1903-08-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	How many Civil Service employees are there, and into how many classes are they divided ?
2.	What is the annual salary in each class ?
3.	How many employees are there having an annual salary of not less than $1,500 ?
4.	What are the hours of work for these last-mentioned employees ?
5.	Is there one or several permanent federal employees who work fifteen hours per day, viz.: from nine o'clock in the morning till midnight ?
G. If so, what are their names ?
7.	How many requests for increases of employees' salaries have the different Ministers received since July 1, 1902 ?
8.	Who are the employees whose salaries have been increased since July 1, 1902 ?
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I am afraid that I shall be unable to give the hon. gentleman the information which he desires in detail, as his question is a very comprehensive one. Perhaps it would be sufficient if I indicated in general terms where the information may be found, because that which is available is already in possession of the House. The number of the civil service, the officials in each department, their classification, their salaries and their names are all set forth in detail in the civil service list. The hours of duty are from half-past nine to four o'clock, but, of course, it is expected that, when necessary, officials will work later, and many of them do. I am not aware whether there are some who work the long hours mentioned by the hon, gentleman, fifteen hours ; it is quite possible ; but I should say that if that takes place it is exceptional and in emergencies. I thought the privilege of these long hours was only restricted to cabinet ministers.


Mr. INGRAM.: Or to members of parliament.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Or to some members of parliament, that is, those who attend. In the outside service there are officials who have longer hours, but I do not attach much importance to the question, of official hours, because I think it is the duty of a civil servant to do the work that is required, irrespective of official hours. That is certainly done in my department, and I know that many civil service officials do work much longer than the ordinary official hours, and do it very cheerfully. With regard to increases of salaries since 1902, I think I am safe in saying that all the civil service officials have received what is called the statutory increase. I am not aware at the moment of any exception ; if there has been, it has been for some good reason. But speaking generally of the civil service, they receive the statutory increases. As to applications for an increase, I cannot recollect any special application, but a formal application was made on behalf of the civil service generally, by a deputation, for an increase of pay.


HAULAGE OP OFFICIAL CARS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	what sum was paid each year, since June 30, 1889, up to June 30, 1903, for the haulage of government, official, and private cars, over railways in Canada and the United States ?
2.	How many government, official, and private cars were owned by the government on the 30th day of June, 1896 and 1903, respectively ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	The government have made no payment for haulage of government, official or private cars over railways in Canada and the

United States since June 30th, 1889, up to June 30th, 1903.
2.	The number of official cars on the Intercolonial Railway on June 30th, 1896, was four ; the number on June 30th, 1903, was six.
One of the additional cars was required for the use of the official occupying the office of general traffic manager, which office was created to meet the changed conditions on the Intercolonial Railway by reason of the largely increased volume of traffic.
The other car was ordered in connection with the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York, and was used on the royal train during Their Highnesses' trip throughout Canada.


BAND OF THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Has the government been officially advised that the band of the famous Coldstream Guards is about to visit Canada, to play at the Toronto Exhibition ?
2.	If so; has it been arranged that other metropolitan centres in Canada shall have the opportunity of hearing this world-renowned musical organization ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon Sir Wilfrid Laurler).: The government has not been officially advised that the band of the Coldstream Guards is to visit Canada.


THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The 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.
Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will consider [DOT] it presumption on my part to attempt at this stage of the debate to offer anything particularly new. The discussion has been a long one, and I am noti at all certain that it has been barren of what may turn out to be good results, or that it has been unprofitable to the country. One thing has been made clearly apparent during this debate, and that is that the government who have launched the scheme and those who are supporting it have no fixed ideas, absolutely no uniform notion, of the utility of the road, or of anything beyond the fact that the scheme has been placed before the House, and that they have been asked to support it. We find both the press supporting the Liberal party and Liberal members in this House, declaring, from the Prime Minister downward, that we are mostly to lose sight of every commercial consideration in connection with this enterprise, and that we are to follow what the Bill itself I


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: discloses. One main idea of it is to appeal to every sectional jealousy, to satisfy every sectional ambition, to appeal to each locality at the expense of the scheme! itself. Now, Sir, the Prime Minister tells us that we are not at all to consider this as a commercial line ; we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce telling us that it is idle to discuss this question in its financial aspect; and we have the Minister of Finance declaring that the short line feature of it is not of much importance, but that we must consider other interests, namely, such interests as we find in the maritime provinces. I may perhaps be permitted to say, speaking entirely for myself, that if we are to have a national scheme, If we are to have a road that may be called a national transportation road, then the country will conclude that the government ought to be strong enough to have fixed by themselves a route that would have made it purely national. The hon. gentleman dare not do that, because it will destroy every vestige of local reasons for supporting the Bill. The Prime Minister made, at least by inference, a very strong appeal on behalf of the city of Quebec and of that locality. The Minister of Justice could not refrain from strongly dwelling upon the fact that the city of Quebec and that portion of the province of Quebec had been neglected in the past, and it was time now that something should be done for them. Now, Sir. it seems to me that in undertaking a railway that is worthy to be dignified by the name of a national transcontinental railway, it should be built on some better grounds than an appear to local and sectional Interests.
Now what is this after all ? The right lion, gentleman-and I do not desire to speak in severe terms of the right hon. gentleman -knows himself that this scheme is surrounded with very grave party difficulties. The right hon. gentleman had behind him a strong section of the province of Quebec, mainly from the locality where his constituency is, from which a very large delegation came to this House ; and he was confronted with a very grave difficulty because on the one hand he had applications from those who were promoting a transcontinental line, and on the other from those who wanted to build it. These gentlemen have been in the field for some time. They no doubt had their applications before the government, they had no doubt had these applications heard, and they had no doubt had promises made, not only directly, but by inference, of grants of money and of land. The right hon. gentleman saw in the earlier part of the session that there was one way to deal with this business. He adopted the plan which was put in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General, who, in the speech from the Throne, said that there was only one way to deal with it, and that was to submit this important matter to a commission of experts and let them

lay down a plan. I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government why he abandoned that course? I know that the right hon. gentleman will not be disposed to answer that question. He would not care for this country to know the reasons why he abandoned that plan, but the country knows perfectly well what his surroundings were and that he was forced as a matter of fact by party exigencies to take a different course rather than to launch a scheme which is now merely one on paper. What did the right hon. gentleman do when he found himself in this difficulty? He could not give what the Trans-Canada people asked, because very naturally, they were asking for large subsidies. Mackenzie & Mann came at the same time seeking aid of some kind either by way of endorsing their paper, giving guarantees or otherwise. We found the Grand Trunk Railway people coming at the same time asking for assistance. The right hon. gentleman saw the impossibility of dealing with each and every one of these schemes upon its merits. He must refuse some of them. He could not afford to yield to all the demands that were made by these other corporations, each of which was no doubt very powerful in a party sense. What did the right hon. gentleman do ? He abandoned his original idea, one that the country applauded at the time, and would still applaud if carried out, he abandoned the only sane and sound idea which should guide any public man leading a great political party to which the interests of this country have been entrusted for the purpose of getting out of what was purely a party difficulty. The right hon, gentleman changed the plan in a few hours, as was told us by one of his own colleagues. I may say that the hon. gentleman who made the statement was not one who was compelled to guess, as many of us guess and guess pretty acurately at what was going on ; he knew what was going on, he was the colleague of the right hon. gentleman, he was perfectly well able to speak as to what was in the mind of the right hon. gentleman, as every other colleague of the right, hon. gentleman knows what is in his mind, and he told us how it came about that he abandoned the whole thing. What was done ? A pencil was drawn across the map of Canada. There were no surveys, there was not a particle of information, there was not a single attempt made to get any information from the moment that the right hon. gentleman was induced to declare, and to declare with good reason, that he must have a commission of experts to inquire into the conditions and necessities of the country, but a mere pencil mark was drawn across the map, and it was brought down here as a great transcontinental railway scheme. What is the right hon. gentleman's position ? It is a matter of notoriety, although it is not a strange thing nor
am I going to say that it is a matter that does not happen in all parties, because it is a daily occurrence under our system, that the right hon. gentleman found his friends rebelling against it from one end of Canada to the other. As to that we have the evidence of a number of gentlemen. W'e have the evidence, for instance, of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who declares that he himself was opposed to it, who declares that in the caucus there were party difficulties, and who declares that he afterwards gave up his own opinion, and so on. We have innumerable declarations in this House and notably one made last night that the rank and file of the Liberal party rebelled, and if it had been possible on the part of the Liberal followers of the government in this House to have dissuaded the right hon. gentleman from the course he has taken we would have had a different state of things. But, the right hon. gentleman had to get out of his party difficulties.
It has been said by the Prime Minister, and by nearly every other hon. gentleman in this House that this will be a colonization road, that it will serve this district and serve that district. I do not lay any the less stress upon the importance of a colonization road or its utility in this country, because it is the duty of the government to assist in every possible way the building of colonization railways, but I deny that you can sacrifice a single feature of the great transcontinental line for the purpose of colonization. We must meet the necessities of colonization in some other way. Would any hon. gentleman launch a transcontinental railway scheme involving an expenditure of from $110,000,000 or $120,000,000 with colonization features that would result in the impairment *f the main scheme ? Had he considered for one moment the impairment of a strong feature of that scheme for the purpose of promoting colonization ? Such a consideration absolutely undermines every particle of the transcontinental railway scheme. What must a transcontinental railway mean in Canada ? It must mean that Canada is setting out now for the first time to solve a great problem, and the solution of that great problem not only requires that we shall have the best road that Canada can produce, but that we must have a national competing scheme that will compete with the railways that Canada comes into competition with to-day. Can we afford to consider the locality we are giving a colonization road to ? Can we consider whether this or that small part of the country will be served- or not ? Can we consider whether this particular locality or that particular locality will gain by this railway or whether the railway should be designed for the purpose of serving the greater interests of Canada as a whole ? The right hon. gentleman has sacrificed the
96S7

