money, I cannot see why they should blow it in in one place, where it could do the country no good. I cannot see why they do not take part of it to build the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, and in place of making it a twenty-foot channel, what is wrong with making it a fourteen-foot channel, and making long locks ? A barge 300 feet long and drawing 14 feet of water will handle a lot of grain. I do not see why

they 'do not do something in that way and thus reduce the freight rate to the farmers, and in this way also assist to build up the eastern part of the country. I do not see why they do not take a little slice of this hundred million of dollars that they are squandering and construct the St. Andrews locks below Winnipeg. This would benefit the city of Winnipeg a great deal. They could then have free access to the extreme end of Lake Winnipeg. At the same time the government might take some of this money and improve the Assiniboia river, so as to give steamers an opportunity of competing with the railways for 300 or 400 miles away up this magnificent old stream. Then another little touch of it might be taken for constructing locks from the Saskatchewan river in the rapids near where the Saskatchewan river enters Lake Winnipeg. Then steamers could start from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and bring grain down the north and south Saskatchewan rivers, Edmonton and Medicine Hat. The Saskatchewan river is navigable for 50 or 60 miles above Edmonton, and the farmers could send their grain by way of the river, land it at Winnipeg and thus compete with the railways from the west. I cannot see why they are handing the cash all over to the Senator. We can hardly pick up a newspaper at the present time in which we do not see that a steamer is aground in Montreal harbour, or on the end of Anticosti island, or in the Straits of Belle Isle. Steamers are going aground every day in Canadian waters and -this is a lovely advertisement for Canada in the eyes of the world. I do not see why the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) do not take hold of this question and see that the Canadian waterway from Montreal to the sea is made such that we are not a disgrace in shipping matters to the commerce of the world. Instead of wasting all this money as they are wasting it, I would like to see a little of this hundred millions diverted for this purpose. I think it would do no harm if a school for the instruction of pilots were established in this country I remember once coming up the St. Lawrence. It was at the time that the right hon. leader of the government was returning from the old country. We were out in the channel, and we expected to meet the mail steamer. I was a little anxious because I wanted to catch the train.- We waited for hours and no steamer came. We could hear them firing cannon on shore, and we noticed the flash from each gun. we took the time between the flash of each gun and figured out the distance, and I remember drawing the attention of the right hon. first minister to the fact that the pilot was seven miles out of his course in the middle of the St. Lawrence river. I think it would


James Joseph Hughes: do no harm if we had a school for instructing pilots who are employed upon the St Lawrence. Therefore, a slice of that hundred millions could be expended in that way to the benefit of the Dominion of Canada generally. Then, it has been my privilege to visit the maritime provinces, and I am proud of the magnificent harbours we have there and the future prospects of that conn try. I would like to see not only the grades of the Intercolonial Railway improved, but I would like to see the docking and shipping facilities of St. John, Halifax, St. Andrews, Sydney, and all those other magnificent ports improved so as to assist iri the development of the maritime provinces. Now is our time to start, and instead of spending money at the order of a man that cannot wait-for a Senator who cannot wait-in place of obey ing his order, let the government assert its authority and power, withdraw this Bill and bring in a measure that will be of bene fit to the people of Canada.
One point more and I have done. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) referred to the Hon. Mr. Blair in very uncomplimentary terms. He said, speaking of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals :
He puts me in mind of a story I read a few years ago as to a riot in Chicago. A United States regiment of regulars who had been engaged in a campaign under General Miles against the Sioux Indians, were on their way to quarters in the east where they were to be granted a respite from their labours. They were ragged and toil-worn but they were veterans evidently, and as they were drawn up in line a person on the side-walk said to the soldier nearest to him : you would not shoot us fellows would you ? He replied : I would not unless the captain told me to.
I want the Postmaster General to fiote this :
Now, the difficulty with the ex-Minister of Railways is that he did not shoot when the captain told him to. It is necessary to have discipline in an army, it is necessary to have discipline in a party.
Remember that, those back-benchers, please :
Individual men may have very strong individual opinions-I belong to that category myself-but it is unreasonable for an individual to suppose that a party must accept his opinions and act upon them, and it is in the highest degree injudicious for that individual to kick over the traces because he cannot govern the party, for, in doing that, he destroys what little influence he might otherwise possess.
The hon. member for North Norfolk was as dumb as an oyster for 18 years, and he voted steadily in this House against his own convictions. He obevid the parlv lash; he showed the servile spirit that is in him. Let me read this extract from Dicey, the famous author, on the English constitution, and I trust that the rank and file of the Liberal par*:y will see from it what is the spirit permeating British miii-

tary law. I see the legal light from Hants smiling.


