1903-09-29

[Stage Direction]
PRINTED BY S. E. DAWSON, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST x /	EXCELLENT MAJESTY
f	1903

[Stage Direction]
, Co1- 13457>
seventh line from top Heading, for ' Desjardins-Allumette wharf, 87,500,' should read : Deschambault, wharf, $5,000.'
Col. 13505, twenty-fourth line from top, Heading, for ' Further amount required for Archives, $3,000,' should read : ' Compiling historical data of Acadian families in Canada, $1,400.'
Col. 14589, twenty-fifth line from bottom, 'Vical Kingsmill,'should read ' Nicol Kingsmill.'
[Stage Direction]

House of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 29, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 259) to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Mr. SPROULE.: Explain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, as at present constituted, consists of four puisne judges and one judge of the Supreme Court. The intention is now to have a court constituted with five puisne judges and a chief justice. The second section of the Bill privides for cases reserved for consideration by the full court. As the law *now stands a judge reserving ft point for the consideration of the full court cannot be a member of the court unless his presence is necessary to constitute a quorum. The intention is that when a point is reserved in a criminal case the judge sitting at the trial in the criminal case who reserved the point may form part of the court before which the reserved case is taken. I may say that the last amendment is suggested by the judges of the Supreme Court.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is there any demand from the bar or the people of the
North-west Territories for an additional judge ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is he to be stationed or to reside ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is an almost unanimous request from the bar of the North-west Territories for the appointment of this additional judge, and I may say that it is supported by the Attorney General of the North-west Territories. No provision is made for residence at the present time. There will necessarily have to be a division made so as to make provision for the district in which Macleod is situated, but I am not sure at the present time where the residence will be.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to draw the attention of the House and of the country to a statement of the conditions as they seem to exist at Sault Ste. Marie, in the Province of Ontario. I notice in the morning paper the following telegram :
Toronto, Sept. 29,	1.00 a.m.-Col. Buchan
commanding the military district in which Sault Ste. Marie is situated, has just received an urgent telegram requesting the immediate despatch of troops to the Soo.
4.2611

1 do not know what the condition of [DOT]affairs may be, but at all events it is quite 'evident that there is a considerable disturbance. The point I wish specially to emphasize this morning is the facility with which the people of Canada are calling upon the troops to suppress disturbances on any and every occasion. I presume the troops called for here will only be some volunteers from the city of Toronto and other districts, and probably the permanent corps of the country. Sault Ste. Marie is situated in the Toronto military district. I desire to know what steps have been taken in the premises, or if the government has been advised as to what steps have been taken by the military authorities in that district ?
I know that the military authorities act independently of the government under the regulations and orders, but still the commanding officer should apprise the government of whatever steps he may take. While the situation there may be, and doubtless is, a very trying one, and while there may be rioting, I think all communities should be encouraged to depend on their own local authorities to as great an extent as possible. X have therefore the honour of asking the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he lias in his possession any information regarding the situation at Sault St. Marie, and whether it is such as to justify the calling out of the troops ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) this morning, and therefore he may have information which I have not at this moment. But I can give to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) the information which I have myself. Yesterday I received, personally, several telegrams, all coming from the same party, from the party in charge of the works at Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Coyne, representing that there were disturbances and riots, that the property of the corporation was threatened, and asking that the government should supply troops to quell the riot. We had to inform him that under such circumstances the government had no authority to act, that it was for the local magistrate, the civil power in charge at . Sault Ste. Marie, to determine whether the presence of troops was necessary, and if necessary to call for them. Whether any Steps have been taken in that direction by the local authorities at Sault Ste. Marie I have no information at this moment. I may say that there is a disposition to call very often upon the government to send foops. Perhaps the people are unduly seared, but I do not think for my part that there was a very serious condition at Sault Sle Marie. There was a small disturbance, hut in so far as my information goes it was not of a very serious character, and nothing but which could have been con-Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
trolled by the local authorities. If the (citizens and police are powerless to quell rioters, of course they have a remedy by law, but whether they have availed themselves of it or not I do not know.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 235) to provide for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, before the Bill is read a third time, I would like to offer a few remarks in regard to the general scope and character of the measure which has been introduced by the government as embodied in this Bill and in the contract annexed to it. The discussion has been so thorough on almost every phase of this measure and of the alternative scheme which I had the honour to propose in this House some weeks ago that it will not be necessary now for me to go very minutely into the subject, nor indeed could I, without devoting an enormous amount of time for that purpose, undertake to answer in detail all the criticisms which have been addressed to my own proposal by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. It is needless to say that if I should go beyond the confines of this House, and attempt to answer the criticisms of the same character which have been made outside, I would be compelled to inflict myself at still greater length upon the patience of hon. gentlemen at this very late date in the session. There is, however, one aspect of the question, referring more particularly to my alternative proposal, which has been dwelt upon in very great detail by hon. gentlemen opposite. I refer to the question of the cost of the alternative scheme which I have suggested. I will not attempt to answer all these gentlemen, as perhaps under other circumstances I might be inclined to do, but, as all of their extended criticism has been summed up in the speech of the Postmaster Gemeral-which I regard as embodying on behalf of the government all criticisms of that character which could possibly be made upon my alternative proposal-I shall take the speech of the Postmaster General as a fair type of the Criticism which has been addressed to the House and the country, with regard to the proposal which I had the honour of making some few weeks ago. In the first place, the House and the country should know, that my hon. friend (Hon. Sir William Mulock) explained that he especially desired to make a perfectly fair and business-like comparison between the cost of the scheme as embodied in this Bill, and the cost of the scheme which I outlined. Let it be understood also that the Postmaster General ropeatedlv adopted the figures which have

been presented to the House by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. In order, that I may do no injustice to the Postmaster General in that regard I will quote three passages from his speech. At page 9755 of ' Hansard ' the hon. gentleman used the following language :-
Ours is a very modest one. At one time we had it attacked as being a scheme of great magnitude ; but when compared with the proposition of the leader of the opposition, its dimensions are considerably lessened. It only contemplates the building of a railway from Moncton via Quebec to the coast, a part of which is to be operated by a railway company, and which will only cost the people of Canada $13,000,000.
At page 9760, the hon. gentleman used the following language :-
Our scheme, limited to an investment with the exception of a few years at the commencement when we pay interest or forego rent, involves a cash outlay by this government, not to be recovered, of noit exeeding $13,000,000.
At page 9776, repeating practically the same language, he said :
I am ashamed of our modest scheme, involving an expenditure of only $13,000,000.
There can be no doubt therefore, as to where we have the Postmaster General with regard to the figures which have been submitted to the House by the Minister of Finance. Further than that, it is to be observed, that by adopting the figures of the Minister of Finance, the Postmaster General has estimated the 400 miles from Moncton to Quebec at $25,000 per mile, equal to $10,000,000 ; and he has fixed the 1,475 miles from Quebec to Winnipeg at $28,000 per mile, or equal to $41,300,000.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General dealt one by one with the items of cost which in his judgment were included in my proposal, and I must take up a little time in also going over one by one the points in the argument of that hon. gentleman in that respect, in order that I may show to the House and to the country, the degree of fairness which the Postmaster General wished to import into this discussion.
In the first place, in estimating the cost of the Canada Atlantic Railway, extending from near Montreal to Depot Harbour on the Georgian bay, he stated-by what authority I do not know, and on what data lie left the House in ignorance-that that railway would cost the people of Canada $17,000,000. We have it on the authority of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), that that railway including steamships could have been acquired for $12,000,000, and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has stated (page 9718,
' Hansard ') that that railway was offered only a very short time ago for $11,000,000. I myself believe on good authority that the Canada Atlantic Railway could have been bought during the present year for $12,000,000 in cash, and that that sum would have included the steamships as well. Now, the Postmaster General was not at first
inclined to touch at all on the alternative proposal I made with regard to the line from Montreal to the Georgian bay It will be remembered that I distinctly stated that as to this matter, as well as to all matters involved in the scheme which I proposed, I would act only on the best expert advice and assistance that could be procured in Canada, or on the whole of this continent. However, in the course of the speech of the Postmaster General, I interjected a remark which made it necessary for him to consider the cost of a railway from Montreal to the Georgian bay, and he then estimated such a line as costing no less a sum than $15,000,000. That is to say, a railway 360 miles long from Montreal to the shores of the Georgian bay, would cost $41,600 per mile according to the estimate of the Postmaster General ; whereas, a railway, through an unknown and trackless country in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec would cost, according to his estimate, only $28,000 per mile. That will give to you, Mr. Speaker, and to any gentleman in this House and this country who desires to estimate at its proper value the argument of the Postmaster General in that regard, a true indication of the fairness and the businesslike manner in which he sought to approach the question of the comparative cost of these two projects. Let us look at the argument of the Postmaster General in another aspect.
This line, 360 miles in length through the settled part of Ontario, from Montreal to the shores of the Georgian bay, is to cost $15,000,000, while 1,875 miles of railway from the city of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg are to cost in actual cash outlay, not to be recovered, $8,853,000, and no more. Is there one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, outside of the Postmaster General, who would dare to get up in this House or on any platform in this country and present that as a fair and accurate comparison of the cost of these two schemes ? Further than that, according to the view of the expert put up by the government to answer the. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, this road is to be built for the purpose of transporting to the seaports of the St. Lawrence and of the Atlantic the whole grain trade of the west ; and, according to that same expert, it can only accomplish that provided it is built in the most modern manner, is equipped by the most approved system, and has grades which do not exceed four-tenths of one per cent per mile ; and it is suggested to the people of this country that a road of that character can be built through the northern parts of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario for $28,000 per mile. Why, the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway has run up to between $50,000 and $60,000 per mile ; and the Postmaster General himself, estimated the cost of the road along the northern shore of Lake Superior now operated by the Canadian Pacific Rail-

way at about $50,000 per mile. My hon. friend, the Postmaster General, treated the road from Moncton to Winnipeg as costing absolutely nothing after it was once completed, and after the period of non-payment of rental had ceased. On the same basis, if he had desired to make a fair comparison of these two schemes, he surely would have estimated that the Canada Atlantic Railway, if acquired by this country, paying as it does, 5 per cent on its capital, would not only cost this country nothing, but would afford a small margin of annual profit on the transaction. Yet, according to the estimate of nfy hon. friend, one road is to be put into this fair comparison at $15,000,000, and the other is to be put in at absolutely nothing beyond the loss of rental during the first seven or ten years.
The next portion of my scheme which the Postmaster General dealt with was the line from North Bay to Port William, which he estimated as costing the country $3S.-040,000. At page 9769 of ' Hansard ' he dealt pretty fully with the character of that road; and it is just as well that his language should be placed before the House, in order that we may have a thorough appreciation of the view he takes as a lawyer of the compensation that ought to be paid for a public work acquired by the government. He said :
Everybody knows that the 634 miles operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway between Fort William and North Bay is about the most unprofitable piece In all Canada. Everybody knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway have an alternative route from Duluth to Sault Ste. Marie, and a distance of nearly 400 miles, which they would be only too glad to use If they could get rid of the expensive north shore piece of railway. The hon. gentleman proposes to take out of the Dominion treasury $38,000,000 and hand it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purchase of its railway from Fort William to North Bay. Every day it runs a train from Fort William to North Bay, it loses money. I am not In a position to say how much, but an hon. gentleman opposite-speaking with, I do not know what authority- suggested that $1,000,000 is the annual loss in operating the railway between Fort William and North Bay.
My bon. friend, speaking not only as Postmaster General, but as a lawyer, has taken tlie ground that if we expropriate a railway, which is an expensive road to maintain, which is losing money every year to the company operating it, we are to pay not only the value of that road, but the cost of it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought that every infant in the law knew that when the government expropriate si property in the interest of the country, it pays not what the property cost, but the actual value of it to the person from whom it is taken. That is a principle which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would not controvert for a single moment, because be knows that it is supported by authorities so absolute and so numerous that no lawyer Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
could dispute it. But the hon. Postmaster General says that although this is a losing road, although it is practically valueless to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, although to be relieved of it and to get running powers over it on a basis of rental would be of great advantage to the company, yet if we undertook to expropriate that line wTe would be obliged to pay the cost of it. Why, Sir, this matter was argued out in this House years ago. We argued it out in the discussion on the acquisition of the Drummond County Railway. We took the ground, which was not disputed, that tlie true basis on which the government should pay for that railway was the value and not the cost. Further than that, we took the ground with regard to the Drummond County Railwmy, which I am prepared to take with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay or Sudbury to Fort William, that if the company sought to be paid compensation on the basis of cost, it would be only fair and proper, in the interest of the country to take into consideration the subsidies which have been paid by the country to the company towards the building of the road. Why should a railway company receive the cost of a public work expropriated by the country when a part of that cost has already been borne by the country ? We took that ground with regard to the Drummond County Railway, and it is a sound principle to adopt with regard to any work expropriated by the government in the interest of the country. But notwithstanding that, the Postmaster General puts in this road as part of my scheme at $38,040,000. I would like to know why he puts it in at one single dollar, if he adopts the argument of the Minister of Finance. What was my proposition in regard to the acquisition of the line from North Bay or Sudbury to Fort William ? My proposition was that either the absolute right of ownership or the absolute control of running rights should be acquired by the people and that equal running rights over that line should be given the three great railway systems of Canada, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. My proposition also involved the necessary consequence that these roads shall pay for that running power. How would that he accomplished ? In the first place by the exaction from them of a rental to cover the interest on the expenditure, and in the second place by making them pay. upon what is known among railway men as a wheelage basis, the cost of maintenance and operation. So that if my hon. friend the Postmaster General had desired to make a perfectly fair comparison, if he had dealt with my proposition as he did with that of thie government, he would Lave put it down as costing to the country not one cent, because the W'bole cost of the line and its operation would necessarily be borne by the

three railways to which 1 have referred. ' iret the Postmaster General, with these fair, business-like methods of his, makes my scheme involve an expenditure of $38,040,000 to the people without return, whereas similar propositions-the line from Moncton to Winnipeg for example-are dealt with by him upon an absolutely different basis.
He was troubled also wib regard to my proposition because he said it would result in Americanizing the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway, he feared, would build its line from the ' Soo ' to certain western connections and bring all its traffic through American territory. My hon. friend had better not distress himself very much, on that point until he can make up his mind to vote for, instead of against, certain safeguards proposed from this side with regard to the Grand Trunk Railway. Here is a line of railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, which has one terminal in Chicago and the other in Portland. It has a great railway system in Canada, and it has done a good deal of work in developing Ontario, and I do not blame it for one moment for looking after its own interest with regard to its own terminals ; but I say that the government and the people must also look after their own interests. When we insisted in committee of this House on imposing in this very Bill conditions and restrictions which would prevent the Grand Trunk Railway from taking the freight that may come over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and from carrying that freight to its own terminal at Portland, was my hon. friend the Postmaster General distressed at the prospect which now alarms him? No, he stood up and voted like a man to throw out the very resolutions that we proposed asi safeguards to the people. This is the same gentleman who is anxious, almost to the point of distress, because forsooth he says my proposal will result in Americanizing the Canadian Pacific Railway. If he believed that, he did not appreciate my proposition, because I distinctly said that the Canadian Pacific Railway should have exactly the same running rights as it has at present over that road, in common, however, with the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway under the independent control of the government. The Canadian Pacific Railway would have no more cause than it has now to' do what the Postmaster General suggests. It would have less cause because it would operate and send its trains over this road between North Bay or Sudbury and Port William at a very much less cost to itself than is involved in the operation of that line at present.
-My hon. friend the Postmaster General really excels himself when he comes to deal with the line from Port Arthur to Winnipeg. 1 had suggested that it would be wise for the government to give some assistance in im-providing one or both of the lines from Fort
William and Port Arthur to Winnipeg. I suggested that as a good business investment for this reason, that if you have a hundred million bushels of grain, as you may very soon have, for export, and if you can, by a fair expenditure, reduce the cost of carrying that grain by one cent a bushel, you will save the people one million dollars every year. Therefore I thought it right and proper that the government might spend two million, or even three million dollars in improving these lines, giving the government absolute control, reducing the rates, and by this means saving to the people possibly a million dollars per year. That was my proposition, but how does my hon. friend the Postmaster General torture it ? He puts the cost of that proposal at no less a sum than $26,263,549. He says that I propose to buy both these lines, that it will be necessary to buy them both. We would have to acquire, he says, the Canadian Pacific Railway between Port William and Winnipeg, which would cost $15,638,549, and the Canadian Northern, which would cost $10,625,000. making a total (f $26,263,549. Then comes the following mysterious paragraph in his speech which appears in the revised ' Hansard ' and therefore must have been carefully considered. I will give it to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as a conundrum with which he can deal, when lie comes to speak on this question, if he should speak on it :
Now the purchase of these different roads and the construction of two pieces would aggregate In all $841,015,549.
I do not know really what my hon. friend was driving at, but lie was about as near the mark as anywhere in his speech.
He is, distressed also at the idea of this country using a railway to Port William in rivalry with other roads. It would be disastrous, he says, to acquire a line from Port William to Winnipeg and use that in rivalry wit h other roads. But will his memory carry him back four years, when he stood up and voted for a proposal to acquire the Drummond County Railway f nd running rights over the Grand Trunk Railway from LSvis to Montreal, for the purpose of operating that road in rivalry with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway? Now he is distressed because hon. gentlemen on this side suggest that, in the interests of this country,' it might be advisable to grant aid to these two railways from Port William to Port Arthur and Winnipeg. Why even if we did , acquire a line of railway as part of the Intercqlonial and operate it all the way from Moncton to Winnipeg in rivalry with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, we would only be doing exactly what we are doing now with the Intercolonal. Is not the Intercolonial from Halifax to Montreal operating in rivalry with the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and

from Levis to Montreal is it not competing with both the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway ? What is the reason that there should be rivalry and con-petition between government and private roads in the east and not in the west ? The people in the maritime provinces are very well satisfied to have the Intercolonial operate there in rivalry with other roads, and I suppose the people of the west would be just as well satisfied to have the Intercolonial operating there in similar rivalry. So far as the question of principle is concerned, I challenge my right hon. friend the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General to point out one single distinction in principle between doing that in eastern Canada and doing the very same thing in western Canada.
But, if my hon. friend the Postmaster General excelled himself when he dealt with the line from Port William to Winnipeg, he more than excelled himself and everybody else when he came to deal with the prairie section. He adopted the estimate of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who, at page 8586 of ' Hansard,' stated that the aid proposed by the government in the shape of a guarantee for construction of the prairie section not exceeding $13,000 a mile would cost the country nothing. That is distinctly the basis on which the Minister of Finance proceeded, and it is the basis which has been adopted over and over again by the Postmaster General. But when be deals with my proposal, does he deal with it in the same way ? How should he deal with my proposal ? My proposal was simply to give to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway similar aid for the prairie section to that which the government propose to give under this Bill. The Postmaster General himself 'makes that perfectly plain when, at page 9771 of ' Hansard ' he says that my proposal is for the same assistance to the Grand Trunk Pacific as the Canadian Northern receive, namely, a guarantee of $13,000 a mile. But how does he deal with the cost of the guarantee when he desires to make an extravagant estimate of the cost of my proposal ? He puts it at $13,000,000, as against nothing for exactly the same aid under the government's proposal. Let us look at it for a moment. We have the estimate of the Minister of Finance as follows : Eastern section, including interest during construction, will cost $54,609,676 ; loss of rental, seven years, $11,468,030 ; aid to mountain section, $2,924,000 ; Quebec bridge, $2,000,000. He adds to that for aid to the prairie section under the government's proposal just nothing. So, the total cost of this, including the prairie section according to the estimate of the Minister of Finance, will be $71,001,706. And the Minister of Finance tells us that the total cost to the country will be less than $13,000,000, which is just the sum that the Postmaster General estimates will be the cost under my scheme Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of aid to the prairie section alone. And this is the gentleman who desired to make not only a business-like but fair comparison of the cost of the two schemes.
Now, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Muloclt) proceeded to deal with the mountain section. He represented the cost to the country of the mountain section under my scheme at $30,000,000, that is, for 600 miles at $50,000 a mile. Of course, I would not deal, even in passing, with the fact that, whereas the Minister of Finance put the length of the mountain section at 480 miles, the Postmaster General adds a trifle of 120 miles to it when he makes an estimate of the cost of the mountain section under my proposal. That was perfectly convenient for him to do, and I do not complain very much about it ; it was only a trifle compared with his other exaggerations. He represents me as deliberately adding a cost of $30,000,000 to that of the scheme which the government proposes. I thought I had made myself perfectly clear with respect to my proposition as to the mountain section, and I believe I did make myself clear to every hon. gentleman In this House and to every man in the country txcept the Postmaster General. My scheme was this : I said that I believed! that, from Edmonton or from some point west of Edmonton to the Pacific coast, there was no necessity for more than one new line. I said the Canadian Northern had as good a right to be regarded as a transcontinental railway as had the Grand Trunk Pacific. Knowing the ways of railway promoters, I apprehended that the Canadian Northern Railway would come to this government for exactly the same aid for a line to the coas,t as that which was proposed to be given to the Grand Trunk Pacific ; and I said that, inasmuch as it seemed to me that only one line was necessary, I would impose on these two companies the obligation of joining their lines at Edmonton or at some point west of Edmonton, and that any aid given by this country for a line west of that point should he for a line to be operated, under independent control if necessary, and used by both these companies as part of their transcontinental lines. I believed, and still believe, that, in making that proposal, I was saving this country the cost of aid to a second transcontinental line. I said further- and I repeat It now-that the government had the whole situation, and will have the whole situation, in its own hands, if it acts wisely. Let us suppose that the two companies cannot come to an understanding for the operation in common of that road from Edmonton or some point near Edmonton to the coast. What will happen ? The government, in the first place can refuse to give aid until this understanding has been reached. That is the first part the government has to play. In the next place, if the government sees fit, it might itself build the line from Edmonton or some point west of Edmonton to the coast on condi-

