1903-08-21

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES.

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the sixth report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates, be adopted) with a modification of the third clause. This clause reads as follows :
That the amanuenses to the official reporters, *who at present are receiving $3 per diem for their services, be, as regards salary, placed on the same footing as the extra sessional clerks, i.e., that they be paid $4 per diem, and that the said increase date from the beginning of the present session.
It is proposed to modify this portion of the report, to make it read as follows :
That the amenuenses to the official reporters, who have been employed during the presont session, and who have been receiving $3 per diem for their services, be paid $3.50 per day lor the term they have been employed and will be so employed, and that the said increase date from the beginning of the present session.
I may explain to the House that the object of this amendment is to cover the case of a certain gentleman who has been employed as amanuenses of one of the reporters from the beginning of the session until the 1st of July, and who has since been replaced by another man. My attention has been drawn to the fact that clause 3 of the report as it is framed would entitle the gentleman who has been employed from the 1st of July until the end of the session to receive the increased pay from the beginning of the session, while the other, who served from the beginning of the session until the 1st of July, would only be paid $3 per day. It is to cover that case that this modification is suggested. The committee recommended in the report that the salaries of the amanuenses be increased from $3 to $4 per day. Representations, however, have been made to me by the government-I think there is no indiscretion on my part in saying by the lion. Minister of Finance and the Speaker of the House-to the effect that while $4 per day was not altogether an excessive salary, it would not be in accordance with what is paid to other sessional clerks. Therefore, I suggest now that the report be modified to that extent, so that these employees will be paid $3.50 per day. With this modification, I move the adoption of the report.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: There is always a possible question as to how far a motion of this kind, dealing with money matters, can properly be brought before the House in its present form ; but I believe the practice of the House has been to allow such reports 293J	,.
to be made, not as conclusive in themselves, but as recommendations which, in order to have effect, must be followed by the necessary appropriation in the estimates to cover the increased expenditure. I think it would be better if my hon. friend would provide that the salaries of the gentlemen referred to should be placed on a par with those of the sessional clerks, without mentioning the particular sum. There is a regular scale of salaries for the sessional clerks-$3 ordinarily, $3.50 to those qualified as type-writters,. and $4 to those qualified both as stenographers and typewriters ; and it seems to me that the same general rule should be followed in this case, so that any of these gentlemen who are qualified in the same way as other sessional clerks would receive the same pay. I understand tnat these appointments are not made by the House or by the committee, or by the Speaker, and I think the officers who are to be dealt with in this way should be appointed either by the Speaker, as representing the House, or by the Debates Committee. I have at present no objection to the motion, but I think it should be understood that a motion of this kind, when passed, is to be taken as a recommendation, and as not necessarily conclusive. The general rule as to money matters is not easily determined, but I am inclined to think that if one wanted to be technical, objection could be taken to many of these reports. With the understanding that the motion is passed as a recommendation, I have no objection to it going.


Mr.  T. S.@: SPROMjE (East Grey). I entirely concur with the suggestion that any expenditure can only be made on the recommendation of the government with the assent of the Crown, and of course, it is in the discretion of the House whether it will be granted or not. With regard to the other suggestion, I think now, as I did before, that these appointments should be in the hands of either the Speaker or the government and should not rest with any committee of the House. I have always held that view, and this is why I refer to it now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of Superintendent of Insurance of the Dominion for the year ending December, 1902.-The Minister of Finance.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 232) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900.-The Minister of the Interior.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: This Bill was completed in committee a couple of weeks ago, but an amendment moved by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), suggesting that the Grain Commissioner should telegraph

to all country points the prices of grain from day to day, was laid over in order that I might consider it. I was not prepared to deal with the amendment at the time, because I had not sufficient information, but I told my bon. friend that I would take the matter up at an early day. After making careful inquiries, I find that the suggestion is not practicable. I referred it to the Grain Commissioner, and he telegraphed to the managers of railway companies in the wheat growing states to the soutli and also to the Boards of Trade and tlie Grain Commissioners, and he found that such a practice is unknown in the United States and regarded as wholly impracticable. So far as Canada is concerned, it is certainly impracticable, becausei we have no way of getting- an official price, as we have an open grain board upon which official prices are bulletined. I move that the Bill be reported.


Mr. BLAIN.: As the hon. member for Macdonald is absent, would the hon. minister allow the Bill to stand until Monday ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am obliged to go away to-morrow and do not expect to be here again this session. I have already held the Bill over several days, because my hon. friend from Macdonald was not here. His absence, however, makes no difference, because he left the amendment in my hands in order that I might see whether it could be worked out or not.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
Mr. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: There are, Mr. Speaker, in the history of nations, as in tlie history of individuals, red letter days. These are red letter days for Canada. The Liberal party, with the co-operation and approval of the Canadian people, is about placing on our statute-books a law, the preamble of which reads as follows :
Whereas, having regard to the growth of, population and the rapid development of the production and trade of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, and to the great area of fertile and productive land in all the provinces and territories as, yet without railway facilities, and to the rapidly expanding trade and commerce of the Dominion, it is in the interest of Canada that a line of railway, designed to secure the most direct and economical interchange of traffic between Eastern Canada and the provinces and territories west of the great lakes, to open up and develop the northern zone of the Dominion, to promote the internal and foreign


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: trade of Canada and to develop commerce through Canadian ports, should be constructed and operated as a common railway highway across the Dominion, from ocean to ocean, and wholly within Canadian territory.
If there is anything deserving of the hearty co-operation of every true Canadian, whatever section of the country he may come from, or whatever may be his origin, it is the policy of striving to the best of our ability to develop this country and advance it in the march of progress. The, span of human life, Sir, is set at seventy years. This young nation has not yet lived the average span allotted to each individual, and it is not more than half of that time since the intellectual giants, who then guided the destinies of Canada, discussed the advisability of building a transcontinental railway. Today we are following in their footsteps. Today we are about to repeat the lesson they taught us. Canada has made immense strides since 1871, when a transcontinental railway was first mooted, and since 1885 when it was opened to the public. Tlie strides which Canada has made since then are without parallel in the history of modern times, and we are now facing the imperative necessity of building a second transcontinental line. This question comes before us at an opportune time, at a time when the leaders of commerce, recruited from all parts.of the British empire, are meeting in our metropolitan city for the purpose of discussing the progress and advancement of that empire of which Canada forms to-day so prominent a part. It is fitting that we should realize our obligation and our duty, and it is gratifying to the Canadian people to know that the business men of the British empire realize to-day the possibilities of Canada. These men, assembled from all parts of the British empire, will shortly leave Montreal to go down to the Pacific coast. In their voyage through this country, they will see an object lesson and will learn what industry, patience and perseverance can accomplish in a few short years. The preamble of this Bill, Sir, is justified by what has taken place during the last fifteen years in the North-west. May I be permitted to read here the words of an eminent journalist, published in the city of Montreal. He thus describes the possibilities of our North-west and the actual stage which that country has reached today :
Canada's food producing resources, even in their present partially developed state, are giving a good account of themselves, contributing to our exports of last year a little more than one-half of the total value of goods sent abroad. Canada's total exports last year amounted to $211,640,286, and of these the food products had a value of $109,326,319, the leading articles of food exports being : grain, $32,751,400; flour and meal, $4,369,781; cheese, $19,-870*072; fish, $14,187,070; animals for food, $12,-342*489; meats, $14,161,565. After feeding five and a half millions of people at home the food producing resources yielded a surplus of over

one hundred million dollars. Great Britain took $81,961,000 worth, and the United States $5,023,000. The wheat crop alone amounted to 98,654,000 bushels, being 38,000,000 bushels more than were raised in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and 55,000,000 bushels more than the entire crop of Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania. Ontario, for many years the leading wheat producing province, now has to take second place, for last year her yield was only 26,904,000 bushels, while that of Manitoba was 54,750,000 bushels. And only patches of the Canadian west have as yet known the plough. Manitoba and the three territories, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, contain an area of 270,000,000 acres, of which 135,000,000 acres are good land capable of yielding abundant harvests. Of these 135,000 000 acres only 4,000,000 acres are under cultivation. Over the other 131,000,000 acres the '.prairie grass still waves and beckons the people of the crowded east and the still more crowded centres of the old world to come and possess the land. And here a problem in proportion suggests itself. Four million acres of Manitoba and the three territories are cultivated, and the population is 391,000; what will the population be when one-half the tillable land is under cultivation? The answer is six and one-half millions, or on.e million more than the present population of all Canada. This is only a hint of the possibilites of na-tonal growth dependent upon the development of Canada's agricultural resources.
It is easily seen that the preamble of this measure is fully warranted and fully proved by what we have at present before us. Is Canada to stand by and allow this western country to be invaded, as it was this year, by 100,000 immigrants, a number greater than the number of those who came in during all our twenty years under the so-called national policy ? Are we to allow these people to take possession of our country, to become masters of the Canadian west, as others of their kind became masters of the American west ? Are we to remain satisfied with our present canal system, with our present railway system ? Are we who, for five years, have heard on the part of our public men nothing but demands for the improvement of Canada's waterways, the advancement of Canada's progress and the strenuous efforts that should be made to realize Canada's Immense possibilities, to remain inert while others move ? I am sorry that the Conservative party, which, in the past, has done great things for this country without doubt ; I am sorry that to-day its policy is limited to that which Eas been expounded in this House by its leader. That policy, I have no hesitation in saying, is not worthy the traditions of the Conservative party. If Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper were still in political life, men who were the pioneers of the first transcontinental railway, such a policy would never have been accepted, but we should have seen these men working with the majority of the Canadian people to-day for the building of a second transcontinental railway, which is the only natural sequence of the first constructed road.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), in concluding his remarks, used these words :
This, Mr. Speaker, is an outline of the policy which I would submit as an alternative to that proposed by the government. It is a policy based upon an abiding and abounding hope and confidence in the future of this country; a policy which looks to an enormous development in Canada within the next few years; a policy which, I trust, is not unworthy of the traditions of that great party which made the North-west a part of Canada, which bound together the scattered provinces of Canada by a railway stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and which, from first to last, has believed in and advocated a national policy, not only for the development of our industrial life, but also for the solution of the great transportation problems of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am but one of the humble members of this House ; but, in the name of the people I represent, in the name of the constituency which was represented in this House for long years by members of the Conservative party, I know I give expression to the Conservative sentiment of my county in saying that the present policy submitted to the consideration of this House is unworthy of the past of the Conservative party. We are told that the time has come when Canada must grapple with the difficulties that confront her, when Canada must decide at the parting of the ways, whether the trade of this country shall reach the two oceans, shall reach the motherland and reach Asia, through Canadian channels or by way of American territory. We have heard the system of transportation discussed in all its phases in this House. We have heard all that can be said in favour of our waterways and in favour of our different systems of railway transportation ; and, after having heard the whole discussion, after having heard that question treated in all its different phases, there is an almost unanimous opinion in this House that our waterways and transportation system are not up to the times, are not what they should be. And yet we are told to-day by the leader of that Conservative party that we must rest satisfied with what we have. We are told that we must use the Intercolonial Railway, which ; was built at a cost of $70,000,000 for political and military service, and in the operations of which we have lost, in round numbers. $20,000,000 ; we are told that we must build a branch line from Jacques Cartier junction, must use the Canada Atlantic Railway to Depot Harbour, then build another branch line or use the Canadian Pacific Railway to Port Arthur and Fort William, thence utilize the two present railway systems to Winnipeg, from Winnipeg to Edmonton encourage the present railways, or help the Grand Trunk if necessary, and then give the Canadian Northern, or the Grand Trunk, or the government, power to build from Edmonton to the Pacific coast. That, very imperfectly described, is the

policy of the Conservative party at the present moment. That is not a policy which will commend itself to the approval of the Canadian people. It will limit Canada to what it is at the present time. It will limit our inhabited area. Beyond this, it has one radical and fatal effect, which is sure to bring about the condemnation throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. The fatal effect of that policy is that it has no reference whatever to the new portions of Quebec, the new portions of Ontario and the new portions of the Canadian west. We are told that our immense territory in the province of Quebec of 70,000,000 acres, and that the immense stretch of new land in the province of Ontario, is to be traversed by a colonization road, to be built gradually, as circumstances warrant-to be built, I suppose, at the rate of ten or twenty miles a year, as colonization roads are generally built. Is that the policy the Conservative ' party approves of for this country at the opening of this new century, when Canada is merging into nationhood and is taking the proud position on this continent for which Providence destined her from her earliest days ? That is not a policy that will commend Itself to the people of the part of the country from whence I come. And I have a conviction that it will not appeal to the national aspirations of any Canadian, no matter what province he may belong to. This policy is unworthy of the consideration of parliament, and we must therefore consider the other policy which is before us.
We are asked to assist in the construction of a transcontinental railway. The need of that transcontinental railway has been manifested over and over again during the last few years in every possible way. The immigration into the North-west .-justifies the Construction of this road. Let me give you some figures to show the rate at which that immigration has invaded the western country. In 1S97, there were 21,000 settlers ; in 1898, 31,000 ; in 1899. 44,000 ; in 1900, 49,000 ; in 1901-2, 67,000 ; in 1902-3, 125,295. In one single year. Mr. Speaker, more than all the people of the province of Prince Edward Island went into that western country. The Increase that has already taken place would warrant faith in the new transcontinental project.
But thefe are other considerations which must not be overlooked. The trade of that country must remain to Canada, and the only way in which we can secure its remaining to Canada is by giving it access to the sea. The present Canadian Pacific Railway is not able to meet the requirements of the traffic. We have heard a good deal this session and last session about the congestion of traffic. We have therefore to face the situation, we must face the obligation which is imposed upon us. Shall we undertake the task which lies at our


Charles Marcil: door ? I have confidence in my country, I have confidence that the generation to which we belong is worthy of the generation that has gone before us, and that we will be able to cope with the requirements of the present. What do we ask the Canadian people to do ? Do we ask them to hand over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company $100,000,000 or $125,000,000, as the Conservative party did when they first opened up that western country ? We have heard the statement of the Minister of Finance, we have heard the statement of the right lion, the Prime Minister, neither of which have been challenged, that all that Canada would be called upon to pay to secure a new transcontinental road of over 3,000 miles in length, is the sum of $14,000,000, equal to the surplus of one single year. Under these circumstances hesitation would be folly on our part, and if we did hesitate we would not be worthy of the position which we occupy at the present time. The steady advance in population and production in that western country fully justify the construction of this road. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) who spoke last night, referring to the scheme of the leader of the opposition, used these words :
It becomes a patriotic scheme, as it will be a people's road, built by the people's money, ar,d controlled by the people, rather than a contribution of $125,000,000 to build tip a distinctly foreign corporation over which the government can have no possible control.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not, I am sure, the feeling of the Conservative party towards the old Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The old Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is not a foreign corporation. Those who are old enough remember the day when the Grand Trunk Company rwas hailed as a blessing to this country. There is not a member of the province of Ontario who would rise in his seat and depreciate the Grand Trunk of Canada ; there is not a member of the province of Quebec who would attempt to do so. I presume that our hon. friend from Charlotte, hailing as he does from New Brunswick, does not know the real advantages which the Grand Trunk have conferred upon old Canada. In a slighting way he tried to make light of the $25,000,000 which was advanced to the Grand Trunk Railway by the Conservative party, by the -men in whose footsteps he is trying to walk, which sum still remains as an asset in our books, to prevent the winding up of the road altogether, and to prevent the failure of the whole undertaking. That $25,000,000 was advanced to enable the Grand Trunk Railway to carry out its undertaking, and we were told at the time that it would be a last charge upon the road. That money has not been collected, but I may say also that that money has been well invested : and to-day we are proud, we in Quebec especial-
935T

ly are glad to know that it is the Grand Trunk- Railway Company that is going to undertake this great scheme. We know that our sons and our brothers and those of our jjeople who have left the older pro-yinces to carve out new homes for themselves in Manitoba and the North-west will feel that they are still at home that they are still in Canada when they see the old familiar name of the Grand Trunk Railway inscribed upon the cars and locomotives that run through that country. They will see that it is a contribution of eastern Canada towards the development [DOT] of western Canada, and the name alone will show them that we have undertaken this work in sympathy with them in the west as well as in the interest of eastern Canada. It would be nonsense to suppose that the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada would for ever have confined its operations to the provinces of Quebee and Ontario ; it was inevitable that the time should come when the Grand Trunk Railway would invade the western prairies would cross the territories of Canada and reach out to the Pacific ocean. That tim.e Mr. Speaker has arrived, we believe that time is now upon us. We believe that that work should be commenced now. We do not believe in putting it off one year, or five years, or ten years. We want that work to proceed now. We want the Governor General of this country to come down here a few days hence and in the name of one of the greatest sovereigns who has ever honoured the throne of Great Britain, to place the seal of approval upon the scheme which is now laid before this House for consideration. We want this year to be marked as a red letter year in the history of Canada. We want, within the next two years, to set 25,000 men at work from Moncton to Port Simpson. We want the outlay of $75,000,000 to commence now. We want the good times of the last seven years in Canada to continue for seven years longer, at least, while this project is being accomplished. That is our policy, and we should adhere to it.
One of the first gentlemen to rise in this House and criticise this scheme was the exMinister of Railways and Canals, the hon. member for St. John city (Hon. Mr. Blair). That hon. gentleman had never previously possessed the confidence of the opposition in this House. Sir, I do not think any one can find, during all the six years that hon. gentleman lias occupied a seat in this House, one single word of tribute from a Conservative to his ability as Minister of Railways and Canals. For six years no word was strong enough to denounce his management of the Intercolonial. There is not a member of the opposition whose words cannot be found in the ' Hansard ' condemning the hon. gentleman who has now become the prophet of the Conservative pqrty. I visited the county of Restigouche last fall in company with the exMinister of Railways, which county adjoins my own, and listened to an address by that hon. gentleman to the people there. His policy then was to extend the Intercolonial via the Canada Atlantic Railway, and to carry it up to the great lakes. There is no novelty in this policy now proposed by the government, it is the old policy of the hon. ex-minister. Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that the Conservative party have had to adopt the policy of the ex-min-k ister since they have no policy of their own.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to think unfavourably of our hon. friends opposite, and I feel that before the final word has been said in regard to this project, there will be found members on the other side of the House who, if they do not support this scheme, will at least refrain from condemning it by either their words or their votes. There are men on the other side of the.House who represent constituencies in Ontario and who know by experience what is meant by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada undertaking a scheme like this. There are men on the other side of this House who will not condemn this undertaking when it has the approval of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House for any great length of time and I have no intention at the present time of covering the whole ground involved in this debate which has already been so prolonged and which promises to be continued during several days yet. We have heard from the members of British Columbia of the immense advantage which the construction of this railway would be in the northern part of British Columbia, we have heard the story told us of the immense' riches of British Columbia, of its timber, of its forests, of its fisheries, which are unsurpassed in the whole world, we have heard the story of the North-west, we have heard that of Manitoba, we have heard that of Ontario and Quebec, but the story of Quebec has not all been told. There is an hon. member sitting in this House who is styled by his colleagues the Conservative leader for the province of Quebec. That h in. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, lays c-laim to occupy in our province the proud position that was once held by Sir George E. Cartier. Sir George B. Cartier would never have come before this House in 1903 to ask for the construction of a colonization railway in the northern empire of the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has laid before us a policy of that kind. I know, understanding as I do, the sentiment that exists in the province of Quebec, that the province of Quebec will not adopt any such policy. Let it not be forgotten, though misinformed people or misguided people have in the past declared the province of Quebec was the most backward province in the

Dominion of Canada, that the first link In the Canadian Pacific Railway was built by the province of Quebec out of its own resources as a provincial undertaking. The mother province of this Dominion, because Quebec is the mother province of this Dominion, the province which gave the signal for the construction of the first transcontinental line in Canada, will never go back upon the revered leader of the Liberal party who undertakes to build a second transcontinental line. I have no hesitation in saying that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will not be able to find in the province of Quebec half a dozen constituencies to support bis policy, or the policy of the Conservative party, and that if that is the policy upon which he intends facing the people in the coming election, the seven members who now support him in the House will be reduced still more in number. That is my candid opinion, and it is the opinion that prevails throught the province of Quebec. As I have said, I intend more .especially to refer to the province of Quebec. When we, some years ago, obtained the addition to our territory of 70,000,000 acres of land, when the limits of Quebec were extended up to Lake Abitibi on the west, to Hudson bay on the north, and to Labrador on the east, a problem rose immediately before the people of Quebec. The idea was at once to invade that land, to inhabit it, to people it and to repeat in that northern territory what the French Canadian people have done in Canada, a thing that is unparalleled in the history of the world-the sixty thousand people of 1763 who were in Canada at the time of the cession of the treaty of Paris raised to 2,000,000 people in 100 years. Where is there an example of that kind ? We wish, in promoting this scheme, to repeat what has been done during 100 years by the people of Quebec. We want to invade those new lands, we want to take possession of them and we want to keep them for this country and for the flag under which the French Canadians have attained the position they occupy today. During the last thirty or forty years in the history of Canada what has become of the million of surplus of our population, what has become of that million of souls who to-day inhabit every state of the American union, who are to be found from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, who have gone there to find the sustenance, to find the livelihood which they were unable to find in their own country, being limited as it is to within forty or fifty miles from the banks of the St. Lawrence beyond which is the wilderness We want to reverse what nas been going on during the last forty years. We want, during the next twenty years, to retain the million in the surplus of our population in the province of Quebec, and we want them, instead of going south, to go north. We want to give another object lesson. When the Canadian Pacific