Mr. RUSSELL.: I had no intention of smiling at you.


James Joseph Hughes: 1 trust that the spirit that permeates British milita:;' law may actuate these gentlemen over there in their civil capacity as representatives of a free people. Dicey at page 295 says :
Every subject, whether a civilian or a soldier, whether what is called a 'servant of the government ' (such for example as a policeman) or a person in no way connected with the administration not only has the right, but is, as a matter of legal duty, bound to assist in putting down breaches of the peace. No douht policemen or soldiers are the persons who, as being specially employed in the maintenance of order, are most generally called upon to suppress a riot, but it is clear that all loyal subjects are bound to take their part in the suppression of riots. It is also clear that a soldier has, as such, no exemption from liability to the law for his conduct in restoring order. Officers, magistrates, soldiers, policemen, ordinary citizens, all occupy in the eye of the law the same position ; they are, each and all of them, bound to withstand and put down breaches of the peace, such as riots and other disturbances ; they are, each and all of them, authorized to employ so much force, even to the taking of life, as may be necessary for that purpose, and they are none of them entitled to use more ; they are, each and all of them, liable to be called to account before a jury for the use of excessive that is, of unnecessary force.
I would like this to sink into the mind of the hon. member for North Norfolk, and I would like to remind him of this fmthet extract from Dicey, page 308.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What has this got to do with the subject ?


James Joseph Hughes: I will explain to the Postmaster General what it has to do with it if he has the patience to wait. I dare say that he has got the hon. member for North Norfolk under his thumb, so that he cringes and bows under the rule of the government, but I trust that there are men sitting behind the Postmaster Genereal who will not be so servile. I trust that there are men sitting behind the government who will assert their right of citizenship and manhood, and who will teach the government that they will not stand such an iniquitous proposition as that placed before them. Dicey at page 308 says :
When a soldier is put on trial on a charge of crime, obedience to superior orders is not of itself ct dGf6QCG*
This is a matter which requires explanation.
A soldier is bound to obey any lawful order which he receives from his military superior. But a soldier cannot any more than a civilian avoid responsibility for breach of the law by pleading that he broke the law in bona fide obedience to the orders (say) of the commander-in-chief. Hence the position of a soldier may be, both in theory and practice, a difficult one. He may, as it has been well said,
be liable to be shot by a court martial if he disobeys an order, and to be hanged by a judge and jury if he obeys It.
I am afraid the member for North Norfolk would be hanged. I dare say many
an honester man has escaped the gallows.
His situation and the line of his duty may he seen by considering how soldiers ought to act in the following cases.
An officer orders his oldiers in a time of political excitement then and there to arrest and shoot without trial a popular leader against whom no crime has been proved, but who is suspected of treasonable designs. In such a case there is (it is conceived) no doubt that the soldiers who obey, no less than the officer who gives the command, are guilty of murder and liable to be hanged for it when convicted in due course of law. In such an extreme instance as this the duty of soldiers is, even at the risk of disobeying their superior, to obey the law of the land.
An officer orders his men to fire on a crowd whom he thinks could not be dispersed without the use of firearms. As a matter of fact the amount of force which he wishes to employ is | excessive, and order could be kept by a mere i threat that force would be used. The order, therefore, to fire is not itself a lawful order, that is, the colonel or other officer who gives it is not legally justified in giving it, and will himself be held criminally responsible for the death of any person killed by the discharge of firearms.
Soldiers might reasonably think that their officers had good grounds for ordering them to fire into a disorderly crowd which to them might not appear to be at that moment engaged in acts of dangerous violence, hut soldiers could hardly suppose that their officer could have any good grounds for ordering them to fire a volley down a crowded street when no disturbance of any kind was either in progress or apprehended. The doctrine that a soldier is bound under all circumstances whatever to obey his superior officer would be fatal to military discipline itself, for it would justify the private in shooting the colonel by the orders of the captain, or in deserting to the enemy on the field of battle on the order of his immediate superior. I think it is not less monstrous to suppose that superior orders would justify a soldier in the massacre of unoffending civilians in time of peace, or in the exercise of inhuman cruelties, such as the slaughter of women and children, during a rebellion.
So much for the argument of our hon. friend from North Norfolk. I do not think it is necessary even to order him into line. I have noticed for some time that that hon. gentleman has kicked over the traces very frequently; but as soon as he sees a little notice in the papers that the Joint High Commission is about to meet in the course of a few weeks, he forthwith comes back and we see him crawling at the feet of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour. He does not wait to be told to shoot, but he goes off at half cock.
Mr. Speaker, the question is a large one, and I could dwell upon it at a greater length; but I hope that before the matter proceeds much further the House and the country