tion that these companies shall use it upon exactly the same stipulations that I have already referred to in respect of the line from Sudbury to Fort William, that is, they must pay a rental which will free this country from any burden for interest on the cost of construction, and they must also pay the cost of operation, and maintenance upon a wheelage basis according to the user by the several companies. With such a proposition, what should my hon. friend the Postmaster General have put in as the cost to the country under my proposal of the line from Edmonton to the coast, adopting the same basis which he has used for estimating the scheme of government ? He should have put it in at not one dollar, because every cent of interest would be recouped to the country. But, instead of that, he puts it down at $30,000,000 and represents me as absolutely proposing to build that line. And so he sails gayly back to the east, carrying with him the $38,000,000, the $26,000,000, the $30,000,000 and the $15,000 not to speak of the $841,000.00 as to which we are not very clear up to the present time.
Now, my hon. friend the Postmaster General then proceeded to deal with my remarks concerning the proposed colonization road in the northern part of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. He estimates for me not a first-class road-he is good enough in this instance to estimate what he calls a cheap colonization road, and he puts it in at only $20,000 a mile or $28,000,000 for a total of 1,400 miles from Quebec to Winnipeg. That is to say, this cheap colonization road would cost under my scheme as he presents it, just $15,000,000 more than the government's scheme is to cost the country in all. A first-class road from Quebec to Winnipeg, a road with four-tenth per cent grades, if we are to take even his estimate of my proposed line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, would cost $40,000 a mile. Surely that is not a high estimate ; it is an absurdly low estimate for a road with four-tenth per cent grades. I do not believe it could be built for $60,000 a mile. But we will take his own estimate, the estimate which he has placed on the line as proposed by me from Scotia to Sudbury, of $40,000 a mile. Then we will have :
Quebec to Winnipeg, 1,475 miles at
$40,000 a mile	 $59,000,000
Moncton to Quebec, 400 miles at $40,000
a mile	 16,000,000
Mountain section (according to the estimate of the Minister of Finance) 2,924,000 The Quebec bridge (according to the same estimate of the Minister of
Finance)	 2,000,000
That Is a total of	$79,924,000
This is without taking into consideration interest during the period of construction and ten years loss of rental ; and the hon. Postmaster General is going to do the whole of that for $13,000,000 while he puts down the cost of a cheap colonization line from
Quebec to Winnipeg at $28,000,000. I repeat that we can only stand amazed at the unusual moderation and fairness of my hon. friend the Postmaster General.
Now in respect to this so-called colonization road, I pointed out in the speech which I had the honour to deliver in this House some time ago, that I did not believe that the project of building colonization roads through that country and the project of building a short direct through freight road could be carried out on the same lines. Colonization roads should be built in short sections at a time, as the needs and requirements of settlement and of the people demand. Such a road should not be built as a direct through line but should be built into those portions of the country where it is found that it will be most useful ^ for settlement; whereas a through line if it is to give the shortest and best practicable route would naturally disregard considerations of that kind because it is designed to create the most direct route for the transportation of the products of the west to the Atlantic sea-board. Therefore I said at page 9002 of ' Hansard : '
So far as the line from Quebec to Winnipeg is concerned, I am not disposed to minimize the possibility of that northern country. Looking at the history of the great west, there may be a great flood of settlement into that country norta of lake Superior, some day or other, at least up to a certain point west, but I do not think we know enough to justify us at present in saying that there will or will not he, because I do not know how far that country is capable of competing, in the early future, with the magnificent country we have in the North-west. I have some doubts as to whether or not that great northern country may compete as early as we would desire with the great western country. But I am not disposed to minimize its importance in any way, and to my mind the rational way of dealing with the proposed line from Quebec westward is this: First, thoroughly exploit and explore that northern country, realize and understand its capabilities and possibilities for settlement and colonization and build such railways as these conditions and requirements may demand. Build only after you have obtained the fullest possible information, and obtain that information with the least possible delay. You may find curious conditions surrounding you when you get into that country. You may find that the road which is the most direct line to the Pacific coast, will not he the road that will open that country for colonization. You may find it necessary to have a road running in one direction for colonization purposes while any future line to the coast must take a very different direction.
I adhere to that, and I say further that I believe, that the best method of opening that country by colonization roads will be by building these roads gradually from south to north and by connecting the existing settlement of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario with the settlement that may take place in that northern country. Not only will that be in the interest of the people of both provinces but I believe it will be the way in which settlement can best be opened.

Our people would not desire to go two or three hundred miles away from all settlement and to make their homes on the line of a through transcontinental railway, where many of the trains would not stop and where they might not get the accommodation they would desire because it might be expensive and difficult to give such accommodation on a through line of that character. If you build colonization roads from the centre portions of Quebec and Ontario into that northern country you will keep settlement as it advances, closely in touch with the people in the central part of the provinces and in that way will be more likely to accomplish the colonization of that country. By this method you will attract settlers and it is the only businesslike method that can be suggested.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General entered into a long discussion upon my suggestion of an additional transcontinental line in the future. I did not propose the immediate construction of a transcontinental line, but I wish to tell the hon. the Postmaster General and the people of this country that I did not and I do not shrink from the possibility of a further transcontinental line built by the government and operated by the government when it is called for by the requirements of the Canadian North-west. Bet the hon Postmaster General, who shrinks from that possibility, think for a moment of the language of the expert of the government, who said at page 8523 of ' Hansard,' that within the lifetime of persons within this House we might have three or four transcontinental lines. If he wants extravagant language let him look at the words of the expert of the government and not at my modest statement that I believe at some time in the future it might be. necessary to have a transcontinental line built and operated at the cost of the people of this country. I do not shrink from that responsibility, although the Postmaster General appears to do so. When he takes that position he takes entirely different ground from the expert of the government, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and from that of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell,) who stated, at page 8953 of ' Hansard,' that the number of transcontinental lines which we might have to build in the future was absolutely unlimited. Let my hon. friend also look at the language of the hon. Minister of Finance, who also, at page 8502. looked to the possibility of several more transcontinental roads. Let him also consider the words of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who at pages 9516 and 9518 of ' Hansard,' dwelt on the immense possibility of that country in the raising of stock and grain in the future. Let him also read the language of the hon. Minister of the Interior. Let my hon. friend the Postmaster General not thus shrink from the possibility that at some time in the future the people of this country may


Robert Laird Borden: be called upon to build another transcontinental line and may answer the call.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General grew merry over my proposal to equip the Georgian bay, the St. Lawrence, and maritime ports. At page 9777 of ' Hansard ' he actually derides this proposal, and in effect declares-and I think the attention of the country should be called to it-that it is no part of the policy of the government of this country to spend one single dollar upon the Georgian bay ports, or upon the St. Lawrence, or Atlantic ports. I say that after having examined the language of tht Postmaster General, and I will show to the House and to the country how I gather that distinct enunciation of policy from the language of the hon. gentleman. The hon. Postmaster General is making a fair comparison-he has stated that over and over again-between my proposal and the proposal of the government. He calls attention, at page 9778 of 'Hansard' to the fact that the debt of the harbour of the city of Quebec amounts to $5,803,538, and he calls attention to the fact that the debt of the harbour of the city of Montreal amounts to $8,054,156. He does not go into the cost of the equipment of other ports, he does not give the figures in regard to them, because he has not the figures before him, but he takes the figures which lie has, and he deliberately adds them to the cost of my proposal, and adds not one single dollar to the cost of the government proposal. He is either making an unfair comparison, and I cannot charge him with that, or else it is not the policy of the government to spend one dollar on the equipment and development of the Georgian bay ports, the St. Lawrence or the Atlantic ports. If there is any answer to that, I would like to know what it is. We have a member of the government, put up by tlie government to criticise the financial part of my proposal, deliberately adding $5,803,53S, the debt of the harbour of the city of Quebec, and $8,054,156, the debt of the harbour of the city of Montreal, to the cost of my proposal, and not one dollar for any of these works does he add to the proposal of the government. Is it not an accurate and necessary deduction from that to say that not one dollar does the government propose to expend on the development of the Georgian bay ports, the St. Lawrence or the Atlantic ports ? Either that is the policy of the government or else the hon. Postmaster General has made a deliberately unfair comparison. I leave the hon. gentleman and the right hon. leader of the House to say which of these alternatives he desires to accept.
My hon. friend also became somewhat merry over my proposal in regard to the consideration by this government of the project of erecting elevators or warehouses, and he said that it was absolutely absurd, because the government could not undertake to com-

pete with private enterprise. Has the hon. Postmaster General been so long in his office that he does not know that he is competing with private enterprise in the Post Office Department at the present time in the forwarding of parcels ? Does he not know that he is competing with private enterprise in carrying on a savings bank business ? Does .he not know that the government is competing with private enterprise in its binder twine factory and in its railways ? I did suggest the proposal as a project that the government should immediately enter into ; I suggested it as a project that the government should consider, and 1 pointed out that in the western states there was practically state-ownership of elevators, and that when farmers put their grain into these elevators they received a certificate to which the credit of the state is attached. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I am so informed. I have not had an opportunity of investigating the subject carefully.


Mr. McCREARY.: I do not know that there are in the grain-growing states of Minnesota, Dakota. Wisconsin or Iowa state-owned elevators. There are farmers' elevators, but I know of no state-owned elevators.
Mr. SPROTJLE Are there none at Duluth ?


William Forsythe McCreary: No.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) has perhaps misunderstood me a little. I do not think my information went so far as to say that there are state-owned elevators, but my understanding is the state takes such control over them that the certificates issued for grain deposited in these elevators bear upon them the stamp of the state, that farmers receiving these certificates can look to the whole credit of the state to see that they are paid and that, in fact, they are practically regarded as negotiable instruments by the farmers of the west. I would defer to the superior knowledge of my hon. friend from Selkirk in regard to that, but I am informed by people who profess to be conversant with the facts that such a condition exists in some of the western states, and possibly that information may agree, to some extent, with the information that my hon. friend has upon that point. I would not suppose that it was a very radical thing after all to suggest that the government should consider the economic sav- j ing in providing elevators or warehouses at a minimum cost, instead of having farmers themselves provide them at a minimum cost.
I think perhaps my hon. friend from Selkirk will agree with me in that view, although he may have some modifications to suggest. For example, if it should cost a cent a bushel to warehouse grain for a certain period of time, and if by such assistance as the government could give to the
farmers of the west that grain could be stored for a quarter of a cent a bushel during the same period of time, surely a suggestion of that kind is not so utterly absurd that the government should not take it into consideration. That was all I asked. I did not put this forward as a proposal. I put it forward as something which I thought the government should consider. I adhere absolutely to that opinion, notwithstanding the sneer of the hon. Postmaster General, and I think it is a suggestion which the government will have to take into consideration in the .not very distant future.
The hon. Postmaster General, after demolishing very much to his own satisfaction, my proposal, proceeded to deal with the line from Quebec to Moncton. He includes, in the cost of my proposal, for his part of the scheme, $10,000,000. I believe I did, in addressing the House somewhat hurriedly the other day, near six o'clock, speak of a line from Levis to Moncton. I was not aware that I had done so until I was afterwards informed of it by the hon. Minister of Justice, and having been informed of it by the hon. Minister of Justice in the course of his speech, I said that I intended the line to run from Rivifire du Loup to Moncton, because Riviere du Loup brings you past the extremity of the state of Maine, and. according to my view, you can make just as short a line by building from Rivh're du Loup to Moncton by the best practicable route, as by building a new line from L6vis to Moncton. Whatever necessity there may be for colonization roads through the rear parishes of the counties of St. Lawrence, I do not know. If there is any need of colonization roads, I would be prepared to give it all due consideration ; but for the project of a short line from LSvis to Moncton, what I intended to propose was a line from Riviere du Loup to Moncton, if it would give the people of the maritime provinces and the maritime ports a better fighting chance for the trade of the west, and I so expressed myself in my speech.
I propose to build this line as a part of the Intercolonial Railway, to keep it as a part of the people's railway, and not to hand it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific. My hon. friend the Postmaster General, no doubt through inadvertence, puts in the whole line from Levis to Moncton, and charges my scheme with $10,000,000 as the cost of that line.
Let us bear in mind just this. The whole enterprise of the government is to cost $13,000,000 ; that whole enterprise of the government includes this line which according to the Postmaster General is to cost $10,000,000 in my proposal ; therefore, if you eliminate this $10,000,000, you have $3,-
000.000 left for the construction of all the other lines proposed by the government. That is a fair argument, is it not ? This section is included in the proposal of the Postmaster General which is to cost $13,-

000,000 ; this section, according to him, is to cost $10,000,000, and therefore there are $3,000,000 left to represent the country's cash out of pocket for all the rest of the government proposal. Let us see what this wonderful government and this wonderful Postmaster General are going to do with that $3,000,000. I will give here an estimate, according to the Minister of Finance, of the rest of the proposal, and I will give also my own estimate.
The line from Quebec to Winnipeg, according to Mr. Fielding's estimate will cost $41,300,000, but according to the Postmaster General's estimate of $40,000 a mile for a line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, which I adopt as fairer, it would cost $59,000,000 ; the loss of rental and interest, according to the Minister of Finance, would amount to $11,468,030 and according to my estimate it would be $17,176,033. The mountain section, according to the proposal of the Minister of Finance, which I adopt for this purpose, would cost $2,924,000. The Quebec bridge, according to the proposal of the Minister of Finance, and I accept his figures for the purpose of this part of the argument, would cost $2,000,000. Therefore you have a total estimate of the cost of the balance of the undertaking, according to the Minister of Finance, of $57,092,030, and according to my estimate of $81,100,033. This is how it would stand :
Fielding
Estimate. My Estimate.
Line from Quebec to
Winnipeg	$41,300,000	$59,000,000
Loss of rental and
interest	
11,468,030	17,176,033Mountain section.. ..	2,924,000	2,924,000Quebec bridge	
2,000,000	2,000,000$57,692,030	$81,100,033
But the Postmaster General is so much of a born financial genius that he is going to accomplish all this for $3,000,000. The fairness, the moderation, the business-like nature of his claim are so obvious that I am Inclined to leave the matter here. I would think, however, that if my right hon. friend the Prime Minister should ever have occasion to select a new Minister of Finance there cannot be the slightest doubt as to where the choice should lie.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General, had various other objections of a more or less detailed character to my scheme. He objected to the buying of existing lines. He wanted to build lines and spend money ; he thought the people of this country were very much opposed to the buying of old lines. I was under the impression, until X heard him speak, that he is a member of the government that bought an existing line from Levis to Ste. Rosalie, and paid for it very much more than it was worth. Apparently he cannot be the same gentleman who so strongly advocated that scheme when it was submitted to this House by the present government. He characterized Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
my scheme as a ' patchwork scheme.' I think he used that designation several times in the course of his somewhat voluminous remarks. Let us see to what extent it is a patchwork scheme and to what extent all railway enterprises In this country are patchwork schemes, if this Is one. My scheme contemplates the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay, either by the purchase of an existing line or by the construction of a new line. Does that make the Intercolonial Railway a patchwork railway ? If so, it must be very much more of a patchwork railway at the present time, because it only enjoys running rights from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal. My proposal contemplates the building of a line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury. Does that make it a patchwork scheme ? Surely not.


Mr. HEYD.: Does not the Canada Atlantic Railway run right through-Oh, yes ; you are right.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) misunderstood me. I intended to suggest, and I believe I did suggest, that for the purpose of connecting the Canada Atlantic Railway line with the present Canadian Pacific Railway line between North Bay and Winnipeg, the most convenient route would be from Scotia Junction to Sudbury.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: All right.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely that is not a patchwork scheme so far. Then my proposal contemplates the acquisition of this line from Sudbury, or from North Bay, if necessary, to Fort William, and the" user of that line under proper and independent control by three different Canadian systems, and by the Intercolonial Railway. Does the user of this one line, sufficient for the purpose of three railways ; does the user of this one line by three railways make this proposed scheme a patchwork scheme ? If so what about the Canada Atlantic Railway at the present time, which runs its trains over the Grand Trunk Railway to Montreal ? What about the Canadian Pacific Railway which runs its trains from Toronto to North Bay over the Grand Trunk Railway ; what about the Dominion Atlantic Railway, in Nova Scotia, which runs its trains for 45 miles over the Intercolonial Railway, and has running powers for 15 miles moi-e ; what about the Intercolonial Railway itself, which runs its trains on the Grand Trunk from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal ; what about the Canadian Pacific Railway, which runs its trains over several leased lines in this country; what about the Grand Trunk Railway, which, if I am not mistaken, does precisely the same thing ? Are these patchwork systems ? If these are not patchwork systems, then what I am advocating is not' a patchwork system, and if my system be a patchwork system, then it is

just as good a patchwork system as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Dominion Atlantic Railway and dozens of American lines which can be named.
Then, the next proposal I made was to obtain proper grades between Lake Superior and Winnipeg. There is nothing of a patchwork nature in that, so far as I am aware. There is a proposal to aid the Grand Trunk Pacific to build in the west. Is there anything of a patchwork nature in that ? If so, it characterizes the government scheme just as much as mine. Is there anything of a patchwork nature in the proposal that two railways should use in common a line from Edmonton to the coast, if it is sufficient for the purposes of both ? If so, exactly the same argument could be applied to dozens of railways on the North American continent. My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton), the expert of the government, pointed out to us the other day that the Wabash enjoyed running powers over the Grand Trunk. Is that a patchwork system ? Is it a patchwork system to have grain brought by the Canadian Pacific Railway from western points to Fort William, thence by steamer to Georgian Bay ports, and thence by three different railway routes to Montreal, and by the Intercolonial Railway to Halifax and St. John ? Let me point out to my right hon. friend that if that is a patchwork system, it is the very patchwork system which was endorsed by his late Minister of Railways, when the Intercolonial Railway was extended from Levis to Montreal. The scheme contemplated then was, that the Grand Trunk should get traffic on the shores of the Georgian bay from the great -west, bring it to Montreal, hand it over to the Intercolonial Railway, and that the Intercolonial Railway should transmit it to the maritime ports. Is my scheme a patchwork scheme ? What then is the nature of the scheme which was then introduced to this House by the very government of which my right hon. friend is the First Ministei-, and in which the Postmaster General is a minister ; a scheme which was heralded at the time as the very acme of wisdom and of statesmanship so far as railway development is concerned. Moreover, what does the government policy contemplate ? It contemplates a line owned and operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific from the coast to Winnipeg ; a line owned by the government and operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Moncton and with running powers over the Intercolonial Railway to Halifax or St. John-or, what is much more likely, the transmission of that traffic by the Grand Trunk Railway to Portland. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General would regard that as a patchwork scheme, but nevertheless it is quite as deserving of the appellation as the proposal which I made to the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, coming down to a real comparison between the cost of these two schemes, let us see what they actually involve. I would suppose that for the purposes of this comparison I would be entitled to place upon the line from Moncton to Quebec and upon the line from Quebec to Winnipeg at least the same estimate of cost that has been placed by the Postmaster General upon the line which I suggested from Scotia Junction to Sudbury. I know of no reason why a line, not with the grades suggested by the government, but even with fair grades, can be built from Moncton to Winnipeg at less cost than a line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury. I have not heard one word in this House to convince me that a line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury would cost one dollar more per mile than the line from Moncton to Winnipeg. On the contrary, from what I have heard in this House during this discussion, I think it may be safely assumed that, with the same grades and the same general character, the line from Moncton to Winnipeg would cost considerably more per mile than a line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury. However, I will give the Postmaster General the benefit of the doubt, and will place on the proposal of the government the same estimate of cost that he has placed on my proposal of a line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, that is $40,000 per mile. On that basis, the line from Moncton to Quebec-400 miles in length at the lowest estimate, though I believe it will be much more than that-will cost $16,000,000. The length of the line from Quebec to Winnipeg has been variously estimated ; but I take the estimate of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance 1.475 miles, which, at $40,000 per mile, will cost $59,000,000. The cost of the Quebec bridge, I put at the estimate of the Minister of Finance. $2,000,000. For interest during the period of construction. I adopt the basis of the Minister of Finance, although the figures are of course larger, because the cost is larger ; I put that at $4.838,250. This makes a total so far of $81.831,250. The interest on the eastern division for seven years, during which no rental is to be paid, will amount to $17,176,033 ; and the interest on the eastern division for three years, during which rental may not be paid, or if not paid will be added to capital, will amount to $7,365,442. So that you have, as the cost of this railway, on what I believe to be a low and moderate estimate, no less a sum than $106,389,725. I have not included in this a dollar for interest on the rentals of the 'eastern division ; I have simply taken the rental which is not to be paid, and computed it for seven years. I might have made some additions to this estimate, but I leave it as it is, excluding all doubtful items and all items on which there might be controversy ; and I take as my basis exactly what my hon. friend the Postmaster General estimated as the cost of my proposed line from >
Scotia Junction to Sudbury. As any bon. gentleman in this House will see, in making the calculation on that basis, I have gone on perfectly fair and legitimate lines.
I have taken the Postmaster General at his word, and adopted his estimate of $40,000 per mile, which he applied to my proposed line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, although I believe the government line through the northern country will cost very much more. And when I give this estimate to the country, I do not wish to be understood for a moment as expressing my belief that that line built at that cost could have such grades or be of such a character as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has said are absolutely necessary to ensure the carriage of grain. The cost would probably be increased fifty per cent if you attempted to construct a road of that kind.
I am only estimating a road with fair grades as the hon. Postmaster General did when he put the cost of the road, from Scotia Junction to Sudbury at $40,000 a mile.
Now let us see what would be necessary under my alternative scheme to give a complete and perfect connection between the *east and the west, and to bring the two great railway systems of the west and the three great railway systems of the east into close connection with each other, at a very early day. In the first place, you would have to build a line from Jacques Cartier Junction to Coteau, thirty miles, which at $40,000 a mile-'there is no dispute between us as to the cost of that-would amount to $1,200,000. The acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway I estimate at a cost of $12,000,000. I estimate it at that, because I believe that if the Canada Atlantic Railway could not be acquired for that amount, a road from Montreal to the Georgian bay not exceeding 360 miles in length could be built for the total of these two sums which I have named, $13,200,000.' Therefore, if we cannot make fair terms with the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, I believe that sum would be amply sufficient to build a railway from Montreal to a port on the Georgian bay. A line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, 104 miles at $40,000 per mile would cost $4,160,000. The line from Sudbury to Fort William. 555 miles, at an outside cost of $45,000 a mile, would cost $24,975,000. Retterments Horn Sudbury to Fort William might cost $3,000,000, and on the line from Fort William to Winnipeg, $2.1:10.000. That gives a total cost of $47,405,000 to accomplish the results which I have pointed out. That leaves a balance between the cost of this portion of my alternative scheme and the cost of the gsvernment scheme of something like $60,000,000 ; and that $60,000,000 could be applied in many efficient ways toward the improvement of the transportation facilities of this cpuntry. A portion of it could be appropriated towards those colonizations roads in the north of which I have spoken. A portion could be