Charles Marcil: Railway stretched its road through Nipis-sing and Algoma, those districts were a wilderness. Look at them to-day ; look at Nipissing, look at Algoma. We wish to repeat along the line of this new transcontinental railway what has been done in Nipissing and Algoma. We want to retain in Canada the citizen of the province of Quebec, because he loves his native country. It is his native soil, in which is to be found everything he cherishes, and in which he has the liberty and protection of his institutions, in which he has prospered and for which he is willing to live and to die, and to remain, regardless of what may be said and what has been said so often, to the last ditch the most devoted and loyal citizen that Britain has at this time. The opening up of this region from Quebec to Lake Abitibi opens up for us a new area, a new vista. While the old country settler, while the Scotchman, the Irishman, the Englishman and the German will go to Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and take up a farm on the fertile prairie where he can raise a crop in the first year, and where he can make a fortune in five years, the French Canadian habitant will go to the wilderness, he will go into the rough woods, he will go where he will have to cut down the trees, to hew out the timber, and where it will take him twenty years, if necessary, to establish a farm that will be a worthy counterpart of the farm that the European settler will find .in Manitoba and the North-west Territories two years after he goes there. Our people are well qualified for this particular section of the country, and for this particular work. They have proved it abundantly in the past, and I believe that what we are doing to-day is one of the most patriotic works which we can d>
for the future solution of the question of Canadian nationality and British supremacy. There are men in this House to-day who will see in twenty years hence rise cities, towns and villages, rise on the whole course of the new transcontinental railway from Quebec to Winnipeg. We have in that country immense water-powers, we have fertile lands testified to by out missionaries, by our explorers, and by all who have travelled through that country. We have magnificent wood of all kinds. We have pulpwood, from which we will in twenty years supply the whole British Empire. We have all the conditions that are necessary to the doubling in our own lifetime of the population of the province of Quebec, and what will he done in the province of Quebec will be done in the province of Ontario. And what we have done in Quebec will, be done in Ontario, but I am speaking now more specially of the province of Quebec. The government of Ontario has realized its duty in that regard. The Temiscamingue Railway which is now building is the first stage towards the invasion of that northern

country. We wish in a word to open up Canada. We wish to develop its area; we wish to keep our people at home. We do not wish to meet young Canadians full of brawn and sinew, men of energy, who tell us we must go to the United States for our living; we must go to the United States for our work. We must find work for them in Canada; we want to develop our own resources; we want to make Canada what it should he; we want to put an end to that state of affairs which has existed for so long, when almost as many people from the maritime provinces were found in the United States as remained in the maritime provinces. We want to put an end to the exodus from Quebec which fortunately has stopped during the last five or six years and without saying one word derogatory to the hon. gentleman who has preceded me-the bon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong)-I would say that I was sincerely pained, last night when I saw that hon. gentleman, one of the representatives of New Brunswick, one of the representatives of the people of that province, rise from his seat and blinded by party exigencies and partisan motives, stand up against a project that will be the salvation of New Brunswick. Here is New Brunswick with its magnificent rivers, with its splendid lumber, with its splendid soil, with its population drawn from the old United Empire Loyalist stock, second to none in Canada, second to none in the world. Here New Brunswick for the last twenty years has been going back and back and losing population. We shall pass in a few days in this House a law which shall deprive New Brunswick of another of her representatives. Is it not time for the people and the representatives of that province to rise to the exigencies of the hour 7 I was sorry to see the position that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) took, but the position he took was the natural sequence of the ideas that unfortunately prevail on the other side of the House. He was willing it is true to have a railway through New Brunswick but that railway would have to go to St. Andrews and it should not go to Moncton; that was the qualification which he placed upon it. Mr. Speaker, I represent a portion of Gaspesia. The transcontinental railway is not going to Gaspesia. It is a country which has been deprived of railways for many years. We have in the peninsula 10,000 square miles. We have there at the present time 75,000 people, 25,000 in Gasp6, 25,000 in Bonaven-ture and 25,000 in Matane-75,000 people and practically we are without railways. There are none in Matane none in Gaspe and a limping bankrupt railway in Bonaventure. In the name of the old settlers of the Gas-pesian peninsula, they who have contributed their mite and their share to the building of railways all through Canada, I am willing to come forward now to support this scheme because I feel that it is to the general advantage of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were to take the position in this House that was taken last evening by the member for Charlotte, and would have to go back to my people and re d r an account of my stewardship, I would be ashamed to show my face because the people in that part of the country realize that the advancement and progress of Canada can only be assured by the construction of railways. The railway is the modern agency; the railway is the modern level-. Blighted is the country without railways. Blighted is the country through which the shrill cry of the locomotive is not heard. There Is no part of Canada which has not been benefited by a railway; lines have been duplicated between Montreal and Ottawa. They have been duplicated in every part of Ontario. In the western peninsula of Ontario the saying is that you cannot go ten miles in any direction without striking a railway. The result of that is that Ontario and especially the western peninsula of Ontario has become one of the most fertile, one of the most prosperous parts of Canada. We wish to do for other parts of Canada what railways have done there; we wish to increase our territory, and to develop it to the best of our knowledge.
The part of the scheme to which I wish to refer more especially now is that extend ng from the city of Quebec to the city of Moncton because it traverses the part of Canada from which I come. That portion of the road has been greatly criticised, and still it is but a small part of the undertaking, it is a small part; but it is a necessary part. From all time we have heard from experienced men that the port of Quebec was beyond peradventure the great port of Canada, but the port of Quebec unfortunately is closed for some months in the year. The port of Quebec stands second to none in the world during the summer time. You have there a magnificent frontage from Pointe-d-Carcy up to the new Quebec bridge that is building, a frontage of ten or twelve miles, one of the finest harbours you could find anywhere. We are ^bringing this transcontinental railway to Quebec; we are bringing it back to the point from which civilization started in this country, from which the colonization movement began in this country. We are coming back from the portals of the west and of the new land, back to the city of Quebec from which the original explorers of this continent started. We are coming back with the modern locomotive to the rock of Champlain and Montcalm from which the explorers left in bark canoes to cover this continent from end to end. We are as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has said, bringing back to Quebec that which Quebec gave to this continent, but unfortunately our climatic conditions are such that we can concentrate the trade of Canada at Quebec for only seven or eight months of the year. We have to find an out-

let for the other months. There is one thing we might have done. We might have been satisfied with the Intercolonial Railway, we might have continued to accumulate deficit upon deficit as did the Conservative party for twenty years, losing probably $500,000 a year. Is there any Canadian in Canada who is not satisfied that the Intercolonial Railway can never be a commercial success 7 Has that not been demonstrated by thirty years of experience 1 Is there any railway man in Canada or out of Canada who will contend that a road which has to cover 700 miles when only 400 need be covered will ever be a success ?
Why should we continue any longer to struggle against nature, to struggle against distance when the Gordian knot can be cut and the problem solved 1 I have not a word to say against the construction of the Intercolonial Railway where it was constructed; at the time it was necessary. The .population of New Brunswick, the population of Quebec, lived along the shores of the St. Lawrence and along the shores of the Baie des Chaleurs. It had not yet penetrated into the interior of New Brunswick or the province of Quebec, but those days are long since gone by. The original settlements which were stretched along the St. Lawrence have now extended to the Maine frontier and beyond the Blaine frontier and are invading the United States. We wish therefore to open up the rear portion of Quebec along the state of Blaine. We do not wish the Canadians who live there and who have lived there for many long years to have to drive 25, 30, 40 and 50 miles to reach a railway station in this modern age of progress in Canada. That is the reason therefore, Mr. Speaker, why this new line is being built; to benefit materially seven or eight constituencies immediately concerned.
There are constituencies in that district represented in this House by Conservative members, and I am interested to know what position those members will take if they undertake to give expression to the feeling that prevails in that district. From there the railway crosses Qie province of New Brunswick. The exact line has not yet been defined; but we can trust to the engineers and surveyors to lay it out properly. The distance to our winter ports will be cut down by at least 100 miles, which is a great gain. From Bloncton to Halifax the road will be doubled tracked, the distance to St. .Tolin will be made much shorter than it is, and we shall have at last a through railway bringing the products of Canada to the winter ports of Canada. Why should we stop at North Bay, and be content that Canada should have some of the western traffic during six months of the year, and lose the whole of it during the other six months ? We know that during the summer time a great deal of the traffic goes by the canals and the railways to Montreal, but that in the winter time the whole of it Mr. MARCH, (Bonaventure).
goes to Portland, Boston and New York. We have constructed elevators at Halifax for the Intercolonial, in the hope of filling them with grain, but they have remained empty. We have spent money to improve the sendee at St. John ; but the task has been beyond us, because we are struggling against nature and against distance, like a man struggling against the current. We want to solve this problem once and for all by taking the shortest and most direct route to the maritime provinces after the port of Quebec is closed, and the proposed railway will take it. We want the people of the maritime provinces to know that they are still part and parcel of this Dominion. We want them to help us to build up our country, and to share in any benefits that may come to the country.
But there is another feature of the scheme which lias been overlooked by our Conservative friends and by the lion. ex-Blinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. BIr. Blair). The hon. gentleman seems to have conveyed to the members of this House the idea that has prevailed for many years that the Intercolonial Railway was built solely for the purpose of connecting the maritime provinces with the old provinces of Canada, and that the sole object of the management of that railway was to see in how short a time a train could be rushed from Halifax to Quebec aud Blontreal. In the Blatapedia valley, in my own constituency, we have Intercolonial trains running at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour during the night, and stopping at only two or three stations in a run of 100 miles. Thirty years of experience have demonstrated that the Intercolonial Railway as a through line has been a dead failure, and that it should be used for other purposes. Speaking in the name of the people who inhabit that district, I say that we want the Intercolonial to be used for the benefit of the district through which it runs. We want to abandon this phantom race, this attempt to make time and to cover endless distances uselessly. We want the Intercolonial Railway to benefit the district through which it runs. The main line of the Intercolonial Railway is about 837 miles in length, and it has about 500 miles of branches in different parts of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Hon. members would not probably imagine, but the fact is, that we have not one mile of branch line or of feeders to the Intercolonial Railway in the province of Quebec, although we have more of the main line in the province of Quebec than there is in the maritime provinces. The distance from Blatapedia to Blontreal is 452 miles, which is greater than the distance from Blatapedia to Halifax. We want, therefore, to use this short line which we are about to build for the purpose of local and through-traffic, and we want to utilize the Intercolonial Railway for the development of local and through-traffic where

it can be found.	In the Gaspesia peninsula there are at the present time
75.000	people. Build the Matane Railway from St. Octave to Metis, to Matane and ultimately to the Gnspe Basin, assist in completing the Atlantic and Bake Superior Railway, on which $1,600,000 of the public money of this country has been wasted ; assist it to reach the Gaspe Basin, and to secure at once the traffic of a peninsula of
12.000	square miles, rich in fisheries, rich in farming lands, rich in puljf wood. You have there a local traffic which will more than duplicate any through-traffic which you may obtain for the Intercolonial Railway. Build the short line from Fraserville to Matapedia and open up over 100 miles of splendiu country in Temiscouata, ltimouski and Bona venture. Mr. Speaker, that is the first condition that should not be overlooked. Then, the Intercolonial Railway has been brought by the Liberal party up to its present state of efficiency. It is now a railway second to none on the American continent. Its bridges have been strengthened and improved, and some of them have been replaced by new ones. The steel rails have been replaced by larger ones ; the whole roadbed is in prime condition ; and the equipment of the line is in first-class order. It no longer stops at Levis, but runs to the city of Montreal, where it has a binding agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway for 99 years for the transfer of traffic. The future of the Intercolonial Railway is assured. But are we to rest satisfied with what our fathers did thirty or thirty-five years- ago ? We want to improve on their work. We waiit to develop that portion of the country through which the Intercolonial Railway passes. We built the eastern extension to Sydney and to Cape Breton when there were not 100,000 people in the whole of Cape Breton. We have now 75,000 in the Gaspesia peninsula without any railway at all. Develop that district. Develop the whole district along the south shore of the St. Lawrence, where you will find lumber mills and other industries every few miles, as well as on the north shore of the Baie des Chaleurs. At present the peninsula of Gaspesia is a terra incognita to us, almost as much as the far-off regions of Canada. We have had a government railroad running through that country, but making no attempt to increase the local traffic or to develop the resources of the country, whether in agriculture, fisheries or anything else. We have had encouragement from the present government towards that end, but I hope that this House will realize that the Intercolonial Railway, when it was built, had not for its sole object the connecting of the maritime provinces with the old provinces of Canada, but that it was also the intention of the men who built it, that it should benefit the country through which it runs. That can be done, and done easily, and I know that the government of the day,
and any other government that has at heart the interest of eastern Quebec and of western New Brnnswick, will see that what can t>e done in that direction shall be done. The traffic of the Intercolonial Railway is now $6,500,000, of which only one million is through-traffic, and our local traffic could be doubled within the next five years if means were taken to develop it and if all our -energies be not bent on running fast through trains over the road. I intended to give some facts and figures in connnec-tion with the local traffic, but as these were laid before the House yesterday by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) I shall not take up the time of the House by doing so.
I am in favour of this transcontinental road because it is going to open up all parts of Canada, because it is going to develop new regions, because it will bring the west closer to the east. I am iu favour of it, further, because it will develop the province in which I am more particularly interested, and also because it will give expression to the national aspirations and ambitions of the Canadian people. On the threshold of this twentieth centivy, with the portals of the future opening broadly before us, this, is not the time for a sturdy young nation like ours to hesitate in her march of progress. This is the time for us to be up and doing, and I believe that every man who casts his vote in favour of this measure will have reason in after years to feel proud of what he has done. He will realize that he did something to break down provincial barriers and prejudices, to bring the various provinces nearer together, and to hasten the advent of that day when a citizen of the province of Quebec can go to Fort Simpson and feel that he is still in his own home. I shall not, like the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), look merely at the mercenary side of the question. I shall not stop to calculate what the extent of our dividends may be or the amount of our earnings. A government which is worthy of its mission, has other things to do than earn dividends. It does not exist for that purpose It exists for the purpose of advancing the interests of the country confided to it, and there is .no project which cau be laid before this House which would do half as much for Canada as this will. It can no longer be said that the Liberal party is nothing but a party of critics who spent their time criticising the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Liberal party, Sir, in the days when that great transcontinental railway was being pro-' looted, were not opposed to the idea, but to the methods employed. There, were no more patriotic Canadians than the Dorions, the Blakes, the Haltons, and our present leader, who took part in the debate on the Canadian Pacific Railway project. AA'hnt the Liberal party is now doing is to give expression to the wishes of the Canadian

people. It is putting another entrenched camp in British North America. Our present transcontinental system is within twenty-four hours' inarch of any American army which would invade this country, but by the projected system we shall be able, in case of necessity, to maintain our communications from ocean to ocean, which we cannot do at present. Ask the Minister of Militia what would happen between North Bay and Winnipeg if difficulties should intervene. Who would guard that immense territory to the north of Bake Superior, that hinterland which divides eastern from western Canada ? But once build this new railway, open up that northern region to the children of our soil, let the Canadians from our eastern provinces invade it, let them know that it is their home, and we shall have nothing to fear. We shall see then in that country what Martha Craig so graphically described in Western Ontario. Martha Craig uses these eloquent words:
On either side, from the placid chore to the foothills of the protecting mountains, stretched fertile lands on which hundreds of thousands of fruit trees flourish. In this earthly paradise live a happy, rich and prosperous people. As we wander through the orchards in the springtime and inhale the delightful perfume of the breezes laden with drifts of apple blossoms, we can hardly realize that a hundred years ago this fertile land was a trackless forest, rhe abode of the Indian and the savage beast. But the hand of time has worked this transformation, using as its instruments the energy end perseverance of the Saxon. Those men who have made the wilderness blossom as the lose are true heroes. Theirs was not one dash of bravery and then victory. No, the battle they fought was waged from day to day from year to year, in heat and cold, without flinching and without, turning back. These are true noblemen and heroes that all men delight to honour.
Those are the men we should imitate. It is in the fields of peace, of human activity, that we must use the energies of our young Canadian nation, and if the time should ever come when we must shoulder the musket, Canadians will be found ready to answer the call. But militarism is not the idea which we must foster in this country. What we require to develop are the arts of peace, and we can never do so more effectively than by putting through this measure, which will double the present inhabited area of Canada, almost double its resources, and unite our provinces in one great and happy land.


Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox).: not distributed like other Bills, why the resolutions were not placed on the Order paper in the ordinary way. 1 have not heard any excuse for it up to the present time, either from the First Minister, from the Minister of Finance or from the Minister of the Interior, all of whom have spoken. When the First Minister brought down his Bill to this House, he said :
To those who tell us, wait, wait, wait ; to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate and to inquire, our answer is : No.
Now, Sir, that does not seem to me to be a very sensible view to take of this great question. I think in view of the instructions of the good old hook which says that every man should be able to give a reason of the hope that is in him, we would have been in better shape to follow tjiem if he had not been keeping things so closely to himself. Then he goes on to say :
This is not a time for deliberation, this is a time lor auction. The flood tide is upon us that leads on to fortune ; if we let it pass it may never recur again.
Well, now, I would like to know what signs there are of a flood tide being upon us, or what need there is of this great hurry. I cannot see anything within the range of my vision except that these railway magnates have been chasing them up and down, here and there, and pressing their claims upon them.
If we let it pass the voyage of our national life, bright as it is to-day, will be bound in shallow's.
Well, what a pity.
We cannot wait, because time does not wait	 It is immediate and imperative. It is not of to-morrow, but of this day, of this hour and of this minute. Heaven grant that it be not already too late. . . . and that an ever vigilant competitor does not take to himself the trade that properly belongs to those who acknowledge Canada as their native or their adopted land.
Now, Sir, we have entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. We have agreed, as I understand, to build from Moncton to Winnipeg at govern- I ment expense, while we give a charter to the Grand Trunk Pacific to build from Winnipeg west to the Pacific coast. Now it has been presented1 to this House by several hon. members that the Grand Trunk Pacific will have their share of the road built long before the section can be built from Winnipeg to Moncton ; and it has been pointed out that there is no provision in the contract whereby the Grand Trunk Pacific will operate the eastern part of the road until it is all finished. Now the question is :	What will they do with it V
Will they keep it lying idle, put the rails on, and let them rust, and have nothing to do with it ? Not only that, but the Grand Trunk Pacific will be busy gathering its


Uriah Wilson: trade in the North-west, they will be bringing it to Winnipeg and finding an outlet for it. As was pointed out very clearly the other night by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), after they find it they will carry it into the United States, where they have lines running to St. Paul, and they can easily make their through-connections with that system so that they will ultimately take it through the United States to the seaports. In that case what will become of the all-Canadian route ? Now, it seems to me that after all, the ex-Minister of Railways took the proper position. He says that if you want to go into this arrangement, let us say to parliament, we are prepared to build another transcontinental railway if it is found to be necessary. Let us ask for an appropriation to explore the country and to survey a route, then we will be in a position to act intelligently. I think that was the proper course. I understand that the government tried every means possible to induce the ex-minister not to retire, but to retain his position, and he laid down the principles on which he would stay, and they were very strong ones, and they were pretty sensible, in my judgment. The letter of the ex-minister of the 16th of July, 1903, you will find in the ' Hansard ' on page 6743:
I would require that the government should abandon its present intention :-
1st. Of building or authorizing the building of a line of railway to Moncton, which would be paralleling and destroying the Intercolonial; or building or authorizing the building of any other line of railway more remote from the Intercolonial, until the need of such latter railway becomes apparent, and proper surveys and an estimate of its cost are first made and thoroughly considered.
Now, we have been spending, as everybody knows, a large amount of money on the Intercolonial, I believe since these gentlemen came into office they have spent $15,000,000. This very last year they had an appropriation for $3,260,000 more to be spent on the Intercolonial. Before they had made up their minds to go into this new scheme they brought down in their estimates another appropriation for the present year which, if they are going to build a new railway and destroy the usefulness of the Intercolonial, I do not think they will require. They ask this year for $2,054,550 for repairs on the Intercolonial, yet some of the hon. members opposite have said that if they built this road it would ruin the Intercolonial altogether, and in a country such as that through which the Intercolonial passes I think one railway can do all the business that is to be done. Then the ex-minister lays down his second proposition :
2n.d. The idea of immediately proceeding with a railway from Quebec to Winnipeg. The government should be content with declaring itself in favour of the policy of building a government line from Quebec to the prairies, and across the prairies to the Pacific coast, as soon as the need shall arise ; and in the meantime

that parliament be asked for an amount to enable a thorough exploration of the country to be made, so that it might be possible to judge whether or not a suitable traffic producing route could be found through this district, and its cost and the character and conditions of the country through which it is to pass ascertained.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that statement commends itself to the common sense of every business man. But L want to say one thing more. While the Railway Committee was fighting hard to get a charter through, supposing they were honestly providing a charter for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, it appears that the First Minister was making a bargain with Mr. Hays, the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway. I think any person who knows the two men will agree with me that while the leader of the government might be a better statesman in some respects than Mr. Hays, he is not in any way equal to him so far as railway matters are concerned, and I think it was absolute folly for the First Minister to try to make a bargain. I think it is evident, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Bast Hastings (Mr. Northrup) the other night, that this bargain was very one-sided, and evidently the contract between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific was drawn up by the solicitors of the company.
Now, Sir, no man in the government pretends to know anything about railways, except the ex-Minister of Railways, who has had a large experience, and who is well known to be an able man. The idea of the First Minister ignoring him and trusting to his own knowledge, in pretending to be an expert and to be a good business man, is absurd. I know that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that the right hon. Prime Minister had a perfect right to ignore his cabinet, or any member 'of his cabinet, if he saw fit. Nobody disputes that, but the question is was it wise, was it in the best interests of this country, was it in the best interests of the government itself ? My own impression is that it was not. I think if you have an expert at any particular thing, connected with any business you have to do, you had better use his knowledge and influence to keep you right. That is my view, and that is the course that every successful business man must pursue. If he does not know how to do a thing himself he calls in the best assistance he can find. But, Sir, there was no calling in about it. The minister was on hand, and he was prepared to do his part and do it well. Everybody who knows him will admit that. There was another request that would have had to be complied with if he had stayed in the government:
That the policy of giving a present guai an tee or other aid to the company to build a railway and continuation of the Quebec-Winnipeg line through the fertile prairie district, the most valuable and promising section of the whole [DOT]system, should not now he entertained, and that the final decision of the matter he deferred until it became reasonably clear that settlement along the probable route of such railway would justify its construction.
I think that is just as sensible as the rest, and that it is on the right lines. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals points out the folly of pouring money into this enterprise, notwithstanding these surpluses we have had year after year, of which the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is so proud. But it is not difficult to have a surplus if you only keep your books in the right way. All you have to do is to charge enough to capital account and then you will have a surplus, because you can take the balance out of income. The government has been particularly fortunate since they came in, because they have had an overflowing treasury, but I am afraid they have not been able to make very good use of it. They have listened too much to the demands of what are called the grafters and the wire pullers. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has told us that the government must adopt these terms or he would retire from the government. I admire his pluck, I admire the courage of a man who will sacrifice, not only social position, but a large salary in the interests of the country. There was an effort made by the government, or by some member of the government, to induce him to stay in. The hon. gentleman said in'his letter that there was a proposition made in Council, or by some of his colleagues, to him that if he could not endorse their policy he could simply sit by and allow somebody else to put the Bill through the House, and he would have nothing to do with it. I admire the pluck of a man who would stand out against any such insinuation, because, as the hon. ex-Mlniste'r of Railways and Canals said, if he had done that he would have been worse than the others. He would have been dishonest through and through. But he took a more courageous and more manly course. He has thrown all the responsibility of this p: licy upon the right hon. Prime Minister and his ministers, and they have to bear it. I think if the government had carried out the policy announced in the speech from the Throne, that they were prepared to appoint a royal commission to investigate the transportation question, they would have had the support of both sides of the House, because this has been a burning question and it has been discussed In this House for a gr.od many years. That was a proposition that was worth considering, and not only was it worth considering, but the transportation question should have been submitted to the men who are the best informed upon that question and upon the wants of the country in that regard. That was a promise that was made by the whole government, hut the right hon. leader of the government did not seem to be nearly so anxious about his own promises as he pretended to be about a promise which he said was made I by this parliament on a former occasion.

He said that there was a promise to build a railway from Salisbury to Fredericton made in 1885, and that it was to implement that promise that he introduced this Bill. As the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrop) pointed out very clearly the other night, the Bill providing for the construction of the Salisbury-Fredericton line passed this House, but it did not pass the Senate, and that consequently there was no promise contained in the Bill as far as this parliament was concerned. It was only a ptomise that the House was willing to fulfil, provided the other Chamber agreed to it. The right lion, leader of the government told us of a resolution that he had moved In reference to the short line going through Maine, which was as follows :
In the opinion of this House, atditional surveys are requisite in order to a sound decision for the short line railway, and it would to premature to adopt any line before further surveys have been made.
Why has the right lion, gentleman gone back on the views that he held in 1895 ? He considered it necessary that the route of the short line, which had been surveyed once or twice before, and perhaps oftener, should be again surveyed ; yet he has completed a bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company before he knows where the line is to be located, or before he knows how much it will cost, and which is going through a country of which he himself has no knowledge whatever. But there are other promises which he and his party have made. I recollect reading a speech that he made in Winnipeg, I think, in 1895, when he said that when the Liberal party came into power they would submit a plebiscite, and that if it carried they would give the country prohibition if it cost the Liberal party power for ever. He did carry out part of that pledge. He took into his cabinet a gentleman who he thought would give him weight with the temperance people. He took in the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). He also submitted a plebiscite to the people, and it was carried by good majorities in every province except one. Why is he so anxious to carry out the pledges made by Sir John Macdonald and by the Conservative party and to ignore his own ? These are things for the right hon. gentleman to explain, because these are things that it is difficult for the people to understand. I recollect that he made a speech at Toronto, in which he said: We are going to reduce the public expenditure year by year from one, two, three, and the Hon. Mr. Mills says $4,000,000 per annum. Has the right hon. gentleman and his party implemented that promise ? Have they reduced the public expenditure ? It is about $20,000,000 per annum more now than it was then, and still they were howling on every platform all over the country about the extravagance of the Conservative party. Now, the right hon. gentleman went to Win-Mr. WILSON.
nipeg-I think it was at this same time, in 1895-and he said : I come to preach to you a new gospel, the gospel of free trade as they have it in England. I would like to know how he has implemented that promise. These are only a few of the promises made by the Liberal party. They talked about superannuation ; that was one of their hobbies, and I recollect that Mr. McMullen, now Senator McMullen, used almost to weep on every platform about how the public money was being spent, and he said that civil servants who had been superannuated, and who were able-bodied men, were walking around the streets of Ottawa drawing larger salaries than they could earn if they were working at any ordinary calling. He said :	When we come into
power we will change all that. Since the Liberal party have come in they superannuated a great many more civil servants than we did during the same number of years.
I just want to refer to a resolution and I think the Bill passed through the House the other night. The judges previously had been allowed superannuation at two thirds their salaries. Well, Sir, that was not sufficient for these gentlemen. These men had had the best of it all their lives at least since they had been on the bench where many of them were making two or three times as much as they had made before they got on the bench and the other night a Bill was passed by which they are allowed to be superannuated at full pay. It does seem to me that these people have entirely forgotten their principles.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Uriah Wilson: Mr. Speaker. When you left the Chair at one o'clock, I was speaking about the question of superannuation and about some of the broken promises of the government. There is another important matter to which I would like to refer and that is the promise that was made in the speech from the Throne, that was put into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General. In that speech the government pledged itself to appoint a commission to investigate the transportation question. Now Sir, that promise has not been fulfilled nor has any one of the speakers on the government side so far as I am aware explained any reason why it has not been fulfilled, or what has caused the change of front. I think, as I said before, that I regard this as one of the most important things they could have done, and one that would certainly have met with the unanimous support of this side of the House, because I think whether we are in opposition, I mean the Conservative party, or whether we are on the government benches, there is one thing you can always depend on, and that is that we are for the best interests of Canada. We have not taken up the popular

cries and deserted our principles which we advocated when in power. Although the government has largely adopted protection and has forsaken their principles and their promises we have stood true to the principle of protection and we intend to do so, and I think that perhaps before another session the government itself will find it necessary to adopt the course.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a document here, a copy of the Order in Council assented to by His Excellency on the 19th of May, 1903. It is very important and although it has been read by other hon. gentlemen in the House still, as I desire to have it In my speech in order that it may be read by those whom I desire to read it, I shall ask permission of the House to again place it on ' Hansard ' :
On a report dated April 6, 1903, from the Minister of Public Works, stating that he had under consideration questions affscting the transportation of Canadian products to the markets of the world through and by Canadian ports with a view of placing the Canadian producer in a positon to compete, and compete successfully, through all Canadian channels with the producers and exporters of other countries.
The minister submits that it may be assumed that grain and other products will naturally seek their markets by the cheapest routes, and therefore the method of attaining the object desired should be to make the Canadian routes cheaper and more convenient than competing routes.
That, the development of North-western Canada has manifested the Inability of existing Canadian transportation agencies to take care of Canadian products.
That our agricultural exports can only command the prices over seas to which their natural excellence entitles them when they cease to be confounded and confused with the inferior and often adulterated articles pr >duced elsewhere ; and to preserve their separate identity they must go through Canadian channels.
The minister further states that the questions to be considerd are complicated and involved, including among the objects to be sought the transportation of western products from place of production to th.e markets of the world.
This particular part, Mr. Speaker, of this order or report of the Privy Council looks particularly to the export of our products in the North-west Territories and Manitoba, and I think that is what the government had in view at the time this report was made. I think that is what they had in view when the Grand Trunk Railway asked for their charter from North Bay into Manitoba and the North-west, but the force of circumstances apparently caused them to change front, and they went in for the all rail route from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
This involves the consideration of iheir transportation : -
From place of prod nation to Canadian seaports.
From place of production to the western ports of Take Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
From Canadian seaports to Europe.
From 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 end 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 he 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 he opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namnly [DOT] -
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ;
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be investigated, and the best and most economical methods ufed by our competitors should be carefully studied and reported upon.
The minister apprehends that in these circumstances it devolves upon 'he Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the [DOT],,-ansportition of its own products, and it is 'bought 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 who may he appointed and authorized under the provisions of chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
The minister recommends, therefore, that a commission he appointed consisting of Sir William Van Horne, John Bertram and Harold Kennedy, of whom Sir William Van Horne shall be chairman and convener, for the purpose of making such inquiry, obtaining such evidence and information and making such reports and recommendations as in their opinion (and subject to any further instructions which may De given by the Governor General in Council) the exigencies of the reference may require.
That is a report to which I attach a good deal of importance. We have not yet heard it satisfactorily explained, and I would like if possible, to impress upon the other side of the House the importance of explaining why these experts were not chosen to give us the necessary information. The right hon. the First Minister, when he laid this matter before the House, said :
Most of our critics look upon this scheme simply as a commercial venture to be judged by the only rule of profit and loss. We look upon



it as a work of a national character necessitated by the status of Canada in the year 1903, just as the Intercolonial Railway was necessitated by the status of Canada at the opening of confederation, and just as the Canadian Pacific Railway was necessitated by the bargain made with the province of British Columbia.
The right hou. gentleman told us in another place that he did not expect that this would be a commercial road-that it would not be able to carry grain all the way from tlie North-west to the seaboard at as low a rate as it could be carried by utilizing the waterways. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in his speech, laid great stress on this all-rail route on Canadian soil as a commercial railway, which, if properly equipped, would be able to compete with the part rail and part waterway routes. Now, it is a very serious question whether such a road as has been advocated by the hon. member for North Norfolk and by other hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House can be built. I can quite understand the position taken by the hon. member for North Norfolk, because he has spoken so often upon so many sides of almost every question, that he is getting a little more guarded as he grows older. He specified a kind of railway which I think he must have known it would be almost impossible to build through the section of country through which the proposed road Is projected.