will be treated by the Prime Minister in the proper way, by his coming forward and apologizing for having placed such a proposition before them, and withdrawing it like a man.


Benjamin Russell: Mr. Speaker, I have read somewhere or heard the story of Douglas Jerrold who was at one time recovering from a severe fit of fever. A volume of Browning's ' Sordello ' was put into his hands to interest him while in a convalescent state. He began reading it; but as he could not understand a word of it, he had terrible apprehensions as to his mental condition. Great beads of perspiration stood out on his forehead. At last he passed the book to his wife who was sitting at the head of his bed and asked her to read it. She read a few lines, and then threw the book away in disgust, saying, ' It is perfect and absolute nonsense.'
' Thank God,' said he; ' then I am not mad.' I must confess that I passed through a somewhat similar experience when I was trying to discover what connection there was between my hon. friend's quotation from Dicey on martial law and the subject of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Not being, like my hon. friend opposite, a man of military aspirations or martial tendency, I turned to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, and asked him if he could explain it to me. ' No,' he said, ' I cannot see any connection whatever.' ' Thank God,' said I to myself, ' then I am not mad.'


James Joseph Hughes: Oh, wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us.


Benjamin Russell: If the hon. gentleman
sees me in that light, I will accept it as conclusive evidence of my sanity. I must confess that I rise with some degree of trepidation and alarm to measure swords with the hon. gentleman, because I have read an autobiographical sketch of the hon. gentleman, from which I learn that he has in his veins the blood of the two great martial races of the world, of which this great nation of ours is composed-the blood of the old courageous gentlemen of Enniskillen and the Boyne, and also the blood of some French ancestor who served under Napoleon Bonaparte.


James Joseph Hughes: Nothing diminutive about that crowd.


Benjamin Russell: No, nothing diminutive, but the fact is calculated to inspire a small person with a great degree of alarm and terror,and I am sure that nothing should be added to that terror and alarm that one feels by the hon. gentleman's interruptions. I have illustrations of the hon. gentleman's prowess in various lines, gathered from his autobiography. Among these he gives the following
As athlete, victory almost ever followed auy team I led or played with. As one chronicler


James Joseph Hughes: of Canadian athletics wrote, in speaking of my ' inspiring influence ' on the men, the cry was :
Hughes, Sam Hughes, the war cry rattles,
As rang ' Old Fritz ' in Europe's battles.
As a rifleman the hon. gentleman has his record, and also as a politician. As a man of learning and science he has his record too. But most of all, as a miracle-worker he stands so high that it would be almost profane to institute any comparison. He says :
On two occasions I received within an hour and despatched within the same period of time in the evening, by trains and boats, upwards of twenty-five thousand persons.


James Joseph Hughes: Orangemen, too.	'


Benjamin Russell: I did not know that; that should have been mentioned.
There was no hitch, no accident. These vast crowds too, were fed within a period of two hours without confusion in a town of less than seven thousand.
I am sure nothing of that sort has ever happened since the time when I do not know how many loaves and the two small Ashes were used to feed a great crowd.


James Joseph Hughes: Keep it up. Don't go back on it.


Benjamin Russell: I do not, and I hope my hon. friend will not feel the slightest temptation to go back on it.


James Joseph Hughes: Not at all; I am not ashamed of it.