9(188
strong feature of a transcontinental railway by giving consideration to interests of that kind.
Having said so much, I desire now to deal shortly-and I hope I shall be able to redeem the pledge to be brief which I gave- not with the contract which has already been dealt with in very great detail, but with the two schemes which are now proposed, one by way of Bill and the other as enunciated by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I think the country will have no better means of judging than by putting these two schemes side by side, the one as declared in the Bill, the other as declared from his place in this House by the hon. leader of the opposition. Let me say at the outset that I know of nothing more unprofitable, nothing that would have a greater tendency to becloud and deceive than to make extravagant statements on the one side or the other for the purpose of showing the strength or weakness of one side or the other. Each scheme ought to be dealt with entirely on its merits. We should lay down one given rule which should be applied to both schemes, as that is the only means by which we can arrive at a fair conclusion. Thus it would be well to entirely free the question from the surroundings which hon. gentlemen have dragged Into this scheme. The hon. leader of the opposition, in outlining a transcontinental railway scheme for Canada, has incidentally mentioned some matters that are only remotely connected with it. In order to make an intelligent comparison we must place these two schemes side by side at the points at which they meet and at which they may diverge and where each of them may end. I think that is the only way to give the public an intelligent idea as to the merits of the two schemes. We are told that the hon. leader of the opposition has committed himself to the building of a road from Moncton to Quebec city, and also from Quebec city to Winnipeg. Now, I am sure that hon. gentlemen who desire to discuss these two schemes upon their merits will not drag into what is after all, a clear enueia-tion of what the general policy will be, irrelevant considerations. In order to make it clear, I will read what the leader of the opposition said in referring to the line between Quebec and Moncton. He said :
If within a certain number of years a practical route be found, then extend that road to the Pacific coast. Build it as a government road from Quebec to the coast. Be not afraid to undertake that project, but do not undertake It until you have the information, the data which will enable you to deal with it. I am not saying this for the purpose of delay. I believe in' going ahead with the work once you get the information and the data which are necessary. .
That means nothing more nor less than that when such information is obtained and Mr. CLANCY.
when the necessity arises, the work would be undertaken, and then it would be extended as a part of the Intercolonial Railway and be a scheme under the direction of the government of the day in some way. I make that statement in order to divorce the proposal from what is after all the live question, nanjely, a transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean. The hon. leader of the opposition similarly dealt with the road from Quebec to Winnipeg, and he said :
So far as the line from Quebec to Winnipeg is concerned, I am not disposed to minimize the possibility of that northern country. Looking at the history of the great west, there may be a great flood of settlement into that country north of Lake Superior some day or other, at least up to a certain point west, but I do not think we know enough at present to justify us in saying there will or will not be, because I do not know how far that country is capable of competing in the early future with the magnificent country we have in the North-west. I have some doubts as to whether or not that great northern country may compete as early as we would desire with the great western country. But I am not disposed to minimize its importance in any way, and to my mind the rational way of dealing with that road from Winnipeg to Quebec is this.
Mark the words :
To thoroughly explore and understand it, and then to build that line from Quebec to Winnipeg, as a colonization road according as the requirements of the people and colonization demand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear that that is to be a colonization road and no more, and that colonization road is to be built when we have obtained all necessary information and when the interests and requirements of colonization demand it. Colonization alone is the main feature of that undertaking. I have dealt with these two points in order that we may consider them apart from the live question of the transcontinental road proposed by the government, and as to which the two parties are asunder. I have no doubt that the right hon. gentleman would agree with the view expressed by the leader of the opposition if he looked upon this from the point of view of a colonization road, and I believe that, because he has laid great stress upon the colonization utility of his scheme. If there was no transcontinental line in view, I have not the slightest doubt but that the Prime Minister would agree with the views expressed by the leader of the opposition, both as respects the Moncton section and the Quebec and Winnipeg section. I now propose to make a Comparison between the scheme of the leader of the opposition and the scheme of the government with respect to that portion of the line which commences at the end of the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal and that part of what is called the national transcontinental railway, commencing at Moncton both ending at Winnipeg. I think such a comparison is the only

intelligible plan that can be adopted to give to the people of the country a fair conception of the two schemes. I need offer no apology to this House when I say that 1 would "not attempt to give any figures on this point on my own initiative, because the House would properly regard such figures as being of little value. I shall not, therefore, give information that is my own, but X shall give information which has been obtained from the most reliable source possible. When the leader of the opposition laid down this scheme he particularly emphasized the fact that he would proceed with his project only on the strength of the best expert evidence that could be produced in Canada, and consequently it must be remembered that the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition may be deviated from or changed in the light of the best expert evidence obtainable.
The hon. leader of the opposition proposed, in the first place, to extend the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to the city of Winnipeg. We have a 99 years' lease'from the Grand Trunk Railway for the use of its line from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal, so that it will not be necessary for me to refer to that part of the line to any detailed extent. We have expended large sums of money in acquiring terminals at Montreal. It is proposed by the leader of the opposition that a first-class road shall be built from Jacques Cartier junction to Coteau junction on the Canada Atlantic Railway. Mark you, we speak of a first-class road, because if a transcontinental railway is to compete for traffic with existing railways in the United States, and in Canada for that matter, no ' second or third rate road will do. It is estimated that the thirty miles from Jacques Cartier junction to COteau would cost $40,000 a mile. That will not shock hon. gentlemen opposite, because the member for Dabelle (Mr. Bourassa) stated that he had expert evidence from a gentleman of long experience that it would cost $30,000 a mile. It is then proposed to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway from C6teau junction to Depot Harbour, if it can be acquired upon favourable terms, and if not, that a road should be constructed. Hon. gentlemen may say that we have to deal with corporations, and that corporations are very exacting in the amount which they require a government to pay for their property.
It would be just as well for this House and this country to understand that the people of Canada are the possessors of the soil of Canada, and that we have the right to use our power to expropriate, dealing justly and prudently, as I am sure any government would do. Canada is not a railway company dealing with another railway company. It is a nation dealing with its own affairs; and the railways of this country, whether they exist now or shall come into existence in the future, must be subject to the will of the people of Canada;
so that the question as to whether we would have any trouble or not in dealing with this matter amounts to nothing. But I am now proceeding on the plan which has been clearly enunciated by the hon. leader of the opposition. It might not be thought prudent or advisable for us even to acquire the Canada Atlantic. That is entirely an open question. The estimate is that that road of 342 miles, with its equipment, could be acquired for the sum of $12,000,000. Every hon. member of this House knows that within the last two years, if not within the last year, there has been an option open to the world for that road for $11,000,000. But suppose we did not acquire the Canada Atlantic, we might have to construct a railway from Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour at a cost of $12,000,000, which would be very nearly $40,000 a mile.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? If you do not purchase the Canada Atlantic, how do you propose to get through the Wilno Pass? Hon. members know that there has been a lawsuit between the Canada Atlantic Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as to who has the right to go through that pass.