Mr. CHARLTON.: The hon. gentleman had better be careful about assertions that he does not know.


Uriah Wilson: I only give my opinion ; the hon. gentleman is not obliged to take it unless it agrees with his. The suggestion is made that perhaps the hon. gentleman has changed his opinion again. However, that is not a matter of very great concern just now. Another thing that I think surprised every person when this great scheme was launched on this House and the country was that the First Minister told us that it was only a matter of paying interest on the cost for about seven years, and that the total outlay that the country would be called on to make would be $13,000,000. Well, Sir, that was a most astounding statement to make. It was nearly as bad as the statement once made by an hon. member of this House to the effect that the government would be able to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway for a dollar apiece. I did not just understand what he meant by that, nor do I understand what the right hon. First Minister means when he talks of building a railway through this country from ocean to ocean at a cost to the country of only $13,000,000. That was the statement lie made, however ; and it was largely backed up by the hon. Minister of Finance, who, when he comes down to details, gives us reasons for believing that it will cost a good deal more, and that It will in-Mr. WILSON.
volve a considerable increase to the national debt. The hon. Minister of Finance first gave the cost as follows :
Cost of Winnipeg to Moncton section	$54,609,677
Interest for seven years	 11,468,030
Share of cost of the Quebec	bridge..	2,000,000Interest on that for seven	years..	..	324,246
Guarantee of bonds on the Mountain
section	    2,334,575
Total	$70,736,528
Now, this is what will be added to the public debt. There is another matter that all the speakers on the government side seem to have overlooked. The government made a bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company under which that company shall have the use of the railway for seven years from the time of completion for nothing. That is to say, we will pay the interest on the cost of building the road during that time, and if it cannot earn money enough over working expenses to pay the interest for the next three years, that will be added to capital expenditure, and will be charged up against the company. But I have not heard that there is any provision for the time of building the road. I do not see how they can possibly commence building the road until it is surveyed, and it will not be surveyed, under any circumstances, in less than one year and the shortest computation made by any person for the building of the road is five years. So that you may easily add to the ten years for which the government is providing the interest, the interest on say one-half the cost of construction for two and a half or three years more. This would add considerably to the cost of the railway, even taking the figures which the hon. gentleman has given us.
I have another authority, who not long ago was considered a very great authority on the other side of the House-a gentleman who probably knows more about railways than any of those whom he left behind in the cabinet or perhaps than any on that side of the House. I refer to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He made a speech in this House in which he estimates the cost
of this railway. Here are his figures :
Cost of the Winnipeg to Moncton section	  $65,000,000
Interest during construction	 7,800,000
Ten years free rental	 19,500,000
One-half per cent loss on interest during term of contract	 18,500,000
Interest guaranteed and to be paid on
mountain section	 4,050,000
Guarantee on prairie section	 9,750,000
Guarantee on mountain section.. .. 13,500,000 Interest on prairie section during half
period of construction	 750,000
Total	$138,850,000
It is just possible that there is one item which should not properly be charged, because it is to be hoped that the government

will be able to borrow money as cheaply as they lend it. If not the country will have to pay the difference. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals put in 818,500,000 for the loss of one half per cent, which he expects the country will have to pay, over and above what it will get from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
I have here an estimate made by a newspaper, which some people say was started for the purpose of defending this Graud Trunk Pacific Railway scheme. 1 refer to the Toronto 'News.' There is one thing certain, that it has been very favourable to this scheme, and I think on the whole, has put the best side out, and it has done so in such a way that while it does not come out straight for the road, its criticisms led people to believe that it is all right. It cavils a little here and there, but concludes that after all, tlxe scheme is the best one that could have been devised, under the circumstances. The newspaper gives the cost of
construction as follows :
From Moncton	to	Winnipeg	$54,000,000Interest during	construction	
4,215,000Interest during ten years in operation	
14,233,320
Interest on mountain section bonds,
ten years	 4,744,440
Total	$77,193,450
In this calculation, the interest is made up favourably to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the total amount of interest they allow is $23,193,450. That is pretty well up to double the amount the First Minister said it would cost.


Mr. HOLMES.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put him a question ? Does he not know that that paper is owned by well known Conservatives of Toronto ?


Uriah Wilson: I know that, but I know that he is a very intimate friend of the man who is very much interested in this work. He is the bosom friend of Senator Cox. And the hon. gentleman will remember that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said that Senator Cox would not wait.
I wish to give another extract from a paper which is not so favourable to this road. I refer to the Toronto ' Mail and Empire.' That paper has made a statement of the cost of this road to the country, and its figures are as follows :
From Moncton, to Winnipeg	$ 72,000,000
Seven years without	rent	
17,640,000Three years without	rent	
7,500,000Forty years at 3 per cent rentalless of one-half per cent	
12,640,000Seven years interest on bonds of mountain section	
5,040,000Total	$114,880,000
This calculation made by the Toronto
' Mail and Empire ' shows that we will pay the interest during the duration of this lease, amounting to $42,888,000, but it is just possible that we will get the money at 294i
three instead of at three and a half. If we do, we will have to reduce that amount by $12,040,000. In any event suppose we borrow the money at the same rate as we lent, the interest alone will cost $20,180,000.
After carefully looking over the ' Globe ' from day to day for an estimate of the cost of the road, I have failed to find any. The best it would do was to give the figures on the Moncton and Winnipeg section, estimated by the First Minister at $13,000,000 then It said that on the mountain section we will have to pay interest $3,780,000. But even that calculation brings the cost up to $16,-7S0.000.
I cannot see any good reason why we should give any bonus at all, especially on the prairie section. Why should we pay a bonus or pay anything on the debentures of this road, which is to be owned by this company. It is a well known fact that the United States since 1871 have not been paying bonuses. Does anybody pretend to say that the United States have not been going on developing their country, that they have not been building railways. I do not think so. I am of opinion that the United States have got down to a business basis. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) gave us last night a lot of information about what the constitution provides so far as the giving of bonuses to railways by the different states is concerned. Many states have no power under the constitution to give bonuses, and others are so hedged about that it is almost impossible for them to grant aid to railways.
This scheme is, as the Finance Minister said, a leap in the dark. I cannot see why he was in such a hurry, because we cannot have the surveys immediately ; and until we get the railway built, we will get nothing from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I would like to know if anybody thinks that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would not lease the road three or four years from now just as well. WThy, I think, it is folly. No business concern would attempt to do business on these principles ; or, if they did, I think they would soon find themselves in the position of some institutions which are now receiving bonuses from the hands of this free trade government to help them float their enterprise.
I wish to say a few words on a subject which I intended to refer to early in my address-the proposed Yukon Railway. This was referred to last night and a good deal of sport was made of statements made by some members of this House a few years ago about the number of people who would go into that country. I have shown you that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said it was not the policy of this government to give land'-grants to the railways. I can remember when it was their policy, and not very long ago either. Every hon. member who has been in this House through two parliaments can remem-

ber the bargain made with Mackenzie & Mann for the building of the Yukon Railway. That bargain was made only a few days before meeting of parliament. The government did then as they have done in the case now before us-they signed a hard and fast bargain for the building of a railway for a certain subsidy. But the result in the case of the Yukon Railway was that the road was not built, and this country was mulct in damages to the extent of 8300,000. One would think that this government would have learned a lesson from this experience. Under this bargain made with Mackenzie & Mann in 1898, the government agreed to give 3,750,000 acres of land in the Yukon district for the building of the road. On the 7th of July, 1898, the government passed an Order in Council fixing the minimum price of the land to be sold there at $10 per acre, and they would only sell 40 acres to any one individual in the same place. According to their own figuring then, the bonus they were giving to Mackenzie & Mann amounted to $37,500,000-and this for the building of a short narrow gauge railway. That is the kind of business men we have in this excellent business government.
The hon. gentleman from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) compared this bargain with the bargain for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think there is any ground for such comparison. Before the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway we had only entered upon confederation. Previous to that time we had been a few scattered provinces that had not much to do with one another. Circumstances arose which made it to the interest of all the provinces to federate. That involved the buying of the North-west Territory from the Hudson's Bay Company, which was done for about $1,500,009. It was very desirable that we should have British Columbia enter the confederacy, and they did enter it on the 20th of July, 1871. As a matter of course, it was part of the bargain with British Columbia that we should build a railway to connect that province with the others, just as it was part of the bargain with the maritime provinces that we should build the Intercolonial Railway. We could not have had confederation without these two railways. And when the Prime Minister speaks about the necessity for this proposed railway being as great as that of the Canadian Pacific Railway when it was built, it seems to me he is plainly and entirely mistaken. 1 do not see the necessity for this road, nor do 1 hear any outcry for it from any part of the country. The ex-Minister of Railways says there is no demand from his part of the country, and certainly I have not heard of any demand for it from Ontario, except on the part of interested persons. It is said that we made a bad bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. We gave them $25,000,000 cash, 25,000,000 acres of Mr. WILSON.
land, and a piece of railway we had built. I am credibly informed that the Mackenzie government offered even more than this, and could not get a taker.
Now, I would like to give the opinion of a gentleman who is fresh from the electors of his own province. I refer to Hon. Mr. Roblin, the Premier of Manitoba. At a convention in Toronto the other day. he spoke on the subject of this Grand Trunk Pacific project. He said he believed that he spoke for the people of Manitoba-and he is a railway commissioner of that province. He could not see any great benefit that this road was going to do to Manitoba more than any other road would do. He does not doubt the patriotism of the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in proposing this scheme, but when that right hon. gentleman proposes to spend $100,000,000 to benefit the farmers of the North-west, Mr. Roblin failed to see where that benefit came in under this scheme. He pointed out that it now costs to carry grain to Montreal by rail, 19 cents per bushel, while it can be carried by rail and water for 14 cents per bushel. He believes that he himself and the people of Manitoba are as patriotic as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his friends, but they cannot see any good reason why they should be compelled to send grain by all-rail route to the sea-board at a cost of 5 cents per bushel more than it would cost them by the other route. Nobody believes that they will do it. You can make any law you like, but commerce knows no law but its own ; and it is absurd to expect commerce to go by the more costly route. This principle is manifested in ail the walks of life.
I spoke a short time ago of the Toronto ' News ' being rather favourable to this railway. But that paper begins to sound a warning as to the route through New Brunswick. It says :
Warnings have begun to come from New Brunswick that the building of a commercial route through the wilderness is impossible. Abundant evidence exists as to the nature of the country. In 1865 the whole question was debated with great thoroughness. The projectors of the Intercolonial Railway were anxious to find a practicable line across central New Brunswick. They were fairly driven to the alternative of an extreme frontier or an extreme coastal route.
If this were fully discussed in 1865, and no route that was thought feasible could be found, what is the use of talking about it now ? The country is not changed so that you could make to-day a commercial road such as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) talks about. And we do not want to spend a mountain of money simply to save a few miles of railway. While our time is very valuable. I do not think it is so valuable as that. Here is another extract from the same paper :
Central New Brunswick is a mass of rugged and irregular hills, from which flow numerous

rivers to empty into the Baie des Chaleurs, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy, by way of the St. John River. Some of these hills are 2.000 feet high.
1 would like to know how we are to make a practical railway over kills of that description.
Now, I would like to give a little attention to an old parliamentarian, a gentleman wko has been in this House a long time, and who, as I think hon. members who have been in this House for two or three, parliaments will understand, has been on almost every side of every question at different times. I speak of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He issued an address to his people in the last general election, in which he said :
I feel called upon to announce it as my firm conviction that our public improvements are now as far advanced as the interests of the country, in the near future, are likely to require, and that the time has arrived more fully to redeem the pledges of the Liberal party by practicing greater economy in public expenditures and by reducing the public debt.
The hon. gentleman goes on to say :
The expenditure shall not in any case, in my opinion, exceed the amount of the revenue, and the public debt should be reduced each year to at least the extent of the sinking fund.
This hon. gentleman-I am sorry to say he is not here-has never failed to shoot as the First Minister asked him, and to vote in the same way, irrespective of whether it was costing this country a great deal more than it ought to. That was no part of the consideration.
The government was fortunate in assuming office just at the beginning of a period of prosperity, which not only applies to us, but to all commercial nations, and which it is well to realize has been due to the blessings of Providence, and to causes beyond the control of the Canadian government.
It is the duty of the government under such circumstances to follow the example of a wise ruler of old, and in years of plenty, provide for meeting the exigencies of succeeding years of scarcity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that was good advice, that was the right kind of an address to the people, if you are going to publish anything, because the people are very fond of hearing public men say that they are looking after their interest, and seeing that the public moneys are not wasted. Hut when the people c-ome to realize as they must, that under this economical government there has been a vast increase in the expenditure, they will begin to consider that such men as the hon. member for North Norfolk have not carried out the pledges made to them. Now, Sir, this same hon. gentleman made a speech which has been referred to a good many times in this House, on the 26th day of last May, in whicli he pointed out the impossibility of carrying grain on an all-rail route in comparison with that from Port Arthur by
water. He gives us figures, and he tells us that wheat can be carried from Duluth or Port Arthur to Buffalo, and put in an elevator for li to 11 cents per bushel, and 2 cents is more than an average rate. He said :
So you have the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for three cents a bushel, or at most not more than four cents a bushel.
Now, I would like to know if anybody believes that this new railway that is to be built by the government will be able to carry grain at that rate from Port Arthur, or west of that, to Quebec, or St. John, or Halifax. I do not think there is any man in this country believes it, I do not believe that tlie people who are promoting this scheme believe it. He says further :
Now these are conditions which render it in my opinion impossible at present to compete with that route. It is useless to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all-rail route to Quebec or to Halifax, at prices such as I have quoted with regard to the American lines.
Now, the hon. gentleman apparently has made this route his study, but when he made that speech defining the government's policy on this railway, he did not take into account the kind of country over which the road was passing, and he knew that he was perfectly safe in saying that if they build a railway such as I have described, and put on cars and locomotives such as I have described, there will be no difficulty. But he knew, I think, that it is utterly impossible to build such a railway, and it is just as impossible to carry wheat, or grain, or other products from the west at prices such as those charged by an all-rail route. He went a little further in that speech on the 26th of May and said :
I do not believe that we are in a condition to-day, even if we decided to improve the Ottawa river valley route, to decide what are the proper conditions upon which to proceed. . . . Let us wait until we have the decision of these men as to the proper course to pursue.
Now, I agree with him fully in that part of his speech. Then this government, when they were looking around to get commissioners to investigate this transportation question, the very first man they approached was Sir Wm. Van Horne, and I would say a wise choice, but it seems he refused to act. Sir Wm. Van Horne has made a statement, and I will read from it.
The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other all-Canadian route, will never voluntarily carry a carload of wheat by the all-railway route around the great lakes to an eastern Canadian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it will never pay any road to do so.
Now, I think that no matter what we may think of this route, we all respect the opinion of Sir Wm. Van Horne, and 1 feel

that here he states the truth, the whole truth and nothing hut the truth. Then the Montreal ' Gazette ' comments on his views :
In these few words are summarized all the necessary objections to the proposed government railway. If it cannot haul wheat there is not the slightest use spending $75,000,000 on its construction. It cannot haul wheat because the rates it will be compelled to meet will render it necessary for it to make its charges as low as a fifth of a cent per ton per mile, a rate utterly out of the question. With grain eliminated there is not sufficient traffic available and will not be in a score of years to pay the cost of maintenance.
Now, that is a fair proposition in reference to this railway, that if it was built to-morrow we could not get freight for it at a rate that would pay expenses, I do not think we could get freight that would pay running expenses. I cannot tell though, strange things happen sometimes. I would not like) to venture Ithe statement that many a Liberal member ventured in the old days when the Conservative government were promoting an undertaking to build the Canadian Pacific Railway, namely, that it would never pay for the axle grease. I am not familiar enough with railway business to venture an absolute opinion of my own on this question; in fact I think I am in the same position as most other members of this House. Now, there was a very good article in the Montreal ' Star ' on this question, the heading of which was ' How much ?-Where ?-'When ?-'What for 7 '
The debate on the government's ' trunk line ' scheme ought not to close until some one has told us authoritatively what it is going to cost, where-exactly-it is expected to run, how long it is expected it will take to make the surveys, and when it is expected to be ready for use.
I don't think that so far we have been told that from any quarter.
It is a most remarkable situation-a vast government proposal laid before the country, including the spending of many millions and the building of a railway half way across the continent; and yet no statement as to how many millions are to be spent, or precisely where the railway is to be built.
I think if such a proposition as this had been brought down in the old days when the hon. gentlemen opposite sat on this side of the House, we would never have heard the last of it, indeed I do not think that the government could have got their estimates through the House unless they had given a great deal more information than we have been given in the present case. I feel that that would he a proper thing, because, after all, we are only the custodians of the people's money. We are here to do their business and we ought to do it in a business like way. We ought not to beat about the bush, we ought not to take any byway, but we ought to be prepared to deal frankly in all such matters as this. I have several Mr. WILSON.
other quotations but I will defer them to a future day.	.
Now, I want to deal a little more particularly with the bonus view of the question. We have been spending in this country very large sums of money in assisting railways. Cash bonuses have been granted amounting to $201,372,591. Loans have been made on favourable terms to the extent of $24,027,800, and grants of public lands have been made amounting in all to 52,064.650 acres. Allowing $100,000,000 as the value of the land and neglecting the advantage of government credit we have the sum of $300,000,000, as the total cash value of subsidies in land and money granted by the federal, provincial and municipal governments of Canada, chiefly within the last twenty years.
If the railways of the United States had been as highly subsidized per mile as the Canadian roads have been they would have got $3,500,000,000 from their government, but they got wisdom earlier apparently than we did because they have stopped it almost altogether. The Dominion government has bonused railways in this country to the extent of $9,166 per mile, the provincial governments to the extent of $1,757 per mile, aud the municipalities to the extent of $873 per mile, or a total of $11,796 per mile of railway in this country. It seems to me that is a considerable amount of money to be paid out by the Dominion of Canada. I would like to give the House the opinions of some men who have had some experience 'of railway business in reference to bonuses. Mr. .Tames J. Hill is a well known railway man in the United States whose name is almost a household word in this country as well as in the United States ; in fact, I may say that this is his country because I understand that he was originally a Canadian and I am sorry that we have lost him, because I think he is a pretty good man as he has done a good deal to develop the country in which he now lives and at the same time he has done a good deal for himself. Mr. Hill, in an authorized interview, declared that any railway that needed a subsidy before being built was not needed in the country through which it ran. If Mr. Hill could build a railway and pay his way across the continent without a dollar of bonus I do not see why we should be so free with our money as to give every tu-penny ha'penny railway in the country a bonus of $3,200 a mile no matter whether it parallels another line or not. Sir Thomas Shaughuessy is opposed to granting subsidies to railways. He excuses the Canadian Pacific Railway because It was built at a time when such an undertaking could not hope to pay within twenty years. If a Grand Trunk Railway subsidy is given then, he says, the Canadian Pacific Railway will ask subsidies for its various branches building or to be built. Subsidies are a gift from the people, for a railway

when built cares mot for the wishes of the people. The fact is the people practically rear up the railway which when finished gets away from their care. The principle is wrong. All right to aid in the construction of a railway, but every dollar of aid should be returnable in full if not with interest. The doing away with subsidies would do away with jobbing in railway charters and railway promoting. There would be nothing in the railway but what a business man could get out. A railway would be a business proposition. Railways would then be built where they were needed and not where there would not be sufficient traffic to warrant their building. There may be places where it is desirable for one reason or another to have a railway that could not be run as a successful business proposition. Then the government should build the road itself. That is what they are doing now. They are building the lean end. That is what the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says. I shall now deal with the changes that the government have made in the law respecting railway bonuses since they came into power. Bonuses were very unpopular in the country when they came in and some of their leading men were pledged against the bonusing of railways. They therefore came to the conclusion to put the bonus in anothgf form. I shall quote from 60-61 Vic., chap. 4, of the statutes of 1897, sec. 7 :
Any company receiving a subsidy as aforesaid, in excess of $3,200 per mile, shall be bound to carry Her Majesty's mails for a term of ten years free of charge over the portion of the railways subsidized.
Then they amended this in 1899 by 62-63 Vic., chap. 7, sec. 8 :
Every company receiving a subsidy under this Act, its successors or assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway, or portions of railway subsidized under this Act, shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of its line in respect of which It has received such subsidy, and whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped, for such mail service, and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the minister of the department of the government for which such service is being performed and the company performing it, and in case of disagreement, then at such rates as are approved by the Governor in Council ; and in towards payment for such charges the government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to 3 per cent per annum of subsidy received by the company under this Act.
As nearly as I can make out and X am not quite sure of the year 1901, the last year for which I have the figures as I took the statement from the Year-book for that year, hon. gentlemen opposite have voted in subsidies the following amounts :
1897, subsidies voted by parliament ... $7,671,683
1899	"	"	....	6,957,4871900	"	"	....	3,493,0001901	"	"	....	8,491,966Total amount voted	$26,608,136
The last is from Year-book, 1901.
They have paid out on account of these subsidies the following amounts :
In 1897	$ 480,156 11
"	1898	
2,641,040	77"	1899	
1,253,559	67"	1900	
1,509,119	99"	1901	
2,512,329	00"	1902	
2,093,439	00" 1903 to April 1st	
1,368,480 34Total	$11,853,824 88
I took occasion to ask a question with reference to whether this interest was being paid or not and this qustion was answered on the 3rd of June, 1903. The question was :
1.	On what part or parts of the bonuses or subsidies, voted in 1896 and up to 1st of May, 1903. was interest payable ?. How much of each of the said bonuses or subsidies, on which interest is payable, has been paid ; and what are the details with reference to each railway ?
2.	What is the amount of interest paid in each of these years by each of the said railways on the bonuses or subsidies they have received ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The answer to both questions is that no interest has been paid on these accounts.
The point is this :	If we pass Acts of
parliament and the government perfectly ignore them and do not enforce the conditions on which money is paid out, how are we going to remedy such a condition. There is only one way, to educate the people up to see that these people are not to be trusted and to put them out. I say that when public men are elected to represent the people when they fail to carry out their pledges they should be dealt with just as you deal with a man with whom you are doing business. When he does not do as he agreed to do, quit dealing with them, and if you have suffered damages you can collect them from him. Now, Sir, I asked another question on this point or nearly the same point. I wanted to know if mail matter had been carried free by these roads and this question was answered on the 9tli of July, 1903, by the Postmaster General and I do not think his answer is much. I think it was one of these off-hand answers which he gave without even asking his department about the matter. The answer is :


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: It is not the case that any railways that have received aid from the government, under legislation passed since 1896, have not complied with all the conditions attaching to such aids, but they have rendered the services required to be rendered under the terms of any [DOT] aids granted to them.