Benjamin Russell: The hon. gentleman is a great teacher as well. He is able to teach the farmers of this country how to harvest their wheat, how to gather it into barns, how to garner it, how to deliver it on the market. I am a very humble sort of person, and I am willing to take my lesson from him as to the proper time of the year for the farmers to deliver their grain on the market, and I learn from him that the proper time is somewhere about March or April. In those months, the lakes are closed to navigation, and if the grain is to be carried to the markets of the world, the right way and the only possible way to carry it is over a railroad. And I suppose that if the grain of those farmers of ours in the North-west is to be carried over a railroad, the only question for us to consider is whether it is to be carried over Canadian or over American railroads. The policy of the government, I understand, is that we shall have our Canadian grain carried over Canadian railroads, and the hon. gentleman admits that this1 is a good policy. I should not forget to say that the hon. gentleman is by his own account the father of this policy.
I have his own word for it, and if it is necessary I can give it. He says :
Among the many plans originated by me and carried, or being now carried, into successful execution may be named : The introduction of

military drill in schools ; the second great transcontinental Canadian railway to the Pacific.
This is the railway we are talking about, because it is the second great transcontinental Canadian railway to the Pacific. He also tells us in the same paragraph that he originated * the policy of upbuilding Canadian ports instead of foreign ones ; ' and that is the sole purpose for which the present measure is brought before the House. Therefore I have a right to claim the hon. gentleman as the father of this measure for the securing of a second great transcontinental line to the Pacific and the upbuilding of Canadian ports instead of foreign ones.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not call this a great transcontinental system at all.


Benjamin Russell: It is big enough for us. We are quite satisfied with the size of it. The hon. gentleman said, in the course of his opening remarks-although his later comments belied rather what he started out with-that he had no objection to make to the line, no objection to the route, no objection to the soil-all these were all right; and be threw overboard, as he went on, nearly every hon. gentleman on the other side who had opened his mouth with reference to this matter. He destroyed .at one fell blow, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). He left no argument to that hon. gentleman, for that hon. gentleman's whole argument was based on the defective character of the soil, the route and the line. But to none of these things has the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) any objection. All that he objects to is the iniquitous contract, and on the iniquity of it be did not give us one scintilla of light.
He has given us, however, the evolution, according to his idea, of this great contract. He said it began in a Minneapolis paper. It began with something concerning the Canadian Northern Railway, for which, I suppose, he holds a brief. Then be said it expanded from North Bay to Winnipeg. Then it went a little easterly, and the Quebec bridge was drawn in, and it was going from Quebec over to Winnipeg and the west. Later on, the maritime provinces were brought in, and now it is a transcontinental railway from the maritime provinces over the bridge to Quebec, and from Quebec to Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. So that by the process of evolution the hon. gentleman has proved conclusively to himself the origin of this project. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not make very much difference where it comes from. Modern science teaches us that the greatest results ever achieved in the world have come from the minutest possible origins; and I do not care from what minute origin in a Minneapolis newspaper the bon. gentleman evolves this scheme. Here we
have it, and we are not going to cavil at its origin. If it is going to be a great Canadian and. all-British railway, I care not whence it comes or how small its origin.
The hon. gentleman told us that he was going to criticise this contract. Well, how did he carry out his promise? He did not complain of one thing in the contract. I listened carefully to the hon. gentleman, and I could not gather from his remarks what iniquity there was on this contract on which he based his opposition to it. He read two passages of it, and only two, clauses 37 and 42. Let me refer, first, to clause 37. He seemed to discover that in clause 37 there was no security for the Canadian purchasers of goods; and the hilarity of my hon. friends on his right and left as he made this discovery was something very delightful indeed. Well, will he be surprised to learn-I do not know whether he ought to be surprised, because I am sure it has already been pointed out in this House-that the very section in this Bill which has excited the hon. gentleman's criticisms and his friends' hilarity, is exactly the section which was moved by the hon. member for Cornwall as an amendment to the Bill incorporating the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I shall read tlie two sections side by side, and I give my hon. friend the benefit of the comparison ; and if he can show anything in this Bill, which is more of a limitation than what is contained in the resolution of the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle), then I will do what be himself offered to do a moment ago, and resign my seat and let him come and have it, if lie wants it.