James Clancy: I am afraid my hon. friend did not pay attention to what I said a moment ago. I said that this is not a case of one railway company dealing with another. The people of Canada will take over every pass they require in the interest of the country. That does not mean that the Canada Atlantic people will be unfairly dealt with. It means that the people of Canada must preserve and maintain their own rights, and exercise those rights whenever it is in the interest of Canada to do so.
Taking the next section of the proposed line, from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, a distance of 104 miles, our knowledge as to the character of the country or the cost of that road, is no surmise. There are actual plans made from surveys, under which contractors could put in their tenders to-morrow if they chose to do so; and the cost of that section of 104 miles is put down at $40,000 a mile. I wish in this connection to call attention to the fact that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), on the evidence of an engineer whom he states to be a gentleman of repute, now connected, 1 believe, with the Trans-Canada scheme, gave as the cost of that section $30,000 a mile; and my figures are considei'ably in advance of that estimate.
Then, to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Fort William, 555 miles, I put down as costing $25,000,000. Hon. gentlemen have laid a good deal of stress on the difficulty of dealing with that section. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader of the opposition has found a rational and final solution of that question, namely, that this unprofitable piece of

railway be used jointly by all tbe railways. He pointed out tbat the two sections of Canada are separated, as it were, by a bridge tbat no single railway company could operate this unprofitable section and make it profitable; and, therefore, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would, as business men, without the slightest doubt, be glad to get rid of that section. What is the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition ? We have several great railways running from the west to the east- I say the more the better. At a certain season of the year that section of railway would have to be operated, either by a single company or by all the companies in common. The hon. leader of the opposition proposes to nationalize that unprofitable section of 555 miles, and offer all the railways of Canada inducements to use that bridge, which they could do combined at much less cost than could a single company. Could any proposition be made that Would appeal more to the business sense of the people of Canada than that all the railways of Canada, including the people's railway owned by the government, would Use that section in common? I am told that it costs the Canadian Pacific Railway, in round numbers, $1,000,000 to operate that piece of road, which is a drag on their earnings all over their system. Pet us suppose that we had running over it not only the Canadian Pacific Railway, but tha Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial. We would have four railways running over that unprofitable section, reducing the cost to each three-fourths; in other words, each railway bearing one-fourth of the cost. Is that not a scheme which appeals to the good sense and the business experience of the people of this country? The estimate of the cost of that section which I give, $25,000,000, is equivalent, in round numbers, to $45,000 a mile. The estimate given by the bon. member for Labelle, obtained from Mr. Doucet, an engineer, was $40,000 a mile. Therefore, hon. gentlemen opposite will see that in every case the figures I am giving are above the estimate of their own friends, and therefore they are not in a position to quarrel with them.
The hon. leader of the opposition proposes that $3,000,000 be put down for the betterment of the road between Sudbury and Port William; because it is recognized that if that road were acquired, it would be necessary to spend a considerable sum of money upon it for the purpose of improving the gradients.
The hon. leader of the opposition further proposes that we should acquire or lease or obtain running powers upon, or build, whatever the best railway experts in Canada, would recommend, a line from Fort William to the city of Winnipeg. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader of the opposition wisely and prudently said Mr. CLANCY.
what must be done, if you build a railway in the interests of Canada, namely, that it might be to the best interests of Canada to get running powers over the railways now going from Winnipeg to Port William, which is the seaboard of the North-west. No one would attempt to do more than provide for the building or the acquiring, or getting running powers over the road, just as a commission would advise in such a case, and I have taken, therefore, the plan of making a calculation based upon the cost of building a road which may be a possibility in order to compare the scheme from end to end with that suggestion by the government. To acquire or construct a line from Port William to Winnipeg, 426 miles, would cost $30,000, a mile, or $12,780,000. For the betterment of that road, we would have to spend $2,100,000, in order to make it a first class road. With your permission. Sir, I shall now go over the road from Coteau Junction to Port William, giving what each section would cost. Prom Jacques Cartier to Coteau Junction, thirty miles to be constructed at $40,000 per miie would make $1,200,000. Prom Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour, by the Canada Atlantic Railway, the distance is 342 miles. We would have either to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway or build another line, which would cost $12,000,000. Prom Scotia Junction, on the Canada Atlantic Railway, to Sudbury, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, 104 miles at $40,000 per mile would cost $4,1G0,000. To acquire or construct if necessary-but I am going to assume that it will be acquired, because it will be in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway to enter into an agreement of that kind-555 miles of railway between Sudbury and Port William at $45,000 per mile would cost $25,000,000. For the betterment of that section, to make it a first-class road, it is estimated that $3,000,000 will be necessary. To acquire or construct-because the latter might be a possibility-the railway from Port William to Winnipeg, 426 miles at $30,000 per mile, would cost $12,780,000. For the betterment of that piece of road, it is estimated that $2,100,000 would be required to make it a first-class road. There would be, if we add the section between Scotia Junction and Sudbury 104 miles, a matter of interest amounting probably in round numbers to $200,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With reference to the last item which the hon. gentleman gave, the item of betterment, is that intended to be applied to the road he proposes to build ? Twelve million seven hundred and eighty thousand dollars he gave as the cost of building an independent line from Port William to Winnipeg, and then he spoke of betterments on that line.


James Clancy: When I say that the construction of the road would cost $30,000 per mile, such a road might not be up to

the standard and would require additional expenditure for betterment. If, on the other hand, you were to acquire one of the roads in existence, you would have to spend that same amount on betterment to make it a first-class road. The sum total which will bring the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal into the city of Winnipeg will be $60,470,000. You remember that we are dealing now entirely with the roadbed, with its terminals, and with the equipment which belongs to a railway outside of its rolling stock. The scheme proposed by the government from the town of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg is precisely that class of work, and I wish to make a comparison upon similar terms. I propose now to deal with the scheme proposed by the right lion, gentleman, alongside the one enunciated by the leader of the opposition. I wish to ask any hon. gentleman in this House if he is prepared to say that you can build a mile of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg any cheaper than you can a mile of the road from Montreal to Winnipeg. Gan any lion, gentleman state within ten million dollars what that road will cost 1 Will any hon. gentleman assume the responsibility, even upon better information that the government have, of saying that mile for mile the road from Moncton to the city of Winnipeg *can be built as cheaply as the road proposed by the leader of the opposition, namely, the extension of the Intercolonial from Montreal to Winnipeg ? They both pass through a country somewhat similar, and the estimates I have given are based on the experience of a country traversed by railways, where we have reliable information as to the cost of a first-class road. If we wanted to begin work to-morrow, we have all the information necessary to ascertain the approximate cost. But the question of policy, how it shall be done, the most economical and efficient way to do it, is a question to be determined on better information than you can get in this House.
I shall now make a comparison upon the same basis of cost, between the government scheme and the proposition of the leader of the opposition. The cost of the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is as follows :	From Moncton to Winnipeg
is 1,875 miles. I am taking the figures given by the Finance Minister, and I am going to take the mileage given all through by hon. gentlemen opposite, so that there will be absolutely no mistake in making a fair comparison. According to the Minister of Finance, the distance between Moncton and Winnipeg is 1,875 miles, and the average cost per mile, as set forth in the extension of the Intercolonial Railway is $41,500, including everything. I, therefore, apply the same rule and calculating 1,875 miles of road from Moncton to Winnipeg, at the same cost per mile as the extension of the Intercolonial, we have a cost of $77,812,000. Then there is the interest during the period of
construction, taking the figures given on the cheaper plan outlined by the Minister of Finance, this would come to $3,309,000, and the contribution to the Quebec bridge would be $2,000,000, as estimated by the Minister of Finance. The total capital expenditure in this case would be $83,122,000. I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, -to mark the words ' capital expenditure,' because it is an important feature in this scheme.
In the scheme laid down by the hon. the leader of the opposition there is absolutely no interest expenditure involved beyond the paltry some of something like $200,000, but the interest expenditure upon this road as proposed by the government, from Moncton to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,875 miles, would come to $29,238,000. Then there is another sum involved which the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) termed the cost to the country. The Prime Minister estimated this at $13,000,000 ; the Minister of Finance raised him half a million, and called it $13,500,000 ; the Minister of Trade and Commerce went still further and told us yesterday that it would be $14,000,000. Now, let me tell the whole truth as to what this is to be. There is an expenditure on capital as I have said of $83,122,000 ; and the interest on the cost of construction on this eastern section-and I am dealing now with the eastern section alone, leaving out the prairie and mountain sections for the purposes of this comparison-the interest on the cost of construction, in ten yearly payments, which the government In their contract have agreed to pay, and must pay, would be $2,493,665 a year for ten years. Some hon. gentlemen may say :	Well,
we may have to pay that for only seven years. There is something in an argument of that kind, speaking generally, but the probability is overwhelmingly on the side of having to pay it for ten years ; and for this reason, that it is no small matter for the Grand Trunk Railway to have to finance each year so large a sum in interest as $2,493,000. There is another danger ; it has not been contended in this House that this will be a paying, competing road. No hon. gentleman has offered the statement so far, or even the suggestion that this will be a competing road through Canada. They have said time and again : Oh, there is a good deal of fine national sentiment in this. It is going to promote colonization. But no man has ventured to deny the one fact that is overwhelmingly more important than this, namely, that this is not to be a national competing road from one end of Canada to the other. There is the other danger that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will not have net earnings sufficient to pay that interest or any portion of it. The doubt is, and this doubt -was in the minds of the men who made the bargain-for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway

people are not in any sense Infants-that for the first seven years they will not be able to pay anything. They contemplate that for the next three years it may be possible, nay, it is probable, that they cannot pay one cent and they therefore ask yon to capitalize that and to charge them the interest on it. The Grand Trunk Railway thus compels the government to finance for it something like two and a half millions of dollars. If the Grand Trunk pays that, it will go into the public treasury of Canada. If the Grand Trunk does not pay it, it is not a debt against the Grand Trunk Railway, it is a sum upon which interest is to be paid, and therefore constitutes a part of the cost of the road without one dollar going into the road in return.
For ten years wre must pay in interest out of the treasury of Canada, $2,493,000 a year, an enormous sum. Let it be remembered that each of these payments must be carried, one of them over nine years, one over eight years, one over seven years, one over six years, one over five years, one over four years, one over three years, one over two years. Therefore we must pay out of the treasury of Canada to carry each of these payments during the period of ten years a sum amounting to $3,306,000. There is absolutely no doubt that this will have to be carried. If you had made a payment nine years ago you would have borrowed the money to pay it, and therefore must pay the interest on the money for that nine years, and in this case the interest will constitute part of the cost of this scheme. Then the government have entered into a contract with the Grand Trunk that the rental, if any is paid, is to be paid annually. They have undertaken by their Bill and by the contract that the commissioners appointed to construct and manage this road shall issue the bonds of Canada, payable half yearly. Therefore a sum of money is borrowed that is paid to the government if it is paid at all, yearly, and the government has to pay the interest upon that half yearly. The difference thus arising during that period is nearly one million dollars that the country will lose directly by that transaction, $935,350 is thfe net sum. The whole sum involved, Mr. Speaker, is $29,238,000 not one cent of which will have gone into that road, every cent of it being a dead loss to the country. There will be nothing to show for it.
I have given you the capital expenditure at $S3,000,000 in round numbers. I have pointed out in detail-and I challenge hon. gentlemen to successfully controvert a single statement I have made-that you are paying out nearly $30,000,000 interest on this scheme after it is constructed. The Minister of Finance made an allowance for interest during the period of construction, but I am now dealing with that future interest which amounts in round numbers to $30,000,000 for which you have to carry a Mr. CLANCY.
dea l scheme for ten years. Now if that can be said then this road will have cost $83,000,000 with $29,000,000 added to it, altogether $112,000,000. I wish to say and to emphasize this particularly, that thirty-five per cent of the money will be paid out by Canada, $83,000,000 of it for construction and nearly $30,000,000 paid out for interest for which Canada will have not one copper to show. I know of no more alarming condition of affairs than tha,t Canada should have to enter upon a scheme of this kind.
I know of no more alarming condition of affairs than that Canada should have entered upon a scheme' that involves, not the cost alone, for if the cost went into the road you could use it as an asset, but that Canada should be 'asked to commit herself to a scheme that involves the payment of a subsidy to a railway without any return for ten years, a cost that will amount to two million and a half dollars, in round numbers, in order to get the company to take over the road and run it. Is it any wonder that the Grand Trunk Company refuse to enter into a scheme of that kind, or to finance it ? It was stated by way of apology, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the reason for doing that was that the Grand Trunk Pacific, although a great and rich corporation, backed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, was unable to finance so great a scheme. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was'cautious, prudent, as he always is, and refrained from entering into details of that kind. The hon. gentleman did not tell us that we could have got over the difficulty without costing us one cent, by way of guarantees, if we considered the security good. But the hon. gentleman skated over the thin ice without falling in. I only regret that the hon. gentleman did not improve the opportunity to give scope to his intellect and experience upon a question of this kind. Had he done so, he would have denounced the scheme as the rottenest scheme that was ever proposed in Canada. He would have told the country that we had entered upon a scheme that would involve an expenditure of $30,000,000, in interest and that for all the good we would get out of it, we might as well throw the money into the Ottawa river.
Now, that is the essential difference between these two schemes ? The first one Is a scheme that loads Canada with interest for many years to come. The best evidence that it is a scheme that should not be entered upon is the fact that the shrewd railway men of Canada would not touch it. It has been said in this House over and over again that the Grand Trunk Pacific did not want this scheme. It has been said in this House that it was a miserable compromise of local conditions and party conditions, and that what might have made it a scheme of national utility has been sacrificed to the meanest motives. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company know that perfectly

well. They refused it, and they said : If you want a scheme of that kind you must carry it out yourselves. The government said : If we build the road you will operate it ? The company said : No, you must give us two million and a half dollars a year, or we will not operate it for ten years. What does that mean ? It means that we have to build a road that will be no good as a competing transcontinental line ; it means that we have to build a road that cannot earn dividends above the cost of operation ; It means that if you want a railway of that kind, it will be so expensive and of such a character that Canada must bear the burden and folly of it, because the Grand Trunk Pacific is not in a position to bear it.
But we have that scheme financed by the Finance Minister. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I am delighted to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce is here. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been an authority for many years upon questions of finance. I sympathized last night with the hon. gentleman's embarrassment. He is a gentleman of long experience, a gentleman of more caution than the Minister of Finance, and in his utterances he took very good care not to commit the country to the extravagant statements made by the Minister of Finance. Now, Sir, let us see how the Minister of Finance deals with this great question. Before I go further,
I want to call the attention, both of the Postmaster General and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to this fact, that what the Minister of Finance terms the cost of the road to the people, is only a portion of the loss to the people in addition to the cost. It is not the cost at all. The leader of the opposition has never shirked his responsibility. He has never given any uncertain sound on any question which he is discussing. He is prepared to say, as his followers are prepared to say, that every dollar that goes into this work costs the people that much money. If we borrow the money, the credit of Canada is pledged to that extent. The sums paid out in interest are absolutely lost to the people, in addition to the cost of this scheme. Now, I wish to read what the Minister of Finance says :
If at the close of the year, when we are making up the accounts, we lay aside the surplus which will have accrued as stated in the budget speech, and subject to the improvement which we hope will take place in the final adjustment of the accounts, and if, instead of using that surplus to build railways elsewhere, t.o reduce our debt, or in the many other ways in which we could use it. we place that $13,000,000 in the hands of financial managers, I hope to show the House that tha.t money would mef't every financial responsibility which the government of Canada have assumed under this contract. How is this brought about ? We have to consider not the mere multiplication of interest for seven years. What we have to consider is what use we could make of that $13,000,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if be is prepared to commit himself to this government banding I over $13,000,000 to be invested by finance managers ? Does he propose to hand it over to an insurance company, as has been suggested by the Minister of Finance ? Does he propose to take $13,000,000 and invest it in that way ? I ask the right hon. gentleman now if he is prepared to sanction any such plan ; and without being offensive I ask him to give me an answer now, because it is important. The right hon. gentleman, prudent as he always is, cautious and wise, will never commit himself to a folly of that kind. Yet the Finance Minister, who sits alongside of him, has made that statement in this House, he would commit such a folly. I call it folly, Mr. Speaker, but the word is a mere euphemism for a much stronger term that might be applied to a proposition of that kind. I know of no more palpable fraud upon the people of this country than to propose a matter of that kind. It is something that no government would think of doing. It is something (hat no government in Canada has any authority to do. 3ut he told us that apart from that he was going to use it. We have had surpluses in past years as follows, according to the statement of hon. gentlemen opposite :
1898		 $1,722,712
1899		 4,837,749
1900		 8,054,714
1901		 5,648,333
1902		 7,291,398
Now, the hon. Minister of Finance proposes to invest, as he says, $13,000,000 of surpluses that he is going to have in cash. I desire now to ask the right hon. Minister of Tirade and Qommerce <Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) what has become of these past surpluses ? Will that toon, gentleman tell us where that money has gone ? These surpluses aggregate $27,554,000 during these past years. Will that right hon. gentleman tell us where that money is ? Has there been one dollar invested in any way ? Has it been placed at the credit of the people of Canada in any of the chartered banks ? Has it been invested in securities ? Has there been such a thing in existence ? The right hon. gentleman will not answer such a question. Nobody knows better than that right hon. gentleman, himself that this is a perfect fraud upon the people. No such thing is possible. The money did not exist, it is a mere bookkeeping fiction, and there was no surplus. I shall not ask that right hon. gentleman to account for it, because it did not exist in any sense. I say that when you have to call to the aid of any scheme such frauds as that, such pretensions, It requires no better answer for the people of this country than the complete silence of the right hon. gentleman. If any man in Canada knows, he does. Where has that money