Now, I would like to know, Mi'. Speaker, liow anybody is going to reconcile these two answers ? One said that no interest has been paid, although that was the condition on which they got the money. The Postmaster General on the other hand says they have fulfilled all the conditions. Now, they cannot both be right, and I prefer taking the answer of the Minister of Railways and Canals for the reason that he brought an answer from his department and gave it to the House and he did not give an off-hand answer ns did the Postmaster General.
Now, it has been said by some people that we cannot build railways in this country unless we give a bonus, that people will not build without aid. A question was asked by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in the House the other day, and the answer came that we had built 150 miles, nearly 151 miles of railway in this country without bonuses. Let me tell the House that the Canadian Pacific Railway alone has built 1,100 miles of railway without bonuses in this country. Now, Sir, that is a statement which knowing, as I do, that it is a fact coming from an authoritative source, I think ought to be a pointer for the government that the time has come when railways will be built whether they are bonused or not, and I certainly think the government ought to quit giving bonuses. With reference to the loan that was made to tlie Grand Trunk Railway, the hon. gentleman who preceded me this morning seemed to make light of it. He looked on it simply as $25,000,000 that had been loaned by the government long ago which did not amount to anything. Now, Sir, I have here a statement which as been read in the House but I think it is worth reading again as it is a thing that people should know. It is the statement of the Grand Trunk Railway debenture and interest account:
Taking the amount of the debenture account and interest account, which were $15,142,633 and $10,457,458 respectively on July 1, 1867, making in all $25,600,091, as principal on that date, and taking the average interest paid by the government as five per cent from that time until 1877. four and a half per cent for the ten years. 1877 to 18S7, four per cent from 1887 to 1897 and three and a half per cent from 1897 to 1903, and compounding the interest each halfyear (as the government has to pay for Its money), the principal and Interest would now amount to about $118,000,000.
I have got a method to suggest to the government by which they might get this money. 1 think if they can only get the Grand Trunk Railway to build this other road and build it on account we would be all right. I make that suggestion and although there is only one member of the government in the House at the present moment, I trust he will make a note of it and perhaps lie will speak to the Prime Minister and they may make a deal with the Grand Trunk Railway to build that railway on account. And we would he glad to have it done if they do it in that way.
Mr, WILSON.
I have been very anxious to know what tlie farmers in my section of the country thought of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme since it has been introduced into this House. We have in our riding a farmers' association which is composed of men of both sides of politics and they are watching carefully what this government is doing. When I was home I sent word to the secretary of that association that I would like to see him and have a talk with him and gave him a copy of the Bill. I did not see him, but my son saw him and gave him a copy of the Bill, and he wrote me his opinion with reference to it and I think his opinion is worth putting on ' Hansard.' This, Sir, is from a gentleman who hitherto has been a Liberal. The president of this association has heretofore been a Conservative so you see they are a mixed lot and they are anxious that the business of this country shall be done in a straightforward manner. It is as follows :	[DOT]
Napanee, August 17, 1903.
Dear Sir,-I found it impossible to meet you on Saturday night till a rather late hour, and as your son, Mr. U. M. Wilson had explained matters to me, I decided not to disturb you so late in the evening.
As to the matter in Question, that of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, I shall in a general way give my objections to the Bill. At the outset, I do not think it has been conclusively proven that a great necessity for the building of such a road exists. Were such the ease, the profits from the carrying trade of the road would amply recoup the promoters of the scheme without looking to the government for aid.
And if a new transcontinental road were needed, and a private company like the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not undertake the construction of a road unless aided by the people, then I would say let the government build the road, but let it remaii the property of the state and be operated for the benefit of the whole people of the state, not be turned over to a railway company such as the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other railway company for their sole benefit. But there should be no doubt of the existing necessity for a railway before undertaking the construction.
Iu the light of past experience the evils of bonusing railways are in evidence, and I think we have a striking object lesson of the loss to the country from the guaranteeing of the bonds of a railway company in the case of the Grand Trunk Railway. The reasons given for the building of a new transcontinental road are founded largely on sentiment. There would be ample outlet for the produce of the northern country by extending branches north from either the Canadian Pacific, the Northern Pacific or the Canada Northern.
The railway requirements in Quebec and the maritime provinces can be amply met by the railroads now existing or by short lines from time to time as the necessity for them arises. The building of a shorter paralleling line to the Intercolonial will mean a large addition to the public debt and an unnecessary addition. Then too the leasing of the road to the Grand Trunk Pacific will rob the people of any possible gain which might obtain from the building of the road at least for fifty years. Of course it may

please national pride to regard Quebec as a connecting railway centre. Then again the guaranteeing of the bonds of the western division is not in the public interest, and is in marked contrast to the terms on which the Northern Pacific secured a charter from the Rob-lin government for the building of branch roads in Manitoba.
I have not attempted to criticise the Bill in detail. That it would require some time and a. thorough study of all the clauses of the Bill, not a cursory examination such as I have been able to give it. Besides I do not feel that I have the qualifications which would enable me to deal exhaustively with it. And of course you are asking for a criticism of the principles underlying the Bill.
I believe the views I have given regarding aid to railways are largely held by the people here of both parties and the position you have taken on this railway question should stand to your credit.
Yours very truly,



W. R. LOTT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Uriah Wilson, M.P.
This gentleman is the secretary of the farmers' association in my riding. This association passed the following petition to the House of Commons :
To the honourable the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada in parliament assembled.
The Lennox Farmer's Association are of opinion and hereby unanimously resolve, that the time has come to discontinue the practice of subsidizing railways by grants of public lands or public money.
The great prosperity which the railways of Canada are now enjoying warrants this association in protesting against further aid being given them by the parliament of Canada.
And your petitioners respectfully ask that your honourable body grant no subsidy to any railway at the forthcoming session of parliament.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
Signed on behalf of the Lennox Farmer's Association.
R. M. BRISCO,	W. R. LOTT,
President.	Secretary.
I have still a later resolution passed by the same association on June 20, 1903, as follows
The Lennox Farmers' Association, at a meeting held to-day passed a resolution re government aid to railways, to the following effect, viz.:-
That the association is strongly of the opinion that the further granting of aid by the Dominion government towards the construction ' of railways by companies or individuals, whether the aid be a land grant or money, is not in the public interest, and should be discontinued, and futhermore, we as an association protest against government guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway bonds.
Notv, Mr. Speaker, I am about through. But I wish to call the attention of the House to this one fact. We had last night standing before us the lion, member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), who is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and who is strongly opposed to bonusing or giving public aid to railways. The
Canadian Pacific Railway Company has already built 1,100 miles of railway without any public aid, and I have read to you an extract from an interview with the president of that company, in which he says that the time for granting bonuses to railways lias come to an end, and X believe that is the general opinion of the people. of this country.
* Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas). Mr. Speaker, as the government and their friends have already got out of steam on the new railway policy, it falls to my lot to say something without being obliged to reply to the previous speaker. I suppose that as the difficulty of getting coal into the country through which the new railway is to run will be so great, and as it will be necessary to have coal at every 100 miles along that line, it is no wonder that they have got out of steam. That factor in the requirements of the new railway is worthy of serious consideration at the hands of the government. X do not appear here as the apologist for the Conservative party in regard to their policy of opening up the country, which has made Canada what it is, against the oposition of hon. gentlemen opposite. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends was such that it became necessary for the Conservative party, in the interest of the country, to build that road, as the ancient city was built, with the sword in one hand and the trowel in the other. That will never be the condition of things in this country while the Conservative party may happen for the time being to be in opposition. They will stand, as they have always stood, on the patriotic side. But that cannot be said of hon. gentlemen opposite. If they were in our places to-day, they would pursue the same unpatriotic course they have pursued in the past.
I want to make reference to the speech of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), who eulogized to the skies the memory of the late Sir John Macdonald. I, for one, would rather have men put a few blossoms in my way while I am alive. It ill becomes men who laid in Sir John Macdonald's way nothing but thorns and briars and brambles during his life, to come after he is dead with their arms full of wreaths of flowers to lay on his grave. It ill becomes them now to justify that great man and his policy, which they are trying ! to emulate; for they will be as Lilliputians compared with Gulliver when they get through.
The hon. Minister of Finance was good enough to say the other night that his party, in the folly- of their youth, had opposed this great scheme, but that, in the light of the experience of twenty years, they had found out their mistake. But is there any analogy between the two questions V What
[Stage Direction]
was the condition which called for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Fpon the building of that transcontinental road the integrity of this country depended. It was a question whether or not British Columbia should become a province of this Dominion, and hon. gentlemen opposite were prepared to follow their leader when he said : Let British Columbia go rather than build the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Minister of Finance has told us that was the time of their youthful folly, that! they were all children, but I doubt whether hon. gentlemen opposite have yet outgrown the infant stage. I believe they are children yet. What was the conduct of that hon. gentleman at a. more recent date, when he had reached more mature years, and one might suppose that he had acquired some common sense ? It was said by a prominent man in England that it was no crime to be young, as that was a fault that could be outlived, but that it was a crime not to learn by experience. We might say of hon. gentlemen opposite that experience does not appear to have taught them anything. They are apparently as immature as they were years ago, and are continually making mistakes to-day as they did in the past. What did the hon. Minister of Finance do in 1887, when he was no longer in the first flush of youth, but had reached maturity, and was the premier of his province ? When the late Mr. Mercier, premier of Quebec, called together the premiers of all the provinces in the Dominion to consult on federal matters, and the position of the various provinces with regard to the federal authority, where did we find the Minister of Finance ? At that conference, where he was present as premier of Nova Scotia, what was his attitude with reference to the integrity of this Dominion ? I am going to read from the report of the conference to show what his attitude then was. Let me here remark that at that conference the only Conservatives present was Mr. Nor-quay, then premier of Manitoba. Among those present were Sir Oliver Mowat, Hon. G. W. Ross, Hon. A. M. Ross, Hon. C. Fraser, and Hon. A. S. Hardy, from the province of Ontario, and the serious part is this, that whereas one would expect from these men sentiments of loyalty, nationalism and patriotism, sentiments in favour of the integrity of the Dominion, we found .iust the opposite. We find that these men, the leading Liberals from every province of the Dominion, consented to the resolution which I am about to read being placed on the minutes of that conference. And when we find ministers of the Crown to-day proclaiming that they are looking after the great national interests of this Dominion, and taunting the Conservatives with laxity in that regard, it is time we should ask them to take a retrospective view of their conduct in the past. Here is the resolution entered on the minutes, at the Mr. BRODER.
request of the Finance Minister and his colleagues :
The representatives from Nova Scotia present at this conference desired the following minute to be entered upon the record of the proceedings and the conference agreed to the entry being made accordingly ;
In view of recent movements in the province of Nova Scotia, the representatives of that province desire to place on record that they participate in the deliberations of this conference upon the understanding that, while they join the representatives of the sister provinces in seeking reforms in matters which are of common interest, they do so without prejudice to the right of the government, legislature or people of the province of Nova Scotia to take any course that may in the future be by them deemed desirable with a view to the separation of the province from the Dominion.
That was the position then taken by the Finance Minister of Canada, and which was endorsed by the premiers from the other provinces-all Liberals but one. These were the sentiments of the men who preach loyalty in this House of Commons to-day. Who were the representatives of Nova Scotia who took part in that conference ? They were :	W. S. Fielding, Prime Minister ; J. W. Longley, Attorney General ; A. McGillivray, of the executive council. That was the position which these men took in 1887, when they were children. It would be well if they had never been born.
Let me say that there is no analogy whatever between the proposition to build the Canadian Pacific Railway and the one before this House to-day. The great question before this country demanding solution, and which will not be solved after this measure has received the sanction of His Excellency the Governor General, is the question of transportation. Cheaper transportation is what the people require. The transportation rates are a tax on the energy and industry of our people, and you relieve them of so much direct tax when you make the rates cheaper. Is there a man on the opposite side of the House, from the right hon. gentleman who leads it, down to his most humble supporter, who is able to show that in the slightest degree this proposition will lessen the charges of transportation in this country ? Why, the furthest extent to which they have gone is to provide that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall not charge any higher freight rates to St. John or Halifax than to Portland. The Grand Trunk Railway has a line to Portland today equipped with every facility. All the government ask is that the Grand Trunk shall not charge any more to carry freight to our Canadian ports than they do to Portland. That is the utmost they ask, and that does not involve any cheapening of rates. Any scheme which ignores our waterways in connection with railways is not a feasible scheme by which you can give the people cheaper transportation. And the difficulty is that when we impose the large obligation upon the shoulders of the people,

which this contract calls for, we shall not have solved the question of transportation. This road will be simply a colonization road. Nobody made that clearer than the lion, member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and the right hon. gentleman who leads the House had to admit that he 'did not look upon it from a commercial view only, but from a national point of view. In this connection, let me read what the right hon. gentleman said in 1898, on a subject! that affects perhaps the question of transportation and the lessening of rates more than does the one before the House. In 1898, the position which he took on the construction of the Georgian Bay canal was far different from the one he takes now. But hon. gentlemen opposite will support any proposition which their leader may submit to them without the slightest regard for their past record or principles. Replying to Mr. Poupore, who introduced that resolution with reference to the Georgian Bay canal, the right hon. gentleman said that the government were simply asked to endorse the bonds of the company and would not be called on to disburse any money until the canal was in operation. And he added :
My answer is this, and I submit that in this the government will have the support of both sides of the House ; the government should not give either its sanction or approval to any scheme unless it is satisfied in advance that the scheme will be a commercial success.
They only have the support of one side. The other side is against them on principle. He said further :
The government should not give even its sanction or approval to any scheme, unless it is satisfied in advance that the scheme shall be a commercial success.
Apply that to the present proposition, and where are you ? What about your commercial success in this case ? Why, isn't it perfectly clear that opportunism, and not principle, guides hon. gentlemen opposite ? There is no talk of commercial success now. All we hear of now is colonization, and sending people into that northern country. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) opened up a fine prospect through his speech to the men of his race. He would send Englishmen, Irishmen. Scotchmen and Germans to the North-west country, where they could get rich in five years, but he wants to send the Frenchmen up to the woods, where they will be poor all their lives. He wants to send the Frenchmen up to that country timbered with spruce, tamarac, jack-pine, poplar and white birch. I do not decry my country ; I am too good a patriot for that. But the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance stigmatized that region as a poor country for agriculture, when they told us, as they did, that this was the kind of timber growing there. When they said that, every sensible man who knows anything about soil, knew that there was a poor soil there. And when the hon. member for
Bonaventure spoke of sending the Frenchmen up there, I thought his own countrymen might well pray : ' Deliver us from our friends.' And the Minister of Finance, when he told us what timber grew there
Mr. TAYLOR.: He didn't know the difference.


Mr. BRODER.: If these gentlemen do not know the difference between pine and basswood, they should not talk about these things. They stigmatize that country as the possessor of inferior soil. That is on ' Hansard,' and there it will remain. Now, while X am on this subject, I would just like to point out one or two things to show what the building of this road actually means. It means that if a man gets on a train at Winnipeg to come through by that road, he sees no further sign of civilization until he reaches the city of Quebec. Suppose he wants a bag of flour, suppose he wants a pair of boots, suppose he wants to see his clergyman; why, he must go through the 1,800 miles to the city of Quebec. That is a glorious position to put the poor Frenchmen in in that country. Why, the only proper colonization system for us is to run railways from the main lines out to the north country as fast as settlement requires, so that the people may have the nearest possible way to the centres of our country throughout its whole length and breadth. If you carry out this policy, you will do something in the interests of civilization. The Liberals had a policy on that matter. I would like to read to you what they told the country in 189G. Of course, if there is anything they do not want to see it is their own tracts.


Mr. SPROULE.: They are not like the Indian who was lost.


Andrew Broder: I have here the campaign book issued by the Liberals in 1896. That ought to be good literature.


Robert Holmes: Fine.


Andrew Broder: Then, why don't you live up to it ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) has not lived up to it an hour since it was sent out. The Prime Minister has not lived up to it for ten minutes since he came into power, nor has any follower he has got. This book was sent out with a request to the reader to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest. It was for campaigners, speakers, candidates, and so on. It was not for the ordinary readers-too profound for them- but only for the intelligent and brainy men who are to instruct the people. The common man was not to interpret this for himself. On page 43 I find this :
The Liberal party have always favoured dense and continuous settlements.
What about this road, removed hundreds of miles away from present settlements ?
They have opposed the adoption of a policy which is annually spreading the population over

distant districts and sections ot country which necessitates further railway construction, further land grants for that purpose, enhanced prices of land to the settler, without affording to the existing railway lines that amount of travel and of traffic, which will enable companies to pay the expenses of operation and management, without excessive burdens upon the people who may reside in the country through which they run.
That is fine, is it not ? But where are these lion, gentlemen now ?


Mr. BELL.: In the bush.	.


Andrew Broder: Yes ; and the jack-pines ain't high enough to hide them. What are the people going to do up in that country through which you are to run this road ? I have read your principles in 1896. Of course, I do not expect you to have them now. But there was strong reason why these gentlemen should attempt to do something before they met the country. When they look over their political nursery they find not a single child that belongs to them- every one of them adopted. They do not want to go to the country without some offspring of their own, and so they have brought this measure before tlie House. And who is the godfather of it ? The Grand Trunk. But the Grand Trunk will only become responsible for the head, while the rest has to be fathered by the government. But the bon. gentlemen are hound to go down to history as having done something during their seven years of office. Now, this road does not mean successful settlement if it 4s a colonization road, for the simple reason that you leave the people too far from the centres of the country, and the rates on this road will be too high. Why do I say that ? Any railway that ignores the necessity of passenger traffic to help in securing lower rates on freight ignores a principle that should form the very basis of its calculations. Do you suppose that a man leaving Winnipeg coming east will want to come down through that conn-try where he will see not a single town or village ? No ; he will want to come down through the settled parts of the country. As to passenger traffic, this road cannot successfully compete, and wanting passenger traffic, its freight rates on the products of the country must be high. Another point is that this road will not be built in a day. The right bon. Premier says there is no time to lose. But he will have to wait seven or eight years before he gets the road. And, before lie gets it, the easily built western portion will have been finished and put in operation. And the peculiar idea of [DOT] this idea is that the Grand Trunk people do not take that road over until it is completed. So the government will have the expense and trouble of taking care of end running it until the whole road is built. In the meantime the Grand Trunk Pacific built in the western part of the country west of Winnipeg, will have large quantities of grain brought down to Winnipeg Mr. BRODER.
and will be obliged to find an outlet for that grain. Wliat are they going to do with it ? Are they going to send it down over the Canadian Pacific Railway ? No. Are they going to send it down over the Mackenzie & Mann system ? No, they will see that it finds its way to Chicago. That is what they will do, they will see that it finds its way to Chicago, their business connections are there now, and they will continue there for some years, while you are trying to build this difficult part of the road which they are really not obliged to accept after it is built. What will happen then ? The large dealers in Chicago, the grain kings, will go into that western country and build their elevators and buy your grain, and when you get your road built these gentlemen will be the routers of your grain and not the railways, and they will send your grain by the Chicago routes Why ? Because the route from Chicago to New York is the cheapest freight route in the world. I do not ask you to accept my word for it. I will give you the reason why it is the cheapest freight route in the world. I will read from a book publish-el very recently entitled ' The Canal System of England,' but it has some reference to the American canals and to this particular route :
The following extract on the subject is from an address by Mr. E. R. Johnson, instructor In political and social science, Haverford College, U.S.A.
The cheapest freight rates by rail to be found in the world are those for grain between Chicago and New York. And why ? Because the cheapest inland water transportation rates in the world are between the same points.
That is the crucical question :
The following table showing the wheat rates per bushel from Chicago to New York for the years 1868, 1870, 1880 and 1881 by water, by water and rail combined, and by rail, indicates very plainly how freight rates have fallen, and how this movement has been led by the waterways.
By Lake and By Lake and By
Canal.	Railway.	Rail.Cents.	Cents.	Cents.1868	
22'79	29'0	42'61870	
17-10	22 0	33-31880	
12-27	15-7	19'91891	
5-96	8-53	15'0
Still nearly 10 cents difference. Now, Sir, the bon. gentlemen opposite, in their scheme, ignore altogether the importance of any water route in connection with their proposed de-delopment scheme by rail. The cheapest grain route in tlie world is where they have water and rail connected, the water portion commencing the route. Now, 200,000,000 bushels of grain come to Buffalo alone. Do hon. gentlemen say that this proposed road will take one bushel of that grain away from Buffalo ? It will not come by your road. There is another factor which they overlook altogether. Any man who has any experience in shipping grain or

products of any kind to tire old country, or to any foreign country, knows that a great factor in the freight rate and consequently the route, lies at the very door of ocean freight. The port that will give you the best ocean freight connected with the through route is generally the port that gets the business. That is lost sight of altogether by hon. gentlemen opposite. Not a word of that, they ignore the very difficulty that will determine to a large extent the route which the grain will take, supposing it goes over that road, and they cannot get away from it.
There is another matter I shall refer to as I notice that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) has just come in. He talked very wisely about this Bill. He said he was glad that jt was written so plain that anybody could understand it ; in fact he could shut his eyes and read it. Now, Sir, the Minister of Justice is not so wise as the hon. gentleman, because the Minister of Justice had to admit that he had to call no less than three lawyers to find out what the clause meant. Sir, I want to say this, that it is a humiliation, not only to the government, but to this House, that the Minister of Justice, who ought to be the last resort as to the meaning of this Bill in a legal sense, had to send out and bring in lawyers to help him find out what it meant, a contract that he is supposed to hare drawn up himself. That is the position of things. Well, the Minister of Justice made a mistake when he sent for these three lawyers to consult ns to the meaning of this contract, he made a mistake in not sending for the hon. member for Brant.
I am not going to say that the Grand Trunk do not deserve well of this country. The Grand Trunk has been the pioneer road in Canada, and deserves well at the hands of this country. It has served the people well under difficult circumstances ; but we have a perfect right, when we are dealing with an individual or with a concern, to inquire into the character of their business, to ascertain what their policy has been in reference to matters which concern the people of this country. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have been very slow in extending their line. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson), have built, within the last twenty years, 1,100 miles of road, including four important bridges, at an outlay of $35,000,000, without one dollar of aid from the government of this country. Now I want to refer to their mileage. They have a very recent history, they are not an old road. Their main line was 2.905 miles long from Vancouver to Montreal ; but since their inception as a road their total mileage has increased to S.fMOJ. Well, what about the Grand Trunk ? The Grand Trunk Company have increased their mileage very slowly in this country, and I want to point out that the policy of the Grand Trunk that has prevailed in the past in this respect is very likely to continue in the future. No one who looks into that agreement but must see that the fact of their getting $25,000,000 of stock will give them a control to that extent that nobody else will have the right to interfere with. The old Grand Trunk will still be the dominant Influence in reference to the now :oad, and if they are still the dominant influence in the policy of the new road, there will be nothing like the branch lines reaching out into new sections such as the Canadian Pacific Railway system has constructed, notwithstanding the efforts of hon. gentlemen opposite to put obstacles in their way. This is a very important matter for us to consider. What is the condition of things ? Why, go back to the 80's, and see what the Grand Trunk were doing ? When there was a charter granted for a road called the Ontario and Quebec Railway, upon which there were grants by governments and municipalities of no less than $1,000,000, what did the Grand Trunk do ? They bought that charter, if I remember correctly, at a cost of some $34,000, notwithstanding that tnere were $1,000,000 attached to that charter by way of bonuses and grants which they allowed to lapse. What for ? For the pur pose of hindering the Canadian Pacific Rail way getting from Toronto to Smith's Falls. When you travel over the Canadian Pacific Railway in the neighbourhood of Perth you will notice a road graded, but which never went any further, that is the road I refer to.
Who was the man who helped to do that mischief ? Senator Cox was the man who came in to buy up that road and kill the interests of the locality between Smith's Falls and Toronto. The Canadian Pacific Railway built the road at their own expense notwithstanding the fact that the Grand Trunk tried to block the undertaking. We have a perfect right to consider these things and to consider how far the influence of Senator Cox may permeate this new proposition. We find from their report of 1884, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company owned 1,5301 miles, that they part owned and had under lease 53Sf miles and that they had under lease 843 miles of road. In 1892 they only owned 2,981 miles, and I want to draw the attention of the House and of the country to the fact that the largest outlay in improvements and extensions lias been made not in Canada but in the United States. Their enormous outlay has been made in American territory in making extensions in order to carry out their business. Does anybody pretend to say that with that great outlay the proposition that the government are now making is going to remedy all the difficulties that exist in this country in reference to railway rates and railway busi-

ness 7 The Grand Trunk Railway have gone very slowly in the matter of railway extension in this country and now the government are building a road and giving it to them. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) was good enough to say, that we ought to be thankful to be able to unload this scheme on the Grand Trunk Railway which means that if this turns out to be a bad bargain it is ours because we stand behind it. If the horse is lame we must keep it; that is what it means. After we do unload it it will come back to us, if it is no good to the Grand' Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The guarantee that the government proposes to give to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company by this measure carries with it an obligation which the government cannot say does not amount to anything. Why do you give them a guarantee if this road is any good 7 Are you not giving them a guarantee in order that they may finance the undertaking and because of the possibility that they may not be able to meet their obligations 7 It is because of that contingency that the government steps in and gives them a guarantee. I want to call the attention of the House to the form of guarantee which has been given by the French government to the railways in France. They have changed their system in France because of political changes and of the financial difficulties of 1881. They have about six companies which control the l'ailways of France ail converging at Paris and each company is allowed a certain territory in the country. The policy of the government has been to guarantee the earnings of these roads and not the interest on the bonds which means virtually that the roads will always be in a position to pay their obligations as far as interest is concerned. There is only one road and that is the Northern road running through a portion of France that represents fifty-three per cent of the population that has not called upon the government to carry out the guarantee. What does any sensible man thiuk of this proposed road running through a country where there are no people 7 Does any sensible man mean to say that tills obligation assumed by the government does not mean anything 7 To show how little idea the government and their friends have as to what it means, we have only to refer to the argument used yesterday by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) who compared the interest charged on the road to be built under this proposed scheme with the total cost of the road under the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). He represented that the cost of one would be .$13,000,000 and that the other would be $200,000,000. If the hon. gentleman would figure out the total outlay involved in the scheme proposed by his friends he would be surprised at the result to which his arithmetic would lead him. No reason-Mr. BRODER.
able man can claim that you can go through tlie province of New Brunswick and construct a suitable road ten or fifteen miles north of the present railway where there is a difference between the valleys and the tops of the ridges of from 1,000 to 1,200 feet. If you are going to give cheaper freight rates you will have to construct a road that will cost $75,000 per mile. Then, hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the water-powers on the height of land. Even the right hon. leader of the government and the hon. Minister of Finance talked about the water-powers away up on the height of land. Who ever heard of water-powers where the rivers start upon their courses 7 What rubbish to give the country ? Water-powers away up the height of land where the rivers take their rise. Water-powers 7 You cau go out from t-lie city of Ottawa only a few miles and find enormous water-powers undeveloped. Why do not hon. gentlemen give their attention to the water-powers nearer home 7 Right on the Ottawa river thousands upon thousands of horse power are going to waste and nobody is saying anything about them. Yet, these hon. gentlemen are proposing to spend millions of money to reach the water-powers away up in the north country when nobody wants to use them. The only reasonable solution of the question to my mind is to utilize the railways that we have now in existence. We have now no less than seven different roads running from the main lines northward between Lake St. John and Lake Nipissing. These roads have received considerable government aid. Why do not hon. gentlemen opposite a'dopt the policy of extending these roads into the northern country and encouraging people from the present settlements to go up into that country 7 Bring them nearer the source of supply and let them procure their supplies and send out their products in this way instead of running a road 1,800 miles from Winnipeg to Moncton. That is a great scheme. It is a great national scheme and no great nation would ever touch It. The great national scheme ought to be the solution of the transportation question in the interests of the people of this country. Then, there was a bugaboo raised about the bonding privilege. The right hon. leader of the government based his whole argument upon the fact that the bonding privilege might be taken away. Let anybody go and look up the interstate commerce report and find what they say about that matter. Then we have in the other House a gentleman who has but lately been elevated from this House to the other by the right hon. gentleman. He is talking about war with the United States. He says that the United States want to go to war, that they are getting ready for it. It occurred to me that if the hon. gentleman is serious, and the government, of course, endorse him as one of their supporters, we ought to get a minister of war instead of a