Robert Laird Borden: applied to the equipment of the Georgian bay ports. A portion might even be applied to the improvement and development of our canals. A further portion could be devoted to the efficient equipment of the ports of Quebec and Montreal, as well as the ports of St. John and Halifax. And after you have done all that, you would still have many millions of dollars to the good.
With regard to the proposal of the government itself, while I do not at the present moment attempt to deal exhaustively with the defects which might be pointed out -this has been done very fully in the course of the debate-nevertheless there are one or two characteristics so important that I think they should be mentioned even at this stage. In the first place, there is an absolute lack of knowledge as to the eastern section, an absolute lack of any information which can give us a fair idea of what it would cost. I asked members of the government across the floor the other day whether there was one of them who could state the cost of the eastern section within $40,000,000, if it is to be built on a four-tenths per cent grade, and whether or not, if prepared to make such an estimate, they could present to the country any data upon which it could be fairly based. I failed to get any reply. I do not think that my right hon. friend, or any man on that side, is able to make an estimate and support it by sufli-cient data within the figures I have given. If we are to build a road with a four-tenths per cent grade, which is the grade my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) says it must have-the cost of a road with such a grade, with proper curves, to give it the solidity and character necessary for the hauling of trains such as my hon. friend from North Norfolk describes, is a matter of so much intricacy and detail that we cannot say we have any requisite information before us. My hon. friend from North Norfolk the other day spoke of hauling trains of 2,000 tons over that railway at a cost of $1 per mile. My hon friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who, followed him, showed that on a railway which he mentioned, having as low grades as any railway in America, the cost of hauling a train load of 576 tons was $2 per mile, and the inaccuracy of the hon. member for North Norfolk to whom my right hon. friend the Prime Minister pointed as a great expert on railway transportation, in that regard indicates that if he is so far away from the actual facts in a matter of that kind, the government itself cannot be very near the actual truth as regards the cost of construction.
In the next place we had a commission appointed for the purpose of investigating this question. No one can read the language of the Order in Council without concluding absolutely that the commission was appointed to deal with this very question of transportation. Yet while that commission will be

at work, and before we 'can have any information from it, we are to spend $120,000,000, perhaps $150,000,000, without any data or information from that source.
Then I have pointed out the absence of safeguards to preserve Canadian traffic for our Canadian routes. I have pointed out that the Grand Trunk Railway is really in control of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and designedly so by the Act of this government, which obliges the Grand TrunkRailway to hold $24,900,000 capital stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway stock, which it may acquire at any nominal price that may be agreed upon between the two companies, and that the Grand Trunk Railway can take over the freight at Winnipeg, North Bay, Gravenliurst or Quebec and carry it to Portland without violating a single stipulation in this contract. That is certainly a grave defect. I have pointed out again that the distance from Quebec to Portland is less than 318 miles, and from Quebec to St. John, the shortest possible route, even taking the estimates of my hon. friend, is from 470 to 490 miles, and from Quebec to Halifax, the shortest possible route claimed by my hon. friends opposite, is 586 miles. Even if you make the tolls the same, the Grand Trunk Railway will get all the tolls from Quebec to Portland, whereas to Halifax or St. John It will get only a very small share of the tolls. Therefore it is of prime importance that the Grand Trunk Railway should be bound by some restrictions in the contract. It has both its 'terminals in the United States, and you cannot blame it for taking its traffic to Portland if it can make more money in that way than by sending it to St. John or Halifax. But I blame the government for not stipulating in this or some supplementary contract that that traffic cannot be carried by the Grand Trunk Railway to its American terminals, but, in consideration of the aid given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, must toe carried to Canadian ports.
Then this scheme of the government absolutely fails to take into account our great inland water ways, on which we have spent some $80,000,000. They propose to side-traek the water ways. According to their experts, the whole of the western grain will be brought over this railway, because it will be the cheapest route. Well, what then is to become of our water ways ? or, if the combined rail and water route is the cheaper, what is the object of spending $120,000,000 to $150,000,000 on this scheme ? If the grain will go to the western shores of the Geor-bian bay and be transported thence by | water or by combined rail and water to Quebec and Montreal, why should the country be saddled with an expenditure Af $120,- ' 000,000 to $150,000,000 on building this road to Moncton? The government can take either horn of the dilemma they chose. Either this road is going to accomplish the wonderful things claimed for it, or it will not. If .
it should, what will become of the $80,000,000 spent on our water ways ? On1 the other hand if it should not, and we continue to use the water ways, of what utility will be the road ? If we are spending this enormous sum of $120,000,000 or $150,000,000, as estimated by the ex-Minister of Railways, when will we be in a position to equip the Georgian bay ports, to develop our canals and to do anything effective for the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and S't. John ? It will be an enormous expenditure and will leave us in an absolutely helpless condition for many years to come, so far as the development of our inland water ways is concerned.
Further than that, this new road will strangle the Intercolonial toy leaving it with its present terminus at Montreal. There can be no doubt in the mind of any one who listened to the 'debate on the extension of the Intercolonial from Quebec to Montreal, that the proposal then was to bring the Intercolonial then to Montreal in order that it might compete for western traffic. Well, it was brought to Montreal and has not secured very much of that traffic. What is the reason ? ' The reason is that it has no western connections. True a contract was made1 with the Grand Trunk Railway, which was heralded to us as absolutely securing to the Intercolonial a very large portion of the western traffic, but so far we have not secured that traffic, let the reason be what it may. We have two railways coming to Montreal and one very close to Montreal- the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. So far as the Canada Atlantic Railway is concerned, it brings Its grain from C-oteau principally by steamer, and the Intercolonial has no connection with the point to which that grain is brought in the city of Montreal. The Grand Trunk Railway brings grain to Montreal. It has its own connections to Quebec and to Portland, and it takes the grain to either one or the other. The Canadian Pacific Railway also has its eastern connections. But the Intercolonial remains at Montreal, absolutely helpless so far as competition for western traffic is concerned. If, instead of leaving it in that position, you extend the Intercolonial to the Georgian bay, you create for that road an entirely different condition of things. You then have the Intercolonial, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk and the Canada Atlantic, all competing on the eastern shores of Georgian bay for the traffic that comes from the great west. That traffic is brought b,v steamers, toy independent lines, and the Intercolonial would be on e'qual terms with these other railways in competing for that traffic. Is there any good reason why the Intercolonial should stop where it is, at Montreal ? We have talked a great deal about government ownership, but I repeat what I have already

asked-what are you going to do with the Intercolonial ? Do you propose that it shall have no development in the future ? If you propose to continue to own it, surely the proper policy is to develop it, not to let it stand still. Any railway that stands still in this progressive age becomes inert-it dies or is absorbed. That is what will happen to the Intercolonial if left in its present condition. But if you give it the extension that I have proposed under this scheme you will secure to it, and thus to the maritime provinces, a fair share of the western traffic. For if the Intercolonial once secures a connection with the Georgian bay ports, it will carry the traffic it secures to the maritime provinces, because it cannot carry it elsewhere.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: At recess I was speaking of that feature of the government proposal which leaves the Intercolonial with its western terminus at Montreal, with no western connection and helpless to compete for western traffic. In that connection it might not be out of place for me to refer to some remarks made by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) which are to be found at pages 10288 and 10289 of the revised ' Hansard.' I am quoting now from the remarks of the hon. gentleman at page 10289, where he says :
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which will lease our line from Winnipeg to Moncton, will have that line fed by the Grand Trunk Railway and by its own western traffic. There will, therefore, be trade and traffic to go over it. But who will there be t'o feed the Intercolonial Railway, which the hon. gentleman would bring to Winnipeg ? Will the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway ? Certainly not. You run your Intercolonial Railway to Winnipeg and there you stand. But where are you going to get your freight ? Will the Canadian Pacific Railway hand it over to you ? Not at all, because they will use their own road. Will the Canadian Northern Railway ? Certainly not, because they have a road of their own to use. Where then are you going to get your freight ?
My hon. friend the Minister of Customs in the first place does not seem to realize that this is exactly the position in which he proposes to leave the Intercolonial at Montreal, with no western connection. The Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway all run from Montreal west, but no one of them has direct connections with the Intercolonial except the Grand Trunk, and that railway has eastern connections both at Quebec and Portland which make it to its own interest that it should not hand traffic over to the Intercolonial at that point; but my hon. friend, who Is thoroughly alarmed at the prospect which will face the Intercolonial at Winnipeg, is absolutely satisfied with its position at Montreal al-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
though that railway was. extended from Quebec to Montreal, at an expense which has been estimated in this House at from 15 to 20 million dollars, for the express purpose of securing a portion of western freight. Let me point out also, so far as these railways in the west are concerned, that the Canadian Northern at present has no connection with the eastern part of Canada, but that it would have such connection under my proposal. It would connect with the Intercolonial at Sudbury and there would be every reason why that railway should hand over to the Intercolonial at Sudbury freight to be transferred to the seaboard, In so far as freight is to come around the north shore of Lake Superior by rail. I pointed out that the Intercolonial having once arrived at Winnipeg would not necessarily stop there. I stated as part of my proposal, subject to the advice and opinion of the best expert railway men we can get in the country, that the Intercolonial Railway, having once arrived at Winnipeg, would not stop there, but would eventually proceed to the Pacific coast whenever it appeared that the requirements of the people of the west and of this country as a whole should require such an extension. Let me point out that in the opinion of very capable and competent men in this country the traffic will come across Lake Superior ; that it will be gathered on the western shore of Lake Superior, will be freighted across that lake and will be then taken by railways at the eastern shore of Lake Superior. At the risk of wearying the House I would like to read a portion of a letter which has already been read by my hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond). This letter is from Mr. Robert Meighen, who advances arguments pointing to the conclusion that in the future we may expect very much the larger portion, in fact all of the grain traffic of the west to come to the east via Lake Superior. After stating, in the first place, that he does not propose to give any opinion one way or another with regard to the proposals before parliament, but merely to give his views as a business man, he says :
I have put my views on record in the public press nine years ago that hut a small portion ot the products of Manitoba or the North-west Territories will ever be brought round the north of Lake Superior by an all-rail route to tide-water. My opinion has not changed-you will never bring but a small portion of the products of our prairies by either the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Pacific by an allrail route, and only a small portion can ever be brought to tide-water by our Canadian canals.
The farmer begins to dispose of his yearly crop of wheat from about the first to the tenth of September, and by the close of navigation If the transportation facilities in the Interior to Fort William are adequate, two-thirds of the cron will have gone forward to the lake front by close of navigation, say 12th December.

You can operate vessels from Fort William across the lake to Georgian bay ports up to the 12th December. What we require is elevating facilities east of the lakes the same as they have at Buffalo. We require tow grade1 double track railways from Montreal to the said Georgian bay ports ; when that is accomplished you will freight the wheat across the lakes from Fort Wiliam east to the elevators at from three-quarters to one cent per bushel. The railways wil carry the wheat from Georgian bay ports to Montreal for 3J cents per bushel or less, winter and summer : you will have our lake elevators acting as large reservoirs for holding the immense body of grain that will be shipped across the lakes before navigation closes, which will act as freight for our railways during the winter months to Halifax and St. John, our winter ports.
The balance of the Manitoba crop, or the Territories, will be held either in the farmers' hands, or in the interior elevators, or at Fort William until navigation opens on the first of May.
From the foregoing you will observe that a railway round the north of Lake Superior as far as being a factor in diverting the products of our North-west through the all-Canadian channel, in my opinion will be a failure.
The fact of the matter is we are a great many years behind the times ; we should have had elevator facilities at Georgian bay ports ; we should have had a fleet of vessels on the lakes to carry the grain from Fort William to Georgian bay ports ; we should have been far as being a factor in diverting the products of our North-west years ago ; what is the position to-day ?
Mark my words, a considerable portion of our North-west grain in the near future will be diverted to the south to be shipped from Duluth to Buffalo, and from there by American railways to tide-waiter. By the policy we have adopted, and what we have neglected to adopt, we are furnishing transportation for our American railways ; we are placing our western people in touch with the American middleman ; we are doing our business by the back door.
In a word we will never be in a position to handle the products of the North-west until the transportation in the prairie provinces is eaoable of handling two-thirds of the crop and delivering it at the lake front, say Fort William, before navigation closes, and the facilities for freighting the wheat across the lakes to our elevators, and railway facilities of the proper kind, as I have described for carrying the wheat from the lake elevators to Montreal and Quebec during the season of navigation on the St. Lawrence, and to .St. John and Halifax after close of navigation. But you will never bring but a small portion of the Manitoba crop round the north of Lake Superior by an all-rail route to tide-water. A doubletrack low grade railway from Montreal to say Midland or some other Georgian bay port will be capable of handling two hundred million bushels of wheat during the year, and as I have said, place an engine to 80 cars on a railway such as I describe, and you can haul It to Montreal. However the contents of 80 cars will be condensed into a much smaller number, but the amount of grain that will be contained in SO of our ,present cars will be hauled by one engine from the lake port to Montreal.
I can assure you I look upon the present state of affairs, as far as the transportation question is concerned, as presenting anything
but a bright future. I am afraid that before you are much Older, you will see a very considerable portion of the products of Manitoba and the North-west Teritorlies diverted to the south of us.
I would point out that if the views of this gentleman, who has given this question a great deal of study, are 'correct, then we may expect an enormous amount of the grain traffic of the west, in fact practically all of that grain traffic, to come to the western shores of Lake Superior and then the extension of the Intercolonial to the eastern shore of Lake Superior will give that railway the opportunity which, as the Minister of Customs said, is so much to he desired, of competing on equal terms with other railways for the grain traffic of the west. The hon. the Postmaster General referred with some scorn to my proposal' as to the erection of elevators, yet this gentleman, who is familiar with the business affairs of the country, familiar with the problem of transportation, expressly lays stress upon the necessity of having large elevators not only on the western shore hut on the eastern shore of Lake Superior. As the hon. the Postmaster General thinks it so absurd a thing that the government should enter into competition with private enterprise, let me point out to him that this government has already done that. They have erected an elevator at Halifax, following in that regard the example of the late government. There, however, they are not competing with private enterprise in one sense as there is no other elevator in Halifax. But the government went further and erected an elevator and terminals at an enormous cost, in the city of St. John where that elevator and terminals are expressly in competition with the elevator and terminals of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Further than that, the policy of the government, as announced by the Minister of Railways of the day, declared that these terminals and that elevator at St. John were built for the express purpose of securing a considerable portion of ithie grain traffic of the west, in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Therefore when we suggest that the government should erect necessary elevators on Lake Superior and elsewhere on the St. Lawrence route and at maritime ports, we are in that only suggesting the continuation of a policy which has already been entered upon by the Conservative government of years ago and by the present government since they came into power.
The next point of criticism I wish to make upon the proposal of the government is that there is no return of any kind for the vast expenditure that is contemplated. There is no control secured by this measure over rates in the west or in the east 'beyond the general control of the law of this country applicable to all railways. In that regard the railway policy of the government falls far short of that which was entered upon some two or three years ago by the gov-


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: 

The harbour facilities of the Inland lakes, rivers and Atlantic and Pacific ports.
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, and, generally any improvement, enlargement or other ^ matters affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.	.
In making any such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized but, if necessary, new surveys should be male to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.	,	,, .	,	.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely, _
Competition by United States railways ; Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ; diversions of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should^ be investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by our competitors should be carefully studied and reported upon.
In these circumstances it devolves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, and it is thought that the most efficient method of conducting such an inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts.'
5.	That no such inquiry or investigation has
been conducted or held and the * required information ' referred to ill the Order in Council above quoted has not been obtained or laid before this House.	.	* .	_
6.	That this House is of opinion that the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway should continue to be owned and operated by the government of Canada. _
7.	That the government system of railways should be developed and improved in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces and should also be extended from Montreal westward to such point or points as will enable it to transport to eastern Canada and to our national ports on the St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic the rapidly increasing products of our great western country.
8.	That by
(a.) Developing and extending the government system of railways either by the construction of new lines, or sections of railway, or by acquiring and improving existing lines of railway ;
(b.) Securing under government control anti direction or where expedient under government ownership, common haulage or running facilities in sections where one railway can usefully accommodate several systems ;
(c.) Giving, if and where necessary, material aid by way of guarantee or otherwise, to railway construction in the great west, and to colonization railways in the older provinces.
(d.) Enlarging and improving our canal system, developing our magnificent lake and river routes and thoroughly equipping our national ports on the great lakes, the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic sea-hoard ;
(e.) Perfecting a system of elevator warehousing, and creating free terminal facilities,
(f) Securing absolute and thorough control of rates in consideration for assistance thus given;
We would open up new territories, provide for our products the best and cheapest transport to the Atlantic and Pacific sea-hoards, connect without delay the great railway systems of the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
east and of the west, relieve any threatened congestion of traffic and secure the transportation of our products through Canadian channels while at the same time we would stimulate and promote interprovincial trade between the various communities by whom the cost of such national undertakings must necessarily he mainly borne.
9.	That the management of government railways and of all railways under the control or direction of the government should be freed from party political control, influence and interference.	.
10.	That for the purpose of accomplishing these results the government in accordance with the policy laid down in the Order in Council above recited should avail itself of the best expert advice and assistance before seeking to commit the country to expenditure upon any national transportation scheme or project.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: passenger can see the trains racing with one another almost every day. Between these two railways and the river there is a distance of not more than one mile. Does my hon. friend seriously contemplate building another line of railway in this distance of 30 miles, when we could he accommodated in another manner ? In another part of his speech my hon. friend has advocated the acquisition by this government of that section of the Canadian Pacific Railway betweeen North Bay and Fort William, and making it a common highway. Does it not occur to my hon. friend that if we acquired the Canada Atlantic, it would he more reasonable for us to acquire one of the existing lines between Coteau and Montreal ? It seems to me that this part of my hon. friend's scheme cannot bear criticism. However, in view of the great improbability of Canada acquiring and operating the Canada Atlantic Railway, this is not of very great importance.
1 come now to the main proposition of my hon. friend. He proposes to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway as it exists to-day. But though the government may acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, it certainly could not operate it. How could you expect that a Canadian government could possibly, with any advantage to the country, operate the Canada Atlantic Railway. It is within the knowledge of everybody that at this moment three-fourths at least of the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway and three-fourths of the business of the Canada Atlantic Railway is American business. It is business connected with the western states and carried to its destination in the eastern states. The Canadian government could not compete for that business if we were to acquire that railway. At present the manager of the Canada Atlantic Railway lias connections and agents in Duluth, Milwaukee, Chicago and other points in the west, and in New York, Boston and other cities in the east, collecting freight in the east for the western states and in the west for the eastern states. Now, would it be possible for the Canadian government to maintain those agents in American cities and keep connections there in order to collect that trade now passing over our territory ? That trade is an advantage to our country and we want to keep it. In my opinion we must be the carriers by the valley of the St. Lawrence, not only of the products of our own North-west but of the Americau North-west and also the traffic of the eastern states. That American business we would lose. Not only that. In order to secure that trade, the Canada Atlantic has to maintain a fleet of steamers on the lakes. I doubt how far it would be advisable for a government to become not only railway proprietors but also navigators. We' would have to manage a fleet of steamers. There is something more. The fleet maintained on the lakes for the purpose of


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: supplying traffic to the Canada Atlantic Railway is composed in part of American bottoms. It would be impossible to have the trade we have to-day unless it was carried in American bottoms. We can carry Canadian freight in Canadian bottoms, but you cannot take freight at Duluth, Chicago or Milwaukee or any of the western ports and bring it to Depot Harbour except in American bottoms. The bonding privilege of the Americans has been so devised as to make that a necessity. Therefore the Canadian government would have to become the owners of a fleet of steamers under American register. How would that work ? The Whole thing is so beset with difficulties that it would be impossible to carry it out as a government enterprise. Of course if you want to give up the American business and confine yourself to the Canadian business, the scheme of my honourable friend might be workable, but there is not a man in this country, not even my hon. friend, who would be willing that Canada should part with this American business. On the contrary we want to increase it. Therefore in my opinion, the scheme of my hon. friend in so far as the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway is concerned, is not practicable.
My hon. friend asked a moment ago what are you going to do with the Intercolonial. His scheme would be to bring the Intercolonial to the shores of North Bay, but our scheme is to bring it, not merely to the shores of the Georgian bay, but to the city of AVinnipeg, the heart of the provinces.
Another part of his scheme-one which, I think, he will have some difficulty in getting even his own friends to agree to, and I am not surprised that lie would not put it into the concrete form of an amendment and ask his followers to swallow it-is this. He has seriously proposed that the Canadian government should acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway line between North Bay and Fort AVilliam. Why should he propose such a scheme 7 First of all, we ought to be thankful on this side for his having proposed the idea, made as it is, because it is a justification of our policy. But he admits that we must have railway communications between the east and the west. This is the very basis of the scheme we have submitted.' My hon. friend has acknowledged that the basis is a good one. He justifies our scheme by proposing that we should acquire that part of the Canadian Pacific Railway line. But he does not want to have that connection between the east and the west in the way we desire. He has a scheme of his own. In what respect is it superior to ours ? AVe have proposed to build a railway between the east and the west. In what respect is his scheme to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from North'Bay to Fort AVilliam superior to ours? Is it from the point of view of expenditure ? Will the plan he proposes be cheaper

than ours ? We have been told that that section of country between North Bay and Fort William has cost at least $60,000 a mile and in parts $80,000 a mile. I think my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) said that portions of that section had cost $80,000 per mile. He proposes that we should acquire that line, and what does he propose that we should do with it. He does not propose that we should use it at once but that we should spend more money to improve it. Is that a proposition which will commend itself to any intelligent electors- that we should acquire that railway, and after acquiring it for heaven knows how much, we should at once put more money into it in order, to make it acceptable? We know the character of that country. It is all rocky. Between Sudbury and Fort William it is granite. You would have to bore into that granite and spend perhaps $50,000 and more per mile in order to make the road more acceptable. Is there any advantage in such a scheme over the one we proposed, namely, that we should built a road ourselves? My hon. friend did not give us any figures. In that he was very wise. He was judiciously vague and would not take any responsibility for any details. And I say that, in point of smallness of expenditure, it is impossible to show that this scheme would be superior to ours, while, in every other way it is inferior. It is inferior to our scheme, for instance, because the character of the country through which the road proposed by my hon. fridnd would run is so inferior to that of the country through which the road as proposed by us would run. On the north shore of Bake Superior you have nothing but bleak rock. It is impossible to raise even a potato or a turnip in that section of the country-it is nothing but rock and water and is absolutely barren ; whereas, we have abundance of evidence to show that the proposed route for this road is through a fertile countrv with abundance of timber. But that is not all. My hon. friend has shown a great deal of concern as to the trade going to maritime province ports. He shed a tear the other day over the idea that, under our scheme, the trade would probably go to Portland. But that is only his hypothesis. That the trade under1 his scheme would go to Portland is not hypothesis, but certainty. The communication between the east arid the west, under my hon. friend's scheme would be by the line between North Bay and Fort William. But when you get the traffic from the west to North Bay, you have only the existing roads, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway. That 'being so, the traffic must go to Montreal in summer and to Portland in winter. By our scheme we have the intention and the possibility of bringing this trade to the maritime^provinces-and we believe we have the certainty as well. These are some of the reasons which make the scheme of my hou. friend absolutely impracticable.
But I must say that my hon. friend deserves some gratitude at our hands, because he has paid the tribute of admiration- involuntarily I admit-to our scheme. I know that, in his speech, he condemned our scheme in toto. But, having1 condemned it in toto, he accepted it piecemeal. The hon. gentleman in speaking afforded a curious psychological study. It was a case of the contest of conscience with party exigencies. Party exigencies said : You must condemn the scheme. And he condemned' it. But my hon. friend is a lawyer, and a good lawyer. He has had experience of course, with the recalcitrant witness, the witness who would swear a certain version of the facts which my hon. friend thought not in accordance with the probabilities of the case. And he would proceed to examine that witness. He would not take issue with him at once, would not contradict him flatly, but would proceed gently to get an admission upon a minor point, then another, and another, until he had a statement of the facts as he conceived them to have been. Such a struggle as that did conscience carry on, quite apparent to those who had the pleasure of listening to the hon. gentleman. The recalcitrant witness, party exigencies, gave a total condemnation of the scheme. But after this witness had proceeded, conscience spoke in the heart of my hon. friend-for I believe he is a man of conscience as -well as a man of common sense-and conscience fortified by common sense spoke :	You have condemned the whole scheme, but don't you think you have gone a little too far ; don't you think there is some merit in the scheme? For instance, you have condemned absolutely the Moncton line. Don't you think the Moncton line is a necessity. Don't you think we must have another road between the maritime provinces and the west ? That the trade of the country cannot be confined to a single line between the western prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces? And the unwilling witness answers: Yes, I admit that ; I might build that-yes, I would build that road between Moncton and the west ; but I would do it only as part of the Intercolonial. I might quote the remarks of my hon. friend to prove that I have not misunderstood what he said, but perhaps it would be better to pass on. Having secured this admission, conscience proceeded with the cross-examination. Well-said conscience-don't you think that, after all, this section of road in the northern part of Quebec and Ontario must be built some time and that it ought to be built ? Yes, was the answer. I think that that line of railway ought to be built, but I would build it as a colonization road. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not care very much whether it is built as a colonization road or as a through road provided it is built. Then conscience goes on :	Surely that is not
all ; you must know that it is imperative at this moment that we should have another means of communication by rail between the