An hon. MEMBER.: And can get it.


Benjamin Russell: Of course, always subject to that limitation. Clause 37 of the contract reads :
The company shall purchase all material and supplies for the construction of the western division and the equipment of the whole of the said line of railway from Canadian producers, when the same are produced in Canada

I want to know if the hon. gentleman thinks the company should be obliged to purchase them in Canada if they are not produced in Canada.
-and when such materials and supplies can be purchased in desired quantities and of equal quality suitable for the purposes required -
I do not suppose that the hon. gentleman would want to have the railway company bound to purchase materials and supplies from Canadian producers when they are not produced in Canada, and when they are not suitable for the purposes required. No one is going to consent that goods, whether Canadian or American or from any other part of the world, may be put into the railway unless suitable for the purposes required;
-and for prices and upon terms equally advantageous to those procurable elsewhere.

Would it be reasonable to ask this company, which is putting its money into the building of 3,000 or 4,000 miles of railway, that they should purchase their supplies in Canada when such supplies were not suitable for the purposes required and could not be got for prices and upon terms equally advantageous with those procurable elsewhere ? Surely those are entirely reasonable and proper qualifications on which to impose on the company the obligation of purchasing goods in the Canadian market. But if there be anything wrong in this clause it is taken directly and absolutely from the resolution moved by the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle.)


William Rees Brock: Read the resolution of the hon. member for Cornwall.


Benjamin Russell: I am about to read it. It is as follows :
In the event of any subsidies being granted to the said company,' they shall be subject to the conditions that the company shall, as far as practicable

Now, if the shoe were on the other foot, how we could ring the changes on that. You can take any meaning you like out of it. What is the meaning of ' as far as practicable ' ?
-construct, equip and operate their line or lines of railway with railway supplies, structural iron and steel, railway fastenings and cement and rolling stock of Canadian manufacture, whenever such railway supplies and rolling stock can be procured as cheaply and upon as good terms in Canada as elsewhere, having regard to quality and price among other things.
Which is the most hazy and indefinite? This one leaves the decision to the arbitrary discretion of the company, and I do not hesitate to say that clause 37 leaves less open to the company than this clause 40, which was to be added to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill.


William Rees Brock: In one of them the articles are defined and not in the other.


Benjamin Russell: That is true ; I was forgetting to mention it. This proposition of the hon. member for Cornwall only relates to particular articles, but the clause we have put in the contract applies to any articles of any kind. That distinction was in my mind, but I forgot to mention it, and I am very grateful to my hon. friend for having reminded me of it. It certainly shows that the clause we have inserted is more comprehensive than the other.
There is another section of this Bill to Which the hon. gentleman refers, and that is the one which, of all others, he says shows the cloven hoof. That is section 42 :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement, that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian


Benjamin Russell: channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shippers, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory or between Canadian inland ports.
Ha, ha, the hon. members say. Just look at that, does not that show the cloven hoof ? If they were not intending to have the control of roads on the American territory, why would they have put that there ? It is a circumstance of the greatest possible suspicion that they have it there. But then it would have been cited as a circumstanc of the greatest possible suspicion if they did not have it there ; so, it does not make much difference, so far as that is concerned, whether they have it there or not. If we had said nothing about sending it over Canadian territory, the hon. gentleman would hav said :	Why do you not have a clause pro
viding that this traffic is to be carried al together over Canadian territory ? The Minister of Justice properly and naturally put it there, and now it is regarded as terribly suspicious that it is there. I have never heard or read of an argument of thi character since Sergeant Buzfuzz showed the unutterable things that were concealed in the message about chops and tomato sauce. Now, Just one word more on this point. I want to know why the hon. gen tleman did not finish the reading of that clause. It would have been fair and Just that he should have read the two lines at the end of the section :
-that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall be carried by Canadian ocean ports.
I think that if the hon. gentleman had been desirous of making a fair and Just statement of the contract, if he had not been desirous of quibbling and endeavouring to pervert the meaning, if he had not desired to find some faults that did not exist, he would not have failed to go on, as he easily might, to show how clear and manifest the intention of the government was to compel them to make this road what it is destined to be, an all-Canadian route for the purpose of building up Canadian ports. And he would have read another section immediately after, which is to the effect that:
The company shall arrange for and provide, either by purchase, charter or otherwise, shipping connections upon both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans sufficient in tonnage and in number of sailings to take care of and transport all its traffic both inward and outward, at such ocean ports within Canada upon tie said line of railway, or upon the line of the Intercolonial Railway, as may be agreed upon from time to time, and the company shall not livert, or, so far as it can lawfully prevent permit to be diverted, to ports outside of Canada any traffic