Minister of Militia. The lion. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) is too peaceful and kindhearted a man for that. He will never be able, to till that place properly during this terrible war that is coming on us from the United States An hon. Senator talking in the other House only yesterday about the United States going to war insisted on the building of this road. The need for this road is that the United States is going to war. What are you going to do with that road in war time ? Are you going to send your troops out there to meet the United States ? The probability is that the hon. gentleman wanted to take to the woods if there should be trouble and wanted that road to get there. Most of the hon. gentlemen opposite would do so after all the loyalty we have heard about. Such nonsense to be talked by serious men ; war, taking away the bonding privileges ! Does not any reasonable man know that there is no one as much interested in the bonding privileges as the United States. New England particularly, and the railways of the United States also are more interested twice over than Canada. If we look at that aspect of the question the only true solution of our position is to run lines north and and give back to the front settlements that now exist. The only possible way-and I am speaking of peaceful avocation, I am not speaking of war-the only successful way to compete with the influence of American commerce is to give more breadth to the present country; is to give feed to the centres that now exist from the north country in the rear and you can only do that by running railways into that northern country and opening up settlement. Hon. gentlemen propose to run a road from Moncton away to the north of the height of land to Winnipeg and in that way they will create a north and south in this country. Any serious candid man will see the reasonableness of that proposition as opposed to the one the government propose. Are the lumbermen and the men who are interested in the timber of this country anxious to see a road run up there long before the timber that is there will be taken out and utilized ? There are millions of cords of wood between this and where you are proposing to go. It would do this country and the pulp business a great deal more good if hon. gentlemen would have the courage to put an export duty on pulp wood. An export duty on pulp wood would do more to develop that industry than three railways such as hon. gentlemen propose to build and yet, Sir, with one stroke of the pen the Finance Minister could bring that about, but he has not the courage to do it, nor has the government the courage to back him up. One stroke of the pen would do more to develop the pulp business of Canada than this railway will do. Put an export duty on pulp wood and what do you find ? Paper
mill after paper mill brought over into this country from the United States. Why ? Because Canada owns nearly all the pulp wood on this continent. Travelling through the country you will find agents of American large manufacturers of pulp wood machinery going into this country and building mills for Canadian people. One of these gentlemen said to me the other day, a man who has been in London putting in machinery for the Lloyds and men of that class, that if Canada put an export duty on pulp wood the American mills would move over to Canada. They could not do anything else. Why do not hon. gentlemen do something of that kind. They could save their $300,000,000 with one stroke of the pen and do Canada more good than all their proposition will do. But they dare not do that; they could not do that; that would be businesslike.
Before I sit down, I want to say that the government are obligating the country to an enormous outlay and are not solving the question. You would think to hear these gentlemen talk that there was no road now across this country. No way of getting down to a Canadian port. That is the only inference that can be drawn from what they say, that there is no outlet and there is no grain brought over a Canadian route. Who can say the traffic they talk about will go over the road they propose to build after it is built, and there is this to be said further that the western people must get to, the lakes, that is the important factor to them. Once they get to the lakes, competition will take care of the grain and we have the best waterway on the continent. Yet, Sir, hon. gentlemen do not realize the importance of making it any part of the grain route and the traffic route of this country. They are married to this scheme. They think that they will never have a name if they do not build this road. It is a question if they will ever have it, after they get through with it, but. I want to say this that they will realize before they are through that the difficulties in carrying out a proposition of this kind have not been provided for in the agreement submitted to the House. Who is going to run the road when you get it built ? Who is going to run the part you complete before the eastern section is completed ? The Grand Trunk Railway are not obliged to take it until it is all built, and I do not know if there is anything that will oblige them to take it then unless they think it is a paying scheme. The Grand Trunk Railway do not become responsible for the eastern end of the road and that is the important part to find responsibility for. The government are taking all the responsibility in reference to that and are giving the paying part, the part that will be able to take care of itself, up through the Peace River district one of the most fertile in this country, to the company.

Referring to what the leader of the government has said in reference to the wheat section of the country, it will he remembered that he traced the develpoment of wheat growing in this country, first on the St. Lawrence then in the Genessee valley, then Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and Dakota and now it has gone over from Dakota into Manitoba. Who ever dreamed of raising more grain than the United States? Who ever dreamed of raising more than the Americans ? He said it has left Minnesota and Dakota and gone to Manitoba and the reason for building this road is that the centre of wheat growing will leave Manitoba and go to the Peace river. What will Manitoba think of the fertility of her soil being exhausted in two or three years ? Surely the right hon. gentleman did not talk seriously. Yet that is what he said, it appears in ' Hansard,' and the wheat growing section of the country has moved over into Manitoba and it is surely going to move into the Peace river district ; hence the necessity of the road. Well, Manitoba will be raising wheat I think long after that road is built and her fertile soil will be still growing wheat when many changes will have come to pa^s in this country.
We cannot, for a moment, consider the condition of things in the west without Seeing the necessity of giving them an outlet to the lakes and then using the water-ways to the markets of the world. The ocean freight will largely control the route of the grain and that is what the government has not provided for, and I think that if they are going to make this scheme a success that is something that ought to be considered in the undertaking. There ought to be some obligation in reference to that. But I wish to show that the true solution of this question will not be accomplished at all even if this road is built. It will not lessen the shipping of grain by American ports one solitary cent, because it is only stipulated in that agreement that they will not charge more than somebody else charges. What does that give ? It gives to the company which carries the grain the alternative of going to the other place. We do not charge any more for going to Halifax than they charge for going to Portland- you can go to Portland. I do not see that any other construction can be put upon it. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) understood all about the contract last night, but that is something which I am afraid he has not looked into. The Minister of Justice will have to bring in a few more outside legal gentlemen to see what it means. He has already had to do it. It is evident that the Minister of Justice, in dealing with the question the other night, did not feel at home. It is easy to see that he did not get all he wanted in the agreement, and he did not like to talk about it. for fear he would make a mistake. I do not believe there is


Andrew Broder: one in the cabinet who got what he wanted. They got what the Grand Trunk would give them, that is all. G. M. Hays, as general manager of the Grand Trunk, just gave them what he thought the Grand Trunk could best get along with ; and now they are obliged to try to justify it. That is the position they are in, and they cannot get away from it. The Grand Trunk people would not touch the eastern division ; they would not sign any guarantee for it. They would only guarantee the part that was sure to pay. They have not a particle of responsibility for the eastern section. The government are going to build that, and hand it over to them, and maintain it for fifty years. Nobody knows what it will cost. The road will have to be run or go to the bad, and the government will have to face that responsibility. There is nothing to oblige the Grand Trunk Pacific to run that road, if I understand the agreement. Then, who is to run it V It is your road ; it is your capital that is put into it; all they agree to give you is a certain interest. Suppose they refuse to touch it, what recourse have you ? You can take what belongs to you; that is all the security you have got. It is like a man giving a mortgage on his own farm, and thinking he has made a splendid bargain. The Grand Trunk have a controlling interest in the stock, and will dictate to the Grand Trunk Pacific what they must do about this, that, and the other ; and you cannot help yourself. That is why they do not touch the eastern division. They feel safe with the western division, because it is going through a country that will develop rapidly, and will yield large receipts both for freight and passenger traffic. But that does not apply to the eastern division, which is going through a country where there is nothing but trees and lakes. Where is your traffic to come from ? The only traffic you can get is from the far west. But it is said that we will bring down a lot of timber by rail. The history of the past does not prove that you will bring the timber down by rail. You will bring it down the rivers, if you bring it down successfully and at the lowest cost. Then, where is your railway business to come from ? Logs are floated down the Ottawa river for hundreds of miles, and that is the cheapest way to bring them down. You can easily see why the lumbermen will not saw their lumber in the woods and bring it down by railway. They prefer to float the logs down the streams and saw them near the centres of population, where the haulage will be short. Then, this idea of the railway getting a large business from pulp wood is ail in the air. That is not the way the business will be developed. Your passenger traffic is not there, because, as I said before, no sensible man will travel from Winnipeg to Quebec and through Halifax on this road, when he can go on others

which will take him through the centre ot population. Then, your freight rates have to be higher, or your road will not pay.
Now, I have detained the House long enough ; but I wish to say, before I sit down, that I think the government ought to consider, and consider seriously, the question that is at the door of parliament seeking for solution-the question how to reduce freight rates most effectually. You cannot afford to pay fifteen or twenty cents a bushel to carry sixty cent wheat to market. If you want to encourage immigration to the North-west and make the people happy and contented, the way to do it is to give them lower freight rates. If you do not do that, you will have irritation, disaffection and trouble. This road will not do it, and 1 do not believe the government think it will. As the Premier said, it is not a commercial scheme, but a national scheme. The idea of building up a great nation has seized that gentleman, and they are going to run this road through, not in the interest of the country, not in the interest of the settlements now clamouring for relief, but in the interest of people whom they say they are going to send into the new country. The question has occurred to me whether the hon. gentlemen have the idea of bringing in some people from northern Europe, such as Finns and Norwegians, and settling them there. They do not pretend to say that they are going to settle that country with people from Ontario and Quebec ; and if they are going to such an enormous outlay, I suppose they are doing it with the intention of putting some people on the land along the line of the railway. The strongest advertisement that can be put out against this railway as a colonization road is the statement of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), that if you send a man to the North-west, he will get rich in five years, while if you keep him where he is he will be poor ail his life. So that, according to this statement, you are building this road to keep the people poor all their lives. I think the hon. gentleman's compatriots will resent that sort of treatment. We have built a railway into the Lake St. John district, yet it takes a good deal of trouble to keep the people there. They get tired of the place after they have been there a little while, and move out; and I think that the hon. gentlemen who are cognizant of the facts realize that the same difficulty will exist along the line of this railway ; the people will move out, and you cannot hinder them. The Lake St. John country, I understand is a good country. That country is not settled. The Lake St. John Railway has cost money. We have no less than seven roads running northward from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and other lines between Quebec and Lake Nepigon. My idea is that the proper system would be to push out these roads into the new country and let settlement go in from the present settlements northward, instead of running the line ns the government proposes. The question really before the country is the giving of cheaper transportation by means of utilizing our great waterways. We have a great waterway, intended by nature to be a thoroughfare between the east and the west, and, Sir, whatever scheme of transportation or development overlooks our interests in that respect, overlooks the real interests of the people of this country. You cannot solve that question if you ignore that great system of lakes waiting for the legitimate business that ought to cross it. Why can Chicago send grain around Lake Michigan to Buffalo and then carry it to New York, so much cheaper than we can ? We have a better route if we will only take care of it. The government took the tolls off the canals this year, which was good policy. We only got about $43,000 per year from these tolls, and what has been the result of taking them off ? The result has been that down the St. Lawrence this season over 7,000,000 bushels of grain went to Montreal, while less than 2,000,000 went to New York. That shows you how a very little lessening of the cost of traffic will affect the trade. If the government are anxious to lay out a lot of money anl control the outlay of millions of dollars, let them put the money they propose to expend on this road into a twenty-five foot waterway from the Georgian bay. That would not only give an outlet for the grain and other products of our great west, but the products and grain of the southwestern states as well. All the grain of the western country on the American side would come down our route. If you are anxious to lay out millions, there is a proposition which will give you some return for your outlay. I am opposed to the government handing over our waterways to any company. They ought to be held by the government in the interests of the people and developed along the line that would best suit the interests of the people generally. You can best settle this country east and west by making it the best country in the world to live in. But this proposition before the House will not solve the question. Neither the government nor its friends can say it does. What do they do ? They wave the flag. There is nobody in the country more pleased to see them loyal than I am. There never was anything they needed more, judging by their past ? Why, in 1891, they were willing to go right into the arms of the United States. The United States, they said, was the only natural market for this country, and the hon. gentleman who declared war the other day (Mr. Charlton) was the greatest advocate of that policy. But now they are the direst enemies of the United States. What was the reason they gave to the people, why the people should elect them at that time ? Their main rea-



sou was that because the Conservative party were not friendly with the American government, that party could not got anything from the Americans. But inasmuch as the Liberal party were the friends of the United States, they could get all kinds of good things from that country for Canada. Well, they have now been in power seven years and have not got anything. They went to Washington and came back as empty as they went. Consequently today they are declaring war upon that country. In my opinion the best thing we can do is to mind our own affairs and solve what questions come before us for solution with regard solely to Canadian interests. We have questions to solve which require a good deal of patient study, a good deal of research, a good deal of careful looking into before we can reach a proper solution. But these gentlemen rushed into this important undertaking without a moment's consideration or warning and cast it into the arena of public discussion. If there is one thing more than another which this government ought to do, but which they have not the courage to do, it is to appeal to the country on this scheme and get the verdict of the country upon it. They intend instead to send their friends around after the session to feel the pulse of the people, and if they think that pulse beats favourably, they will likely go to the country. But if the pulse does not beat just as they think it should, they will wait a little while longer. But they ought to have the courage of their convictions, and appeal to the country, and let the great tribune of the people decide whether or not this scheme is to the interests of Canada. I do not wish to detain the House further except to say, as a humble member of the Conservative party, I do not intend to take any lecture from the other side as to what kind of loyalty I sho lid have. Just think of hon. gentlemen opposite lecturing this side on the quality of loyalty. I am aware that new converts no always most enthusiastic, and I can ther store quite understand the strong enthusiasm which permeates the ranks of these new converts to the sentiment of loyalty to Canadian interests. But the people will be justified in watching them carefully. They remind me of a man who was cutting down a tree and was not sure of how it was going to fall. He came to me, about 150 rods away, and asked me to go with aim and shew him just which way it would drop.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are waiting to see which way the tree is going to fall. But it is not down yet. I do not propose to be lectured by that side as to my loyalty. We have had on this side to fight for the Canadian interests against hon. gentlemen opposite. We had to fight in the London market, the Grand Trunk Railway influence when we were financing to build the Canadian Pacific Railwmy. We had to fight the


Andrew Broder: influence of hon. gentlemen opposite on the London market as well, when they were decrying Canadian interests and declaring that' the Canadian Pacific Railway would never be a profitable undertaking. We had to fight all these influences before we could push the great Canadian Pacific Railway to completion and make the Dominion what it is to-day. These gentlemen climb on top of the House that Jack built. They think themselves very tall, as they stand there and say :	' Look at the house we have
made.' And if they were not on top of the house that Jack built, nobody would ever see them or know about them. The right lion. Prime Minister wants his name to go down to posterity linked with some great scheme as Sir John Macdonald's was linked with the Canadian Pacific Railway. He hopes that it will be Sir John Macdonald and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Rut the hon. gentleman had better be careful how he carries out his idea. He does not know who is to own this road when it is completed. Who will it belong to, anyway ? The government cannot own it, for the road will cost $100,000,000 or more, and the Finance Minister -says that the only cost to the government will be about '$8,500,000, if I remember well, while the leader of the House says the cost to the government will be $13,000,000. It will hardly be pretended that the government can own the road when it pays so very little, and the Grand Trunk is not very likely to admit their claim. But does any man in Canada consider seriously this statement of the Prime Minister that the cost of this road to the country will be only $13,000,000 ? The right hon. gentleman says that we are only going to pay the interest on the money. But who is to pay for the bonds in fifty years ? If the calculation of the government is right and this road is going to cost the country only $13,000,000, then, there never were in public life men deserving of stronger condemnation. If they have the secret of building roads for one-eiglith of what they are worth, then, there should not be a square mile in Canada to-day which they had not provided with railway accommodation. They are going to get this road according to their story for less than one-eiglith of its cost


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: That is pretty cheap.


Andrew Broder: Very cheap. But if you get the goods at that rate you may be certain they are pretty poor. But nobody supposes tliat the right hon. Prime Minister is serious when he says that the expense to the country will be so small as this. Like myself he likes his little jokes once in a while, and this is one of his jokes. Otherwise, he has not been true to Canada in not using this secret of his to provide railways everywhere. Why, on the basis of the hon.

gentleman's figures our public debt really amounts to very little. Hon. gentlemen opposite went up and down the country for years talking about tbe rascally Tories increasing the public debt. Now we find there is nothing in it. for we only pay the interest on that debt. These hon. gentlemen are going to reduce the debt by $3,000,000, and they make a great deal out of that statement. But three millions, according to their figuring is only a few thousand, so they have nothing to brag about. When I was a boy at school I studied a certain kind of arithmetic. But these hon. gentlemen seem to have a new style. It has no multiplication table in it, and no addition-just subtraction. In the old Irish arithmetic of Foster & Goff that I studied, there was what was called the rule of false. You solved a problem by supposing something which was not so and working from that supposition. It seems to be that is how this road is going to be built. A man who knew the dark corners of Foster & Goff, in my early days was supposed to be able to do anything. It is evident that the government have studied the dark corners of Foster & Goff, and they are going to build this road on the basis of an arithmetic not known to most of us. Still, they are not able to tell us who will own the road when it is all done. I think they will find that the western end, which will pay, will belong to the Grand Trunk, and the eastern end, which will cost something to run, will belong to the government. The Grand Trunk does not touch your eastern end of the road at all-they have no responsibility for it. They know too much about railways for that. The ministers are under the impression that they know all about railways. They went to bed one night knowing nothing of the subject and they woke up next morning first rate railway men. Still, they cannot get Mr. Hays to have anything to do with the eastern end of this line. The right hon. leader will have the eastern end of the road as a monument to the folly of this House and of the government, if he does not look out. It is not going to pay, and I have already quoted what the hon. gentleman said in 1898 to the effect that the government should not touch anything that would not pay in a commercial sense. He does not pretend to say that this will pay, but tells us that it is not altogether a commercial, but a national undertaking. But I will not even give it that credit. It will be left as a national undertaking with the Dominion government simply because no one else would have anything to do with it. But the western section will pay its way right along, and the Grand Trunk will take that end of it.
I have spoken at greater length than I intended. In closing I merely express the hope that the government will consider the larger proposition that has been laid before parliament by the leader of the opposition, 295}
a proposition which will help to solve the question of cheapening freight rates for the people of the country, a thing which cannot be done by the policy of the government.


Mr. THOMAS MACKIE (North Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this question until I heard my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) giving such awful descriptions of the route over which this road is to run. He spoke of mountains two thousand feet high and other obstacles just as great. I think, perhaps I can enlighten the hon. gentleman as to a portion of the route. As to the extreme eastern end, I do not pretend to know anything about that ; but as to the central portion, from Quebec to Winnipeg, I have been over a good deal of that country, and possibly I know a little more about it than almost any other member in this House. Well, I want to tell them that the height of land on this portion of the road is as level as it is on either side, or nearly so. There are no mountains or hills.


Andrew Broder: I did not say that it is not a level country along all the height of land, but that is where you will have to go to get a level country, it is not level outside of that.	.


Thomas Mackie: There is no doubt that when this road leaves Quebec it starts off in a north-westerly direction, and it will not touch the height of land for 300 or 400 miles. I do not see any reason why it should cross the height of land until you get into Ontario, not in Quebec, because the country is as level there on one side as it is on the other. The member for Dundas says that people won't run railroads into that country for fear of setting fire and burning up the pine, and he wants to know if we are going to take pine timber out by railroad. I do not know what corner of the earth the hon. gentleman lives in if he has not seen timber coming down the Ottawa river here for the last thirty years and carried off by rail, millions of feet. I can tell him that there is a great quantity of pine in that country, part of it in Quebec, that we cannot get out in any other way.


Andrew Broder: Did not that timber largely come over the road owned by Mr. Booth, to his own mill ?


Thomas Mackie: No, the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. He will be safe in talking about woollens but not about lumber. Millions of feet of lumber have come down over the Canadian Pacific Railway from a region 200 or 300 miles on the other side of North Bay, and that is brought down and rafted from Ottawa. Now, Sir, we have heard it said that the country through which this road is to run from Winnipeg to Quebec is a worthless country. Well, I am well acquainted with the country on both sides of the height of land, for a length of 500 or 600 miles, and I can tell the hon. gentleman that it is not worth-

less. There is some of the finest pine grown there in the Dominion of Canada, on both sides of the height of land, especially on the south side. There is a large tract of country around Grand Lake Victoria, on the Ottawa river, containing thousands of miles of limits, and which cannot be got out except by railway. We have been trying to get a route by the Gatineau river to strike into that country and get a railroad built there, but we have never succeeded. When this new road goes in there I think it will touch a bay of that lake. The lake is forty or sixty miles long, very large and wide, and it has one bay that runs twenty miles north, right up to the height of land. I think it would pay well to strike that bay with this road, and if it does, there is pine enough in that country to keep that road running for ten years, giving it all it can do. There is as fine board pine there as ever went into the English market, and it must come out by railway. The country is a forest country, there is hardly any burnt land in. it. It is forest from 100 miles of Quebec, I suppose, away into Ontario about 300 miles. I venture to say that when that road is built there will be more sawmills along it than there are on the Ottawa river at the present time. There is tamarack, yellow birch and pine; in fact you will hardly find any part of that country on either side of the height of laud that has not pine, though perhaps not in as large quantities as we used to get out years ago.


Mr. CLANCY.: The report of the Ontario surveyors says there is no white pine to speak of north of the height of land.