east and the west and that the government is right in proposing that a - line should be built covering these two points. And the answer is :	Yes ; but 1 do not want to
build the road ; there is a road already built and 1 propose to buy it. Well, I do not care very much whether it is made one way or the other so long as it is done. Then conscience said :	The prairie section must
be built; the prairies are developing so rapidly and so thoroughly that present railways are inadequate and the people who are going in there must have means of communication. And again comes the admission :	Yes, that road must be built-but
it must be built north of existing railways. Well, north or south is not a point that has yet been settled. The point settled is that there must be a road, and it is for the engineers to say whether it is to be built north or south. Then conscience went on to say : The mountain section has to be built. Yes, he had no objection to that, but simply said : I would force the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern to unite in building that road and if they would not agree I would build it myself. Well, if the hon. gentleman accepts the mountain section, the prairie section, the sections between Winnipeg and Quebec-whether colonization or otherwise-and the road to Moncton what is it that he does not agree to ? He does not agree to it without qualification. But, when he has put in all these qualifications, the admissions are there just the same.
Now, my hon. friend says we have not sufficient information as to the character of that country. It is true, we have not instrumental surveys ; but I maintain-and would appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side and I would appeal to my hon. friend himself-we have all the information as to the character of the country that is at all necessary for our present purpose ; all the information, all the knowledge, to justify us in saying whether that road should or should not be built, I stated in my opeliing speech on this subject that there were mountains of information ; I do not retract a word I said-there are mountains of information. The eastern legend tells us that when the mountain would not come to Mahomet, Mahomet went to the mountain. But our Ma-homets on the other side would not go to the mountain, and so w6 had to bring the mountain to them, or, at least as nearly that as possible. Of course we could not bring this mountain of information and lay it on the Table, the Table is not strong enough to bear it. We had to summarize it in the form of a pamphlet printed and placed in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. And if they had taken the trouble to peruse it, they would have learned that the character of the country through which this road is to run, which has been so greatly misrepresented, is a country equal to some of the best parts of the older provinces, a country with a great future. But my hon.


Wilfrid Laurier: friend to-day made an argument which he has repeated several times, and which I have always heard with some surprise from him. He has told us that we have not been consistent because we decided on this railway before we had received the report of the transportation commission which we had appointed ?
My hon. friend says that we promised that report before any steps would be taken with regard to this transcontinental railway, but upon this point T take issue with my hon. friend. It is not exact on his part to say that we had promised a report of this transportation commission before we would bring up our policy with regard to a transcontinental railway. This question was before the House twice during the present session. We discussed it on the debate on the address and again on the 26th of May. During the debate on the address, I stated, speaking for the government, that this transportation commission was to be appointed for the purpose of obtaining information with regard to lake transportation and terminals and connection with the lakes, but we did not require further information with regard to a transcontinental railway as we had all the information in regard to that which we required. As my hon. friend has made that the text of his'motion to-day, it will be perhaps better that I should once more furnish the evidence upon this point and call the attention of my hon. friend and of the House to the information which we gave him upon this very subject. The speech from the Throne had this paragraph :
The great influx of population into our North-western territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
My hon. friend thought that there were two different ideas in that paragraph and he asked for an explanation from the government on this point. We told him that lie was right ; that there were two ideas, one with regard to the transcontinental railway and another with regard to water communication. The hon. gentleman O'Mr. Borden, Halifax) very properly raised the question in the debate on the address and I answered as follows :
The question asked by ,my hon. friend is quite legitimate. There are two ideas involved in this paragraph. In the first place, the rapid filling up of the North-west territories makes it absolutely indispensable that measures be promptly taken for opening up ways of communication into the prairie sections and for the extension of those communications to the sea-board. Numerous projects have been placed before us, but up to the present the govern-

ment have taken no position. The matter is one of too great importance, involving too many risks, involving large demands, for the government to lightly jump into new undertakings of any kind, and we thought it desirable to wait the opening of parliament in order to consult our friends and have the benefit of the advice of parliament before taking any steps. But we give due warning to the Canadian parliament-and I think it is not out of place- that new efforts have to be made by the Canadian people to meet the new requirements resulting from the development of our country.
Now you see there was an indication as plain as language could make it that we made a difference between water transportation and transportation by means of a new railway.
But the subject came up later on on a motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) on May 26th. My hon. friend became impatient and wanted to know what was the policy of the government in regard to this transportation question, especially in regard to this commission. He made a speech and concluded with these words :
I think therefore, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances, X am justified in asking the Prime Minister to take the House and the country into his confidence with regard to this matter, and to make that announcement of policy which it seems to me should have been made long ago in this session wheh has already occupied nearly three months ; and to state to us fully and frankly what we are to expect from the government in the shape of a policy on a question of so much importance to the most vital interests of the country.
' I answered, speaking for the government, in this way :
In my humble judgment, the transportation question under existing conditions, resolves itself into three different parts. First of all there is the question of water transportation, chiefly connected with the .erminals. Then there is the transportation question for the new and rapidly growing settlements in the prairie sections ; and then there is the question of transportation from the prairie sections to the sea-board. With regard to the first, this is the question which we had chiefly in our minds when at the opening of parliament we declared that the transportation question was engaging our attention, and that we intended to appoint a commission to deal with the subject. We have been carrying on works of great magnitude at all parts of our great water system, in order to develop it and to make the transportation of the products of the west, and of the products going fiom the east to the west cheaper to the producer and to the consumer. We have works on the great lakes ; we have works 'on the St. Lawrence ; we have works at Port Arthur and Fort William, and it is possible that we may require some more. We have works at the head of canal navigation at Port Colborne which are now under construction ; we have works in the city of Montreal which have been carried on both by the Harbour Commission there and by the government ; we have works at Sorel and Three Rivers carried on by the government ; we have works at Quebec and we have also extensive works in St. John, New Brunswick. Now. I think it may be said that all these works have
been carried on, not under any general system, but chiefly from the local point of view of each particular place. We deem it of the greatest importance to have, if possible, all these different works carried on under a general comprehensive system. Before we ask for more money to be expended upon them, we think that it is advisable to have the report of a commission of the best experts that we have In the country in order that we may be able to lay before parliament at this session or next session a comprehensive plan, as to what should be done in these different localities or in other localities in order to meet the object in view.
Nothing could be plainer, it seems to me, than the fact that it was the intention of the government that the commission should deal with water transportation and terminals. I proceeded to say :
There is another feature of the system of transportation to be considered. At the present time the west is filling very rapidly. Next year the valley of the Saskatchewan will he one of the greatest producing areas of the country. It is of immediate necessity therefore that another artery in the form of a railway should be built in order to afford the settlers not only an outlet for their products, but a means of bringing in what they require from the eastern provinces. Probably this week, certainly at an early day, it will be the duty of the government to lay on the Table of the House certain resolutions with regard to this railway. But apart from that, there is another scheme which has been engaging the atten'lon of the House and the country at large. It is generally accepted, I believe, at the present time, that we must have another trunk line to connect the producing centres of the pra'ries with the tidal waters of the east. This is the point which my hon. friend had chiefly in view when he spoke a moment ago. I may say to my hon. friend at once that the government are not connected, though he implied that they were, with any scheme which has been proposed. We are considering the matter, but I am not prepared to say that we can at this moment lay on the Table the conclusions at which we have arrived ; but we shall deem it our duty to do so before the session is over.
Now, Sir, there was an intimation as clear it seems to me as language could make it, that we required the transportation commission to inquire into the subject of water communication, and did not require any more information with regard to the transcontinental railway which we have proposed. In view of the attitude which has been taken that we must have the easiest possible new means of communication between the east and the west it seems to me that it would be idle for me to spend any more time in justifying our course in this regard. It has been justified not only by our hon. friends on this side of the House but still more by the attitude of our hon. friends opposite in this respect. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition stated this morning that we have in the contract failed to provide proper safeguards in order to' ensure the trade of the west going by way of Canadian ports. My hon. friend said nothing new this morning. That point has been met over and over again, it was answered completely

the other day by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and therefore nothing is left for me to add to what has already been said. I do not need to say another word upon it. My hon. friend says that he looks upon this scheme as an alternative one to the water route ? If the plain which my hon. friend proposed some few days ago were adopted would that be an alternative to the water route ? Suppose we were to acquire control of the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William, as my hon. friend proposes in order to establish communication between the east and the west, would that be an alternative to the water route? No, Sir, the water route and the railways have to go together. One is not an alternative to the other. They are a necessary complement to each other. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that we must have wpter communication. Since we have been in office we have done more than any other government have done to improve our water communication. We have spent in the neighbourhood of $16,000,000 in improving the water communication and as a result np to this year, up to this moment, there has been more grain transportation upon the St. Lawrence than in any year for the last thirty years. No one proposes that if we open this new railway, ofr which we are askin a grant, that water communication shall be closed. They depend upon each other. It is true that the water communication will be closed for six months in the year; bit the people will have the rail communication, and their business will not be closed down as it was before the railway era. There was a time when the merchants of Quebec, of Montreal, and of Toronto at the close of navigation were obliged to close up everything, and sit with their arms folded until the following spring. But as soon as the railway era came in it was possible to make every day a working day whether it was summer or winter. My hon. friends from the North-west Territories and Manitoba understand the situation better than I do and I appeal to my hon. friends from Manitoba on both sides of the House to say if in the winter time the business of forwarding their produce is not closed down just as was the business of the men of eastern Canada many years ago. From the time that navigation is closed the people of the west are helpless. They have to wait until the following spring. At the present time the Canadian Pacific Railway can take a certain amount of grain out of the west in cars, but when we have another railway opened it will ble possible for the farmers to ship their grain all the year round. Some of my hon. friends believe that railway transportation will be as cheap as water transportation. That is a problem of the future, but. at all events, whether it be as cheap or not ns cheap, the farmers of the west will have the benefit of this railway all the year round, and not only the farmers of the west


Wilfrid Laurier: will have the benefit of it but also the producers of the eastern provinces. It must not be forgotten that this railway is not designed to transport only the grain of the west. There is something else to be carried than grain. This railway will transport everything that civilized man wants. It will transport the produce of the west which is largely cereals; but it will transport also the commerce of the east.
I do not propose to say much more at this stage when we have had this scheme debated for two months. My bon. friend said to-day at the opening of his speech that he had not much to say which was new and in so far as that goes he said what was perfectly true. He had not much to say that was new and I shall not have much to say that is new. But, what I want to impress upon the people of Canada at this moment is that the policy which we have proposed is one which is imperative and that we would go back upon our own record if we were to go back upon the policy which has been devised for the construction of this transcontinental railway. And, that is not all. My hon. friend a moment ago derided my hon. friend the Postmaster General, and I think derided also my hon. friend from North Norfolk '(Mjr, Charlton) who stated that within the lifetime of some of us here there would probably be tvsm or three transcontinental railways.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not deride them. I cited them as evidence in imy own tiehalf.	.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend cited them as evidence in his own behalf he should islt down and say no more. He had better support our scheme then. If my bon. friend thinks that we must eventually have more than one line why should he not accept this immediately ? If he thinks that, why should he throw cold water on this scheme ? We must have more railways than one. We are just on the fringe of our obligations if we want to be true to our destiny. The nineteenth century has been a century that has been remarkable for the marvellous development of the United States. During the whole period of that cycle of time the United States has been the great centre of attraction for all the world, but a new star has arisen upon the horizon, a star not in the orbit of the American constellation but a star standing by itself resplendent of the western sky, and it it towards that star that every immigrant, every traveller, every man who leaves the land of his ancestors to come and seek a home for himself now turns his gaze. We have now a duty in consequence to perform, a duty which is imperative. We must commence here and now, not to-morrow, nor the day after to-morrow, hut at this moment, if the Canadian people want to he true to the destinies of the Canadian nation, the construction of this railway. It will cost some money, but

money is mot am object at this moment. The treasury is affluent and I think the energies of the Canadian people in the eastern provinces and in the west are adequate to provide all that is necessary to cope with this new problem, and it is with this object that I have for the last time to appeal to all who claim to be patriotic to stand by the policy which we have put before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in his closing remarks, said that a new star has arisen but he did not say whether it was in the east or in the west. I presume that he meant that it indicates the approach of the wise men. If that which we have before us is an indication of their wisdom I may be excused if I would say that I have great doubts as to whether that star has arisen yet or not. That star indicated an overflowing treasury, an abundance of wealth and a desire on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to spend it and spend it freely. I leave it to the people of Canada to judge whether or not it is another evidence of the wisdom of the government. The Prime Minister described the speech of the leader of the opposition, as being not so much an attack upon the policy of the government, as a defence of his own policy. Well, in so far as it was a defence of his own policy, it was an answer by the leader of the opposition to allegations made against it which were devoid of fact and logic. Gentlemen opposite indulged in all kinds of wild statements about the proposition laid down by the hon. leader of the opposition, and it was the duty of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) to refute these statements. But, it is not the policy propounded by the leader of the opposition that is on trial before the people of Canada to-day. It is the policy propounded by the government that the people of Canada have to consider, and notwithstanding that, it may truly be said that the Prime Minister applied himself today. not to defending his policy, but in trying to detract from the acceptance which the policy of the leader of the opposition has found from the people of Canada. The policy proposed by the leader of the government commits the country to the expenditure of millions of dollars, to an increase in the public debt, and to heavy burdens which must be borne by the people for many years in the future. And, Sir, the country will judge the government by the policy which they have laid down, and not by the policy of the leader of the opposition. The right hon. gentleman taunted us, that we have never dared to crystallize our opinion, by moving an amendment. Why, Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment in your hands now, and there was an amendment moved not so long ago in this House, setting forth the opposition's views on this question, and how in the face of that, the Prime Minister could make such
a statement, is something that I cannot understand. One of our amendments has already been dealt with, and another very cogent one is before the House now, and it must be voted upon by the ministers and their supporters whether they like the ordeal or not. The right hon. gentleman told us, that the policy of the opposition was many-sided. Well, we are not ashamed to say that it has many-sided virtues, and we are quite confident that its many-sided virtues will receive the commendation of the people of Canada. The trouble with the policy of the government is, that it has only one side, and the only side it has is that it burdens the country with an enormous expenditure. Let us inquire into a few of the many-sided advantages which the proposition of the leader of the opposition will confer upon the people of the country. It develops the transportation routes now in existence ; it increases the transportation facilities which we have been spending money to perfect for years past ; it does not side-track the wealthy towns and cities of Ontario and Quebec as does the government scheme; it assists in building them up and bringing trade through them; it confers benefits on the people of Ontario, of Quebec and the maritime provinces; it builds up the great ports of the Georgian bay, and of Lake Huron and of Lake Superior; affords accommodation to the people of Manitoba and the North-west right through to the Pacific ocean. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the leader of the opposition's many-sided, and every side of it has a virtue in it, and every virtue it possesses will commend it to the intelligent judgment of the people of Canada. I regret that I cannot say the same for the policy of the government. We are told that no madder scheme could be conceived, than ' that the government should operate the Canada Atlantic Railway. We were asked, where would that line get its freight if it did not depend on the United States for it. But, is that an unmixed evil ? If we have the United States supplying that line with freight would that fact alone not aid it to give a better service for the transportation of home freight ? Wouid it not add to the earning powers of that line ? Would that be any objection to the scheme ? Why, Sir, I believe that is an additional recommendation in favour of the proposal that we should take over the Canada Atlantic Railway. And, if the Canada Atlantic Railway is handling the freight of the western states to-day, why should it not handle it if the road passed under the control of the government ? I submit these considerations to the right hon. gentleman in the hope that he may revise his opinion in this respect. Then the right hon. gentleman told us,'that the essence of the government scheme is another railway between the east and the west. Let me point out. to him that we are going to get another railway into the North-west in a very short time, without a

dollar of cost to the people of Canada. I see it stated tlmt the Canadian 1'acilic Railway is double tracking its line both east and west from Rat Portage, and they hope in the near future to have a double track from Port Arthur to Winnipeg. That affords practically another railway into the country, because when they reach Lake Superior, the great distributing centre of that western country, it is taken by the lake fleet of steamers and transported to the Georgian bay, where there are a dozen railways ready to carry the produce to the east, and distribute it to the markets of the world. That double track line will give to the people of the North-west, without the expenditure of a dollar, all the advantages that the most sanguine could hope from the government scheme, which is bound to cost us millions and millions of dollars. Let me ask the right hon. gentleman, if the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition does not contemplate giving additional railway accommodation to the people of the western country ? In what light does the right hon. gentleman regard the purchase of that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Sudbury, or Port Arthur. If three railway companies used that one track which is only used by one company now, would there not be three railways going into that country, instead of one as at the present time, and we can secure all that for less than one-third of the cost entailed by the scheme of the government. The right hon. gentleman has asked if the plan proposed by the leader of the opposition is cheaper than the plan proposed by the government. Well, the data furnished by the leader of the opposition to-day ought to be satisfactory evidence on the point that his scheme would cost at the outside $60,000,000 to bring it to its full fruition, as compared with at least $120,000,000 which the road proposed by the government would cost. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, have calculated that the government proposal will cost all the way from $13,000,000 to $120,000,000. Of course the $13,000,000 estimate is only the interest upon the expenditure involved in the undertaking, but if you apply any reasonable calculation, you will find that it will cost $120,000,000 of somebody's money to build that road. It will, therefore, be seen that the cost of the scheme proposed by the government will be at least double the cost of the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition. and will afford no greater advantages. Indeed, in my opinion, the government scheme at double the price, will not be so advantageous for the people of the country as that proposed from this side of the House. I believe, Sir, that the more the people understand the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition, the more it will meet with the approval of the people.
The line proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, the right hon. gentleman says,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: is through a barren, rocky, country, while the other is through a fertile country. It is well enough to say that it is a fertile country, if you judge the whole by a few miles here and there where a traveller, a trapper, a pleasure-seeker, a trader or a timber seeker has been. I do not think the right hon. gentleman has a sufficient data regarding the country through which this road is to run, to speak of its character with confidence. There must be at least 400 or 500 miles of that territory of which we know nothing. We have comparatively speaking no information about the country ; we are going it blind. It may be full of muskegs, rocks, and mountains of rock, like a portion of the country through which the Canadian Pacific Railway runs around Lake Superior. In the one case we have overcome the difficulties, we know what the railway is and what it has cost ; but we do not know what the other will cost. The right hon. gentleman says railways must always be the complement of the water stretches-that the two must work together. Well, surely, the two working side by side are more likely to work together than when one runs through the interior of the country. He says of the scheme of the leader of the opposition that for six months of the year part of it is frozen up. It is true, the water stretches are frozen up, but the railway will run all the year round. If the scheme of the leader of the opposition is carried out, there will be three railways carrying grain around Lake Superior where there is only one at the present time. If we had grain elevators on the ports of Lake Superior and the Georgian bay, the grain coming from Manitoba would be carried around Lake Superior by these three railways in the winter. Surely these railways would be the complement of the water stretches, and the people would have more benefit from them than they would from a single railway running through the interior of the country, where there are no elevators and will not be for years, for the storage of grain. The right hon. gentleman said that the policy of the opposition is a psychological study-a study of a struggle between conscience and duty on the one hand and policy on the other ; a study to decide whether they will follow the dictates of conscience or the dictates of expediency. Well, I regret that I cannot return the compliment to the right hon. gentleman, because there seems to be neither conscience nor expediency in his policy. It is a matter, as he said himself, of imminent haste, of going it blind, without any debate between right and wrong, between conscience and expediency, between wisdom and unwisdom ; but he has mapped it out, and he is going to force it through. There is no psychological study in that. The right hon. gentleman says that we have all the information in regard to the character of that country that we want; we have mountains of it. I have

here the mountains of information laid on the Table of the House, and what is it ? A small pamphlet containing 179 pages, with one map. That is the mountains of information given to the House to justify it in supporting this scheme. Let me read a few of the * sources of information ' of which this is the nearest epitome :
The iron belt on Lake Nepigon

That is supposed to give the information
we require to build the railway

-is the title of a report on some deposits of iron ore recently found on the east shore of Lake Nepigon.
Barlow, Dr. A. E.-Report on the geology and natural resources of the c.juntry Included by the Nipissing and Temiscaming map-sheets. Annual Report Geological Survey of Canada.
Beatty's lines.-Exploration line of 1870 was drawn from the north-east angle of Lake Nepigon in a south-easterly direction to a point near the southern end of Long Lake and then in an easterly direction to the ' 46-mile post ' just south of the height of land.
Bell, Dr. R.-Report of an exploration in 1865 between James bay and Lake Superior. Report of Progress, Geological Survey of Canada.
Exploration of Churchill and Nelson rivrrs.
Away up on the Hudson bay, hundreds of miles north of where this railway will run. This is the information which the right hon. First Minister regards as of a most valuable character.
Report on the geology and resources of the country lying on the north-western side of Lake Superior.
Then we have something about ' the Laurentide Axis ' ; something about ' the Quebec end ' ; ' obstacles few ' ; something about the flora of the .country, which would be most valuable for those who want to build a railway to know-what kind of flowers there are in the country, whether they are beautiful or otherwise ; whether they will furnish a beautiful bouquet for each engineer who goes through. This is the kind of information which the government has furnished. It is rather a burlesque. Then we have something about the Hudson bay basin, which this railway will not touch, though it is expected to cross the height of land nine times. Then, we have something about the Ontario reports, something about the timber limits, the reports published and the geological surveys. This is what the right hon. First Minister characterizes as the mountains of information to enable this House to determine whether or not it should go on with this undertaking.