which it can lawfully Influence or control, upon the ground that there is not a sufficient amount of shipping to transport such traffic from or to such Canadian ocean ports.
Now, I say that these two clauses taken together make it absolutely clear that this is to be a Canadian line to be worked in the interest of Canadian ports. And I say that all that is necessary to make it a truly Canadian line, and all that it is necessary for us to assume as existing to ensure its complete success are, in our eastern ports, some little degree of push, and in our western country some little degree of patriotism. With patriotism at the western end and push at the eastern end, it is absolutely certain that this will be a transcontinental line that must build up the ports of our country. Because the patriotic man in the west will route his traffic through Canadian ports, and the Canadian ports will provide the means and facilities to handle it, and in this way the line cannot fail to be a truly Canadian transcontinental railway, serving well the purpose which it is the intention of the government and of this House that it should serve.
But my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) says that they are not going to work this line at all. Apparently the hon. gentleman lias not thought of the fact that they cannot help working it. He seems to think that this is something that they can take or leave at their own will. He evidently does not know any more about the terms of this contract than do some of his legal friends who criticise it. The company is bound under contract to take the lease of this road for fifty years-there is no option on their part. They are bound not only to take the road, but to work it. But he says that Mr. Hays is a far-seeing man, there is no limit to the amount of iiis brain and the length of his head ; and Mr. Hays has deliberately entered into an agreement looking ahead for fifty years, and at the end of that time, is going to throw up his road and then carry the grain to Minneapolis, or Chicago, or Philadelphia, or Portland, or wherever else it is the hon. gentleman sug gests-somewhere that is not a Canadian port. Well, I knew that Mr. Hays was a pretty long-headed man. He certainly has that reputation. But if he is so long-headed that he is entering into this contract thinking of what he will do fifty years hence when most of us will be in our graves, he is longer-headed than even the greatest of admirers gave him credit for being. The hon. gentleman was even a little more im aginative, and told us he was not going to work this road. But the contract says they must take it and they must work it. Of course, one point I will concede to the hon gentleman-we do not expect the company to work this road until the road is ready We all must admit that. Nobody supposes that they can be called upon to run their trains over the road until the sleepers are down and the rails laid. But when the road
is ready, the contract obliges the company to work it. And the hon. gentleman himself has shown in the most conclusive way that they can work it, because he has demonstrated that a matter of three or four hund red miles more or less In the length of a , great railway does not make any difference in rates. That is the fact. Anybody who knows anything about railroads has had that fact brought to his attention. For in stance, Portland is a northern port. It is further from the great centres of distribution than Boston. Farther still from those centres than New York, and farther still than Baltimore. Yet, an added distance of two or three hundred miles-the hon gentleman said three or four hundred miles- does not make any difference in the rates on the long haul. If that be the case-and it is the case when you come to continental distances, such as three or four thousand miles. That is exactly why this great transcontinental railway company would be able to carry this grain over the road we are going to build for them. Even if Halifax or St. John may be much farther away from Winnipeg or Port Simpson than Portland will be, yet it will be practically the same thing for them to carry to Halifax ' r St. John over the long distance as to carry to Portland. And we rely for the proof of that proposition upon the very demonstration which the hon. gentleman has made that this increased distance is a negligible quantity.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Then why don't you use the Intercolonial ?