Thomas Mackie: The report of the surveyors possibly refers to the Abitibi and Moose river regions, that is the route they all take. But I am talking about the bush, away in the interior where there are canoe routes beyond the lake. I do not think there is any pine in that country the surveyors speak of, but there are other large rivers that start from the height of land, and you do not have to go many miles before you reach large quantities of white pine. Talk about the engineers going into that country to find pine, I think the lumbermen, outside the Indians, know more about it than any other people in the world. I have travelled over that country myself, and I have paid thousands of dollars to explore it. We get reports from our buskmen; we keep bushmen travelling all the year round in that country. I have a report book at home that will show the character of the country north of Ontario and Quebec, showing whether it is level or rough, and the character of the forest. But of course that is private information. That is not to be given to the hon. gentleman. Each lumberman is supplied with a report showing where the best pine is, and on what river it is, but this information is not given out to the public. Hon. gentlemen might get information from some Mr. MACKIE.
lumbermen that would not cost them anything, but they could go there and locate the timber as well as I can. I think the lumbermen know more about the route this road is going to take than most of the engineers. You will hardly find a lumberman in the city of Ottawa that has not a report book dealing with some parts of that country.
We hear it reported that the land is no good, that it won't raise grain or anything else. Now, I have seen as fine potatoes, cabbage and turnips and all such things grown at Lake Abbittibbi as I have seen in any part of Ontario. That is near the boundary line between Quebec and Ontario. The boundary line is at Lake Abbittibbi, about 400 miles from Quebec. I am speaking of the country this side of the line, in Quebec. There are blocks of a thousand acres, or two or three hundred acres-it may be broken a little- of as fine land as there is anywhere within-500 miles of the city of Ottawa. I do not know but that it will raise as good crops, it may be a little far north for wheat. But Manitoba at one time did not raise good wheat, wheat used to get frozen there, but now it does not, and farmers understand better how to regulate their crops. But my intention was only to give a description of a part of this country that this road will run through, and I do not think that there is a better country in Canada for a railroad than a region 500 or 600 miles long that will be traversed. I do not see why there should be any fault found with a road being built there. It is a direct route from Quebec to Winnipeg, and you cannot get a more direct route. The idea of going away around by Toronto, and I suppose by North Bay, to get to Winnipeg-why, the thing is ridiculous. When you have such a country as that you want to open it up, and I think Ontario will get more benefit from this road than any other part of the country. That is a new country, the lumberman has never got back that far because it costs too much to get in supplies. It means taking them in with canoes in summer, and drawing them in winter over miles and miles of snow. Any man who has worked up there don't make much out of the run, because it costs too much to take in his supplies. This pine I speak of on Grand Lake Victoria, is about 200 miles above where any lumber has been cut.


James Clancy: Is that in the district of Nipissing or Algoma ?


Mr. GRANT.: It is in the Lake Abitibi district.


James Clancy: But I mean this Lake Victoria ?


Thomas Mackie: I am not talking about the Nipissing district. I am talking about the route of this proposed railway. The district to which I am referring now is at the head of the Ottawa river. The railway will
9418

have to run parallel with the Ottawa river for about 200 miles until it crosses the boundary between Quebec and Ontario. That portion of the Ottawa river has never been improved and it is not likely that it will be, and the pine in that country will have to come out by rail. The square timber will be made with the axe and the logs will be sawed up there. The lumber will be taken out by rail. Lake Abitibi is near the watershed. It is on the canoe route to Hudson's bay. You cannot get any transportation by steamboat within about 300 miles of it. You have to go in your canoe, and that is the reason why that country is not settled. This railway will open up the region to which I refer. No branch railway can open it up as well as a through line, because the proposed line follows along the boundary and a country in which fine agricultural land is found. There is as good farming land on this side of Lake Abitibi, in the province of Quebec, as there is to be found in any portion of that province, and when you get across the boundary line into the province of Ontario you will find that settlers are located right up to the boundary line. The boundary line follows the Ottawa river until it gets to the head of Lake Tgmiscamingue, when it strikes due north towards James bay. Settlement on the Ontario side extends away northward along the boundary line, and there are some settlers near the height of land now. There are twenty good townships in that region that are filling up very rapidly. This road will go very close to these settlers, and the Tfimiscamingue Railway, which is being constructed by the Ontario government, will go right through the settlement, and the two will likely .loin at some point in that neighbourhood. I do not speak only from my own knowledge, but I base my statement also on the reports which we have received, that there is as fine land in the townships to which I have referred as there is in any part of Ontario. I am also told by the Indians and trappers that the land for 200 or 300 miles beyond is equally as good. This road is going to be a great benefit to the northern portions of Ontario and Quebec. I do not know of any other proposition that would confer as great a benefit upon this portion of the country. The government road running from North Bay will tap the transcontinental line somewhere in this vicinity, and there will be roads running from Port Arthur, from Quebec and other places, which will also connect with it, so that important centres south of the railway will have the benefit of branches connecting with the transcontinental line, which will also be an advantage to the settlements along the route of the road. As to the route below Quebec, I cannot say anything, as I do not know very much about that country. But I can tell the House one thing that surprises me, and it is the con-trat that the government have made with these railway people. I think it is all a
one-sided contract. I do not think there ever was a contract in Canada like it before.


James Clancy: Hear, hear.


Thomas Mackie: It is all in favour of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Mackie: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was shouting before he was out of the bush. I think this scheme will confer a greater boon upon Canada than anything that any government has ever done. I know that some of the strongest supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite in their own counties have told me that if they oppose this road they need not go back for reelection. Of course, we do not expect some hon. gentlemen on the other side from western Ontario and around Toronto to do anything else. They will oppose any road that is not going into Toronto, or at least into Ontario. That is their general policy in this House. I think that some hon. members opposite from the province of Quebec, and especially the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), do not know anything about the north-west portion of their own province. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier does not think that that country has any value at all. I am surprised that an hon. gentleman who occupies the position of a leader; of his party should not know anything about his own province. I do not think he is qualified to represent the province of Quebec.


James Clancy: He may have obtained his information where the hon. gentleman did-from the Indians.


Thomas Mackie: I do not need to go to the Indians or to any white man for any information that I have. I am, I think, well qualified to speak upon this subject. I have travelled through that country with my pack on my back and slept on three feet of snow every night. When you are travelling through that country it is impossible for you to tell when you have arrived at the height of land until you see which way the streams are running. If the streams are running northward, you know you are over the height of land. I do not want any hon. gentleman to tell me that this is not a good country to run a railway through. I never saw a better. Travelling on the Canadian Pacific Railway around the north shore of Lake Superior a man is in danger of his life going around those curves. I never want to go back to the North-west until there is another road built, and I think I will wait for this one, because this road will traverse a level country. Some hon. gentlemen have said that there are no water-powers on this route. There are the greatest water-powers on the Ottawa river not far from the proposed line of this road that I suppose there are any place in Canada. Of course, you cannot find water-powers byond the height

of land unless you go quite a distance from it. I do not see why this road should go beyond the height of land. I think it should be built on this side, because then it will open up a large tract of fine agricultural country- Any man who opposes this scheme who lives in Ontario is not doing Ontario justice, and I will say the same of any man living in the province of Quebec who adopts a similar course. There is no other proposition that can open up the country as advantageously as this. I hope that when the time comes some hon. gentlemen opposite will change their ideas a little. When I was in Quebec the other day I met a strong supporter of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), who asked me about this railway and who expressed the idea, strong Conservative as he is, that the hon. leader of the opposition should not oppose it. Possibly, when the vote comes that hon. gentleman will not be here, because we do not see him about very much. This railway will run through twenty-five or thirty townships of as good farming land as can be found in any part of the older province of Ontario, and it will open it up. I do not know that I have much more to say, except to express the hope that hon. gentlemen will consider the matter well before they rote.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 147) to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
On section 11,
Mr. BARKER.: With regard to clause 11, I notice that the word ' communication,' an unusual word, is used there. Now that is certainly a word that is not common in Canada, and I would suggest that it should read ' or other public communication or place without first obtaining the consent.' That would make it quite clear. I do not know what a communication' is in regard to a street or anything else. It may have a significant meaning. I have no objection to using the words ' street or other public communication ' if the words ' or place ' are added after it. I cannot see any objection to that alteration, and it might happen that a square in the middle of a city or a park, might not be called a communication ; it would be a place, however.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I may say, that this Bill, as everybody knows, was very carefully considered in the Railway Committee for several days, and the amendments that were made to it were mutually agreed on by both parties and it went through the Mr. MACKIE.
committee unanimously, without any discussion, after this agreement. I do not like to see any changes made iu the Bill now, and I think so far as those two words are concerned. ' communication ' or ' place,' they mean identically the same thing. The word ' communication ' means, I suppose, a park, a square, a street, a highway. If you look at the dictionary yon will find that the word ' communication ' in this sense is derived from an old English phrase, and it means a place such as a park, a square, a street, a highway, where people communicate with oue another. I understand the object Mr. Barker has in view, that the city of Hamilton wants to take precautions that this railway shall not have the right to go through a park. Well, I think the word ' communication ' will fairly cover that, so that it cannot possibly do that, and any way there should be no objection to it, because under this clause, you will see that the railway has no right to run along any street or highway in any city or town without the consent of the municipality, and the municipality in giving their consent to run along any street or highway can easily stipulate that it shall not run through any park or any where else they choose. I have not had very much time to consult the promotors of the Bill, and I trust that my hon. friend will not press the alteration.


Samuel Barker: I quite admit all that the hon. gentleman has said. This Bill as it stands to-day was, as I understand, agreed upon at one o'clock in the morning, between the solicitors, but I have a duty to perform to my constituents, and I am not quite clear that notwithstanding the words 'public communication ' this railway company, if they get into the city of Hamilton, may not be able thereafter to run across two public parks in that city, which the citizens regard as so important that rather than have them interfered with they would keep this railway out altogether. I may mention that a short time ago a proposition was made to construct a railway from Galt into Hamilton, and the one point upon which the railway was prevented from going into Hamilton was that they wanted to run through the parks of the city, and get off the street. Now I understand the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell! to argue that ' communication ' does cover in the broadest, sense a public place. All I desire is to make it quite clear that a public place is included. I do not desire to force the question, unnecessarily, but it is an important matter to the citizens of Hamilton, and I submit that when the hon. gentleman says that the word ' communication ' will cover the word ' place ' he cannot have any objection to the words ' or place ' being inserted in the Bill, so that there may be no doubt about it. That is all I contend for, and I do not want to hamper the hon. gentleman now in his Bill in the least. Personally, I am opposed to the Bill from first to

last, but the Bill baying been agreed to I am content to allow it to pass. I want simply to add ' or other public communication or place,' that is public communication or public place. I have no objection to striking out the word ' communication,' but if they desire particularly to have that word in, I want to add the words ' or place,' and I do think the House will see the reasonableness of what I ask for. I would therefore, Mr. Chairman, move, that after the word ' communication ' in the third and sixth lines of clause 11, the words ' or place' be inserted.


Archibald Campbell: I would suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton that as there is no difference of opinion as to what is desired and my contention is simply that the word ' communication ' covers all that is required. If my hon. friend thinks that it does not, I would suggest that you strike out the word ' communication ' and insert the word ' place ' in its stead.


Samuel Barker: I have no objection to that.


Richard Blain: This is a new clause, which was not printed until to-day. I think this is the first time it has come into my hands. The first part of it reads, ' notwithstanding anything contained in the Railway Act.' Why should that not be, ' notwithstanding anything contained in this Act ' V It seems to me that the clause was wide enough to give the company the right to construct their line of railway along the highways under the General Railway Act without the consent of the municipality.


Samuel Barker: I was present in the committee when this alteration was discussed. I think that if the words, ' notwithstanding anything contained in the Railway Act,' were left out, the streets would be protected as against everything in this Bill. These words were inserted because some hon. gentleman in the committee thought that although this Bill might not permit the construction of a railway on the streets, the general Railway Act might do so.


Mr. ERASER.: I think there will be greater security by leaving the words in, otherwise there might be some clause in the Railway Act which, despite the words in the Bill, might allow a railway to come in.


Mr. CLARKE.: The intention was to prevent any possibility of that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended, agreed to.
On the question that the Bill be reported,
Samuel Barker: Before you report the Bill, I desire to say in the House what I said in the Railway Committee upon the subject of this Bill. I consider that this Bill is totally outside the jurisdiction of this
parliament. I have not opposed it in the House, because it was assented to by the parties immediately concerned on both sides. They, in good faith, as between themselves, agreed upon the clauses of the Bill; and although perhaps my objection and my voting against the Bill may be somewhat inconsistent, I desire to repeat here what I said in the committee, that I do not think this parliament has any power to pass this Bill at all. My motive for stating this in the House is this. One of the legal gentlemen who acted for the promoters of this Bill said, when the Bill passed the Railway Committee, that if the municipalities were unreasonable in refusing the permission under clause 11, it might be necessary for them to come back to the committee. In view of that statement of the counsel who was acting for the promoters of the Bill, I desire to say that I protest, and strongly protest, against such measures as this as an infringement upon provincial rights. I think it is wrong, extremely wrong, for this parliament to assume jurisdiction, contrary to the terms of the constitution under which we sit here ; and whenever such a Bill as this comes up,
I will always vote against it, as I would desire to vote against this Bill. I do not know that I need say anything more. I simply make this statement now to protect. myself, and I think to protect other gentlemen, perhaps on both sides of this House, who are opposed to such legislation as this, against the idea going forth that by passing this Bill any precedent is created under which other Bills of a similar character can be brought forward. I think it is necessary to say this, and to say it very emphatically, because all through the discussions of this Bill in the Railway Committee, we were met at every step by statements that similar Bills had already been passed by this House. For my part, I am not going to sit silent here and allow without protest a Bill to pass which may hereafter be brought forward as a precedent to authorize similar legislation in the future. I am very glad to be able to say here that in what I assert I have been endorsed, and very strongly endorsed, by the acting Minister of Railways and Canals, who expresses substantially the same view.


Mr. INGRAM.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why this Bill conflicts with provincial rights. He has not made that very clear.


Samuel Barker: 1 have simply entered my protest. I do not wish to occupy the time of this House in re-discussing a principle which has already been fully discussed. When the measure was up on a previous occasion I went into that question, stating my reasons for believing that this measure does not come within the functions of this House, and I do not think it neces-

sary to occupy the time of the House or ' Hansard ' in repeating what I then said.


Mr. RUSSELL.: There is one observation of the hon. gentleman which I think perhaps he did not mean. I do not suppose the hon. gentleman intended us to understand that he thinks this measure is beyond the power of this House ?


Samuel Barker: I think it is beyond the power of this House, for this reason, that we state in this Bill a fact to give us jurisdiction, which fact I believe is contrary to the opinion of every hon. gentleman in the House.


Benjamin Russell: Does the hon. gentleman mean that any court would hold that this Bill is ultra vires ?


Samuel Barker: No, I believe not, it would be precluded from so holding, by our misstatement of the fact.


Benjamin Russell: That was my only purpose in asking the question ; because the hon. gentleman's statement was beyond what he really intended. On the main question, I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman, that we ought to have that fact proved in a general way to the satisfaction of any committee of this House before we assume jurisdiction over purely local and provincial jnatters. As far as the general principle is concerned, I wish to express my agreement with it.


Samuel Barker: X quite agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). He has stated the legal position, I think accurately. I have no doubt whatever in my mind that if this House chooses to state as a positive fact in a Bill that a work is for the general advanage of Canada, there is no remedy- it follows, from the statement of the fact, solemnly made by the parliament of Canada, that the work is for the general advantage of Canada, that the Bill relating to it comes within our jurisdiction. But what I contend for is this, that when those words are used as a merejpretense, when there is no possible foundation for the state ment, we have no more moral right, sitting in this House, to enact such a measure, than we would have for supporting a Bill to authorize the construction of a village pound because we should choose to state that such a pound was for the general advantage of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I just wish to emphasize what the hon. member for Hamilton has said, by remarking, that there have been a great many measures similar to this passed through the Railway Committee and the House. The abuse, if I may use that expression without giving offence, of the privileges of this House has been carried to such an extent that the municipalities Mr. BARKER.
have had to make a very special and very strong appeal to the sense of justice and fair play of members of this parliament to stop this class of legislation. With the cooperation of hon. gentlemen on both sides, this measure has been shorn of its most objectionable features. As the hon. member for Hamilton has said, a compromise was reached which we are bound to stand by, but I hope that this will be the last Bill of this kind which will ever be presented to a Dominion parliament. This is an invasion undoubtedly of provincial and municipal rights. The intention of the promoters in coming here was to evade the obligations which would have been imposed upon them had they applied to the Ontario legislature.


Mr. FRASER.: While I agree in much that has been said, I would not like to say that a special case could not be made out. The general principle is correct, but I can understand, for example, that in the case of a city which a railway crossed and recrossed, a great continental line, it might be necessary that we should assume jurisdiction in the interest of the travelling public.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sure that my hon. friend, the senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), when he spoke of the practice of passing Bills by this parliament, which were of a provincial character, had no reference to this particular parliament or to any particular session, but to the Dominion parliament, speaking in the broadest sense of the word.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I well remember, as far back as twenty years, when this abuse of the British North America Act began ; and year after year since then, measures have been passed through the Dominion parliament which should have been dealt with by a provincial legislature. This was done by declaring such measures to be for the general advantage iof Canada when they really were not. On many an occasion, in days gone by, X have protested against this practice. I raised the same protest which has been raised in this case by the hon. member for Hamilton and others. It is well that parliament has been brought face to face with the situation resulting from this lax system of legislation. It is well that this measure has been thoroughly discussed in the Railway Committee, as we have thereby arrived at a clear idea as to how similar applications should be treated in the future. I would not venture to lay down a rule, but it seems to me that if I had to determine the policy and practice of the Railway Committee in a question of this kind, I would think it proper, if we are to give a fair interpretation to the British North America Act, that we should, in the first place, assume that every work which

is within tbe confines of a province is prima facie subject to the jurisdiction of that province only, and let the onus rest on those who seek to obtain legislation here to prove that the work is properly the subject of Dominion legislation. Unless they can establish that point clearly, the committee should not proceed to deliver judgment and give a federal charter to a work which it does not possess. This debate will not prove unprofitable if it results in educating members to the consequences of continuing the practice which has so long prevailed. As has been remarked, where are you to stop, if you are to declare, without inquiry or reflection, that any work that may be in existence in any nook or corner, municipality or parish, of this broad Dominion, is a work for the general advantage of Canada, and thus remove it from the jurisdiction of the local legislature, which ought to deal with it. Although this measure may become law, I venture to say that it will be many a year before parliament will be asked to pass legislation of a similar character.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: No doubt whatever that the clause of the British North America Act has been given a scope it was never intended to have. It has been used over and over again, as a matter of course so that a declaration is made more as a matter of form than anything else, and I am inclined to think that probably it will be good policy for this parliament in the future to insist that any measure of this kind, by which it is intended to bring within the jurisdiction of this parliament an undertaking which is prima facie within the scope of provincial jurisdiction, should be either referred to a; select committee of the House, in order that the question of a fact may be absolutely proved, or be submitted to the determination of some judicial authority. There are of course many cases in which parliament itself would be the best judge. The Railway Committee or the Committee on Private Bills possibly might be the best judge. Those promoting the undertaking should be put into the position in which the promoters of private Bills in England are placed. If I understand the practice there, it is practically a judicial inquiry and a judicial determination upon important questions of fact involved in the preamble of the Bill. They are very much more strict than we are in such matters, and so far as this particular question is concerned, it would be very desirable that in the future we should adopt some such principle with regard to measures of this kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is interesting, after the lapse of many years, to see parliament coming back to what was the intention of the framers of the British North America Act. I remember away back in 1879-80-82
and 1883, when the French Canadian members in this House were the only parties who objected to our legislative interference with what are undoubtedly the rights of the provinces. I remember very distinctly men who were regarded as eminent lawyers giving their opinion in the Railway Committee to the effect that although the declaration be made that the work is for the general advantage of Canada, unless the other conditions existed which brought it within the legislative authority of the federal parliament, it would not be hel'd by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be such a work. I have often regretted that these discussions did not take place in the House instead of in committee, as we then would have had a record of the debates. But I remember distinctly Mr. Hector Cameron and Mr. MacMaster, of Montreal, and several other prominent legal authorities, and Sir Hector Langevin as well, frequently expressing the opinion that we could not bring a work within the legislative jurisdiction of the federal parliament by the simple statement that it was for the general advantage of Canada, and that if the question came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it would so decide.
It seems that since that decision has been given which leaves the impression that a declaration in the Bill that the work referred to is for the general advantage of Canada, of itself brings the subject within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament. What I think ought to have been done with a great many of these Bills is to submit the question to the Supreme Court. This is one of the objects for which the Supreme Court was established-to advise parliament on these questions of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion. A case could be stated at any time and submitted to the Supreme Court. We should have at least the advantage of their judgment, and if it was deemed advisable to carry the case further, that could be done. But it seems that we are getting back to where we were twenty years ago, with the added difficulty that this decision has been given which seems to show that the mere declaration, in a Bill, as I have said, brings the subject within the jurisdiction of this parliament. But. because of this very fact, it is all the more necessary that we should surround these measures with safeguards that will secure to the provinces the right of control over provincial corporations. When we deal with Bills relating to works that extend beyond the bounds of one province or with corporations that have rights or interests in more than one province. there may be some justification for our dealing with them. But surely a short electric railway, even though it may cross lines of railway which are within our jurisdiction, can hardly be fairly called a work for the general advantage of Canada

and so removed from provincial to federal jurisdiction.


Samuel Barker: The discussion is very interesting, and I think, very important. I do not go quite so far as to say that Bills of this kind should be referred to the Supreme Court, or to a judge of that Court. I am afraid it would interfere with the practical working of parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But we have done it before.


Samuel Barker: I know it. But I doubt if we could do it in all these cases. But I would suggest that in all cases where a Bill contains a declaration that the work is a work for the general advantage of Canada, there should be a report from the government or from the Minister of Justice to the committee having charge of the Bill, giving the opinion of the government or of that minister, as to the propriety of the declaration in regard to the particular work dealt with in the Bill. That would not preclude the committee from deciding the question, but it would put upon the government of the day the responsibility of saying whether they thought parliament had jurisdiction in the matter or not. I believe that if the present government had had this question referred to them under such a rule, they would have reported to the Railway Committee that the work referred to in the Bill was not one for the general advantage of Canada. The subject was brought before a committee of the government and they heard statements of counsel representing the province of Ontario and other provinces. But tlie government saw fit to refer the matter back to the Railway Committee. Considering that such matters affect the working of our constitution, the committee should have the benefit of an opinion from the government or the Minister of Justice, stating whether on the face of it the Bill appears to be one providing for works which are within the juridietion of this parliament. I would not desire for a moment that tlie Railway Committee should be debarred from the right to discuss or decide upon tlie question. But I do think the committee should have the opinion of the minister for their guidance. And I feel fairly certain that if such protection were afforded to the public we should have very little trouble on the score of such Bills as this. I doubt whether a government representing either political party would report that the work referred to in this Bill was a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr. HEYI). I think we ought to go even a little further than the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). There should be certain conditions agreed upon that a railway company must comply with before it could be declared a work for Mr. SPROULE.
tlie general advantage of Canada. The conditions should work automatically, and not. be left to a majority of the Railway Committee, for that majority is always uncertain. The meaning of this phrase ' work for the general advantage of Canada ' should be declared so that a railway company, before it even aspires to be clothed witli tlie powers vested in these magical words, it should have to comply with certain conditions. Tlie effect would be to relieve the committee of a great deal of unnecessary work. It seems to me that the practice has insensibly grown up in the Railway Committee of granting the benefit of these words to railways that were not really entitled to use them. And many members did not know what the effect of the words was. I have asked in tlie House and in the Railway Committee what advantage accrued to a railway company to which these words applied, and no one has been able to tell me. The impression has gone abroad that an attempt has been made in this House to take from the provinces rights that belong to them. I am sure that no such desire exists on the part of any hon. members of this House. If we have erred in the past in granting to companies the privilege of having their works called works for the general advantage of Canada, it lias not been with tlie intention of robbing the provinces of any right belonging to them. If my suggestion were adopted and the conditions defined, our work of legislation would be done more smoothly and consistently. It should not be left to the majority of the Railway Committee in this general fashion to say whether a work is or is not a work for the general advantage of Canada. A majority of the Railway Committee might be friendly to one promoter, and declare the work he represented to be for the general advantage of Canada, while refusing the privilege to another equally entitled to it. We should define what those words mean, so that railways will be obliged to comply with the conditions laid down, and, complying with these conditions, they would be entitled to be called works for the general advantage of Canada.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With reference to the suggestion of the h n. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that a clause of this kind should be subject to report from the government, I hardly think that, on reflection, the hon. gentleman will adhere to that view. The question that lies at the very threshold of the inquiry in each of these cases is one of facts, and parliament is the proper tribunal to inquire into that question of facts, either directly or by such machinery as it may invoke. When the facts are known, it is for parliament to apply the legal consequences by either bringing the work under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada or refusing to do so. But I would not favour parliament abnegating its functions to any govern-

ment or committee. It should retain the right to deal with those questions in its own way. Difficulty has arisen in the past because


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman totally misunderstood my suggestion. 1 did uot'suggest that the government should have the power to prevent parliament dealing with the question. I only said that when such a statement was made in a Bill coming before the Railway Committee, the Minister of Justice or some other minister should send a report to the committee for their information, stating that in his opinion he considered that work to come within our jurisdiction, that is to say, that it was a work for the general advantage of Canada. But I said moreover that I would not propose to preclude the Railway Committee or the House from deciding upon the question;
I only proposed that the committee and the House should have the advantage of the ministry speaking with the responsibility of a ministry upon that question.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I quite understood the hon. gentleman. My view is that the first inquiry is to ascertain what are the facts. Are the facts such as to warrant the statement, not within the meaning of the British North America Act in the first place, but to warrant the statement in the ordinary acceptation of the words that the work is of such general importance as to warrant its being removed from the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature and being brought under the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. That is a question of fact in the first instance, and I do not think that the Minister of Justice is any better qualified to pronounce upon this question of fact than any other member of parliament.
I was going to say that in my opinion parliament should not allow this procedure to be hampered or interfered with by a report of a government or by a report of any tribunal that is not appointed by this House.