An hon. MEMBER.: Read some of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be worth while to read a little. Here is what it says with regard to the Laurentide Axis :
The Laurentide hills proper do not extend to Hudson bay. They form a belt of hills varying from 100 to 200 miles in breadth, skirting the St. Lawrence valley and forming a divide between the great alluvial and marine plain or basin of Hudson bay from that of the St. Lawrence. It is a comparatively narrow belt. North
of this fringe of Laurentide hills lies the comparatively level and gently sloping country of the Hudson bay basin.
That is all the information we have about that. Then we have the following about the Quebec end :
The woodland region as a whole throughout Quebec and Ontario, along the height of land, varies but little in its general level, some sections of it, more especially in the eastern portion, between the St. Maurice and the city of Quebec, is rocky, hilly and well timbered, while other sections for long stretches consist of rolling clay and sandy loam and well timbered lands.
The more mountainous and hilly section in Quebec is that from the city of Quebec to the headwaters of the St. Maurice river, hut here we have in the latter river a great wide valley which affords a natural and remarkably easy highway into the north and interior of the woodland region.
North-western Quebec-From the surveys made along the northern border of the counties of Champlain, St. Maurice, Maskinonge, Ber-thier, Jolieitte and Montcalm in the vicinity of the height of land, it has been ascertained that this region comprising the sources of the Ottawa, Gatineau and St. Maurice rivers, consists of many comparatively level sections constituting a generally level plateau. Many of the streams flowing into the Hudson hay basin have their source here also ; the higher woodland being more lto the east and south-east.
It is important for us to know that these rivers have their sources up there. That is very valuable information when we are considering the building of a railway through that country. Then we have Mr. Gillies' statement, which gives us a comparison between Hudson bay basin and Scotland. Of course it is important that we should know all about Scotland and be able to make a comparison :
Mr. Gillies, who for eighteen years was Hudson bay factor at Fort George, about 235 miles north of the foot of James hay, volunteered the following statement regarding the capabilities of that portion of the Hudson bay basin :-'I have no doubt that any crop that grows in Scotland can be successfully grown at Fort George.'
That is all Mr. Gillies has to tell us, and very valuable information it is, on which to build a railway. Then we have an opinion with regard to the obstacles, and we are told that the obstacles are few :
For a distance of 700 miles, from Lake Kapi-tachuan (Upper Gatineau division) ill' a westerly by north-westerly direction as far west as White Earth lake near the confines between Nepigon and Lake St. Joseph divisions (Div. IX. and X. respectively) the line runs through a generally flat sand and clay country, where hills appear sparingly scattered with occasional ridges protruding through the drift or soil-covered country.
That is another valuable item of information. Then we have some information about the Hudson bay basin, which, if this road ever reaches there, may be of some value r
Whereas the country drained by the streams flowing south into Lakes Superior and Huron constitute a narrow and rocky hydrographic basin, for the most part, flit for cultivation aud

agriculture only in limited areas, the central portion of the hydrographic basin of Hudson bay, north of the great lakes is covered with soil consisting of clay and sand, in which vegetable mould forms a large percentage, thus rendering the land most desirable for the cultivation of crops when ordinary drainage is effected.
It is valuable to know that the country is covered by soil consisting of clay and sand. What else would it be covered with V That is valuable information on which to judge whether it is advisable or not to go on with this undertaking.
The evidence afforded by the flora or native plants of the district along the proposed railway line affords an excellent criterion to agriculturists and others in making an estimate of the capabilities of the district in question.
Very valuable information this for the government. Then we have a description of the mineral possibilities :
The metalliferous belt of Huronian rocks which carries nickel, copper, silver, gold, iron and other minerals of economic importance occurs prominently throughout a large section of the line of the proposed railway. After crossing the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Sudbury region this great mineral belt proceeds in a northeasterly direction to Upper and Lower Lake Abitibi north of the height of land. This mineral belt is quite wide in the districts of A'lgoma and Nipissing, extending close to the boundary of the Thunder bay district. In the latter district two large areas of similar mineral bearing rocks occur which lie also close to the height of land.
But the Prime Ministetr told us that that section of country was largely a fertile clay belt. Well, that is not the kind of belt in which you are likely to find mineral deposits. They are generally found in a rocky section of very little value for agricultural purposes, so that this report contradicts the assertion of the First Minister, who was describing this section as a sort of paradise for agricultural settlers. Its soil, he said, was equal to the very best in Ontario. Then we have the farming operations described :
The various farms of the different lumber companies carrying on business along the headwaters of the various streams which flow into the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, as well as the gardens and farms scattered throughout the hydrographic basin of Hudson bay, at the Hudson bay posts (such as at Abitibi, Brunswick House, Frederick House, Mamattawan, Matta-gami, &c.) form excellent criteria from which one can easily ascertain the possibilities of the whole region from an agricultural standpoint, leaving no doubt whatever that the basin can support a vast population.
There is nothing about minerals there :
From a careful study of the altitudes comprised in the Quebec to Winnipeg region and south as well as north, it can be readily seen and affirmed that the boldest expression of the Laurentide hills occurs along the southern border of their line outcrop.
Not much information in that. I do not know that that was not well known before, and in any case it is little value to parties


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Better read the whole book.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This information is so valuable that I wanted to lay it before the country. We have been told over and over again by hon. gentlemen on the other side that this report is so full, so comprehensive, and deals so directly with the question that it is all that is required. I simply want to enable the electorate to judge whether it is so or not, and I cannot do that without placing on ' Hansard ' a fair share of what is in the book. It proceeds :
These results are embodied in a coloured map showing the topographical and geological features as known to date.
That is most valuable information.
The areas of Huronian rocks which are (hose which carry the nickel, gold, silver, copper, and other economic minerals are delineated on the map in question so far as the surveys allowed.
A large proportion of the area covered by the map is coloured Huronian.
And what other colour would they make it ?
Eastern Belt.
The more easterly of these belts-the Great Belt-will be traversed for more than one hundred miles in its trend from the north channel of Lake Huron towards Lakes Abitibi and Mistassini.
Second Belt.
The next belt to the west, begins in Minnesota and is traceable from the south-easterly [DOT]
shores of Lake Nepigon in a north-east by east direction to the area of flat-lying evenly-bedded limestones of the Albany river basin.
That is most valuable information, no doubt.
Third Belt.
The third belt is almost parallel to the last mentioned

Well, it will have to run either in that direction or in some other.
-and lies to the north and north-east of Lake Nepigon.	,
Western Belt.
The most westerly belt is that which crosses the Canadian Pacific Railway track at Wabi-, goon, having a breadth of nearly twenty-five miles

That is a most extensive tract of country. -and strikes to the north-east In line with the Gloucester House area of similar rocks near Martin's Falls on the Albany.
There we have the eastern, second, third and western belts dealt with and how much information is there in all that ? After that a few lines are given to Fleming's Canadian Pacific Railway surveys. Then, at the beginning of chapter 15 we have the following : Height of Land Crossings.
Divide.
The line making the height of land or 'divide' between the waters which flow into the St. Lawrence river basin and those flowing into the Hudson bay basin crosses the proposed line of the National Transcontinental Railway as projected at the following points :-
Nine crossings are estimated. We can iinagine what the gradients and curvatures will be. The crossings are enumerated as follows :
First crossing.-In division III or upper Gatineau division just south of Lake Matchi Manitou.
Second crossing.-Takes place a little southwest of Lake Kiemawisk in division IV or upper Ottawa division.
Third crossing.-About 45 miles west of the second crossing in division IV. (upper Ottawa river), about 20 miles east of the inter-provincial boundary line between Quebec and Ontario, a little north-east of Lake Mattawa Gosik. The height of land then trends in a south-westerly direction for some 2(10 miles and crosses the Canadian Pacific Railway track between Ramsay and Ridout stations a little east of Chap-leau station via way of Fort Mattagami.
The Canadian Pacific Railway track runs along and close to the height of land in the rough country north of Lake Superior as far west as Amyot station, and thence takes an almost due northerly direction along the 85th meridian and crosses the projected line of the Grand Trunk Pacific five times in a distance of 125 miles in the Long lake district.
Fourth crossing.-Takes place at a point about 20 miles from the western edge of division VII., Mamattawan division.
Fifth crossing.-Takes place just at the junction of divisions VII. and VIII., Mamattawan and Long lake divisions.
Sixth crossing along the projected railway line takes place in division VIII. (Long Lake

division), about 18 miles south-east, by east of the Hudson's Bay Company's post at the northern extremity of Long lake.
Seventh crossing is about five miles south of the Hudson's bay post just mentioned and occurs in the centre of the Vlllth or Long lake division.
Eighth crossing.-Occurs at the western extremity of the VIII or Long lake division, about 15 miles west of Big lake.
The projected railway line and the height of land then nearly coincide with each other throughout division IX. or Lake Nepigon division.
Ninth crossing.-Takes place on the 89th meridian at a point about twenty (20) miles east of the extreme westerly portion of the Nepigon division, and about twenty miles south of the White Water lake.
The height of land thence takes a sudden south and south-westerly trend towards Lake Superior, where it is crossed by the Canadian Pacific Railway track at Savanne station.
That is the information-the tine crosses the height of land nine times. Anid yet this is to be a railway without any troublesome grades or 'curves. Yet, it is to go zig-zagging across the height of land like a snake fence. And it is to traverse the sources of'these rivers where there must be swamps, muskegs, and rocks. And this is a sample of the mountains of information given to the House. Upon that, ho<w can any one judge whether it is wise or otherwise to build this road 7


Mr. CAMPBELL.: What page is the hon. gentleman reading from ?
Mr. SPItOULE. From page 164 of the ' mountains of information.'
Reforestation.
It appears to me that in view of the thousands of square miles of territory belonging to the province, capable of growing the finest pine, but which has either been destroyed by fire or cut and removed by the lumbermen, it would be desirable to know something of the natural laws In accordance with which, unaided even by us, this wide domain will again be clothed with groveis of pine as good, if not better, than those that have been destroyed or removed.
That is valuable information, and will be of great help to us in building a railway. I wonder how many dollars it will save to the country to have this information placed before us. That great country is to be reforested, the forest having been destroyed either by fire or the ruthless lumbermen. The great need is to learn the natural laws of reforestation in order to decide whether the country shall spend $100,000,000 in building tli is railway.
For although the time for planting young trees may not as yet have arrived, it may well he that in view of the rapid exhaustion of their timber limits, that the time has really come when it may be only prudent to nurse and protect the young pine trees which the hand of nature has planted and which are springing up by thousands in many places. The lauds of this description, which are contiguous to


Thomas Simpson Sproule: leading lines of railways and navigable rivers, are specially deserving of this care and attention on the part of the government, and would, ' I believe, handsomely repay all the expense that might he required to do so.
Opening up a settlement of the country.
In my judgment, notwithstanding the difficulty of getting in supplies and materials in order to the construction, the railway can be built for little more than one-half the money north of the height of land that would be necessary to make a line with equally good grades along the north shore of Lake Superior.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of getting in supplies, in this gentleman's judgment this railway can be built for one-half the money north of the height of land. It is most important to know that. Then, there is a good deal about bush fires. And, of course, this is valuable information in building a railway :
The bush fires which have passed over the greater portion of the territory on and beyond the height of land

Yet, we are told, that is a country of valuable tracts of timber.
The bush fires which have passed over the greater portion of the territory on and beyond the height of'land within the last twenty or thirty years cannot fail to attract the notice and attention of every traveller-indeed so recent have they often been that the hush or young forest has rarely had anything like the time necessary to attain full growth. Bush fires, looked at broadly, as one of the forces or phenomena of nature, rather than in the light of mere accidental occurrences are, when confined to a wild and uncultivated region, by no means the unmitigated evil they are generally supposed to he.
Then we have :
The quantity of aspen poplar in this territory is very great, and may in view of the employment of the pulp of this wood for the manufacture of paper become extremely valuable. The tamarack too though much less in quantity (unless we Include the diminutive ones found in the muskegs), will also be of some value whenever the country is opened up. Tamarack of the size suitable for telegraph poles is very common and more rarely such as would make railroad ties were met with. The largest tree of this kind rarely exceeded six feet in circumference.
He found some that would make railway ties but more that was fit for telegraph poles. One report says that the country is all burnt over and has been for fifteen years past and the other that there is valuable timber up there that would make telegraph poles and ties but that some of these are in muskegs. Then there is gypsum up there :
The gypsum beds situated below the junction of the Mattagami and Missanabi rivers have been already described in former reports. I found pieces of gypsum on the coast about half way between Moose Factory and Albany, and was informed by one of my Indians from that part of the country that it could be seen in place at the bottom of a bay not far off when the tide was out.

That is valuable information given by an Indian in that country. He does not tell us where this is but it is important that we should know it because we are going to build a railway there. Then we come to the question of rock exposure. There are few rocks :
Probably in no part of Canada is there a smaller proportion of rock exposed at the surface than in the low belt of country south of James bay, and very few parts with so little bare rock as the second plateau or belt. In the third plateau, or that which constitutes the height of land, the proportion of rock is greater,

These are extracts from the report of Mr. E. B. Borron. Then we are told about climate and game, and about track surveys checked. We are told a little about the physical features of the country :
The most noticeable feature of the west coast of James bay is its extreme flatness. Looked at from a distance there is no distinct shore line, but the water and land seem to merge into each other. A strip varying in width from one to three miles and partly covered with grass and low shrubs extends along the coast from the Kapiskau to the Moose river, except for a few miles north and south of Cockispenny point, where the shore is fairly high and dry and the trees come to the water's edge.
Then we have * clay, sands and shells.' It is well we should know about the kind of shells to be found in that country, about ' surveys and instructions.' We come then to ' fish,' ' the kind of timber,' ' soil,' ' mountain ranges,' ' crops,' * coal,' ' clay escarpments,' ' fish and minerals.' This report contains a selection of items of that .character from the reports of geologists and it great deal of it is the imperfect information derived from the Indians. A great deal of it is only guess work, and very little is definite and can be relied upon. Yet, these are the mountains of information which have been given us in regard to the country through which this railway must pass. I have given a good many items from this report, and I do so because I think it desirable that we should know the character of the information which is given to this House to enable it to judge whether it is wise to pass this Bill or not.


Archibald Campbell: Read pages 42 and 4(i.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will leave the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) to get up and read the rest of the book if he likes. I have read from page to page so as to give what may be taken as fair samples of the information afforded us, to show how indefinite it is and to show that practically there is no definite information at all; that the data is not reliable, that most of it is collected from the Indians that it is guess work and that it has no relevancy to the information that we want to enable us to judge as to whether it is wise to build this railway or not.	[DOT]
This all important measure that we are dealing with now should have, in my judgment, been referred to in the speech from the Throne. I want to draw attention to one of the features of this session that I have not referred to before. Constitutional government means that the government of the day, when they propound any great policy, refer to it in the speech from the Throne when parliament is called together, and draw the attention of the country to the fact that they propose to deal with the question. It does not matter whether the policy involves a heavy expenditure or is far-reaching in its importance, but in so far as it is interesting or important to the country or Mr. SPROULE.
is important in other respects, whether it relates to transportation, or to the economic pursuits of the people, or to any other lines of activity in which the country is engaged, our form of constitutional government demands that it should be referred to in the speech from the Throne. Yet, we are asked to commit the country to an expenditure of $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 in carrying out a policy which is not of sufficient importance to be referred to in the speech from the Throne. Is that constitutional government ? Coming from the Reformers, who always pride themselves upon living up to the principles of constitutional government, it seems to me that it is more objectionable still. I say that they have abandoned constitutional government in that respect. They have refrained from taking the people as well as the representative of the Crown into their confidence and they have failed to disclose in the speech from the Throne the important policy which we are now dealing with in this House at the tail end of the session. It was not sufficiently important to be referred to in the speech from the Throne, but they can bring it down at the tail end of the session and ask us to deal with it in the dying hours of the session. This policy looks as if it were designed for the destruction of the trade of Ontario as far as I can judge. Taking a comprehensive view of the government in power, it would appear to me that they have a sinister design against Ontario, because it is evident that they are striking at Ontario by taking an unfair census of the country, a census which allowed them to reduce the number of the representatives of the people, and thereby reduce the strength of the voice of Ontario in this House. They struck at Ontario again by the Redistribution Bill, by which they have endeavoured to lessen the power and influence of Ontario in this House. Ontario gave a majority against this government and they cannot forget that. They keep that in view, and their desire is to curtail her strength, to destroy her power, to leave her helpless, to manacle her, first by the census, second by the Redistribution Bill, and third by this great transcontinental railway. If successful this railway would mean the destruction of our fleet of merchant marine which now plies on the great lakes. We are told that if this railway is built up to the standard announced by the railway expert of the government (Mr. Charlton) it will be capable of handling all the produce of the west. If so, it will destroy our lake marine, and in proportion as it is successful it will starve out the existing carrying routes that are so valuable to the province of Ontario. If successful, it means the destruction of our inland shipping; it means the destruction of our ports on the Georgian bay: it means the weakening of the financial strength of Ontario. and it means the decreasing of the population of that province. Our towns,

our cities, and our farming districts will t>e side-tracked by this road. Toronto, London, Hamilton, Windsor, Guelph, Owen Sound, Meaford, Kincardine, Collingwood, Midland ; the commerce of all these towns and cities, will be decreased in volume, and the reduction of their business interests will ensue. But we are told, that we will have a railway to Toronto by way of North Bay. Yes, we may have a branch line into Toronto, but all the same it means that Toronto is sidetracked, and any town in Canada that it was proposed to treat in such a way would fight almost to the death against it. If this line is successful it is not only going to injure our Ontario towns and cities, and our ports on the Georgian bay, but it will destroy the ports of Kingston and of Peterborough and the harbour of Montreal as well. It was said by the Minister of Finance, that a railway would be built from the main line to Montreal. Perhaps so; but Montreal will cease to be on the highway of commerce; Montreal will be on a branch line, and Montreal must lose a large portion of her present great trade. So it is with the other cities and towns in Ontario and western Quebec; the trade will be carried by them rather than through them, to their detriment if not to their destruction.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the new railway does all that, it is going to be a great success.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Remember that I said ' if ' it met all the expectations which hon. gentlemen opposite claim for it, and the expenditure of this enormous sum of money would not be justified unless that railway proves a success. In proportion, as it is a success, then it will side-track these cities and towns of Ontario, destroy our merchant marine on the lakes and destroy the trade now coming to our harbours. You must remember that the steamers plying on the lakes must have return cargoes, in order that they may be operated successfully. When the boats arrive at Owen Sound they tranship their grain to the elevators and they take the reaping machines, and the mowing machines, and the other manufactured products of the east, back to the markets of the west. At the present time these steamers have cargoes both ways, but if this line carries the grain from the west to the east, then our merchant marine can only have trade in one direction, and every one knows that such tra,de is mot profitable.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS :: It will not dry up the lakes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, that is a kind of a side issue, and it seems to me that it does not require any high degree of intelligence to make such an observation. As between the scheme proposed by the government and the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition, there is the important dis-397



EEVISEB

[Stage Direction]
tinctiou, that the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition, carries in its train none of the evils which characterize the project of the government. The scheme of the lion, the leader of the opposition, brings trade to our ports and builds up these ports; it assists Ontario ; it assists our merchant marine, and it assists to build up our cities and towns, whereas the other scheme sidetracks them. There is another difference still. The scheme of the opposition will not cost half tlie money that the government scheme will cost, although the results from the scheme of the leader of the opposition will, in my judgment, be far more advantageous to tiie people of Canada. Surely if we can get as much good from an expenditure of $60,000,000 as we can from an expenditure of $150,000,000, it would be the part of wisdom to select the scheme which is the least burdensome upon the people of Canada. Then again, as regards our scheme, we are dealing with things which we know about. There is no uncertainty about it; every foot of territory which would be traversed by railways, as proposed by the leader of the opposition, is well known, and we have the data with reference to it in our possession. On the other hand, uncertainty, the want of knowledge; the indefiniteness of the information surrounding the government scheme, all alike condemn it, and ought to cause us to pause before we embark upon such a hazardous venture.
The Lake Superior ports are important to us ; they have their elevators. The Georgian bay ports are important to us ; they also have their elevators. If we build railways between Port Arthur and Winnipeg, we can bring down the produce of the great northwestern country and put it into the elevators ; and during the winter time it will be distributed to Ontario, to the extent to which it is needed there, and the rest will go eastward to the sea-board. But the project of the government does not contemplate the carrying of a bushel to the elevators on Lake Superior or the * Georgian bay, but contemplates carrying everything to the eastern ports. Therefore it does not put the people of Ontario on the same level, so far as profits are concerned, with the people of the other portions of the country, and to that extent it is unsuitable. As I said before, the Canadian Pacific Railway is now double-tracking its railway between Port Arthur and Winnipeg. When that is done, there will be practically three railways into that country, because I am told that a double-track railway can carry three times as much as a single-track railway. There will be no danger of blockades in that country when the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway are doubletracked and fully equipped. We have many lines of railway built in the North-west already, and we require many more. At the same time we want the. east to go hand in hand with the west, because we need our