t)699

-gone ? There is a difference, as the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mu-lock) will see, between the cost of the two schemes, including interest and capital expenditure in both cases. The one leaving Moncton and going to the city of Winnipeg, and the other leaving the city of Montreal and reaching Winnipeg, of $51,000,000. Where is that difference thrown away ? I have calculated the cost per mile in each case as being precisely the same, because it is the only way of making the comparison. There has been thrown away at the commencement of the line, in paralleling the Intercolonial Railway, $15,000,000 or $16,000,000. We have evidence beyond doubt of that fact. We have the evidence of the hon. Minister of the Interior and we have the evidence of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that the Intercolonial Railway can compete, and compete successfully, even with a shorter line. In order that there may be no mistake, I will give to the House what was stated in this House as evidence. I will give to the House the views of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, a gentleman of experience greater than any other man in this House, who declared from his place here that the Intercolonial Railway could compete successfully and compete with the shorter line, because it had a better road, and that by attempting to shorten that road GO or 70 miles, you do not improve it in any way, because you cannot get as good a road, and the difference is so small that it is not recognizable. He says :
It must not be forgotten-and I wish to emphasize this fact-that the Intercolonial Railway has such exceptionally favourable grades, is so well laid, and is such an exceptionally favourable road for traffic, running along the coast line, that it can haul heavier traffic 2-59 miles further-	.
In this case it would only be 60 or 70 miles further.
-than the Canadian Pacific Railway in shorter time. You can therefore see how small a figure 77 miles would cut under such circumstances.
But that 'is not all. I am going to give the evidence of an hon. gentleman in this House who, it has been said, made tin; speech of the season in regard to this question. I have now reference to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). He had made a reference to the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway, as hon. gentlemen will see by reference to 'Hansard,' and then he proceeded to say :
The figures that I have given prove that the Intercolonial Railway was able to do a substantial amount of business, and that the Intercolonial was able to do it in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway ; both lines much shorter than the Intercolonial Railway ; both lines

and this is the point I wish to emphasize-both lines shorter than the new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway line will be. Then, Mr. Speaker, if the Mr. CLANCY.
Intercolonial Railway under its traffic agreement can compete with the short line to Portland and with the short line to St. John, why in the name of common sense cannot, it compete with the new line by way of the Chaudiere Junction ?
We have the evidence now of the hon. Minister of the Interior that such an expenditure is wholly unwarranted. The only reason given for building a shorter line was to enable the transcontinental line to be a competing line. We are told by tile lion. ex-Minister of Bailways and Canals that the Intercolonial Railway is a competing line, and that it will be a better competing line than the proposed short line, as hon. gentlemen may term it, and we have the further evidence of the hon. Minister of the Interior that the Intercolonial Railway is competing, and can compete, with the existing short line. Then, I say you have thrown away $15,000,000 or $16,000,000 of their $51,000,000 in constructing that alleged shorter line through the province of New Brunswick. But you have done more. You have paralleled the Intercolonial Railway. You put a road alongside the Intercolonial Railway when it is stated by one of tbe hon. ministers that the Intercolonial Railway will he a better competing line than the proposed short line, and I say it is the rankest folly to build a road alongside the Intercolonial Railway and thus render tlie Intercolonial Railway less efficient. You will destroy the efficiency of the service for the people living along that line, you build a line to no purpose, and you will enter upon a scheme which is an absolutely unjustifiable one, as a supporter of the government declared from his place in the House last night, and one that he was prepared to "vote against.
Where does the balance of the $51,000,000 go ? The other part of it disappears in the payment of interest. The sum payable in interest will be about $30,000,000.
Now, I want to come to another feature upon which much stress has been laid, and that is the colonization feature of this road. I shall not say anything in regard to the province of Quebec, because I confess to a very limited knowledge of tbe character of the country in that province. I am, therefore, leaving out the question of colonization in New Brunswick and Quebec. I believe that to be a question of general policy, which must be dealt with by itself. But I will take the province of Ontario, and I shall not have one ill word to say of that country.
The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) delivered an admirable speech last night, in which he said that both parties 'had faith in the country and I venture to say that for the first time in his whole parliamentary experience, he had seen both sides of the House professing abiding faith in the possibilities of Canada when discussing a controver-

sial policy. It was a feature that he had never witnessed in the course of his whole public life. I believe that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) came to parliament a very young man, and he has grown up in wisdom, and experience brought to him by those two greatest schools in Canada. namely :	Membership in the House
of Commons and membership in the profession of journalism. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was pleased to notice that no matter what the scheme before this House may be, the present opposition, the Conservative party of Canada, refuse to decry the country when they are discussing it. The opposition in this House, Sir, will use no unworthy weapons in meeting any scheme promulgated by the opposing political party. In that respect they differ from another parliamentary opposition in Canada in days past. The opposition in this House have chosen to examine the scheme itself and to base their criticisms upon its merits or demerits, and I will not go so far even as to tell what I believe to be the whole truth about the country through which this government railway will run. Let me say in general terms, that I believe that part of Canada is worth something. But, if you put colonization roads there to-morrow, the northern part of the older provinces cannot possibly compete with the great west for many years to come. As an evidence of that let me refer to the reports of the Ontario government surveyors, upon which hon. gentlemen opposite have been compelled to rely entirely for their information. There are about 100,000,000 acres of land in that territory, and if you take what is called the clay belt and every patch of agricultural land that can be collected in it. you have something like 15,000,000 or 10,000,000 acres of agricultural land in northern Ontario, nr about one-seventh of the whole. I shall not decry the country ; I need not say more than that. I believe that some day, even perhaps in this generation, young men may go into that territory when the lands in more favourably situated parts of the country are exhausted for agriculture. Sir, I shall not follow the member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) in his manner of justifying the government scheme. He told us that this country would be settled up immediately, when as a matter of fact every one knows that it cannot compete in agricultural possibilities with the fertile lands of the west, for many years to come. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) proposed to subject French Canadians to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. He told us that there were people in Quebec who would go into that country and grub up stumps. I shall not allow the remarks of the hon. gentleman to dispel from my mind my long-cherished belief, that the French Canadian people are as intelligent and progressive ns any other people in Canada. My experience of them is that they are as much alive to 304i
public questions, that they are as keen in business questions as any other class of our people ; and to say that French Canadians would go into such a country as that and be too dull to see the advantages of the west, is a statement which I for one do not believe. Are our French Canadians or any other Canadians for that matter, less intelligent than the Europeans who are flocking into our west to reap the many advantages which that country possesses ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) driven into a corner for an argument in favour of the government scheme, was forced to say that his fellow French Canadians were duller than other people and could not see the advantages of fertile lauds as compared with these regions in the north. It is a slander on the French Canadians, and I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that your own experience has been, that French Canadians will dig up stumps when they can get clear and fertile lands on which to settle.
I have said, Sir, that the question of colonization must be dealt with separately, and I have also said that it would be folly amounting to insanity to subordinate a single feature of a strong national transcontinental competing railway to the idea of colonization. What is going on in the province of Ontario just now ? Commencing at Quebec until we reach the line between Manitoba and Ontario going west, what do we find in the matter of railway construction ? We have the Lake Temiscamingue and Pettawawa River Railway, under the Canadian Pacific Railway, built some distance into that country. We have the Ontario government constructing a line from North Bay and penetrating that country into the fertile lands of Lake Temiscamingue. We have the .Tames' Bay Railway, now under construction, I understand. that will run from Sudbury to Lake Abitibi also in what is called the fertile belt. This has been given by the Ontario government a cash subsidy of $2,000 a mile and a land grant of 5.000 acres a mile for 175 miles running north. AA'e then have the Ontario. Hudson's Bay and Western Railway, that runs from Missanabie Station further west, through the valley of the Missanabie and within forty miles of the clay belt. In order that hon. gentlemen may not be sceptical let me read what this report says :
The southern boundary of this great tract of fertile land is less than 40 miles from the Missanabie Station on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the country north of the height of land being an immense level belt sloping off towards James Bay, the construction of a railway and wagon roads through every part of it would he comparatively an easy matter.
But that is not ail the railways that are projected or under construction. There is as I have said, the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railway running from Missanabie station to Moose river or .Tames bay, going through the whole length of that conn-