Samuel Barker: I quite agree.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The government is after all no better able to judge of the facts than any .dozen members of this House. But I was going to make a suggestion, seeing that we are all seeking to accomplish the same end and to make suggestions that may hereafter bear fruit and cause proper consideration to be given to this point in connection with all other applications. I have not taken the opinion of my colleagues on this point. I merely give it offhand, the same as other lion, gentlemen are giving their views I presume. 1 was going to say that there are a number of rules in the standing rules of this House governing the procedure before Railway Committees, and it seems to me that the House itself might fairly formulate a rule dealing with a question of this kind, providing that when a Bill of this kind came
before the committee the first step to be taken should be to make the proper inquiry, leaving it with the committee of course to take such steps as it saw fit. But I think that some good would come by having one of the rules of this House provide for dealing with such cases in the future.
Mr. CLARKE There is another suggestion that might be made, and' it is that when legislation of this kind is being sought for which affects the rights and interests of great urban municipalities, it should be a prerequisite of such application before being considered by the proper committee, that the municipality to be affected should be specially notified that such legislation was being promoted, and the municipality should also be notified in what way its rights might be affected by legislation passed by this House as compared with provincial legislation.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A rule of the House might cover that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In this connection I may say that the city of Toronto has spent three quarters of a million dollars on what is known as the Don improvement. The work was constructed by the city, with the sanction of the legislative assembly. It was practically a local improvement work, but by some means it has been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and the city of Toronto is getting a rental of $750 a year for that enormours expenditure. Muneipalities whose rights have been invaded by legislation of this kind are naturally suspicious, and I think if the onus of responsibility were thrown upon promoters of notifying municipalities that were likely to be affected by proposed legislation, additional safeguards for the rights of municipalities would be afforded which do not exist at the present time.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: On Monday next the House will be called upon to consider the report of the select committee ou the rules of the House. It would be out of order for me now to refer to those rules further than to say that one of the proposed rules is that in connection with an application of a telegraph or telephone company for legislation, in addition to the notice being published in the ' Canada Gazette,' a similar notice should be published in some leading newspapers. Perhaps that might not altogether meet the case, perhaps the notice, instead of appearing only in the 'Canada Gazette' and one other paper, should be published in the papers of the locality to be affected by the proposed legislation. If that does not go far enough, perhaps my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) would consider this suggestion, and when this Bill comes before us on Monday next, he would suggest something of the nature he has mentioned, for example, an additional notice.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A specific notice to the clerk of the municipality.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This would afford a good opportunity, at all events, to discuss that point.


Austin Levi Fraser: We must remember that a work that may now be considered for the general advantage of Canada, ten years hereafter may not be so considered, because new circumstances will arise. I would not wish to be bound by a rule made even by the wisest House that ever sat in Canada, as to any particular work being for the general advantage of Canada. You must leave that to the evolution that takes place in'all countries and societies. Growing as we are, each succeeding parliament will be called upon to deal with the facts as they then exist. You cannot deal on hand and fast lines with a clause like this, because year after year and decade after decade circumstances will change.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 236) for the relief of Harford Ashley-Mr. Porter.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway, and the motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto.
John William Bell: We have bad the pleasure of listening to the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Mac-kie), who gave us his opinions on this Bill, which of course be is entitled to do, as is every other member of this House, but his opinions can only have weight according to the weight of the reasons that he alleges in support of them. We have also heard from him certain statements which we may speak of as statements of fact and which were of interest to the members of this House. Among other statements made by the hon. member was that he knew more of that country through which this road from Winnipeg to Quebec is to pass than any other hon. member of this House. I presume, in making that statement, he also included the right hon. leader of the government. He then proceeded to tell us what lie knew. I sincerely trust that much of the northern portion of Ontario, as also of Quebec, is of the quality which he describes but we have to confine ourselves to the country that he specially knows and not give weight to any opinion he may form. He tells us that he has gone through the north country, that he has seen the height of land, that he lias crossed it and that he has examined


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: the country on both sides of it. For what distance has he examined it ? He tells us that he has knowledge of it for 400 or 500 miles and he also tells us that he has personal knowledge of it for 100 miles.


Thomas Mackie: I did not say that. I said I had personal knowledge of it for 100 miles in Ontario.


John William Bell: Very well. The hon. gentleman has personal knowledge of it for one hundred miles in Ontario, and also, I presume, he has personal knowledge for 300 miles in Quebec ?


Thomas Mackie: Yes.


Mr. LAVELL.: That is personal knowledge of 400 miles of country in all. This railway covers a distance from Winnipeg to to Quebec of a little over 1,400 miles in a straight line, not an air-line, because it is impossible to build an air-line. That, I think has to be admitted. The most optimistic speaker on this proposition, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) added 10 per cent to the distance to find out how much farther the road would have to go. The least distance was 1,500 miles, according to his estimate. His estimate is altogether too small, because I think it would be easily ascertained that no railway between points in eastern Canada has even been built within a distance of 10 per cent more than the air-line. Not long ago the Canadian Pacific Railway in building a piece of line without a subsidy and desiring to get the shortest possible distance between Perth and Toronto, built the line as straight as it could, but it did not succeed in keeping it within 15 per cent of the airline. When you add the percentage of additional distance that it would be necessary to build in connection with this proposed new line, the mileage will be more nearly 1,500 or 1,600 miles than 1,400 miles between Winnipeg and Quebec. The hon. member has been over some 400 miles of this distance. He admits that he does not know the location of the line and he has only knowledge or professes to have information of less than one-quarter of the distance to be covered by the line as to its fertility and resources. There are others who have crossed the height of land and there are various heights of land that have to be crossed all over this country. It has been noticeable that the height of land is generally level, but that by no means proves that the height of land is fertile. I know that in the days when I could find time to go on long canoe trips, I had the pleasure to cross the height of land some distance north of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I admit that the height of land was level, I admit that it was very difficult to tell even when you came to the height of land, save by the waters flowing each way, but even the imagination of the hon. member for North Norfolk could not conjure up any fertility

in that region. Of course, I was simply hunting for scenery. The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Maclde) was hunting for lumber. We probably both found what we were seeking. This shows the singularly small amount of information which we have concerning that region, and the possibility of building a railway through it. I will probably touch upon that again.
Notwithstanding all that has been said upon this question, it is necessary either in starting to criticise it or in expressing the opinions of an hon. member of this House on it to review the proposition even although it has been already done. There is a story told about a certain lawyer in one of our courts of appeal. He had been defeated in the court below, and having appealed to a higher court, he commenced to lay down some elementary principles when the chief justice interrupted him and asked him if he would not give the court credit for knowing something about the primary principles of law. His answer was this : That is just the mistake I made in the court below, my lord. X think from the way in which hon. gentlemen opposite have carefully avoided some of the principal facts in connection with this whole transaction, that they should be repeated very often, for after all, we have to come down to some preliminary principles which ought to be put forth in connection with any such proposition as that which is now before the House. What is the proposition ? It is one that involves, as the right hon. leader of the government said, two principles, one the granting of a charter to the Grand Trunk Padflc Railway Company to build a road from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, and in connection with that road to give a guarantee and a certain amount of cash subsidy for that is what the payment of interest on the bonds for a number of years means, and the other part of the proposition is that the government shall build the road itself from Winnipeg to Moncton via. Quebec, and having built it hand it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is the proposition in short subject to the details as they will be found in the agreement attached to the Bill. What is the reason given for the building of this road ? We have in this House heard , as many different reasons as there have been different speakers on the government side. But, I presume that we may give the right hon. leader of the government credit for knowing the reason for the faith that is in him better than any of his followers, and he has given practically three reasons. I am going to quote from his own words the reasons given by him upon introducing this Bill. He said that this work is undertaken, this contract is made :
To provide immediate means whereby the products of these new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible cost.
He is referring to the new settlers in
Manitoba, the North-west and British Columbia. Then, here is his second reason :
Whereby, likewise, a market may be found for those who toil in the forests, in the fields, in the mines, in the shops of the older provinces.
It is well to look again at this second reason, and to follow the elaboration of the right hon. gentleman. He is referring to these settlers pouring into the North-west Territories in countless numbers, thousands and hundreds of thousands, he has mentioned, and he says that for one, two or three generationls, the new settlers will grow cereals and probably nothing else. He proceeds :
They will have need of everything that is required by civilized men. They will have need of clothing, furniture and every , kind of manufacture. Then, Sir, what shall we do ? Shall we allow them to be supplied by our American neighbours, or shall we provide a railway which shall enable our manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec to supply them with what they shall require ?
I would ask the House to bear in mind these two main, reasons, although there is another and very important reason given by the right hon. gentleman :
These are the two main reasons for building the road. There is a third which I will deal *with more fully and dispose of before touching on these two reasons.
And that third was the need of being independent of bonding privileges. Now, Sir, this is the argument of the right hon. gentleman that has been carefully analysed already by the ex-Minister of Railways, and has been referred to repeatedly by different speakers who touched on this matter. Attention has been drawn to the way in which the right hon. gentleman dealt with this matler. I might read his words. They are worthy of repetition. In speaking with regard to this bonding privilege, of our position with regard to the United States, and of the necessity of our being commercially independent of the United States, he says :
What is our position to-day ?
He does not say what was our position a good many years ago, but ' What is our position to-day ? '
What is our position to-day ? Prom the early days of railway development of this country, we have been dependent on American good-will for the transportation of our goods across American territory. From the early days of Canadian railway development, we have been forced to make use of American territory and harbours.
He repeated almost this same language further in his address. He says :
If we have used American ports and the bonding privilege it w-as not because our harbours were ice-hound in "winter but simply because we have no railways of our own to reach them.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that the fullest prominence has been given to the
943,

error made by the hon. gentleman in that, and that not only to-day, but for many years, we have had not only one, but two railways that connect with the harbours on the Atlantic coast ; notwithstanding this, that statement has been repeated over and over again. Surely, Sir, any school boy attending at any of our schools who went up to a departmental examination and gave such an answer as that when asked about our railway connections, would be, and most certainly would deserve to be plucked. It should be something well within the knowledge of every member of this House and of every citizen of this country that not long ago the exportation of cattle through the United States from certain parts of the interior was stopped. The Canadian Pacific Railway could not carry them across to St, John, because it would have to go through the state of Maine, and the Grand Trunk Railway could not carry them to Portland, and they were carried around hy the Intercolonial Railway ; and not only have we the Intercolonial Railway, but, as has been repeatedly referred to, we have another route by Edmundston connecting with the Intercolonial Railway for St. John. I emphasize this, not to call attention to the particular mistake, but to call attention to the fact that that simply illustrated the vagueness of detail and of knowledge of fact on which this whole project is based. There is a lack of exactness which augurs very ill for the successful carrying out of such a gigantic undertaking. That lack of exactness and the vagueness is not only illustrated by the statements made with regard to the bonding privileges, but it is further illustrated by what is proposed to overcome this difficulty. The member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil), referring to the need of our having an all-Canadian line, said the Intercolonial Railway had been built without regard to commercial principles, and was 300 miles too long. We have heard some pretty wild statements, but I think that is the largest estimate of the excess of distance of the Intercolonial Railway that has been made in this House. Well, that is one estimate, but we have on the other side the estimate of the ex-Mlnister of Railways, who said that 63 miles could be saved in a distance of several hundreds. We have further the estimate made by the right hon. gentleman who moved the resolution. He says that 120 to 140 miles can be saved-at least he says that in one part of his speech.
I have said that these estimates of the distance by which this proposed new railway might shorten the road between Quebec and Moncton, or Montreal and Moncton, were very vague, that the figures presented disagreed, but it is not simply the different speakers that disagree. We find in the speech of the right hon. gentleman when he was moving this Bill three different statements of the distance that could be saved. When he first refers to it he says :


John Reeve Lavell: If the truth must be told it must be said that those who conceived and carried out the Intercolonial Railway added to its length, to its normal length several hundred miles.
That is the first statement. The next statement is that it being necessary to make the shortest possible line, a line will have to be made going direct to Edmundston, close around the north of the state of Maine and from there to Moncton. That is the shortest possible way of making an allCanadian line. By doing this we can shorten the distance between Moncton and LSvis by from 120 to 140 miles. I might suggest that that is very different from several hundred miles, but probably it is just as clear as most of the facts that we have in connection with this new road. However, the right hon. gentleman desired to give a reason for the faith that was in him, and he referred to the knowledge that we had, and after speaking of knowledge that had been gained by lumbermen, by early explorers and others, he said that we have an exact survey, a survey of this very country that had been made under the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. He quotes from this the report of the engineer in charge, Mr. Davey, and this is the only exact report that is quoted by the right hon. gentleman, or that has been quoted by any member of this House. I am not going to quote that this session but at the close of this report Mr. Davy, according to the quotation made by the right hon. the Premier, says that the survey made by him showed that the distance from Montreal to Moncton could be shortened to 759 miles, but he said there was one place where 100 miles more could be taken off, and the total length from Edmundston to Moncton be reduced to 199 miles, which makes 749 miles from Montreal to Halifax. According to the time-table of the Intercolonial Railway, which is the only authority I have had an opportunity of consulting since reading that, it seems that the present line from Halifax to Montreal is only 87 miles more than that, so we find in the speech of the right hon. Premier three separate estimates of the distance by which the line from Moncton to Montreal may be shortened. The first is several hundreds, the next 120 to 140, and then when he comes down to read an engineering report, he is not larger than 87 miles. Well, that report is on paper, and is still a report, the line has to be built, and engineering difficulties always arise, and no one ever yet knew of a line being built in quite as short a mileage as the original estimate of the first engineer who went over it. I think we can take it for granted that the statement of the hon. the ex-minister of Railways was correct when he said that 63 miles is probably the very utmost by which the line between Montreal and Moncton, or Quebec and Moncton, can be shortened.
And it is for the sake of gaining 63 miles,

or let us say 87 miles, out of some 830, that this project of building a new line from Quebec to Moncton and then handing it over to a rival company, is to be undertaken. The cutting off of these 87 miles or less is to be undertaken, it is said with great gusto by the right bon. the Premier, for the sake of relieving us from the bondage of the bonding privilege. Well, that is worth examining. Suppose the United States did cut off its nose to spite its face ; suppose it did injure its own railroads and ports for the sake of causing injury to our Canadian railroads-because that is after all the meaning of it-what would be the result ? Of course, it would mean that Canadian goods for export would have to go around the north of the state of Maine. That question is settled, and rightly enough. As all who have examined the map know, that would be a most expensive route ; but what will be the best route ? The right lion, gentleman says that the route proposed by this Bill will be the shortest and the best. But this route would be considerably longer than the Canadian Pacific Railway short line to St. John or the Grand Trunk line to Portland ; consequently the haul over it would be more expensive per mile, and therefore it would be a more expensive route. But in the event of our railroads being attacked by means of any such hostile act as the repeal of the bonding privilege, who might better In the interests of Canada own this short route from Quebec to St. John or Halifax ? Would it not be infinitely better as has been suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition, that if that route needs to be built as a better and shorter route, that it should remain in the hands of the people of Canada ? Would it not be infinitely better that it should remain not only owned by the Dominion, but operated by the Dominion, so that in the event of such an act of hostility, the Dominion, if necessary, would be willing to lose a certain amount of money in order that our commercial interests should not be injured ? If necessary we could make it haul from Montreal or Quebec to St. John or Halifax at as low a rate as any of the railways of the United States offer to their seaports. The country could well afford to do that in order that our commercial interests would not be imperilled; but could we compel a private corporation to do that ? No legislation under the sun could compel private corporations to carry freight at a loss, though the country could afford to do it to meet that special emergency. If the proposed railway can get us out of the difficulty of the bonding privilege, it only shows that it should remain in the possession of and under the control of the government in order to serve the interests of Canada as a whole in the event of such a contingency.
There is another thing which, although attention has been called to it before, is
worth repeating. If this contract is carried out, and that road is built, it must of necessity be built to the injury of the Intercolonial Railway. That matter has heeu treated so exhaustively by the hon. ex-Miu-ister of Railways and Canals, that I do not propose to go into it; but I do desire to answer a somewhat serious proposition made by the hon. Minister of Finance. He asked how the building and running of this road would hurt the Intercolonial Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway, he said, had built a short line to Montreal, the Canada Atlantic, did not object to it, and the two roads are running. It seemed to me that the hon. Minister of Finance must have laughed up his sleeve when he said that. He must know that the two cases are not in the slightest degree parallel. In the first place, the two roads run through a populous district between two large centres of business. It would have been a closer parallel if when the proposition was mooted that the Canadian Pacific Railway should build a short line to Montreal, the Canada Atlantic Company had offered to build the line, had entered into a guarantee to see that it was kept up to date, and at its completion handed it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway on condition that after a few years the Canadian Pacific Railway would pay a small percentage for its use. That, I admit, is an insane proposition ; but it is hardly less insane than the proposition of the government to enter into a contract with a private company to build a better road than it has at present, and at the end of a certain number of years to hand it over to that private company for an annual payment of 3 per cent on the cost, without taking any guarantee that the road would ever be paid for. So much for the bonding privilege, which has been dealt with pretty freely by others.
The right bon. the Premier said that this new road would form an exit for the products of Manitoba and the North-west Territories to the ocean at the least cost. What exit is there now ? One would almost imagine from the speech of the right hon. gentleman that there is no exit now, but that the farmer of the North-west grows his crop and piles up his grain, and leaves it there until some one with a dray comes along and takes it out, or until settlement grows up in the neighbourhood large enough to consume it all. We have at present, I think, some means of getting our crops out of the North-west. I should imagine that our Trade and Navigation returns would prove that. How do they come out? It seems ridiculous to have to state it; but, from the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, it seems to be necessary to inform them of the fact. There are at least two main lines and a great many branch lines of railway running through the country. I would like to see a great many more; and when I first saw the proposition of the Grand

Trunk Pacific to build a line from North Bay westward, I was very glad to see it, and to give it my support in the Railway Committee; because I believe that in a country as well fitted for settlement as the Northwest, into which so many thousands of people are thronging, it is all the better to havie a fair number of railways so long as they do not interfere with each other, and so long as they are spread over the territories, to help to develop them properly. The grain is carried by these roads, and what becomes of it ? It has been repeated often enough here : we know that the vast bulk of it is sent to the ports of Lake Superior, and we know that it will continue to go there, no matter what railways are built across the country.
It has been so clearly demonstrated that carriage by water is cheaper than carriage by land. No amount of figures could get over the fact that even railways which extend from the furthest west to the furthest east, find it to their advantage, when they come in contact with our great central water-ways, to tranship to those waterways. Not only the Canadian Pacific Railway, but practically all the American roads which have ports on Lakes Michigan and Superior and the other great lakes, transship their grain at these ports, and in many cases millions of bushels of grain are transshipped by railways having eastern connections. That grain is carried by water three times the distance that it is by rail, and transhipped again at Buffalo, simply because the water route is the cheaper. That fact speaks volumes more forcibly than all the fantastic theories hon. gentlemen can invent to justify the building of a railway over that wonderful prairie section between Winnipeg and Quebec, and a railway, as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) described it, with no greater curves and grades than the lines from Detroit to Buffalo. Such a conception is not one which adds to the reputation of the hon. member for North Norfolk, as a gentleman who pays any attention to the fact, and it was not entertained by the hon. .Minister of Finance, who referred to it in such a manner that showed he was afraid the hon. member for North Norfolk might insist on the government building a road which would cost pretty nearly as much per mile as the Finance Minister estimated for the whole distance. Beyond question there exists now two roads leading to Lake Superior and a water route from Lake Superior, over which may he carried all the grain that can reach the ports of transshipment on that lake. That being the case, I can understand the proposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It is willing simply to connect with its own system in the older provinces, not for the purpose of carrying the grain, which would undoubtedly be carried by it, simply to Lake Superior, but for the purpose of having con-


John Reeve Lavell: nections by its own lines between the older provinces and the western provinces.
The second reason given in support of this proposition is that it will help the workers of the older provinces to supply the markets of the North-west, that it will afford an outlet for the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec who desire to get their goods into the territories. I would like to ask those who advocate the construction of this road from Fort Simpson on the Pacific coast to Winnipeg, then north to Lake Nepi-gon close to the waters of Lake Abitibi, then on to Quebec and Moncton, how that line is going to benefit the toilers of the east. Are these toilers located in the vicinity of Lake Abitibi ? Are the manufacturers situated very largely in the region north of Lake Nepigon ? In the name of common sense, how are the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec, save those who are located at Quebec city, to reach this road, or to have their goods carried over it to these hundreds of thousands of consumers who are going to the territories ? It will be simply an impossibility unless very expensive cross lines are built.
I believe that in discussing a matter of this kind we should consider the general advantage of Canada, not technically, as in the case of a private Bill, in which this declaration is merely formally made to bring it under the jurisdiction of this parliament, but in the broadest sense of the word. The farmers of Ontario and Quebec have consented to the aid and the assistance of the government being given to the opening up of the North-west, although such a policy operated in a sense to their direct loss. They willingly contributed to this aid and helped on the movement, but they had good and strong reasons for supporting such a policy. They were willing to suffer some financial loss in the first place because it was to the general advantage of the country that the territories should be opened up and our various provinces brought into touch with each other. It was the essence of confederation that that should be done, and those who desired confederation, desired above all things to see it carried out properly. The feeling therefore was almost unanimous on the part of older Canada in supporting a policy of opening up our Northwest. There was another reason which influenced our people. By opening up Manitoba and the territories, they were creating homes for their sons and relatives, and at the same time providing direct communication with them. Further, that was being done by a government which constantly kept the general interests of Canada in view, so that while in the opening up of the North-west there was brought about indirectly a depreciation in the farm values of the east, still the government were at the same time carrying out a policy which helped to develop the east by enlarging the opportunities of the farmers and by lay-

ing the foundation of a broad and strong industrial movement. The policy of opening up our North-west and the policy of encouraging our manufacturing industries went together and constituted that national policy, which our hon. friends opposite have so frequently taken occasion to decry, and have found so much reason to copy. It was that policy which induced the farmers of Ontario and Quebec to contribute so largely out of their substance to the development of our western territories. They knew that the country as a whole would benefit, even though they should have to suffer some loss. But admitting that this proposition may help to develop a remote part of the west, in what way can those gentlemen, who have in such florid language said it would be such a wonderful help to Ontario and Quebec, justify their statement that it is going to develop those parts of Ontario and Quebec, which are now business centres and in which is to be found the great bulk of our population. I submit that when a proposition is made involving so heavy an expenditure, involving such a pledge of the credit of the whole country, it should be one that will assist the country as a whole. When the right hon. the First Minister said that this road would enable the manufacturers in the east to get their products into the west and bring the toilers of the east in touch with consumers of the west, he was stating a proposition which certainly is not justified by the measure he has submitted for our approval. I do not think that we can, in any sense of the word, be called sectional or selfish, if we insist that in any undertaking involving so heavy an expenditure on the whole country, both the east and the west should be considered. But the right hon. gentleman reminds me of a woman who spends most of her time attending missionary meetings and neglects her own home. When somebody asked some ragged children if they knew her, they said, yes she is our mother. And when asked where she was, they replied : she is off attending to the children of the heathen and leaving us children to go to the devil.
I have referred to the expenditure involved. I wish that it were possible to build a road such as the one proposed for the figures given by the First Minister and the Minister of Finance. I wish it were possible for me to persuade myself that this was one of those cases to which the statement of the old Scotchman did not apply, when he said that there were three kinds of lies : white lies, black lies, and the worst lies of all, statistics. The road will not be built for nothing; good money must be paid for it. In fact the Prime Minister not only showed this in his speech introducing the Bill, but I think he laid the foundation for most of the errors that have been made by his followers in discussing it since. He said that we should not only have to advance the 296
money, but we should have to pay interest upon it. And what do we receive in return V We receive interest at the same rate. We pay interest and we receive interest. But we pay out the principal, and how about that ? It is quite clear that the return of the money is not provided for in anything that the right hon. gentleman says. So, when this financial burden is discussed simply from the standpoint of the payment of interest, then the argument rests upon a purely fictitious basis. It seems to me it is not worthy of the position which the Minister of Finance occupies to so utterly ignore the expenditure of principal or to attempt to get round it by his peculiar actuarial method.
I have wondered sometimes as this discussion has gone on, and as the legislation has proceeded in the committee, where on earth this contract came from. Nobody seems willing to father it. We know that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) did impute the fatherhood of it to one person, Senator Cox. Apparently, there is no justification for placing it on any one else. Personally, I have no knowledge of the matter. But this much I do know-that when the first application came up in the Railway Committee such a contract as this was not suggested, and I believe it was not even thought of. It may have been dreamed of by some, but undoubtedly nothing was said to convey any suggestion of it. We found the first application of the Grand Trunk opposed and opposed particularly by a set of men who had their minds fixed on the project of a railway straight across the country from Quebec. I think I state what is well within the knowledge of members of the committee when I say that the bitterest opponents of the Grand Trunk project were members of this House who advocated the project of a railway westward from Quebec. I am not quarrelling with their right to advocate such a railway; I am simply dealing with the fact. But in some mysterious way the scene was changed. The original proposition was practically withdrawn and a proposition made that was totally opposed to the ideas of the original promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific as set forth in their circular. According to that circular it is clear that they did not want a line running eastward from Winnipeg. They spoke of a stretch of a thousand miles of that territory being unproductive and of it being a country through which a line should not be run. I admit they are not building it. I do not know how this change of which I speak came about. President Castro of Venezuela tells of a case that arose in his own country. A certain man died leaving a will dividing 'his property among two distant relatives. But two friends who were near him in life, and who had expected bequests in their favour, were much disappointed. They made up a scheme to fix the bequests to their liking before the heirs