[Stage Direction]
railways to be competitors with the waterways of the country. When the water-ways are frozen up, the railways can distribute the grain from the elevators, so that the traffic will go on in the winter as well as in the summer.
This scheme attacks the credit of our country ; it will be a fatal blow to our credit if hard times come again, as no doubt they will come in due time. The undertaking is too great for us. It will heap up the debt of our country to an enormous extent. It will minimize the power of the government to assist other important railway projects. The government tell us that the federal parliament must always in the future grant subsidies for the building of railways, not only in the newer provinces, but in the older provinces as well. If we are obliged to borrow so much money for the construction of this road, where is all the money to come from to assist other railway projects in the future, in Ontario, in Quebec, in the maritime provinces, and in Manitoba and the North-west Territories ? I am afraid that our debt will be piled up so high that the government will find themselves very much crippled when demands are made upon them for other railway subsidies in the future.
For these reasons we are justified in asking the government to go slowly. For these reasons we are justified in supporting the amendment proposed by the lion, leader of the opposition in preference to the proposal of the government. For these reasons I support the resolution. It is right that we should delay in order to get more information. It is important that we should have surveys made. It is important that we should not commit the country to such a heavy expenditure. It is important that we should not destroy the influence and power of the province of Ontario, that portion of the country which must pay the greater bulk of this money. In every dollar of indebtedness incurred for this undertaking forty-five cents must be paid by the province of Ontario, according to her population. That province must pay $45,000 in every $100,000. She must pay $45,000,000 in every $100,000,000. I want the people of Ontario to know this, and to realize what it means to them in the future. I want them to know what they are committing themselves and their children to in supporting the government in this undertaking. I want the members of this House from Ontario who are supporting the government to be prepared to defend their conduct of to-day when they go back to the electors and when this subject is under discussion. The province of Ontario is sometimes spoken of as the milch cow of confederation. I want the people of Ontario to know that they are paying forty-five cents in every dollar of the cost of this undertaking, so that they will be able to estimate whether the government have done right or wrong Mr. SPROULE.
in committing the country to the heavy expenditure which this Bill will involve if we consent to its third reading at the present time.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the criticism of the right hon. leader of the government and to the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition in moving his amendment to the third reading of the Bill. The leader of the government said that after all there was not much difference between the scheme of the government and that of the leader of the opposition iu the matter of expense, though he claimed that the government's scheme was the best on the whole. His first criticism of the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition was in reference to his advocacy of the extension of the government railway from Montreal to the Georgian bay. He criticised that because it involved obtaining possession of either the line of the Grand Trunk Railway or tha!t of the Canadian Pacific Railway between Montreal and Coteau, or the building of a rival line. As our policy involves utilizing portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway around Luke Superior, we could in the same way obtain running rights over the Grand Trunk from Montreal to Coteau. Why should we not do that, without building or purchasing another road V Perhaps in that respect the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman has a certain advantage over the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition. However, the important thing is to have a government road from Halifax to the shores of the Georgian bay, with means of communication with the western prairies. It means the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway. That could be all done for $11,000,000 or $12,000,000, or at the utmost $15,000,000. As to that portion of the proposed government road from Moncton to Quebec, we hear very little of it at the present time. It seems to have dropped out of sight altogether. I wonder at our hon. friends in the maritime provinces allowing themselves, like the little boy, to be told by the government: Just close your eyes and open your mouth and we will drop a plum into it. Just say nothing and we will build that section from Quebec to Moncton. But I think that section has passed out of the probabilities that are likely to occur for a generation or two in this country. It is not at all likely that the next generation or two will see a road built from Moncton to Quebec.
The right hon. gentleman, criticised my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, because he proposed an alternative scheme to his proposition to build a road from Quebec to Winnipeg. The proposition of my hon. friend was to build colonization roads into that country, according as its requirements demanded, with moderate gradients and equipment. In criticising that scheme, the right hon. gentleman did not seem to

realize the difference between building a road such as be contemplates, and one to be built gradually as settlement required, into that region which is described as so valuable by our friends opposite, in the northern part of Quebec and Ontario, and which would accomplish all the purposes for which it is needed and would cost far less. The scheme of the right hon. gentleman simply means an expenditure four or five times that necessary to carry out the proposition of the leader of the opposition. What are the probabilities ? I have shown that It will be impossible to build any road from Winnipeg to Quebec with modern gradients at a cost that is within the means of this country. The right hon. gentleman asks why, instead of acquiring from the Canadian Pacific Railway that portion of its line between North Bay and Port Arthur, not build another line which will open up a beautiful agricultural section of the country. X wonder where the right hon. gentleman gets his information. From Winnipeg east, as far as the prairie extends the country is flat, but once you strike the Laureu-tian ranges and go eastward towards Lake Nepigon, it is a costly country through which to build a railway, not nearly as favourable as the country from Port Arthur to Winnipeg by the north of the Lake of the Woods. From Wabigoon to the prairie country east of Winnipeg is full of granite ridges and morasses. Hon. gentlemen will find it described in the report of Sir Sand-ford Fleming, made in 1877, and to which reference is made in pages 103, 104 and 105 of the government blue-book, and: that reference is the only valuable information given in this book on the National Transcontinental Railway. This report of Sir Sand-ford Fleming deals with the surveys and preliminary operations on the Canadian Pacific Railway from 1871 up to 1877, made by order of the Canadian government. They cover that section of the country from the north side of Lake Nepigon westward to Sturgeon lake. On page 206 of Sir Sandford Fleming's work will be.found a report on the exploratory survey made from the River Pic to the River Nepigon, along the northern coast of Lake Superior and on other surveys made in the year 1874 by Thomas Jefferson Thompson. Let me remind the House that in 1873 and 1874 there was a survey made westward towards Winnipeg. There was a survey made by Sir Sandford Fleming from Winnipeg down to Lake Superior. In his report here he says : ' We have found an excellent route along the whole line of the road from Winnipeg down to Lake Superior.' Speaking of the gradients running eastward he says that in no case do they exceed 26 feet to the mile. That is a fact. We have a road now between Winnipeg and the head of Lake Superior with gradients, none of which are in excess of 26 feet to the mile, and the Canadian Pacific Railway are at present, as was stated by 397J
my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), doubling their tracks and reducing the gradients on that road to four-tenths per cent, or in other words to 20 feet per mile. There can be no better line of road got. It is at least equal to the Northern Railway which runs from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior, and you can get no road from Winnipeg to Lake Superior with gradients better than that. But at what expense to the people was that got ? For about 37 miles on that road, on section 15, built by Mr. Whitehead, some of it cost $250,000 per mile on account of the filling. On Cross Lake 1,000,000 yards of earth were put in at a cost of 28 cents per cubic yard. At Lake Deception there were over 500,000 yards and at another lake, Darlingford Bay, over 500,000 yards put In at 28 cents per yard. They managed to get a good road that way, but at an enormous cost ; and according to the reports of the engineers who surveyed that section, Sir Sandford Fleming and the engineers under him, they got a most favourable line of road from Winnipeg down to Lake Superior. But it was only at an enormous cost. On sectioif B there was an enormous expenditure. Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that Sir Sandford Fleming advised that the most feasible line of road for the purpose of connecting the eastern section of the province was from Port Arthur up to Lake Nepigon and thence down by the route at present taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Let me quote from the report, to be accurate, what work had to be done on 117 miles of that road :
The following are the approximate quantities in cubic yards of banks and cuttings for the distance of 117 miles from Peninsula harbour to Red Rock, also lineal yards of tunnels :-
Embankments, cubic yards, 3,413,860, per mile equal to 29,434.
Cuttings, cubic yards, 2,779,350 per mile equal to 23,755.
Lineal yards of tunnel, 13,350, equal to 71 miles.
And then there are the bridges. And after obtaining all this, the surveyor who was upon that section of the road says that in order to obtain a road such as he has shown you with the amount of excavation, the amount of earth to be removed, the amount of tunnelling that ought to be done in that section of the country, the only difficulty in railway construction along this valley would be in obtaining practical gradients. He says :	' my opinion is that
seventy or eighty feet to the mile could be obtained. Now, grades of seventy or eighty feet to the mile are simply of no use for a modern railway competing for traffic with a rail and water route. The hon. gentleman says that we shall have two main lines of railway which will be occupied in the winter, when the lakes are frozen, carrying the produce of the west to the Atlantic seaboard. Does the right hon. gentleman not know that to move freight in that country in winter costs about 40 per cent more than

in the summer ? If he will ask the men who operate the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the parties who run railways in Minnesota he will learn that their instructions to their subordinates are not to take out a train more than is absolutely necessary ; to run the passenger trains even though they must be run at a loss, but not to carry a pound of freight if it can be avoided, because every pound of freight carried when the temperature is 25 or 30 degrees below zero is carried-no matter what you get for it-at a loss to the road. So you cannot expect any freight to be carried in winter. The only time when it would be possible to compete with the rail and water route would be in summer. The plan of my leader, is the only practical plan. It is the plan that is seconded by every intelligent man, every intelligent man connected with transportation between this section and the North-west. The main point of that plan is to get your freight from the west by the cheapest way to the ports at the bead of Lake Superior. There are already two roads running from the prairie country to the head of the lakes. They carry 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 bushels a year. Double track either of them and they can carry from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior 250,000,000 bushels a year. If you have means of carrying the freight to the head of the lakes there need be no difficulty in transporting it eastward. The plan of the leader of the opposition is upheld by Mr. Robert Meighen, who has been connected nearly all his life with the transportation business, and with buying grain in the west and bringing grain to the east. Having arranged to get your freight carried to the head of Lake Superior, encourage lines of steamers to bring it down to Georgian bay. Have elevators at the Georgian bay ports. Get two-thirds of the crop down during the summer, if you can, to the eastern shore of Georgian bay. Then, during the winter, you can take that by rail to Montreal, or, if possible, to St. John or Halifax. That is the only practical scheme. No one in his senses would think of carrying grain, whatever may be said by the right lion, gentleman, through by rail from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to St. John and Halifax. The road proposed by the right lion, gentleman between Quebec and Winnipeg may be useful for colonization purposes. If it is to be used as a colonization road, it may have grades of sixty or seventy feet to the mile, and, with those grades it can be built for one quarter of the money that it would be necessary to expend in order to secure grades of twenty feet to the mile.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock:


John Graham Haggart: 


John Graham Haggart: At six o'clock I was dealing with the practicability of the route between Winnipeg and Lake Nepigon;
I was showing that it is almost impossible to obtain a route with modern gradients between these points. The report which has been brought down, as I stated before, is not a full report. It was seemingly prepared by an officer of the Geological Survey, and in it attention is drawn to a report of Sir Sandford Fleming in respect to the practicability of the route, but the reports of Sir Sandford Fleming are simply referred to, and not given in full. I might remind the House that the surveys in eon-nection with the Canadian Pacific Railway took up the time from 1872 to 1878. The result of the surveys was the obtaining of a practicable route from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. The practicability of railway construction on the prairies was also established and three or four different passes, the Tete Jaune, the Pine River pass, the Simpson pass and the Peace River pass were shown to be practicable and good routes to the Pacific coast. In dealing with this question when it was before the House some time ago, I stated that the government ought to have a settled policy in reference to this matter. At that time an application was before parliament from the Grand Trunk Railway for permission to build a railway to the Pacific coast. I advocated the granting of that right to the Grand Trunk Railway, and 1 am in favour of it at the present time. My opinion was that that road should be built on a route entirely different from those which are now occupied by other railway roads. If you remember, Sir, I advocated at that time the construction of this road as far north as possible, and I thought that the least southerly route Which could be adopted by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway should be the route recommended by Sir Sandford Fleming, that is one that crosses the Red river at a town north of Winnipeg, then crosses Lake Winnipeg and proceeds towards the coast either by the Peace River pass, the T?te Jaune pass, the Pine River pass, or the Simpson pass. I think that there is room in this country for such development as I advocated at that time. That would not interfere with present enterprises, with the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway. It would be a route which would open up an immense tract of country to the north of both of those lines. I felt that with the usual subsidy, or with the subsidy which is to be given to the Grand Trunk Pacific for the building of that railway a road could be profitably constructed bv'the people of this country. P*ut instead of that we have a line which virtually parallels the Canadian Pacific Railway, virtually parallels the line which we have subsidized to Edmonton, for we cannot possibly have Edmonton an objective point of the Grand Trunk Pacific line and

keep that line from running within 20 or 30 miles of the other road. I object to it then on the ground that the proposed location of the line is one that interferes with enterprises now existing in this country, and on the ground that there is no necessity for the building of duplicate lines in that particular section of the country. Then too I was in favour of the development of Ontario and Quebec not by the line proposed by the right lion, gentleman, a line from Quebec to Winnipeg involving an enormous expenditure of money, but by local or Dominion subsidy to local lines for the purpose of developing Ontario and Quebec. 1 have an opinion, as I said at that time, in the section of country which lies between the head of Lake Nepigou and Quebec there may be land which will be capable of development in the interests of this country, but it can be developed only by colonization roads. There is no necessity for the expenditure by the people of this country of the enormous sum of money which the government propose to spend for the purpose of building a road which, according to the statements of hon. gentlemen on the government siide of the House, will be built on commercial principles, with the lowest possible gradients. The building of such a road involves the expenditure of an amount of money of which we can form no estimate, and I would ask what is the use of the railway and Canals Department ? Why is it that the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not an estimate from that department as to the probable cost of the road. We are asked to go intft an undertaking, to enter into a contract with this railway company without knowing what the probable cost of that railway will be ; without knowing what the government should have learned from the department which ought to have been able to furnish them with an estimate of what the actual cost would be ; without a scintilla of evidence as to the expenditure that would be necessary for the construction of that particular road. That is why I object to the scheme. It involves an expenditure to my mind of not less than $125,000,000. We are bound to build a first-class road from Winnipeg to Moncton, and to construct such a road will involve ap expenditure far in excess of any estimate which may be furnished the government. That money to my mind could be expended in works of utility, in works that would facilitate transportation of this country in a far better manner than that proposed by the government. WTkat is the plan proposed by them ? To build a road from Quebec to Winnipeg. But wliat do we find in the Order in Council from the Minister of Public Works providing for the appointment of a commission ? The right hon. gentleman says : Oh, It was only for the purpose of finding out and examining the different ports and deciding on what ports of Lake Superior,
Georgian bay and the St. Lawrence expenditures should be made. This is what we find in the report of the hon. Minister of Public Works :
This involves the consideration of their transportation :-
Prom place of production to Canadian seaports.
Prom place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
Prom Canadian seaports to Europe.
Prom place of production through Canadian ports on the Pacific.
As it affects the products of the eastern provinces of Canada it involves their movement :-
To the seaports.
From the seaports to Europe.
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can be reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made regarding :-
The conditions of original shipment and the possibilities of improvement in the conditions surrounding such shipments.
The storage requirements of lake, river and ocean ports.
The harbour facilities of the inland lakes, rivers and Atlantic and Pacific ports.
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, and, generally, any improvement, enlargements, or other matters affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.
The minister further states that in making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but, if necessary, new surveys should be made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely :-
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports.
Has the right hon. gentleman carried out Ills pledge to this House ? Has he carried out the promise which he put in the mouth of His Excellency ? No, he now limits the scope of that commission .to the question of what -ports on Lake Superior and on -the Canadian water route -expenditures should be made upon and on the facilities for transportation -on the canals and the St. Lawrence. The promise made by the right hon. gentlem-an to this House was that the whole question of transportation from the prairies of the west to the Atlantic and from the Atlantic ports to Great Britain would be considered by a commission and imported upon to this House in order that this House might consider the whole question. Fancy entering into a contract with a company without even an estimate from the department which has charge of transportation, the Department of Railways and Canals, as to what the cost would he. The right hon. gentleman then Is mistaken in his statements and mistaken in th-e speeches which he quotes to this House. Fortunately we have here the

report of the Minister of Public Works upon which this commission was to he founded. We have not had a scintilla of evidence, we have not had anything in the shape of a report as to what the expenditure will be on this undertaking. Fancy undertaking an expenditure involving, as iwe say, about $125,000,000, and that figure is within the mark, or two or three times the amount of revenue taken from the people two or three years ago, without having a bit of evidence as to what the cost of the undertaking is to be. That is one reason why the opposition object to this undertaking. We have no evidence as to what it will cost and we have mo evidence as to what the liability of the people will be in reference to this undertaking. We have no engineering reports. Why should we enter into a contract without them? The late government with Sir iSandfofd Fleming engaged upon the surveys, and he had as many parties in the field as he possibly could have at that time, received no information from 1872 to 1878 which would justify them in entering into a contract for the Canadian Pacific Railway except between those points which I have mentioned. We built the road which it was necessary to build in order to connect Lake Superior with Winnipeg by means of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We commenced building the portion of the road in the Rocky mountains which we were bound to do under the agreement with British Columbia. We began these portions of the road. We had not complete evidence after even a six years survey. These horn, gentlemen are entering into a contract for the purpose of building this road without a survey from Winnipeg to Quebec and with only the partial survey of Sir Sandfond Fleming which he made when he was building the Intercolonial Railway from Quebec to Moncton. These are the reasons why we object to this proposition. We do not know what the cost of the undertaking is to be and we do not know what the liability of the country is to he in reference to it. Surely the parliament of Canada are delegating powers which it is not in the publi-b interest to grant when they give the government power to enter into a contract when the government cannot tell within $25,000,000 or $50,000,000 or $75,000.000 what the cost of the undertaking will be. Then, the right hon. gentleman talks about the probability of freight being carried from Winnipeg to Quebec. Let me give a few examples to show the absurdity of the statement that freight can be carried profitably for that distance. Freight is carried from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior at the present time for ten cents per hundred pounds or about six cents a bushel for every bushel of wheat. It has been carried from the head of Lake Superior to Quebec during the present season by boats for three and one-half cents a bushel. The rate for the 410 miles between Winnipeg and the head of Lake Superior is six cents a bushel.


John Graham Haggart: I venture to say that this rate hardly pays the cost of transport for that 410 miles. Then, it costs nine and a quarter cents to take the wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec. Does the right hon. gentleman pretend to say that with the most favourable gradients that it is possible to get upon that road it will be able to carry wheat to compete from Winnipeg to Quebec with the rate at the present time of nine and a quarter cents per bushel ? It would not pay. As I stated before, the rate for 410 miles to the head of Lake Superior is six cents per bushel and for the 1,200 odd miles to Quebec it will cost three times as much or eighteen cents a bushel. It is at present being carried for nine and a quarter cents a bushel. Any railway main^ or any man who has studied the transportation question at all will say that no road constructed between Winnipeg and Quebec can successfully compete with the carriage by rail and by water. The right hon. gentleman says that there are five months in the year when it is impossible to carry freight by water or by part water and by part rail and that at these times of the year we will have two roads hauling grain from Winnipeg to Quebec. It will not pay at all. Where the thermometer goes down to 25 or 30 degrees below zero no railway can carry grain at a rate within forty per cent of the rate which would prove profitable during the summer season. The right hon. gentleman spoke about the Canada Atlantic Railway. He said that it was impossible if the Intercolonial Railway were extended to Georgian bay for it to be put in the position of *the Canada Atlantic Railway, that ip to own steamers, because he said that the American government insisted that wheat from Duluth to the Georgian bay must be carried in American bottoms. I do not think so. I think a British vessel with British register can go to Duluth, Milwaukee or-Chicago just the same as an American vessel can.


Samuel Hughes: They do it anyway.


John Graham Haggart: They do it anyway and they can do it just the same as an American vessel which carries freight from those ports to the Georgian bay. The right hon. gentleman said that the Intercolonial Railway could not go to American ports and compete for freight to be carried over our own railway line-s.


William Forsythe McCreary: The vessels have to fly the American, flag.


John Graham Haggart: They do not, I beg your pardon.


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes they do.


John Graham Haggart: A British registered ship can load at Milwaukee and carry to any British port. It is not at all necessary that it should carry the American flag. British ships have just as much right to-

carry grain as American vessels have because it does not interfere with the coasting trade at ail.


Samuel Hughes: Don't they carry freight from New York to Liverpool now ?


John Graham Haggart: Don't they do it from New York to Liverpool, from Boston to Liverpool and from other American ports ? As long as it does not interfere with the coasting laws of the United States, that is by carrying grain or passengers from one American port to another, a British registered ship can go to Milwaukee, Chicago, or Duluth and load grain for a Georgian bay port as well as an American vessel can.