try. It has from the Ontario government a cash subsidy of $2,000 a mile and a laud grant of 5,000 acres a mile for 240 miles. Then we have from Peninsular Harbour, a station still further west, the Lake Superior Long Lake and Albany River Railway, running from Peninsular Harbour to Hudson's bay. It has a cash subsidy or ten miles of $3,000 a mile from the Ontario government. Then we have the Nepigon Railway, running from Lake Nepigon to Long lake and James bay, also penetrating that country. It has a cash subsidy of $3,000 a mile for the first fourteen miles, which, I believe, are being constructed. Then, we have the Thunder Bay, Nepigon and St. Joe Railway, which runs from Port Arthur to St. Joseph's lake, on the Albany river, which, as you know, forms the boundary line between Keewatin and the province of Ontario. The length of this railway is 225 miles. It has received from the Ontario government a cash subsidy of $2,000 a mile for the first ten miles, which, I understand, are in operation, and a land grant of 5,000 acres a mile for the whole length. It is abundantly clear that an effort is being made in the direction of colonizing that country. I have pointed out seven lines of railway which will be feeders to what in the near future I contemplate will be the Intercolonial Railway of Canada. Much has been said as to the value of developing that northern country. That country has both mining and agricultural features; and, although the latter may be and will be delayed in their development for many years, for the reason I have given, some day the country will be developed and colonization roads will be built through it; but they will be built from other parts of Ontario than from the city of Quebec or the city of Winnipeg into Ontario. The natural flow of capital into that country will not come from either of these quarters. The men who put their money into these schemes are men who live in the great cities of the province of Ontario. No man can be considered sectional because he says that the capital for these purposes is more likely to come from the great cities of the province than from either end of it. Some day it may be found necessary to build a colonization road through that country, or the necessity may never arise. It must depend entirely on the information which may be obtained, and the circumstances which it will disclose.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have just one matter more which I desire to deal with, and that is with regard to the relative cost of the two schemes before us. I am assuming, as I have a right to assume, that this House will not of necessity consent to the scheme placed before the House by the government.
1 I have a right to assume that hon. members on both sides of this House will exercise their prudence and their independence-will recognize their responsibility, not


James Clancy: is suffering now the penalty of liis loyalty to his country. He has to submit to the taunts of hon. gentlemen opposite. He has to endure being hounded ail through the country by his former supporters. Let me say that never was a man actuated by more worthy motives. Never was there a man who made greater sacrifices. Never was there a man in the history of this Dominion who had a greater opportunity offered him to serve his country, and to his great credit be it said, that there are few men, who, although the opportunity might fail to their lot, would be strong enough to avail themselves of it as he did. I desire to say-and this is the least that ought to be said by every honest man sitting on that side of tiie House if he would express his honest views-that there is no man to whom the people of Canada owe a greater debt of gratitude, no matter what may happen to this scheme.
I desire in conclusion to say a word in reference to the hon. gentleman whom, as an humble member of this House I have the honour to follow, the leader of the opposition. The Conservative party to-day are not living upon the achievements of our great leaders in the past ; their achievements were great enough, .Mr. Speaker, to be recalled and the Conservative party might well fall back upon its record and that of the great leaders who have preceded the hon. gentleman who now with such signal ability leads the opposition in this House. The opposition to-day are not living upon the great deeds'of statesmanship of former leaders of the Conservative party, we are living to-day upon live issues, led by a great leader. What are the evidences of that, Mr. Speaker ? At a supreme moment in the history of Canada when we had to decide upon an immense expenditure only to lie justified because it was a great national undertaking, when we were at a point tliat if we were to spend a dollar we must spend it wisely and must divorce our decision from every consideration other tlian the national welfare, we have found a leader strong enough to propose what he believes and what the country, I am sure will believe is a great national scheme for tlie reasons X have already stated and one that would justify any expenditure of money. There is no small risk in "a leader taking that position. But he has not only undertaken to criticise, but I btilieve lias successfully criticised, what be believes to be, what I believe to be, what 1 believe every lion, gentleman opposite believes to be, a mistaken policy and one which Canada should not adopt. The leader of the opposition has taken upon himself to point out the difficulties of that scheme, difficulties so great that it is evident that if we are to build a railway, tliat is not tlie way to build it. He lias propounded what we believe to be not only a rational scheme but a national scheme, which he is prepared to Mr. CLANCY.
defend from end to end of this country, a better scheme than that one proposed by the government and one that would cost less money, a scheme that will give an asset to Canada for every dollar that is spent upon it and tliat will earn returns from the day of its inauguration, a scheme tliat belongs to the people, a scheme that challenges admiration, a scheme that will control the railway rates on ail the railways of this country. I realize that the Grand Trunk Railway is a great system and that it would be a fatal mistake to cripple that, or the Canadian Pacific or any other of our railways. But tlie plan proposed by the leader of the opposition is so perfect that it will not cripple a single interest in railway building in Canada. It gives full scope to all of them ; it goes so far as to nationalize sections of road in order to make it possible for all those in ads to prosper. In a word. Jlr. Speaker, it is a scheme that I believe will be approved by the people of this country and that is worthy of the great leader of the Conservative party:
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. AY. M. GERMAN (Welland).: Mr. Speaker, I apprehend that it is very seldom a matter of greater importance comes before the parliament of Canada for consideration than the one which we are considering at the present time, a question of greater interest to the people of Canada, or of greater importance in tlie development of our national industries. Though this debate has been somewhat protracted and will likely last for some time longer, I feel impelled to express my views on the subject and not to give merely a silent vote.
E very hon. gentleman who has addressed I he House so far, I believe, lias had something to say in reference to the late Minister of Railways and Canals, and I do not know 1 will hold myself up as an exception to that rule. I will say that I regret exceedingly tliat that lion, gentleman found it incumbent upon himself to retire from the government. He was a gentleman whom X, at any rate, always admired as chief executive of the Department of Railways and Canals. I trust that there were no other reasons than purely patriotic reasons that induced him to retire from the government. But I could not help but think, in listening to bis speech, that lie did exhibit something of the spirit of a spoilt child, that he iiad had liis own way for so long in his native province of New Brunswick, and had been a dictator, an autocrat, in that province for so long a time, tliat be could not submit to tlie suggestions of any one else when lie came to Ottawa. Now, Sir. there Is this particular coincidence in connection with the resignations from the government. It was only a short time ago that every Conservative speaker and every Conservative newspaper