came. They succeeded to getting a notary in with them. The three went into the room where the dead man lay, tied a string to his head and gave the end of the string into the hands of one of the would-be heirs. The notary took his pen and asked, do you give so and so to such and such a person V A pull of the string and the head nodded, so tlie notary recorded the bequest. And so the property was distributed until every one had been remembered but tbe notary. The question was then asked, do you give so and so to the notary ? But the man who held the string did not pull. The notary laid down his pen and said, ' this string pulls for everybody, or there is no will.' 1 do not know whether this story illustrates what went on with regard to this contract, but I do know that, in some mysterious way, by some evolution, the working of which is unknown so far as this House is concerned, this contract has been prepared as we have it before the House. It is presented by the Prime Minister backed by reasons that have been almost completely dropped by those on his own side who have spoken. The right lion, gentleman failed to show that there was any emergency or any crisis justifying such a tremendous expenditure, such an extensive mortgaging on the credit of the country on information as meagre and as vague as that in possession of the government, in fact, it would not be too much to say that there is practically no information in their possession. And still, the measure is being pressed before the House. I would join my voice with the voices of those who have pressed upon the government the necessity of referring such an important proposal to the people of the country before finally disposing of it. Six months ago, as I have said, this project had never been thought of. In fact, we might say that no longer than three months ago it had never been thought of. In the general election of 1900 nobody even dreamed of such an undertaking. Yet, surely, the needs of the country were as pressing then as they are now. And, for the government now to lay such a proposal before the House, and force It through on a principle laid down by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that because the captain says, ' shoot,' he must shoot, I submit, is carrying party government and the discipline of party to an extent that must be, if carried out, be injurious to the country. If there ever was a time when a proposition should be submitted to the electors or when the government that formu lated that proposition should ask for the confidence of the people, it is a time when such a proposition as this is proposed. And it would not delay the work involved in this project to delay the legislation now before us. The government could easily obtain the consent of this House to an appropriation of money to make the necessary surveys and obtain all information to be laid before the House. That must be done before
the work can go on in any case. Even the contract says that delay is to take place. In fact the contract would show that as to the eastern section, which is the one part most open to objection, that the Grand Trunk care little about it. Otherwise, they would not allow the government to stop the work whenever they wanted to. They could if they chose, before attempting that work, go to the country in the meantime under that very clause, and then act according to the mandate of the people, provided they did it in such a way as not to make the country liable for a heavy bill of damages.
There is one other thing that I have not touched upon that has been discussed in recent speeches by hon. gentlemen opposite, and that is the argument that this is a colonization road. What in the name of common sense do we want with a colonization road at the present time, when, according to the statement of the right hon. the Premier, we have more than we can do to supply the wants of the territories that are already opened up to colonization V This road is primarily suggested to meet the wants of the North-west, to meet the wants of the people that are already settled there. No other suggestion was made by the right hon. gentleman. It is for the prairie section, for the mountain section, for the mining section, for the people that are already in the North-west, that this road is primarily to be built; no suggestion of colonization. I do not believe for a single moment that the Prime Minister would have thought it consonant with the gravity of the situation to suggest that we should spend $120,000,000 for a colonization road in northern Ontario and Quebec. Roads of that kind should be undertaken by the provinces, and I am glad to know that the province of Ontario is building its own colonization roads, and it can well do so for a number of years. For our part, we can wait until more is known about that country, and I trust that as more is known, the people will be still more encouraged to build colonization roads, roads that will start from the centres of the older population. How on earth can this road help on the colonization of the central parts of the country ? What centres of population will it touch ? It touches the two terminals, Winnipeg and Quebec only, and everything that is carried into that country or carried out of it would have to go either to Quebec or to Winnipeg, until a few costly cross roads have been built, and these cross roads will form the best colonization roads. I hope sincerely that some day they will be undertaken, that some day we will see this road now proposed going from Winnipeg to Quebec on the shortest possible line. When that day comes, I think it will be built by a private corporation, using its own money, or better still, be built by the government, owning and operating its own road, instead of being built by the government and hand-


John Reeve Lavell: ed over to a private corporation who does not Want it, who does not expect to make any money out of it, and who gives no valid undertaking that they will operate it. While the North-west is filling up, we will have ample opportunity to explore the routes for these colonization roads, and there will be ample time for some future parliament to discuss the question of a road from the east to the west across that northern section.
It is not because we have no faith in the country that we oppose the proposition embodied in this Bill; it is not because we have no desire to see the country settled ; it is not at all because we have no desire to see trade developed, rather the reverse. The whole proposition as It stands before us is one that will give us the least benefit at the greatest possible outlay. We cannot undertake any such expenditure as this without imperilling our ability to engage in any other public work for many years to come.
Notwithstanding some of the criticisms that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite of the scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition, I submit that it is one that will appeal to every business man, and every citizen, and every person looking to the interest of the country as a whole, and desiring to see a more economical use made of our money. It is not to the expenditure of the money that we are opposed, as our leader has said, but it is to the way the money is to be expended, and the little benefit that the country will reap from it. In view of the fact that our water routes will for years to come, possibly for all time, be the regulators of railways from the North-west to the east, in view of the fact that they will be the means, probably for all time to come, so far as we can now see, of carrying the surplus products of the west to the east for consumption and exportation, in view of the fact that we have in the past undertaken the development of our water-ways and to improve the navigation of the lakes in order to secure cheaper transportation of goods, in view of the fact that only recently the government, wisely in my opinion, in order to make transportation still cheaper from the west, took away the canal tolls and made those canals to a greater extent than before a benefit to the country as a whole, and principally to the North-west-in view of all these facts, I say the immediate necessity of this proposed new railway has not been made out. Surely no person will say that we have brought these water-ways entirely up-to-date, that we have made them as efficient as possible for all the purposes for which they are required. We must remember that in years to come, if we do our duty by the people of this country, we will have to expend large sums of money in improving these water-ways in different directions. 1 submit that a proposition that involves the 2964
building of our own roads, to be owned and operated by the government, is one that will not only have the best results at present, but will in future lead to Infinitely better results. It may be that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), though at present perhaps it is somewhat academic, can in the near future be beneficially applied. That Is a principle which, sooner or later, we will have to face, and it is well perhaps that we are face to face with the general principle even now. It is with very great pleasure indeed that I heard the leader of the party to which I have the honour to belong, make the proposition that practically meant government control of freights east and west, over a government line owned and operated by the country. If there is any way by which we can get the produce of the west to our own seaports, it will be by means of the control of their transport from the time those products are put on the train. If there is any way by which we can most effectually control rates, it is by having a government road which will establish the rates for all other lines running in the same direction.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said that this was a red letter day for Canada. , So it is, Sir. We are now in the full midsummer of our prosperity, a prosperity that was established by the wise and fruitful work of the statesmen who preceded the hon. gentlemen now sitting on the government benches. You cannot have a harvest without a sowing, and if the sowing is not wisely done, the harvest will amount to but little. It says but little for the knowledge of national development possessed by hon. gentlemen opposite when they call attention to the spectacular results of this midsummer, and forget the work by which the prosperity of this midsummer has been brought about. It is this very fact, I believe, which makes it so difficult for hon. gentlemen opposite now to rise to a sense of their duties and responsibilities. It is one thing to enjoy a harvest from the work of the men of the past, and it is another thing to use that harvest wisely. It is to be hoped that the party now in power will use its opportunity in such a way as to help on the general prosperity we now enjoy, instead of giving it a setback. It will not use unwisely or extravagantly the revenues that come in, it will not use unwisely the opportunities that it now has on account of the great credit the country enjoys, but It will use them in such a way that development will go on upon the old lines, that the old will not be neglected for the new, that one part of the country will not be set against another, but that the development, the growth and the prosperity of the whole country will move harmoniously together. For this reason it is a matter of duty that causes one to oppose such a proposition as that which has been made by the right hon. leader of

the government in this Bill, and to support the alternative policy proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition.


Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, coming a little late in this debate I wish to say at the outset that the character of the debate has appeared to me to be higher than any I have yet listened to in this House since I became a member of it, and that I scarcely wonder at it when I consider the measure which has been Introduced by the government and which is the subject of debate at this particular time. A subject that involves the expenditure of such a large sum of money and the giving of such a large guarantee, a subject that involves the building of a transcontinental line over which the freight of Canada is to go in Canadian channels and to Canadian seaports and which will not only develop new parts of Canada, but which will be a benefit to Canada as a whole, is certainly one that should invite the best possible debating talent in this House and I certainly congratulate those who have preceded me on the magnificent character of the speeches which have already been made. I desire, however, to differ from much that several hon. members on the other side of the House have said in reference to this measure. It would appear from what they have said that the people scarcely expected such a measure to be introduced by this government, but, on the contrary it seems to me that the record of the government has already shown it to be of a character that would be very apt to introduce such a scheme as this for the general advantage of Canada. When we look over the record of a few short years of this government we see how the anticipations of the people have been answered by the introduction of this scheme. It is said that every progressive government is constantly undertaking new duties or performing old ones more thoroughly and efficiently and when we look at the record of the past few years of the government which is in power in almost every direction, in almost every department we see how apt that statement is as applied to them. They introduced a tariff for revenue in 1897, and we see how that tariff has stimulated trade in this country until in this year we have the enormous surplus of $14,000,000 and we have on record the fact additional that many millions of dollars of our debt are to be paid off as a result. When they introduced the preferential tariff they introduced, I believe, a patriotic measure, when they introduced postal reduction they introduced another patriotic measure and when they perfected a successful immigration policy which is bringing people by thousands into this country they again showed their ability to grasp the situation as it in this country. So that in one direction and another, this government have shown themselves to be a successful government and I have little or Mr. LAVEL.L.
n'o doubt that when the people learned that the government were about to introduce a measure looking to the construction of a transcontinental railway, that as the government had taken up one measure after another that had operated to the prosperity of this country, that as they had been successful in every measure they had taken up, as has been shown in the increase of trade, in the increase of prosperity and in the increase of the population, they expected that the measure which they were taking up at this time would be a measure which would redound to the present and future advantage and prosperity of this great country of ours.
Now, in the first place, I desire to correct a statement which was made last evening by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier), in regard to the question of the exemption from customs duties on supplies coming into this country for the construction of this railway. The answer to his statement last evening is set out so fully, so cogently and so definitely in the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) at page 8582 of ' Hansard ' that I will not attempt in my own words to discuss the matter, but, I wiil give the House his statement of the matter. The hon. Minister of Finance said:
But, Sir. as this road is to he built by contractors, and the contractors will have to tender for the work, they will receive no exemption whatever. Therefore any man who has anything to do with the construction of that road, if he imports materials, he will have to pay the duty, and if he buys the goods in Canada the Canadian manufacturer will have the benefit of the duty in so far as that is of any advantage to him. The Minister of Customs calls my attention to the fact that the government will let the construction of this road by contract and that the contractors will have to pay customs duties on the materials they import. I think I stated that. Of course, if you could imagine such a thing as the government building this road themselves, and if the government were importing materials, they would, as in the case of the Intercolonial Railway, not enter these goods at the customs house. They would be for the government service. But I say that even there we do not as respects the eastern division, take any advantage of that, because we provide that it shall be built by tender and contract, and the contractors will not have any exemption, but will have to buy the goods in Canada or else pay the duties if they see fit to import them. When we come to the western division, we deal with the company. They will build the road, and will not have any exemption in any shape or form. They will not be at liberty to import a penny's worth of goods without paying the same duty that is paid by any private individual. The grant in the way of exemption from customs duties in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was a vast privilege. I do not attempt to compute it in money, but I am sure that it would run into a vast sum. We do not give any exemptions of any sort.
There is n complete and definite answer to the statement made by the hon. membei-for Toronto last evening.


Richard Blain: Would the hou. gentleman give us the section under which he arrives
at that conclusion ?


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: Section No. 17 :
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.
Now, Sir, we have been hearing during tiiis discussion a good deal from hon. members on the other side of the House and very much to my surprise from hon. members from the province of Ontario about the condition of New Ontario. It has been sought to belittle the reports that the Ontario government had from time to time put out and the reports which are based upon the surveys of the surveyors they sent out several years ago. I have been very much surprised to see hon. members from the province of Ontario seeking to belittle New Ontario and to belittle these reports, because, if they recollect that when the provincial contest was on a little over a year ago and when Mr. Whitney was in New Ontario making his speeches, this whole question was a matter of considerable controversy in that province. I think it is well known to the members of this House that for many years past the policy of the Liberal party under the present premier particularly, 1ms been for the development and colonization of New Ontario. Now I may say that has been the policy of both parties in Ontario, and I find what ought to be an unanswerable argument to those hon. members on the other side of the House who seek to belittle New Ontario and who seek to belittle the reports which the Ontario government has put out because these reports are not signed and because they give simply the substance of what the surveyors reported, and who on this account seek to make out that these reports are not authentic. That was not the position taken by the Conservative party a year and a quarter ago during the provincial contest. I propose to read some extracts from the ' Mail and Empire ' editorials of that time to show that not merely was it not disputed that New Ontario was wonderfully rich in agricultural resources aud was wonderfully rich in mineral and timber resources, hut that the charge then was that Mr. Ross and the Liberal party were not realizing the extent of the riches of that country, and that they were not alive to the opportunities that were presented to them of developing and colonizing it. but that they were derelict in their duty in that respect. Here are some extracts from the Toronto ' Mail ' which go to show the position of the Conservative party in Ontario at that time. In the * Mail ' of May 8. 1902, we find the following in an editorial under the caption, 'Ontario's forward movement':
In the great clay belt, stretching from Quebec to the Thunder Bay district, are 24,500 miles of unbroken farming land, where settlers would build up a new province.
Again, in the issue of May 9, we read this:
We have much to gain in business by the development of the newer parts of Ontario.
Again, under date of May 15, it says :
Nature has decreed that the expansion of Ontario must be northward, but a narrow and incompetent administration has hitherto maintained barriers against the onward march of settlement. The mistake of the government has been that it accepted the dictum of Mr. Ross that the soil of the north was barren and the climate unfavourable, and made no effort to open up the country, while at the same time it shut the settlers out of vast stretches that it handed over to the corporations. As a matter of fact New Ontario is south of a large portion of Dakota, and is more fit for agriculture and stock grazing than prairie lands of the west.
But in the issue of May 17, perhaps the most comprehensive statement appears :
The government refused to make a move until 1900, when several exploring parties were sent out.
These are the exploring parties, upon whose statement the report which was laughed at by hon. gentlemen opposite during this debate, was founded. The ' Mail ' goes on :
They have reported that there is an almost unbroken stretch of good farming land, a great clay belt stretching from the Quebec boundary to the Thunder bay district, comprising an area of 24,509 miles. Until i.his proof was forced upon him Mr. G. W. Ross maintained that the soil of New Ontario was barren and the climate unfavourable. Yet nearly as large a province, fit in every sense for profitable development. lies in our vacant north land as we have in old Ontario. This territory is in part south of Dakota, and its climate is less severe than that of the Canadian west. The whole country, we are assured, is a network of lakes, rivers and streams, well-wooded, teeming with game, and specially adapted to agriculture and stock raising. It is, moreover, well stocked with minerals, and has abundance of waterpower for industrial purposes. ... It will be a big thing for southern Ontario to have a New Ontario in the north, growing up to contain perhaps millions in the near future. It will give a stimulus to our cities and our industries. and will afford splendid openings for our young men. We are of course glad to witness the progress of the west, but we shall be happier and better off besides when Mr. Whitney inaugurates and carries to a successful issue the policy that will populate Ontario.
These are the statements of the ' Mail ' newspaper in reference to the very reports issued by the Ontario government which are sneered at by the members of the opposition as furnishing no proof of the wonderful fertility and resources of that great New Ontario which this transcontinental scheme will do so much to develop.
Since 1 came into this House I have heard a great deal about the development of the west, and no one desires more than I do

that the west should be developed. I am perfectly well aware that for many years past the development of the west has been perhaps more attributable to the influx into that country of people from Ontario than to almost any other cause. The province of Ontario has given many thousands of her people to the development of the west, and we are glad of it. We want to see Oauada as a whole developed. But now that the North-west Territories are getting a splendid start, now that not only people from Ontario, but from the old land and the United States, are going into the North-west in large numbers, we in Ontario are beginning to think that it is time that we should look a little to the development of the newer portions of our own province.
Prior to the local elections of last year, Mr. Ross laid down his policy in a number of paragraphs, among which this was stated as a prominent feature:
The early settlement of the unoccupied lands of the province by colonization and by the projection of railways into New Ontario.
When the legislature met he crystallized that paragraph iuto an Act, and under that Act the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway is now being constructed. And it seems to me that it was most opportune that that railway should have been commenced this year. When the proposed transcontinental railway shall be completed across the country, this provincial railway, now being constructed by the government of Ontario, will tap that railway, and so not only bring the whole of New Ontario into connection with the older parts of the province, but place Ontario in probably a better position than any other province of the Dominion to send supplies of all kinds to Manitoba and the North-west, and in that way serve the interests of the people of Ontario at large. Let us look at the preamble of the Act of the Ontario legislature for the construction of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, and see how it accords with the preamble of the Act for the construction of the national transcontinental railway. The preamble of the Ontario Act reads as follows :
Whereas exploration of the province has shown that in that district of Ontario which lies between Lake Nipissing and Lakje Abitibi and north-westerly from Lake Temiskaming there are large areas of arable land well Stted for settlement and extensive tracts of merchantable pine and other valuable timber, and deposits of ores and minerals which are expected, upon development, to add greatly to the wealth of the province ; and whereas the said district is now difficult of acess from the lack of railway communication ; and whereas an increasing' number of settlers are taking up lands in portions of the said district ; and whereas it is in the public interest that the said district should be, at as early a date as possible, brought into communication with the existing lines of railway.
I desire here to express my appreciation of this Bill. The province of Ontario has, we Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).
believe, for many years past been a pioneer in legislation in almost every direction. If time permitted, I could show how measure after measure which has been passed by the Ontario legislature has later on been imitated, not only by the various provinces of the Dominion, but by some of the states to the south of us. This Ontario Bill provides that the railway shall be constructed by a commission. That and other provisions in the Bill have perhaps suggested one or two of the clauses which appear in the measure now before this House. I have read the preamble of that Bill just to show, by way of comparison, how far it resembles the preamble of the Bill before this House, which reads as follows :
Whereas, by reason of the growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada, and especially of the western part thereof, and with a view to the opening up of new territory available for settlement, both in the eastern provinces and in the west, and the affording of transportation facilities for such territory, and for other reasons, the necessity has arisen for the construction of a national transcontinental railway.
It seems to me that these two measures are supplementary of each other, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned ; that just as Ontario projected its railway for the purpose of developing the magnificent heritage which we have in the north, and which is awaiting colonization and population, so the project now before this House is brought forward just at a time to enable the Ontario railway to connect with it near the height of land, and so to enable the province to populate and colonize that splendid clay belt very much faster than she could otherwise have done. The scheme, it seems to me, so far as Ontario is concerned, amounts to this. One of these days, in the not very distant future, the province of Ontario would have had to build on its own account, and along this very direction, a railway of a colonization character. But by "this scheme, many years earlier perhaps than we would have built it, and without its costing one dollar more, perhaps not nearly so much as it would have cost if constructed by the province alone, we will have this road which otherwise we would have had to build ourselves, built by the Dominion, and in that way will reap an immense advantage.
Another feature which commends it to me is this. The various provinces, except perhaps the province of Ontario, have very considerable debts to meet. The debts of some of these provinces are very large, and the provinces are beginning to look out in various directions for the means to meet them. There are methods being adopted in Ontario to-day which were not followed some years ago. One of the merits of this scheme is this, that instead of the various provinces having to build railways of this kind themselves, and in that way pledge

their credit and assume a responsibility which many of them cannot very well afford, the Dominion will finance largely the matter, so that instead of each province having to pay directly, as it would have to do, if it financed the matter itself, it will only pay indirectly its contribution to the cost by means of customs duties and the like. That will be an advantage to every province of the confederation.
I did not intend, Mr. Speaker, to speak at length in this discussion at all; but coming from Ontario I considered it advisable that I should point out some of the advantages which will accrue to that province from this scheme. I recognize, as every speaker on this side has done, that' this is a great scheme for the advantage of the Dominion as a whole. Much has been done in the past few years to attract attention to the Dominion. Various things have caused us to be advertised and become known. Population and capital, these two things which this young country has so long needed, are beginning to flow in more than at any period within our history, and I believe that when this scheme becomes understood, this movement will receive still greater impetus. The outside world will realize that we are alive to our responsibilities and following the example set by other nations. We find Great Britain talking about spending $15,000,000 to connect Glasgow and Edinburgh for trade and imperial purposes. In the very heart of Egypt, she is spending $20,000,000 on the construction of a great dam for the purpose of irrigation, which, it is estimated, will add $25,000,000 to the value of lands in that country. In Australia, we find that the government of that colony has commenced the construction of a transcontinental line across the whole island. In India, the British government is spending millions of dollars on canals, and in the neighbouring republic the great Panama canal scheme is being actively promoted. In almost every country we find the people realizing their responsibilities and investing large sums in gigantic enterprises, in order to attract trade and population. Canada must not lag behind. We have immense resources awaiting development. All we need is population and capital, and this scheme, coupled with the other undertakings which the government have accomplished, will attract still more capital and population to our shores, and this young country will become, what we all hope to see it at an early day, one of the strongest, most prosperous, enterprising and powerful nations in the world.
I could hardly sit down without saying a word about the railway company which is associated with this scheme. The old Grand Trunk Railway has done much for many parts of Canada, particularly the western part of Ontario. It went into that section practically as a colonization railway. It is to the Grand Trunk Railway that is due the first settlement of western Ontario,
and when it is known that that section of country has become one of the most fertile, best settled and most progressive of the whole Dominion, one can realize what will result from the activity and enterprise of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in New Ontario, New Quebec, New British Columbia, and New New Brunswick. One can realize what will result when this great, strong, enterprising concern, assisted by this government, will open up these new portions of Canada. Just as it has made western Ontario prosperous and successful, so it will develop these new sections, and in this way be a great boom to the people of Canada.
We are just now having a great meeting in Montreal of leading men from all parts of the empire, assembled there to discuss imperial matters. From Montreal they will go out through the length and breadth of Canada to see this young country, and the more they learn about it, the more they realize that we have arisen to the measure of our responsibility and are seeking to construct a great Canadian transcontinental railway, which will redound to the credit of the empire as a whole, the more they will have confidence in our future and be prepared to invest their money and capital in the development of Canada.
The more I have studied this contract and listened to this debate, the more I am convinced of the merits of this scheme. In his opening speech, my right hon. friend the , First Minister showed how this scheme was intended to serve broad, imperial interests. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the Minister of the Interior dilated upon the practical necessity for this railway and its utility in the interests of the country. The Minister of Finance showed, in the most practical, clear manner, that every financial arrangement was provided for in this contract; and when the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) spoke, he proved abundantly, from the weight of authority and experience, that the most efficient system of government owned railways was when the railway owned by the government was operated by some practical business concern, such as the Grand Trunk Railway. And when I heard the Minister of Justice going through the clauses of that contract-and I appreciated perhaps as a lawyer his statement of the case more than that of any of the other ministers-when 1 heard him go through these clauses and saw how the interests of the country, in clear, concise, plain phraseology, were safeguarded in every way,. I came to the absolute conclusion that no scheme ever put forward by any government had the interest of the people at large so well protected.


Mr. HACKETT.: As this is Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, and it is now half past ten, I think we ought to adjourn the debate; and with the consent of the hon. gentleman who is leading the House, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think we might go one hour longer.


Edward Hackett: The hon. gentleman who Is a military man is perhaps inclined to he rather strict and has more endurance than I have. After being here all day and up to this hour at night, I do not feel in a condition to do justice to the subject, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to allow us to adjourn. For a man of my years, it would be rather an arduous task to address the House at this hour.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Since the hon. gentleman makes an appeal of that kind, and as he is a very old personal friend of mine, I think we must give way and consent to the adjournment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and 'debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Militia and Defence, House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 24, 1903.