William Forsythe McCreary: As a matter of fact has not the Canada Atlantic Railway Company seven steamers, four of which are registered in the United States and fly the American flag ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not know whether they have or not, but I believe some of these vessels that are carrying to Depot Harbour belong to Mr. Booth himself and that they are carrying grain from Duluth and Milwaukee. They have just as much right to do so as an American vessel, so long as they do not interfere with the coasting laws of the United States, and our Canadian vessels, have a right to trade with American ports under similar regulations. The Prime Minister said there were 12,000,000 bushels of wheat carried on the Canada Atlantic via Depot Harbour to American seaports, but what is to prevent that being carried on Canadian railways to Canadian ports ? There are 20,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain exported via Port Arthur and Buffalo, and there are only 12,000,000 bushels of American grain carried via Depot Harbour, some of which goes to Montreal and some to Boston. If we could carry all the grain which is grown in the North-west, on Canadian railways we would not need to carry American grain at all, and it is the duty of Canadian statesmen to divert through Canadian territory, that traffic which is now going to Buffalo. The feeling is growing in this country that we ought to have a government railway, and that it is the only means by which we can equalize freight rates on Canadian roads. The Grand Trunk Railway Company had for its object at first, the building of a road towards the north. I was in favour of that, and I am in favour of assisting them to do that now so long as they do not interfere with existing railroads. I would be in favour of aiding the Grand Trunk liberally towards that end. That is the policy of the leader of the opposition. He is in favour of a government-owned railroad having its terminus at some point which would enable it to compete successfully with other railroads in Canada for the purpose of obtaining freight to Montreal, or to the ports of the maritime provinces. The only possible through-freight
that can possibly be obtained for St. John and Halifax, is the freight which comes to the Georgian bay ports, and which is carried by the Grand Trunk Railway, or the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Canada Atlantic Railway, or by a government-owned railway if we had one, to these points. That is the only possible way, of increasing our traffic with the maritime provinces, and for that reason I am in favour of the proposition of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I shall not deal at any length with the location of the government line, or its cost, or the probabilities of its success. I have already shown the absurdity of building a road such as this from Winnipeg to Quebec. I would be in favour of a line of railway which would go north of Lake Winnipeg. which would give us a through-route, and which at the same time would open up new tracts of wheat growing country in the North-west and Manitoba. But with regard to this eastern section, it should be t.lie policy of the government to divert most of this traffic through Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces to the sea-board. I cannot understand the policy of the government in building a road from Winnipeg to Quebec of the description and design which they propose, and which if built up to the standard described, Will cost an enormous amount of money. I trust that the country through which it is proposed to build the new line is suitable for agriculture ; I hope it is a country abounding in minerals, and that it has, what is perhaps more valuable still, extensive waterfalls which can be developed for manufacturing purposes. I heard my lion friend from North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) tell how a nephew of his *who had been examining the Lake Abitibi country over to the north of Lake Nepigon, found that there was a territory there, two or three hundred miles long and fifty miles wide, comprising excellent cultivable land, and that underlying the whole of that territory there were immense deposits of the best lignite coal. If that be the case, it will solve the fuel difficulty in this country, and it will enable the locomotives to be supplied with fuel. But even all that is no justification for this enormous expenditure. The statement of the Minister of Finance, that if the present surplus continued for a few years it would cover the whole cost of that railway, is simply nonsense. How are they to recoup the people of the country for the expenditure? They propose t'o appoint a commissioner to issue debentures for the sums expended and they imagine that the mere paper debentures will be n return to the country for the money expended. It is like a friend of mine who always thanked God that a Bill was paid, when he gave a note for it. If when Julius Caesar landed at Dover, a penny was placed at compound interest ; that original deposit and the interest thereon would to-day build all the railroads in Canada. It looks as

if the Minister of Finance were trying an experiment of that kind, when he issues debentures to recoup the people of Canada for the money that is expended on this road. It is true that from Winnipeg to thei coast we have a mortgage upon the Grand Trunk, for the money expended on the construction of that section. That is some kind of a security ; but what does it amount to ?
There is to be expended $18,000 on the prairie section and $30,000 on the mountain section. For that we are to get security to the amount of 75 per cent on every $100 expended in the construction of the road. Besides that we are to have security on "what ? The roiling stock of the road to the extent of $15,000,000. The parties who will supply the rolling stock will take the precaution of having security on it, and it is only the balance that will be liable as security to the government. We have no security on the undertaking from the Grand Trunk Pacific or from the Grand Trunk, which does not appear in the contract at all. We have only the security of the $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock, which is to be earmarked for the eastern division of the road. We have of course the security of the road on the money we advance for the building of the western division from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, and we have the security of the road from Winnipeg to Quebec for the amount expended on that road. Will the undertaking, after it is finished, be worth the amount expended upon it ? I do not believe it will he, nor do I believe the road from Quebec to Moncton will be either, if it is ever built, which I do not believe it will be. Nor do I believe it will be possible to obtain a route for a first-class road from Quebec to Winnipeg. I do not believe that section of the road will be worth one-quarter of the money expended upon it. And what security have we that the road will be operated ? The security of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. Who are they ? A couple of senators and a lot of others who have formed themselves into a corporation for the purpose of making this agreement. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are in no way bound by it. Their guarantee would not amount to anything, even if you had it; but they take care not to enter into the undertaking at all. Suppose that there is a deficiency; suppose that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are not able to work the road, the whole undertaking will be flung back on the hands of the government. What would he the yearly cost to the government of such a road, extending from Moncton to Quebec and from Quebec to Winnipeg, a distance of nearly 1,700 miles ? We can judge to some extent from our experience of the Intercolonial, which passes through a comparatively fertile and well settled section of country. If you want to develop the northern country, do not expend the money in any such manner. There are a dozen Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
ways in which it could he better expended. Assist the Grand Trunk Railway, if you like, to obtain an entrance into the Northwest, and if possible get them to pass north of lake Winnipeg. As I said before, in a speech I delivered in this House, I am favourable to the scheme if the right lion, gentleman will see that the railway goes as far north as possible. It is possible to develop that section of the country. Let the road be built, and let generous assistance be given to those who build it; but do not pledge the credit of the country for the enormous sum required to build a railroad from Winnipeg to Quebec. As I have said before, I believe that much of the land which appears to be barren in the northern parts of Quebec may turn out, from its mineral and other resources and its water-powers in the lacustrine districts, to be as important as any of the settled portions of this country. It is within my experience that lands which twenty or thirty or forty years ago were considered entirely worthless have turned out to be much more valuable than the best farming lands in the country. It is possible that such lands may he found in the northern country. But develop it gradually. Make your expenditure upon commercial principles, and with the judgment and intelligence that ought to guide you in the matter. Let us have surveys of the couutry made. As I have already stated, we spent six or seven years in making surveys before we entered into the contract for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they were only partial surveys at that. We are now entering into a contract which involves a much more enormous sum of money, and we have not a survey between Quebec and Winnipeg, nor have we any means of knowing what the expenditure for that road may be. Let us proceed slowly in regard to it. One thing we do know, that Manitoba: and the North-west are an immense wheat field, with enormous capabilities. At present the Grand Trunk Railway7 has no direct connection with that country ; and in order to divert it from forming American connections, let us assist it along the line of the proposition which the company placed before this House at the beginning of the session. I believe there is no justification at all for that portion of the proposed road from Quebec to Moncton. According to Sir Sandford Fleming's report, it is impossible to get a line with fair gradients in that section of country. The only route suitable for a railroad is that followed by the Intercolonial. Why build a second Intercolonial Railway for the purpose of taking freight from the other portion of that railroad in the maritime provinces. Develop the road which you have at present. Do not destroy the towns and villages which have been built along the line of the Intercolonial Railway, in the hope of getting a shorter route from Quebec to Moncton. If you get

it, you cannot carry freight on it either one way or the other, to a greater extent than you can now on the Intercolonial Railway. Reave well enough alone. If the country is rich and there is an immense surplus which it is necessary to expend for the purpose of justifying the enterprise and the aspirations of the young men of the country, the money can be expended in no better way than by cheapening transportation from one part of the country to another. That is what constitutes a nation. A nation which has cheap transportation from one part to another will eventually become a great manufacturing country. The question of transportation is the great question which should exercise the minds of the government of this country. Expend your money in a justifiable manner for the purpose of affording cheap transportation from one end of the country to the other, and you will do more good than *can possibly be done in any other way.
I am with the right hon. gentleman when he says that time is of the essence in this country, that we should seize our opportunities, that if we allow five or ten years to pass it may be too late to secure what we want. The opportunities may then be gone elsewhere, an'd it may take twenty-five or fifty years to recover the advantages we may have lost. Those were always my ideas, and in that respect I am with the right hon. gentleman, but I do not believe in the scheme on which he proposes to expend so much public money. When the surveys from Winnipeg to Quebec come in, and when he finds it impossible to get the gradients he expects, I trust that he will abandon his scheme and resort to the plan proposed by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, of building colonization roads into that country. In my opinion, it will be impossible to get there the gradients which will enable us to compete for the carriage of heavy trade from the west. But I believe that in the northern part of Ontario even up to Hudson bay, aud in the northern part of Quebec, there are immense tracts of country in which will be found valuable agricultural resources and mineral deposits. And because I look forward to the development of that country, I am opposed to a scheme which can only end in failure and thus retard the development we have so much at heart. What I object to is our entering into a contract with a company of which we know nothing, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, consisting of a couple of senators and some others connected with the Grand Trunk Railway for the purpose of building a transcontinental road. We have the statement of the Minister of Justice that he would take care that the Grand Trunk Railway was a party to the contract, and that members of the House of Commons and the Senate would not be allowed to participate directly or indirectly, in this scheme, or belong to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. While for the purpose of incorporation, it w'as necessary to have these parties apply for the Bill, yet when the contract was made between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the government, he would see that no senator or member of the House of Commons was a member of that corporation. Well, I have not seen that the names of those senators anld members were eliminated from the Bill. However, I promised that I would not deal with the details, but simply with the measure in its general features, and my opinion is that a more senseless contract it would be difficult to imagine. Fancy if hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition and we proposed entering into a contract for an expenditure of an unknown sum of money, entering into it blindly, without surveys, without even a report from the Railway Department or any other department, without any estimate of the approximate cost of the undertaking, what a howl they would raise. I have entered my protest a couple of times already against this measure. I know what the result will be. I believe that the Moncton section must be eliminated. I do not believe that any government in its senses will undertake the construction of that line of road, and I believe that after the surveys are made between Quebec and Winnipeg and it is found what an enormous sum of money that section will cost, it will have to be abandoned, and the government will have to come to the proposition of the leader of the opposition, and build colonization roads into that country.
House divided on the amendment of Mr. Borden, Halifax.	YEAS :
	Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lancaster,
Ball,	LaRivi&re,
Barker,	Lefurgey,
Birkett,	Lennox,
Blain,	McGowan,
Borden (Halifax),	McIntosh,
Boyd,	Morin,
Broder,	Osier,
Bruce,	Reid (Grenville),
Cargill,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clancy,	Roche (Marquette),
Culbert,	Sherritt,
Fowler,	Simmons,
Gourley,	Sproule,
Haggart,	Thomson (Grey),
Hale,	Tolton,
Halliday,	Wilmot,
Henderson, Hughes (Victoria),	Wilson.-37.
	NAYS :
	Messieurs
Angers,	Lavergne,
Archambault,	LeBlanc,
Beith,	Logan,
Beland,	Loy,
Bernier,	Macdonald,
Bickerdike,	Mackie,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Maclaren Bourassa,	(Huntingdon),
Brown,	Macpherson,

Bruneau,	McCarthy,
Campbell,	McCool,
Copp,	McCreary,
Costigan,	McEwen,
Davis,	McGugan,
Delisle,	Mclsaac,
Demers (Ldvis),	McLennan,
Demers (St. John),	Marcil (Bagot),
Dugas,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Emmerson,	Meigs,
Erb,	Mignault,
Ethier,	Morrison,
Fielding,	Mulock (Sir William),
Fisher,	Oliver,
Fortier,	Paterson,
Gallery,	Prefontaine,
Gauvreau,	Proulx,
Geoffrion,	Puttee,
Gibson,	Ross (Ontario),
Gould,	Ross (Rimouski),
Harty,	Schell,
Harwood,	Scott,
Heyd,	Stephens,
Holmes,	Stewart,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Sutherland (Oxford),
Johnston (Cape Breton)	Talbot,
Johnston (Lambton),	Tobin,
Kendall,	Tolmie,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon.-75.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Calvert,	Taylor,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd.),	Tupper (Sir C. H.),
Dyment,	McCormick,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Riley,	Earle,
Lang,	Brock,
Ross (Victoria),	Kidd.
Lemieux,	Bennett.
Grant,	Carscallen,
Christie,	Clare,
Lewis,	Ganong,
Russell.	Johnston (Cardwell),
Douglas,	Kemp,
Wrright.	Lavell,
Sifton.	MacLaren (Perth),
Carroll,	Monk,
Reid (Resttigouche),	Robinson (Northum-
Champagne,	berland), Rosamond,
Roche (Halifax),	Vrooman,
Thompson (Haldimand	Ingram,
and Monck), Hyman,	Gilmour,
Me Coll.	Ward,
Fraser,	Bell,
Guthrie,	Porter.
Wade,	Smith (Wentworth),
Parmelee,	Pope,
Fitzpatrick,	Clarke.
German,	Avery,
Belcourt.	Calvin,
Mad ore.	Casgrain,
Ross (Yukon),	Cochrane,
Lovell,	Fackett,
Bureau,	Kaulbach,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Kendry,	
Girard.	Leonard,
P^wer,	Maclean,
Tucker,	Richardson,
Malouin,	Roddick,
Smith (Vancouver),	Seagram,
Amendment negatived.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I do not propose to make any lengthened re-Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
marks or to go into any discussion of the Bill generally. The government in their wisdom have seen fit to pass the Bill. The opposition have criticised it to the best of their ability. With the government must rest the responsibility. But I do propose to make one more appeal to the government on behalf of the manufacturing interests of this country. I hope the government will see their way to provide that all goods coming into this country for the betterments on this road for the next fifty years shall pay duties, as other imports do. I think that every day is showing us more clearly the position we are in as regards our fiscal policy. It must be almost a satisfaction to the Minister of Finance, with his free trade theories, to find that the woollen mills in Peterborough have lately shut down, mills that have been running for more than twenty years. We are now face to face with a serious condition of affairs financially. I do not mean that this is true of Canada particularly-I speak of the whole world. There seems to be a feeling of unrest and uncertainty which has upset the calculations of the soundest and shrewdest financiers. There is a feeling of unrest that has not been known on this continent or in Great Britain for twenty years past, and the worst feature seems to be that no one is able to explain why it is. But, though none seem to be able to give the reason, it is there ; and, almost before we realize it, we are going to he in the midst of a commercial crisis-not in Canada alone, for I believe that we in Canada are going to escape it, perhaps, better than any other civilized country in the world. But it behooves us, I think to look to ourselves now, and to decide whether we are going to protect our manufacturers and our industries, or whether we are going to let them be slaughtered. The balance is so little that turns a profit into a loss. Our factories in Canada have been very fully employed, almost overworked ; but they have been working, many of them, as I know, practically at a loss. The result in some branches of our industry is that many factories have to shut up, and I think that many more will have to close before many months have passed, unless we look our position squarely in the face, and make up -our minds that we are going to protect our manufacturers to the very best of our ability. We must put them on an equal footing with the manufacturers of the south of us, or our industries are going to he ruined. Do not let us make any mistake about that. The position stares us in the face. You may have the theory of free trade, hut it is worth nothing when you come to deal with practical affairs. There is nothing more sensitive than capital, and, if it once gets the idea that it is not being protected, that it is not justly dealt with, that it is liable to be destroyed through lack of proper laws, that we are likely to have an overflow of production from the country to the south of us, the

moment production overtakes consumption as it is doing-in fact already has done in many lines-it will withdraw from industry. If our manufacturers have not assurance that they will be protected, they are going to withdraw from business. The ship of industry will be thrown on her beam ends. With capital withdrawn from manufacturing we shall he compelled to rely upon our agriculture simply. Now, no country ever made a success of itself unless it was a manufacturing country, unless as it increased in wealth its industries were diversified. I say that if this agreement goes through as it now stands, if the material to be used in the betterment of this railway for fifty years-and I have shown that the betterments in ten or fifteen years will cost more than the original construction-if that material comes into this country free of duty that will be a most severe blow to our manufacturing industries. Some members of the government maintain that the government have this in their own hands, and that only if the government import direct will the goods escape duty. I say, and my contention has been backed up by eminent legal authority, that under this Act the government have not the power to import material free of duty, but will be compelled by the Grand Trunk Pacific to import it free of duty, because, under the agreement they only pay interest on the lowest possible cost of construction. I appeal to the government to reconsider this clause and to protect our manufacturers to the very fullest extent. If they do not do that, I feel certain that no Act that has been passed in this House for many a year will be such a detriment to the prosperity of the country as will this, because the price of importation of railway supplies for the benefit of that road will, in a measure, govern the prices of importation for all the other railways. Therefore, I beg " to move, seconded by Mr. Br.oder :
That all the words after the word ' that ' to the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor :-' The Bill be referred back to a Committee of the Whole House with power to amend the same by striking out section 33 of the Bill as reported and substituting therefor the following ' :-
' Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17 of the said contract, all materials or supplies of any kind which are not the products of Canadian labour and which are imported for the purpose of the construction of the said eastern division by or on behalf of the said commissioners or by or on behalf of any contractors, workmen, agents or servants for the construction of the said eastern division, or for the improvement, replacement of structures or otherwise upon capital account for betterment of the said eastern division as in clause 16 of the said contract provided shall be liable to the usual customs duties provided by the statutes in that behalf and shall be included in and form part of the " cost of construction " mentioned in section 15 of the said agreement, or of the capital account or betterments mentioned in section 16 of the said agreement, as the case may be.'
In moving that amendment, I do appeal to the government to reconsider the position they have taken and further to amend this Bill so as to protect our manufacturers and make it quite clear that all goods imported into Canada for the capital account of this railway shall be subject to pay duty, as provided for now under section 33, so far as concerns the original cost of the road. I cannot see why, when the government have accepted the position that material coming in for the original construction should pay duty and that this shall be added to the capital account on which three per cent interest is to be paid, they should not extend that agreement and make it include all material brought in for betterments. There is more reason to apply it to the betterments than to the original construction, because we do not know how in the next fifty years, the duties may change, and it is most important that there should not be an exception on the statute-books covering such a large import as will be made under this clause. There is no reason why this company should be treated in any different way from others. And if it should happen that our duties are raised all round, then the clause in the Bill as it now stands will appear all the more as a glaring inconsistency, and will be all the greater danger to our industries.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not desire to follow the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) in the general discussion of the fiscal policy into which he entered ; I prefer to confine myself to the particular point which is the subject of his motion. My hon. friend lias again said that the goods imported for the betterment of this railway on its completion will be imported free of duty ; that they must be imported free of duty and that he has presented to this House legal opinions in confirmation of that view. I must again state that the hon. gentleman is in that respect mistaken ; he has produced no legal opinion to say that one penny's worth of these goods must be imported free of duty. He has presented legal opinions dealing with the adjustment of the capital account between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, a very distinct and separate question. The position of the government with respect to these importations, if importations are to be made, will be precisely the same position as that occupied by the government for many years [DOT]with respect to the Intercolonial Railway. That is to say, if the government desire to import goods from abroad for the use of the Intercolonial the government may either pass these goods through the customs house free of duty or may, if they see fit, allow them to pass in as private importation and duty may be paid ; the matter is entirely optional with the government. The position in which this matter will be left as it now stands is exactly the same as that occupied by the government in relation

to the Intercolonial now and for many years past, the same as it was during all the years when the fiscal policy of bon. gentlemen opposite was in operation. There is no change whatever. The government have the privilege if they so wish to bring goods in free without having them go through the form of passing through the customs house. As a rule the government does not avail itself of that privilege but has in some instances, chiefly with regard to importations of rails, availed itself of it. But it is a pure matter of option and there is not a line in this contract which obliges the government to import a penny's worth free of duty. The government may exercise that right if it so wishes just as it may in relation to the Intercolonial. Inasmuch as there is no change in the position, and as the law is left exactly in the same position under this Bill as it has been for many years, we see no reason for the change which the hon. gentleman proposes.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: I wish to say a few words in reference to what might be called the ' blue-book railway.' So far it is only in the blue-books and the mountains of information that the hon. gentleman has presented to the House and to the country are not so hard to find as the hon. gentleman might suppose. I desire to read from this interesting document a clause in, one of the reports of the engineer's or officers who were asked to report to show how they intend to get information. He says here on page 72, speaking of the north country around the region of Hudson bay :
It would he the means of opening up a country hitherto shrouded in a very considerable degree of darkness, and enable us to obtain full and reliable information.
The idea of any person building a railway in order to get information in regard to any locality ! That is the proposition, that we will build this railway in order to get information about a certain country through which we intend it to pass. If you look at this map what do you find ? You find a red line drawn across the map from Moncton to Port Simpson. I want to call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to this. A great deal has been said about being free from American influence. We are to go away to the north away from the contamination of these Americans whom hon. gentlemen opposite were courting a few years ago. Does the right hon. gentleman not know that when he lands at Port Simpson he is right close to the disputed territory in reference to the Alaska boundary, right within reach of American influence'? I do not for a moment pretend to admit or to say, as a public man or a member of this House, that Port Simpson is not entirely within Canadian territorry. But when you get to Port Simpson you are very close to the disputed territory about which Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
[ negotiations are at present going on. Thus hon. gentlemen are going right into trouble instead of out of it and it is well to consider all these things when we are talking about a railway of which the government seem to know very very little.
I wish to call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to another point. When freight comes from the west to the great lakes it is virtually common property because there you get competitive rates. But it is proposed to build this road out of reach of that competition so that it will be impossible to obtain cheaper rates owing to any competition that might exist at the great lakes. It is being made impossible for this country to solve this question which every Canadian is anxious to have solved, the obtaining in a reasonable way of cheaper transportation for the products of Canada. Not one of the gentlemen who have advocated this scheme from the right hon. gentleman down to his most humble follower has been able to prove that this proposal will lower the freight rates of this eounlry one cent per hundred pounds, that cannot be done under the proposed scheme and that is a question that should be solved by this House.
While I am on my feet I wish to say further that the Finance Minister takes a peculiar position in disputing the contention of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) in reference to the position of the government in regard to the duty on importations for the betterment of this road. The Minister of Finance says that the government will be in the same position as they are in with reference to the Intercolonial. Is that a fact ? Who will have the control of the purchasing of supplies for the betterment of this road ? It will not be the government but the contractors, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and they will be able to claim the right to have that advantage, under that contract, of freedom from duty in reference to any importations for the betterment of this road and they will force hon. gentlemen opposite to carry out that contract. The government are not in the position the hon. Minister of Finance says. Why ? Because the government are the absolute owners of the Intercolonial, but in the other case, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have a right to purchase' the goods and hon. gentlemen opposite would be forced to carry out this provision.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not so. The Grand Trunk will not have the power to make these importations. It is the government and the government only which will have that right.


Andrew Broder: Then I wish to ask this simple question. Why did hon. gentlemen opposite take so much credit for the clause obliging the builders to buy all their materials in Canada ? If you are going to do it why do you have to put a clause in

the Bill pledging yourself to do it and why do you take any credit to yourselves for that ? The glause has no meaning ; It is merely clap-trap, if what the hon. gentleman now says is true, so you had better quit blowing this horn about buying everything in Canada. There is nothing in it.
I do not care which horn of the dilemma the hon. gentleman takes. He is welcome to it. It will not hurt the horn, but I do not know what would become of him. There ought to be no doubt at all on this point, and it is an easy matter to fix it in such a way that there would be no doubt. I think we have a perfect right to deal with Canadian interests and to deal with them in a permanent way. This report to which I have already referred advocates the building of roads not from east to west, but from north to south, for the purpose of opening up the country. That is what ought to be done. I want to say before I sit down that this road, if it is built, will not solve the problem that is before this country. Every man knows that if you add anything to the transportation charges of a country it is virtually a direct tax upon the producers of the country. If there is one factor more important than another in the settlement of our North-west, and in the opening up of these vast regions that we all anticipate will be opened up, it. is the question of transportation, and there is no question that will affect the interests of the people who are there and the people who will eventually go there so much as the solution of this question in the interest of the people, and in the direction of securing cheaper rates from the west to the east. This road will not give the people cheaper rates. You are putting the road away outside of the region of competition to commence with. The question to be solved is how the grain or the produce of the west shall be put into the eastern markets at as low a rate as possible. This road which is proposed will not solve that question. This road, as the right hon. gentleman said! in introducing the Bill, is not a purely commercial road. It has, according to the right hon. gentleman, its national features, which he took so much pride in speaking of before the House and the country. He laid great stress upon the national features of the road, but he failed to show that it will in any sense solve the problem that ought to be solved by parliament in the interest of the people generally.


Mr. GEORGE. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Mr. Speaker, just one word. The right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in referring to the leader of the opposition this afternoon, made the statement that if he purchased the Canada Atlantic Railway and its steamships, those steamships, in order to carry grain from Duluth to Depot Harbour, will have to sail under the American flag. I was surprised that the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who ought to know better, and probably does know better, did not get up in his place, call the right hon. leader of the government down, and say :	You are
making a mistake. He does know better.
I have been shipping grain from Canada to the United States for the last three years, and I can ship in a Canadian bottom or in an American bottom. A Canadian vessel can go to a United States port, load with coal or grain, and deliver its cargo in any port in Canada, and for the right hon. gentleman to get up and try to mislead the House in respect to this as he did before' in reference to the bonding privilege


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is all wrong. If grain is carried from an American port to a Canadian port it can be carried in an American or a Canadian ship, but if bonded freight is taken from Duluth to Boston it has to be carried in an American bottom.