Benjamin Russell: The Intercolonial is a different thing altogether. It is a short piece of railway which does not connect with the grain centres of the west, and the principle does not apply to a short line as it does to a long line.
The hon. gentleman referred to the matter of running powers, but dealt with it with extreme lightness-as lightly as light could be. He said that so far as running powers were concerned, every body has read that provision, and every body smiles at it. But every body does not smile at it. Some people think it a matter of very great importance. Mr. Hudson wrote a book on railways to demonstrate the great inequality and difficulties and injustices connected with the administration of railway systems in the United States, and he said that the right method for removing these difficulties and extortions was to restore the original theory of a railway highway, as is being done, to a large extent, in this very Bill. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) the other day demonstrated from actual fact that the railway highway theory is not an impracticable idea ; he demonstrated that it is not only a workable theory, but a working theory. This writer shows why he had a working theory, and these are his words :

Manifestly, to let any one run engines or cars over any railway, free from supervision or direction, would produce hopeless wreck and disorder.
The Duke of Wellington said we must never forget the analogy of a highway. Railways in England were built upon the analogy of highways, and this argument is that if we are going to have a proper definition of a railroad, we must work back to the old theory of the highway.
Such a proposition would be presumptive of lunacy. But when we inquire whether a plan cannot be perfected which shall retain all needful precautions, and enforce by law the authority of the central officer over trains in motion, while giving to carriers the right to compete in the carriage of freight, the question assumes a very different aspect. What is there in these methods which cannot be preserved without the exclusive privilege of carrying freight over the track ? The maintenance of schedules need not interfere with the freedom of competition. The carrier wishing to run a train of his own could he required to run a regular train on schedule time, or to follow a regular train with an extra, just as extras are now run on every railroad in the country. The control of the trains in motion must be given to a train-despatcher ; but the trains thus controlled may be owned, loaded, and forwarded by different carriers.
He did not see anything impossible about it.
If the law secures implicit obedience to the orders of the train-despatcher, while the trains are on the railway, can it make any difference to the safety and speed of the service that one train is owned by A, another by B, and that both carry freight at such rates as are fixed by free competition ? Cannot the authority which controls the trains be made as absolute and unquestioned as now, or even more so, without vesting the monopoly of transportation in a single company ? Cannot the obedience of the men in charge of the trains, and their intelligence and care, be. secured in as high a degree if competing carriers are allowed to use the same track ? And cannot the use of safe rolling-stock and its maintenance in good repair, by frequent inspections, be enforced just as well under a system of competition as under a system of monopoly ? These are the questions which must be answered, in order to determine whether the idea of competition in transportation over the same track is practicable.
This proposition does not contemplate sending a number of trains under conflicting control upon the same track. It simply proposes that the right of outside carriers to load their trains, at whatever rates they choose, and to send them over the tracks of the railway, shall be established, under whatever regulations are necessary for the preservation of speed and safety ; and asserts that all these regulations can be enforced consistently with the practice of free competition. The first condition that it assumes is, that all such competing trains would he started on schedule time, and fun either as regular trains, or as extra trains following the regular ones. It next supposes, as a vital condition, that all trains will be under the control of the train-despatcher from the moment that they come upon the track until they reach their destination. All the details cf reporting the progress of each train, at every Mr. RUSSELL.
telegraph station which it passes, of keeping the record of its location in the central office, and of governing its movements by telegraphic orders, can be enforced as well, whether the trains are owned by a single corporation or by a dozen. Let the law, or the rules of the railway company, provide absolute control by the train-despatcher, of trains in motion, and the efficiency of that officer need not be in any respect diminished by the fact that the trains are owned and laden by competing carriers.
Mr. Hudson goes the whole length of saying that any number of companies can run their cars over the same road, but his theory is that that road ought to be owned by the state. I do not press the theory that far, the government does not press it that far. All they are saying is that one or two companies can have the use of this road besides the Grand Trunk Company; that all the great companies that want to carry grain out of the North-west or anything else may feasibly and advantageously be allowed to use it on fair and equal terms, and that is what the government propose to do between Winnipeg and Moncton.


Mr. CLANCY.: Have any great railway experts adopted those views ?


Benjamin Russell: Here is one who has adopted that view.


James Clancy: He is not a railway expert, he is a railway theorist.