Mr TAYLOR.: The right hon. gentleman is wrong again, and the hon. Minister of Customs will certainly contradict him, because American grain can come in an American or Canadian bottom to a Canadian port in bond. It is immaterial what boat it is carried in, whether an American or a Canadian boat. If it comes in bond it is loaded in a Canadian or American car, and it is sent through in bond. The hon. Minister of Customs will verify the statement I am making. The right hon. Prime Minister ought to know better and any hon. gentleman occupying his position ought to know what the laws governing the bonding privilege are. The hon. Minister of Customs will verify my statement, and I call upon him to verify or contradict the statement of the right lion. Prime Minister. I shall wait for the hon. Minister of Customs to answer my question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was not listening to the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: May a Canadian vessel go into an American port, load with grain, bring it to a Canadian port in bond, put it in an elevator and have it shipped out in Canadian or American cars in bond to Boston or to another American point of destination ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It can do whatever is allowed to be done under the coasting laws of the United States.
Mr. TAYLOR, That is simply contradicting tlie statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister. 1 could not possibly have a better answer when I call upon one of the business men in this business government to .contradict another member of the government. But it is the same story from beginning to end. When the Bill was introduced the people were led to believe that we were at the mercy of the United States

in respect to the bonding privilege. It was said that if this road were not built for six or seven months of the year we were at the mercy of the United States, because, if the American government should choose to abrogate the bonding privilege we could not ship a pound of goods from Canada by way of an American ocean port. This statement was made by the right hon. leader of the government, knowing that we had a Canadian railway running through Canadian territory to Canadian ocean ports. Now the right hon. gentleman comes down with a blue-book containing a map, as my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) has said, locating the line from Moncton to Winnipeg across the state of Maine. Tet, the right hon. gentleman tells the people of this country that this is to be a Canadian railway. I simply rose because I was not disposed to allow the statement of the right lion. Prime Minister or anybody else to go uncoil tradicted to this country that Canadian boats carrying the British flag have not the right to go to an American port and bring grain to a Canadian port either in bond or for sale in Canada.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID (South Grenville) Mr. Speaker, I feel, before allowing this Bill to pass, that I should enter my protest against the clause that my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) proposes to amend, and that I should make a further appeal to the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues in behalf of the labouring classes of this country. It is very amusing to members of this House, who have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite in days gone by pretending to be friendly with the labouring men of this country, when we find them now coming down with a Bill which has not been prepared by the solicitor of the government but by the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, containing this clause :
No addition shall be made to the cost of construction or to the capital of construction account in respect of customs duties in cases where there is direct importation of material or supplies by the government.
The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) makes a statement that the government may or may not allow the duties to be imposed. That is no doubt true', but clause 37 says :
The company shall purchase the materials 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 sup-, plies can be purchased in desirable quantities and of equal quality suitable for the purposes required.
Here is the important part :
And for prices and upon terms equally advantageous with those procurable elsewhere.
If you put the two clauses together, the result is that the contractor can get prices Mr. TAYLOR.
from foreign manufacturers, and he can go to the Canadian manufacturer and say :	I
can get these goods in free of duty, and the Canadian producer has either to accept these prices without the duties added, or else he loses the order.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would uot be true if the contractor said that. He could not get them in duty free.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I do not wish to cast any doubt on the word of the Finance Minister, but at the same time, I would remind him that it is the courts of the country that will construe this clause, and they may hold against his opinion. Why is the government afraid either to make this clear, or to leave it out altogether. If a Canadian producer has to accept prices in competition with foreigners, he will have to cut down the wages of his mechanics who are employed in the manufacture of these articles. We have at present in Sault Ste. Marie, a state of affairs which we all regret, but which gives us an illustration of what may happen in the future if this clause is left in the Bill. The ' Soo ' works were intended to produce steel rails, and with this clause in the Bill, they would have to meet the competition of foreign manufacturers who are ready to unload their surplus stock on Canada, at prices lower than they sell for in their own country.


William Forsythe McCreary: They cannot fill their orders now.


John Dowsley Reid: That is because the duties are so uncertain.


Mr. ERASER.: They have seven dollars a ton.


John Dowsley Reid: The government of this country is responsible for what has happened at the ' Soo,' because they would not give sufficiant protection.


Mr. .JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: What protection on steel rails did the Sault Ste. Marie Company ask for ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: You tell.


Alexander Johnston: I can tell.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. Johnston) knows that there is trouble in his constituency. Let me ask him if he is willing to have the duties increased for the protection of the industry in Sydney, or is lie satisfied with existing conditions ?


Alexander Johnston: I will say to hon. gentlemen, that the people who are operating in my constituency got the very duties they asked for. Let me say further that a few years ago a concern in my province came to the Conservative government, stating they were prepared to manufacture steel rails and asking for a duty, hut that application was rejected.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. geaitle-man knows that the people in his eonstitu-

ency were bounding the government here for months to get protection, and stating that if they did not get protection their mills would be closed down.


Alexander Johnston: And they got it.


John Dowsley Reid: The government gave a remedy to a certain extent by granting a bounty, <but if this clause is retained in the Bill, these mills in Sydney will probably close down, because they cannot compete with the foreign manufacturers who are ready to unload their surplus stock on the Canadian market.


Alexander Johnston: That is not answering my question. I asked the hon. gentleman what protection the people operating at Sault Ste. Marie asked on steel rails.
Mr. REID' (Grenville). The hon. gentleman can answer that himself when he is making his speech. In addition to steel rails, there will be enormous quantities of nails and spikes used in the construction of this road, and if this clause is retained in the Bill, the mills at Montreal and perhaps in Sydney, will not be able to supply these articles to those constructing the road. I object to this clause because it will have an injurious effect on the condition of every workingman in Canada. If the employees in Canadian manufactories are obliged to take a small wage, they will not be able to pay good prices for their clothing and other necessaries of life, and so every mechanic engaged in supplying these necessaries will be injuriously affected. I cannot understand why this clause was inserted in the Bill, execept it was done at the instance of the Grand Trunk solicitor, who, looking far ahead saw that the privilege to import free of duty, would effect an 'enormous saving to the Grand Trunk Company. I believe that the government are not doing their duty by the workingmen of this country, if they retain this clause, and I am satisfied that when they appeal to the country the result will be disastrous to them.


Mr. M. K. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: There is abundant evidence that there is a very important element of doubt as to the legal construction which may be put upon this section. While that element of doubt exists, it must have a very damaging effect on the manufacturing and other industries of this country. If the government have it in their power, as I believe they have by accepting this amendment, to eliminate' that element of doubt, thus giving a degree of stability to the industries of Canada which would tell immediately and for years to come on the advancement of the country in various directions, why cannot they accept it ? It is evident that this provision has been imported into the contract entirely in the interest of the Grand Trunk people, that it has been put there at the instance and by the action of their own solicitors.
It is clear, from the evidence produced in this debate, that while this element of doubt exists, it will have a depressive effect upon all the industries of Canada, not only in manufacturing, but in mining and agricultural industries. We have in section 37 of the contract a provision that:
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

But the conditions following that are such as to nullify it almost entirely. It just means this, that Canadian manufacturers and producers shall have the great privilege of competing on equal terms with the manufacturers and producers of any other country in the world, nothing more or less :
-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.
And only on these conditions will it apply. The conditions are so onerous as to nullify the very pretense which the section makes of protection to manufacturers and all Canadian producers. It would appear to me to be almost imperative on the part of the government to accept any amendment which would eliminate this element of doubt in this section, which must have a very injurious effect on Canadian industries, Canadian wealth, and Canadian advancement. I do not intend to occupy any time on this matter. I simply desire to point out that Canadian manufacturers and producers should not merely be put upon an equal basis with those of other countries. If we are to get nothing else out of this railway project, which involves such an enormous outlay of public, money and such an enormous increase in the debt of the country, we ought at least to have this much out of it, to give Canadian industries that stability which is so much needed and which would warrant the investment of capital in this country in many directions. The government profess at times to have an interest in protecting our home industries ; and here is a great opportunity for them. If this railroad project is to be of any use to this country at all, here is the way and the only way which I can see at present by which we can get any good out of it, and that little modicum we ought to have at least.
House	divided on amendment
Osier.	YEAS :
	Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lancaster,
Ball,	LaRividre,
Barker,	Lefurgey,
Bell,	Lennox,
Blain,	McGowan,

Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Broder,
Bruce,
Cargill,
Clancy,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Fowler,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Hale,
Halliday,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria),
McIntosh,
Morin,
Osier,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson,
Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Sherritt,
Simmons,
Sproule,
Thomson (Grey), Tolton,
Wilmot,
Wilson-39.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Angers,
Archambault,
Beith,
Reland,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Bickerdike,
Bord'en (Sir Frederick), Bourassa,
Brown,
Bruneau,
Campbell,
Champagne,
Copp,
Costigan,
Davis,
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gibson,
Gould,
Harty,
Harwood,
Heyd,	[DOT]
Kendall,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lavergne,
LeBlane,
Logan,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacLaren
(Huntingdon),
Macpherson,
McCarthy,
McCool,
McCreary,
McEwen,
McGugan,
Melsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Marcil (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure) Meigs,
Mignault, "
Morrison,
Muloclc (Sir William), Murray,
Paterson,
PrSfontaine,	[DOT]
Proulx,
Puttee,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski), Schell,
Scott,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Talbot,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turgeon-78.
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Talbot, Johnston
(Cape Breton),
Johnston (Lambton), Amendment negatived.


Mr. G. O. ALCORN (Prince Edward, Ont.).: The amendment I am about to propose, Mr. Speaker, refers to clause 7 of the Bill, which authorizes the Grand Trunk Railway to acquire, hold, guarantee pledge and dispose of stock, bonds and debentures or other securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, subject to the provisions of the agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and upon such terms as are specified iu a resolution to that effect passed by the directors of the said company and sanctioned by a majority of the shareholders. The clauses of the agreement which relate to this subject are clauses 2(1 and 27. They are as follows :


Matthew Kendal Richardson: The capital stock of the company shall be forty-five million dollars, of which not more than twenty million dollars shall be preferred and not less than twenty-five million dollars-common stock.
The company undertakes that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall acquire and take the said common stock to the amount of twenty-five million dollars, except shares held by directors, not exceeding one thousand shares, and shall hold the same during the term of the said lease, and so long as any of the bonds guaranteed by the government under the terms of this agreement shall remain outstanding unpaid.
Hou. gentlemen will be familiar with the contention raised by this side of the House with reference to the number in which the stock should be acquired and held by the Grand Trunk Railway. We on this side have contended, as set forth in an amendment proposed by the hon. the leader of the opposition, that the Grand Trunk Railway should be compelled to subscribe for this, stock iu the ordinary way and incur all the-liabilities incident to such subscription. In other words, that they should pay for that stock in cash at par, either in one payment,, or in instalments as called upon, in the ordinary way. My hon. friend the .Minister of Justice, in reply to the hon. the leader of the opposition, objected to the term ' subscribe ' for and argued that the Grand Trunk Railway should be at liberty to acquire that stock by any means; and that all that was necessary was that they should be compelled to hold it during the time specified in the agreement. In my opinion, the proposition of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, is one of vast importance to the project and to the people of this country, namely, that a fund should be expressly provided in this agreement, out of which the liability of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for its 25 per cent share of the cost of construction of the western division might be met. In the agreement there is no clause providing for any fund out of which that 25 per cent of the cost of construction may be paid. Surely there can be no reasonable objection to a provision of that kind, and I am at a loss to understand why the government, if it is guided by any ordinary business ideas in this matter, should object to it. The amendment which I beg to move, is as follows :
That section 7 be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'three ' in line 12 down to and including the word ' company ' in line 44 and by inserting instead thereof the words : ' subscribe and pay in cash at par for common stock and for preferred stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Raiway Company, and may acquire, hold, guarantee, pledge, and dispose of preferred stock, bonds, debentures, o- other securities of the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.'	.
As I have said, it is in my opinion of the utmost importance that these words ' subscribe and pay for in cash ' should, as suggested by my hon. friend the leader of

the opposition lie embodied in this clause, and the Grand Trunk Railway should not be allowed, as it will be if this amendment be not adopted, to acquire the common stock by any other means. It is evident that if the Grand Trunk Railway should hold the total [DOT]$25,000,000 of common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, less $100,000 the entire control will be exclusively in the hands of that company. It will have absolute control. It may appoint every director on the board. All the employees and agents of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be subject to its control and may be appointed and dismissed by it at will, and me object of my amendment is, in the case of such an event, to compel the establishment of the fund I have spoken of, out of which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway-may be in a position to construct its share of the western division.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I shall not surprise my hon. friend if I tell him that I cannot accept his amendment and I am sure he will not expect me to go over the arguments which have already "been made at length against it.
The House divided on the amendment of Mr. Alcorn.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Ball,
Barker,
Bell,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Broder,
Bruce,
Cargill,
Clancy,
Fowler,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Halliday,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria), Kaulbach,
Lancaster,
LaRivifere,
Lefurgey,
McGowan,
McIntosh,
Morin,
Puttee,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson,
Roche (Marquette),
Rosamond,
Simmons,
Sproule,
Thomson (Grey), Tolton,
WiJmot.
Wilson-35.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Angers,
Archambault,
Beith,
Beland,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Bickerdike,
Bourassa,
Brown,
Bruneau,
Campbell,
Champagne,
Copp,
Costigan,
Davis,
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Kendall,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Logan,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), Macpherson, McCarthy, . McCool,
McCreary,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Meigs,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gibson,
Gould,
Harty,
Harwood,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Johnston
(Cape Breton), Johnston (Lambton),
Amendment negativ
Mignault,
Morrison,
Mulock (Sir William), Murray,
Paterson,
Prdfontaine,
Proulx,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski), Schell,
Scott,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Talbot,
Tobin,
Tolmie.
Turgeon-75.
ed. '


Mr. WM. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I have an amendment which I desire to propose at this stage; and, inasmuch as the principle of this amendment was discussed in Committee of the Whole I do not intend to deal with it at great length on this occasion. I may say that in connection with this amendment the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) took the ground that it would limit the powers of the Railway Committee in regard to the control of rates. To show that there was no force in that, it is only necessary to read the amendment. The object is not to limit the control of rates but simply to provide that the rates on this road shall not be any higher than those charged, or at any time to be charged, on the Canadian Northern Railway system. Nothing can be more important in connection with a new road than the rates to be charged to the people who have to ship their produce over that road. We have heard many objections offered in the past to the rates charged on the Canadian Pacific Railway. _ It has been, declared that the agriculturists in the west were merely farming on shares with the Canadian Pacific Railway. And still the very men who made those assertions admit that the Canadian Pacific Railway was neither better nor worse than other corporations, and that other corporations placed in similar circumstances would do what it has done. On that reasoning, if this Grand Trunk Pacific Company comes to deal with the farmers who have no competing line-and it is provided that this line shall not be built within less than thirty miles of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern-the farmer along this route will be placed in exactly the same position as were the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west in relation to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and will have to pav the rates demanded for the shipments of their products to the head of the lakes by this road. It is important that a safeguard should be provided to protect the farmers from exorbitant rates. The Minister of Justice, when he took the position that this amendment would limit the power of the railway commissioners to control rates, was


Mr. G. W. FOWLER (King's, N.B.).: I desire to move an amendment to section 7, which is so very defective that it is necessary, in order to perfect it, to move a number of amendments. The amendment which I propose is somewhat akin to an amend-Proved by the hon. member for Prince Edward, Ontario, except that it goes further and is a sort of complement to that amendment. It relates to the common stock of tile Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company 39S4
which is to be acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway. The objection to the Bill in this particular is that under section 7 of the Bill and section 11 of the charter it is possible for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to acquire the common stock of. the Grand Trunk Pacific Company without paying therefor any money or giving therefor any consideration which would be at all commensurate with the value of $24,900,000 of common stock. This we believe to be entirely wrong ; we believe that this common stock should be paid for in cash or in the equivalent of cash m order that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will be able to complete their railroad and its equipment without having to float as large an amount of bonds as they would otherwise have to float; that is without adding so greatly to the indebtedness of the company as they would be obliged to do if they did not receive par value for this common stock. It has been pointed out in this House that this objection existed, and I do not desire to take up much time in discussing the matter now, because I suppose that the government have hardened their hearts in respect to this matter and do not propose now to amend any portion of this contract or this Bill. At the same time I do propose to point out what has been urged already that by allowing the Grand Trunk Railway to acquire this common stock we impose a very much greater additional burden on the people who use this road in the additional freight rates that will be required. Under the Bill as it stands there is no way of fixing the value of the privileges which may be taken in exchange for this common stock. It has been pointed out even by lion, gentlemen opposite that the guaranteeing of the bonds by the Grand Trunk will be a sufficient consideration for this $25,000,000 of stock. Then there is the additional feature that the possession of this $25,000,000 of common stock gives the Grand Trunk the absolute control of the Grand Trunk Pacific so that the Grand Trunk Railway will control all the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific and will be .able to violate all the conditions supposed to be imposed on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by the contract as to the carrying of freight over Canadian soil to Canadian ports without renderin'-themselves liable to any penalty. The Grand Trunk Railway, controlling all the officials can easily induce these officials to persuade shippers to route their freight over the Grand Trunk to Portland and it will be absolutely impossible to trace such an action or to prevent it, and so I say that by allowing the Grand Trunk Railway to acquire this common stock in this way the government is putting this power in'the hands of the Grand Trunk, which will enable them to violate with absolute impunity the agreements of the contract which has been entered into by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Now, Sir. I trust that the

government, even at this late day, will permit this amendment to pass, that they will accept this amendment, because if they do that they will have given an earnest of theii desire to make this railway which they propose to build with such an enormous amount of the people's money, a truty Oanadlan hue, which will carry Canadian freight all the wav from the west to Canadian ports, and build up this Canada of ours into a nation.
I therefore beg to move :
That all the words alter the word 'that' to the end of the question be left out and the: following be substituted therefor The Bill be referred back to a Committee of the Whole House with power to add the following as a sub-clause to section 7.		
'Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the said agreement contained, His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the government of Canada, shall not he hound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of the covenan s, undertakings, conditions or stipulations m the said agreement contained on behalf ot riis Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company [DOT] of Canada shall have subscribed for the common stock of the Grand Trunk Railway-Company payable in cash at par to the amount of not less than $24,900,000.
I regret that there are not more members from the west in the House, because I think they would all certainly vote for this motion.
Amendment (Mr. Fowler) negatived on the same division.


Mr W B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: 
George William Fowler: within its powers, directly or indirectly permit, advise or encourage the transportation or traffic by routes or at rates other than tnos? in the said agreement, provided that each of the said companies shall in all respects and in good faith use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted and accepted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports.
I will only speak briefly on this amend- , meat, as the subject was so thoroughly thrashed out in committee, hut I will state that the object is to provide a security ou the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that the terms and conditions which have already been agreed to by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall indeed and in truth be carried out. I presume that we cau predicate the duty of the House to be, that, the government having entered into a contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is subject to the ratification of the House, to endeavour to the best of our ability in order to safeguard the interests of the people, to throw every protection they possibly can around these interests so that the real and true intent of the contract may be in fact carried out. When we look at the contract it requires but a moment s consideration to see that it is a contract simply between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a contract in which there are a ceitain number of covenants and stipulations made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, but we must not forget, that, although there are many covenants and stipulations on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, in order to estimate the value of the covenant there are two conditions which must not be overlooked. In the first place, as to the extent of the covenant we want to see what is really undertaken by the party covenanting, and in the second place, we want to see whether the financial standing of the party giving the covenant is sufficient to secure the carrying out of the obligation. I do not intend to discuss the question of the covenants, because that has been practically, settled by the various divisions which have so far taken place here, but it is quite in order to call attention to the fact that even assuming that these covenants made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are expressed to an extent which is satisfactory to the people, practically we have no financial obligation on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company which can give us any remedy at all in so far as they are concerned. When we consider that we are making a contract with a company whose whole line when completed will be mortgaged for every single dollar that it costs to build the line, I think no further comment is necessary to show of how little value the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company really is. m fact, the government of the country is in this

position :	If the government claims that
the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is really a valid financial obligation, and one upon which the people can rely then the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not assuming any risk whatever in guaranteeing 25 per cent of the obligation necessary to construct this road. If we look at the position of the Grand Trunk Railway Company we find that that company, by the Act being enforced to accept practically the whole of the stock, we have the Grand Trunk Railway Company controlling the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company without any obligation whatsoever. It seems to me that if we could throw on the canvas a picture of the interest that the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company really have in this particular contract, and if the picture could be drawn according to mathematical scale, showing the true interests of all these parties, it would be found that the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway Company looms up very large indeed, while, on the other hand, if we could have thrown on the canvas a picture of the obligations asssumed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, it would be found that the obligation assumed by the Grand Trunk Railway Companay is in reality very trifling. If the government should1 vote down this amendment, it must be on the ground that the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is a good covenant, but if so, it is perfectly evident that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is assuming no liability whatever practically in guaranteeing the amount of the bonds it undertakes to guarantee. Therefore, as to this subclause (a), I think we are justified in assuming, that, as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which after all is as clay in the hands of the potter as between itself and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company should covenant that it, itself, will see that the child of its creation shall carry out the contract which has been entered Into. Another feature of the contract is as to the carrying of trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports. I will not occupy the time of the House in reading clauses 42 and 43 of the contract, which provides that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall see that freight is routed through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports. Subclause (b) of the amendment which I moved provides that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall do in fact itself what the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is bound by the contract already made with the government to do. It also provides that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, itself, shall not in any roundabout w^y defeat the true intent of the agreement by itself doing what the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Company would be liable under its covenant for doing. Therefore, without occupying the time of the House further, I submit this amendment which is in effect to secure to the people of Canada the covenant of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that in these two respects the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall carry out the contracts, covenants and agreements which it has made with the people of this country. While under ordinary circumstances it might not seem reasonable or fair to exact such a covenant from a third party, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I submit, that as under the terms of this particular contract it is provided that the Grand Trunk Rail-1 way shall hold the stock and shall in effect be the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in every sense, except liability, the amendment is not unreasonable.
Amendment (Mr. Northrop) negatived on the same division.
On motion of Mr. Lancaster, the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-COASTING PRIVILEGES.

The PRIME MINISTER.: I beg to move the adjournment of the House. In reference to a certain point, as to which my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and myself do not agree, let me quote the following from an Act of the congress of United States, of February, 1898.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, that no merchandise shall be transported by water under a penalty of forfeiture thereof from one port of the United States to another port of the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the voyage, in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.


George Taylor: That is quite correct with regard to coasting, but carrying from an American port to a Canadian port is a different story.
Mr. (SPROULE. What business will be taken up to-morroiw ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will continue this Bill and after that we will take up some other Bills and then go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 30, 1903.