Benjamin Russell: What are experts but theorists ? I will give my hon. friend another opinion, that, of a gentleman who ha's considered the railroad question seriously and technically, and that is ex-Governor Larrabee of Iowa, who says :
The adoption of Mr. Hudson's plan would simply be a return to the first principle of railroad transportation. It has already been shown that the first English charters permitted the public to use their own vehicles and motive power upon the railroad track, but that shippers and independent carriers could not avail themselves of these provisions of the early charters because it was in the power of the railroad companies to make their tolls prohibitory. There is but little question as to the practicability of Mr. Hudson's plan from a purely technical standpoint, and its adoption might be advisable if it should be demonstrated that a monopoly of the track is inconsistent with the operation of the railways for the public good.
That is to say, ex-Governor Larrabee sees no technical difficulty in the matter at all, he considers it feasible but doubts if it would have the beneficial effect which Mr. Hudson anticipated from its operation. Now, I give the opinions of these two authorities. I do not think that railway experts would go the length of saying that it would be desirable or safe that everybody should be allowed to pass a train upon the track and at a fixed toll. I do not think that would feasible. But in the estimation of two such eminent authorities as Mr. Hudson and ex-Governor Larrabee, what the hon. member for North Norfolk said is

amply justified when lie showed from actual experience that it is feasible for more than one railway authority to send its cars over the same line of road, as we know it is.


Mr. INGRAM.: The hon. gentleman has quoted the member for North Norfolk as making a statement about the Wabash Railway, a statement which I deny.


Benjamin Russell: It does not make any difference if the hon. gentleman does deny it, I am reasserting it. I have just as much faith in the hon. member for North Norfolk as I have in the hon. gentleman.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may further state


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am asking the hon. gentleman's permission to make a statement.


Benjamin Russell: I do not think it is worth while for us both to try to speak at the same time. There is one other matter that I wish to refer to, and that is the information the hon. gentleman gave us about the central route in the province of New Brunswick. Now, he has absolutely misunderstood, I think, the speech which was made by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). My hon. friend from Westmoreland made it clear that the route which was being referred to in Sir Sandford Fleming's report was a route that went up to Rivifire du Loup and over a chain of mountains, while the route that is proposed or contemplated by this Bill, is to be taken through the province of New Brunswick, and all the references that have been made to Sir Sandford Fleming's report and to the cross sections he mentions, are entirely beside the mark. It was made clear by my hon. friend from Westmoreland that the route which is contemplated runs from Quebec back of tbe mountains, which skirt the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, and passes around the border of the state of Maine and clown through the central part of New Brunswick, which is an entirely different line from that which is criticised in Sir Sandford Fleming's report. I have some more observations to make about that subject, but in the meantime, lest hon. members should go away with a false impression, I want to point out the fact that there was always a contention between Mr. Wilkinson, the provincial engineer of the province of New Brunswick, and Major Robinson, on whose report, to a large extent, Sir Sandford Fleming relied when he gave his account of this central route which ran partly through the province of New Brunswick and partly through Quebec, where we do not propose to go in this Bill at all. This road takes an entirely different course. So that the evidence my hon. friend quoted he has quoted to no purpose at all, and he might just as well have quoted from a book of logarithms. Mr. Wilkinson, in criticising the circuitous route that the Intercolonial Railway takes around the northern part of New Brunswick, in his contest with Major Robinson says :
Were a proposition now for the first time offered, that the intercourse between Halifax and Quebec should not pass through New Brunswick, except by the most circuitous route that could be made, it might justly be expected to be repugnant to both Nova Scotia and Canada. But it has, I trust, been shown, that such a proposition would be at least equally objectionable to New Brunswick, and that it is for the common interest that the inter-communication should be as direct as the natural facilities of the country will permit.
There is Mr. Wilkinson's evident impression. Mr. Wilkinson's impression and opinion which is evidently the opinion of the people in New Brunswick shows that the route which Major Robinson had recommended and along which the Intercolonial Railway now goes was a circuitous route, was too long a route, was longer than need be and that a route through the central part of New Brunswick was one which would give us as direct a route as the natural facilities of the country would permit. Now, Mr. Speaker, with this ref erence to the ques-ton of the location of the Intercolonial Railway and the saving to be effected by running it through the centre of the province of New Brunswick I have no further remark to make in regard to the speech of the hon. member for North Victoria and with the permission of the House I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Postmaster General, House adjourned at 12 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 18, 1903.