in tliis country were claiming that the two hon. gentlemen who have lately left the government were the masters ol' the administration, that they were the men who controlled the situation. Possibly, Sir, these gentlemen had seen that statement so frequently and so continuously made throughout tlie country, that they began to think so themselves. But when the time came for decisive action these gentlemen found that there was only one master of the administration, and that was the right hon. Premier of Canada. Now, Sir, hon. gentlemen opposite cheered very lustily the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he made his statement. I thought that if it had not been for the argumentative powder which he furnished the opposition they would have been absolutely without ammunition to bombard this proposition. They have apparently followed almost entirely in his lead ; lie was the bell-wether that led the flock on the other side. It is not so very long ago that these gentlemen were not so fond of the ex-.Minister of Railways and Canals. It is only last session of parliament that these gentlemen cheered with great fervor the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) when he made on the floor of the House a most bitter personal attack on the exminister, not only impugning his executive ability as a minister of the Crown, but challenging his honesty as a man. That statement was cheered by these hon. gentlemen. They condemned him right and left, but now, forsooth, after he has picked out for them a policy which they think will be of some benefit in the approaching elections, they cheer him lustily.
Now, Sir. I did regret that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals went out of his way to make a personal attack upon his late colleagues, and 1 feel very confident that had lie exhibited less vindictiveness, his remarks would have had greater weight, at any rate with-hon. members on this side of the House, than they will have under the circumstances. However, I regret very much that he has seen fit to leave the government. He was an able administrator, and I believe an honest man, notwithstanding the assertion of hon. gentlemen opposite. I would be very glad indeed if I could see him back again at the head of the Department of Railways and Canals of Canada.
Now, Sir, what is the position of this transcontinental railway question V The exminister says that we are rushing into this project with undue haste, without sufficient knowledge. The leader of the opposition says that before anything is done in the way of construction of a transcontinental railway we should have a transportation commission appointed, and that view wras followed up this morning by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). These gentlemen became exceedingly eloquent on the question of a transportation commission,
arguing that we should have had commissioners appointed who would investigate the whole problem and report to this parliament before anything was done: Now, what is the position with regard to the appointment of a transportation commission ? Why. Sir, we all know that when the question of transportation first came up in this House two seasons ago, there were very diverse opinions in regard to the matter. But transportation of what kind ? Not railway transportation. but water transportation. The then Minister of Public Works was demanding very loudly and eloquently that the French river navigation should be improved, that millions of money should be expended by the government in improving the French river, so as to allow freighters of the largest class on the upper lakes to go through to North Bay. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) were both contending that the government should build, or aid in constructing, the Georgian Bay canal, besides improving the French river. The hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright) was also in favour of that proposition. Many hon. members 'were in favour of deepening the Welland canal to twenty-two feet. Large sums of money were being expended at Port Colborne for the betterment of the Welland canal route; the harbours on the upper lakes were being improved, and considerable sums of money were being expended in those places. And, Sir. it was by reason of the divergent views of hon. members of parliament in regard to the best mode of transporting the cereal products of the west to the seaboard, that the question of the formation of a transportation commission was taken up. I venture to say that you cannot find within the pages of ' Hansard ' a speech made by any member of this House in which it was at any time suggested that the problem of a transcontinental railway should be at that time taken into consideration by this transportation commission. Why, Sir, the very fact that Sir William Van Horne was suggested as chairman of that commission absolutely disproves the argument that there was any question of a transcontinental line of railway to be inquired into. What would he say ? He would simply say to the government : Why, the Canadian Pacific Railway can carry all the products of the west that need to be carried for many years, and the best thing you can do is to give a further bonus to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and we will carry the products. That is very likely what he would have said. 1 say "the very fact of his being nominated on that commission disproves the idea that there was a question of a trans-contiuental'railway involved in the appointment of that commission.
Now, Sir, has there been undue haste and want of deliberation in this matter? When this session of parliament opened, a Bill

we could not have entered into it too quickly-if it is a had agreement we should not have entered into it at all. Now, is it good or bad ? We have heard very little criticism of this agreement from the opposition, that it fails to protect the public interests, assuming that this road is to be built. I venture to say that there is no gentleman in this House who can successfully criticise this agreement as an agreement not calculated to protect the public interest. 1 never saw an agreement more carefully prepared and more thoroughly safe-guarding and protecting the interests of the people of this country. Why, Sir, the agreement is so good that the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) suggested that he did not believe the Grand Trunk Railway would ever carry it out. He thought it was so good an agreement for the country that there must be something underhand, something unseen in it, some private deal in it between the company and the government. The tenor of the discussion on the opposite side of the House has been, that this agreement is too good, and that it cannot be a bona fide' agreement or else the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would have never entered into it. Therefore, Sir, X am safe in saying that no just criticism can be offered to this agreement. The exminister (Hon. Mr. Blair) told us that the agreement, although signed by Mr. Hays on behalf of somebody, placed no responsibility and no liability on any person whatever. Well, if the agreement is not carried out by the company it need not be carried out by the government. But remember that the company have to deposit with the government $5,000,000 as security that they will carry out the agreement, and with that $5,000,000 we have money enough to make the explorations which hon. gentlemen opposite are so keenly anxious for. If the company deposit $5,000,000 and do not carry out the agreement, then that handsome sum is appropriated by the Grown. If they do carry out the agreement, well then we have our agreement perfected and the money is returned to the company. But what was the security given by the Canadian Pacific Railway ? It was not $5,000,000, but $1,000,000, and Sir Charles Tupper stated that $1,000,000 was ample security for the due performance of that immense contract by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. AVe therefore have five times the security from this company that the Conservative government demanded from the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Now, Sir, the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) said we were binding ourselves to construct a railway through a country which was absolutely unknown, and the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) repeated that statement so far as Quebec and New Brunswick were concerned. The exMinister of Railways also said that in constructing through New Brunswick, we would be obliged to make a detour into the state of Mr. GERMAN.
Maine. AVell, to start with, the agreement prevents that. This government has not undertaken to do impossible things, and the contract says that the railway shall be constructed wholly upon Canadian territory. If it cannot be constructed upon Canadian territory then it will not be constructed at all. The contract says that the eastern division shall be constructed, by and at the expense of the government, upon such location and according to such plans and specifications as the government shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients, and favourable curves. If we cannot locate the line through this section of the country with easy gradients and favourable curves, then we are not bound to locate it at all. The contract also says :
The construction of the eastern division shall lie commenced so soon as the government has made the surveys and plans and determined upon the location.
The location is to be of easy gradients and of favourable curves. That is all the government is binding itself to do. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk as though the government had entered into a contract wliere-by they must at once, without surveys, without consideration, without an examination of the country, rush ahead and at any sort of unlimited expense construct a line of railway from Moncton to AA'innipeg. That argument is absolutely fallacious and misleading. If hon. gentlemen opposite will read the agreement and interpret it as any reasonable, sensible man woidd interpret it, they will find that the government, when the agreement is ratified by parliament, will immediately begin to enter on tlie survey of this territory. The agreement expressly says that the work shall not be begun until they have made surveys and plans, and until they have determined upon the location of the road, having reference to easy gradients and favourable curves. AY by. Sir, the people of this country would not stand for this government, or for any government, rushing ahead blindfold into an enterprise without making full .and ample inquiry. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are as much interested in securing the best line, with the easiest grades and the most favourable curves as the government is. All the surveys, all the plans, all the specifications, are to he submitted to the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. That company is to have a voice in the construction of this road, and very properly so, because they have to pay 3 per cent interest on the cost of its construction ; and they will certainly see that a modern and up-to-date road ,is built, and lmilt as cheaply as it can be, consistently with efficiency and proper construction.
Now, Sir, compare for a moment the sections of this agreement which are binding on the government as to construction and the section which is binding on the company as to construction. Section 10 says:

The work of locating and constructing the said western division shall he commenced forthwith after the ratification of this agreement by the parliament of Canada, and shall proceed with the utmost despatch and shall he completed within five years from the 1st day of December. 1903.
So that we have this condition of affairs, that the company must, immediately after this contract is ratified by parliament, begin the construction of the western division of this railway, and must have it completed within five years, whereas the government, in constructing the eastern division, can take as much time as is necessary to have proper surveys made and to construct the railway in a modern up-to-date way. I think the contract submitted to the people of this country will receive the approval of every business man in the Dominion of Canada. I doubt if any man can successfully criticise it.
There has been something said in regard to the cost of constructing this railway. I do not think I need occupy the time of this House at any great length in discussing that question. The hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) this morning had compiled a peculiar set of figures, which were somewhat incomprehensible to me, and I am very much inclined to think also to himself. He says that the line of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg will cost $41,500 per mile. He makes that assertion, comparing the cost of that line with the cost of procuring a right of way for the Intercolonial Railway between Point Levis and Montreal, under the agreement which was entered into by the government a year or two ago. That, I understood to be his suggestion, and it is absolutely erroneous. I have had the pleasure of asking railway men what, in their opinion, that portion of the railway would cost. Railway men differ in opinion on these matters; but there appears to be a strangle unanimity of opinion on the part of hon. members of this parliament as to the cost of railway construction through this country. My information is that the line of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, speaking generally, at a fairly conservative estimate, will cost about $30,000 a mile. The hon. member for Bothwell suggested that that line would cost $77,812,000. According to my information, it will cost about $54,000,000, so that the hon. member is out $23,812,000. Probably that is not very much for the hon. member for Bothwell. Probably that is not so much out as he will be after the Redistribution Bill goes into force. He made some other suggestions as to cost which I will refer to in a moment.
Well, Sir, the hon. leader of the opposition has propounded a policy. Some one, whose name I have forgotten just at the moment, has said. ' Oh. that mine enemy would write a book ! ' It occurred to me that the right hon. Premier felt, 'Oh. that the hon. leader of the opposition would propound an alternative railway policy ! ' And he has done so, and a more absurd proposition I think was never submitted, not only to parliament, but to any body of sensible men. I think I could hear the inward growls of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) when that proposition was made by his leader. I would like to know what the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) thinks of it. I would like to know what a good many other hon. gentlemen on that side of the House think of the proposition of their hon. leader. The hon. member for Bothwell made a suggestion as to the cost of carrying out that proposition. I will take the liberty of stating what my information leads me to believe is the fairly correct probable cost of the proposed road of the hon. leader of the opposition.
In the first place, he has to construct a line from Montreal to Coteau. My information is that that will require a line 37 miles in length, which, at $40,000 per mile, the figure given by the hon. member for Bothwell, would cost $1,480,000. The next part of the proposition was to buy the Canada Atlantic line from Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour. The hon. member for Bothwell states that that line has been in the market for the last two or three years. He says there is a standing option on it. We know that Dr. Seward Webb, of New York, who is connected with the wealthiest people in the United States, came here and put up $1,000,000 with Mr. John R. Booth as an option for the purchase of the Canada Atlantic Railway, at the price, if my recollection serves me, of $11,000,000 or $12,000.000. But that option was not carried out -why ? Dr. Seward Webb had behind him all the weath of the New York Central Railway Company, all the wealth of the Vanderbilts, with whom he is connected, practically the, wealth of the city of New York. Why, then, was that purchase not carried out ? Rumour makes the sugestion, whether it is correct or not we do not know, that the suggested earnings of that road were not the same as the actual earnings. For some reason or other Dr. Seward Webb did not carry out the purchase. At any rate, the hon member for Bothwell says that the Canada Atlantic Railway is in the market for sale. I do not know whether the government of Canada need to purchase a railway that is in the market for sale. At any rate, I understand Mr. Booth now wants $17,000,000 for that railroad, and it is very certain that it would cost at least $3,000,000 to put it in a satisfactory shape to be used as a transcontinental line, bringing its cost up to $20,000,000.
The hon. leader of the opposition next proposes that we build a railway from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, the length of which he puts at 120 miles. The hon. member for Bothwell puts it at less than that. My information is that its length is 120 or

We have also territory further to the north, and I believe that when this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway passes through that country it will serve as a basis of operations and as a basis of exploration in that country around James' bay and Hudson's bay. ~"We know, Sir, that three years ago certain Philadelphia gentlemen sent one of our Canadian geologists, Mr. Low, of Ottawa, up into that country with an exploring party to look for copper. They found not only copper, but they also found several islands in which there was a large quantity of iron ore. These Philadelphia gentlemen are now at work, and either this year or next year at the latest their ships will be carrying iron ore from these islands through Hudson's strait to the markets of United States. Surely what these gentlemen have done as a private enterprise, we Canadians, with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway running through that country as a basis of operations, running through that country, can investigate every nook and cranny of that northern region and ascertain for ourselves whether we cannot devote some portion of its wealth to our own purposes instead of allowing it to be taken off to foreign countries to increase their wealth.
There is one other factor in connection with this proposition that seems to me the strongest, perhaps, of all, and that is the fact that the old Grand Trunk Railway Company is behind it. Had the government adopted the suggestion of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and extended the Intercolonial to Winnipeg, we would have had a single pair of rails running from Quebec to Winnipeg without a branch line in the country. It is well known that a through-trunk line cannot possibly be made to pay without branches. What would the Canadian Pacific Railway, as a trunk line, have amounted to without branch lines as feeders, had it not gone into outside enterprises, into the shipping industry, into different industries in order to bring traffic to the main arteries. Sir, every trunk line of railway must have branches, must have feeders stretching out in all directions, to bring into the main artery the products of the surrounding country. The present Grand Trunk Railway possesses unrivalled facilities for collecting merchandise in Ontario and Quebec for despatch to the west, and for distributing the hard wheat of the west among the millers and merchants of Ontario and Quebec. It is, without doubt, of the greatest importance, to Ontario at any rate, that the government has so managed that behind the proposed transcontinental line stands the Grand Trunk Railway Company with its large mileage in Ontario and Quebec, with its splendid equipment in both of these provinces. The government might have constructed branch lines, but will any one say that the government could have constructed a system of branch lines that would have Mr. GERMAN.
been in any way equal to the system of branch lines owned and operated by tlie Grand Trunk Railway Company ? The Grand Trunk has spent half a century and millions of dollars in perfecting its present system and its present mileage, and that whole, huge organization for the collection and distribution of products becomes, by the government's policy, the auxiliary of our transcontinental road ; whereas, had the government extended the Intercolonial, we would have had no benefit, in Ontario at any rate, from the proposition suggested by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals for constructing a single trunk line across that territory between Quebec and Winnipeg. Hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested that that country can be opened up and explored by extending lines to the north. It might be after some years that colonization roads extending north would develop and open up that country. But who will say that by the construction of this transcontinental railway as suggested by the government, that country will not be opened up very, much more quickly ? The wealth of that country will be developed very much more quickly than it would be by any system of local lines running north and south. The whole system of the Grand Trunk will be brought to bear to make this transcontinental line a success, the whole organization of the Grand Trunk will be brought to bear to transmit and distribute the products of the west among the people of Ontario, and Quebec, and the maritime provinces, who desire them for their own consumption. What this railway will do for Ontario it will do for Quebec, it will do for New Brunswick. I do not know much of New Brunswick, but having made a short visit there, I feel that I know this much at any rate, that the one thing New Brunswick needs is more railway accommodation. I cannot imagine how any lion, member of this House from the province of New Brunswick can stand up and denounce the attitude of the government in constructing this line of railway through that province. Their conduct is to me inexplicable.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Gape Breton).: We will see no more of it.


William Manley German: I venture to think we will see no more of it, because I believe the people down there desire this railway, they are anxious to have this railway, notwithstanding that some hon. gentlemen say it will parallel the Intercolonial. They want more railway facilities there, and I will be surprised: indeed if the people down there do not heartily support the government's proposition.
Now, Sir, the whole history of railway development proves conclusively that railways are the magic wand which turns the wilderness into a land of activity and wealth, and this Grand Trunk

Paeiiic cannot fail to open up the country to the north of the older settled portions, and to direct population into those regions. These people will create industries, and open up what is at present a vast wilderness, and make it a valuable portion of our national domain. The exminister says that we should wait, hon. gentlemen opposite say we should wait. For what should we wait ? For exploration ? We have had explorations, the whole province of Ontario has been, explored, the government of the province of Ontario has had exploring parties out for years. The gentlemen who are interested in the iron industries of Sault Ste. Marie have had exploring parties out in the province of Ontario for years. We have the reports of those gentlemen, and we know, in the p>ro-vince of Ontario at any rate, that we have unbounded natural wealth only waiting to be developed by the introduction of a railway such as this. We know that the province! of Quebec has been explored as well as the province of Ontario. Then why should we wait ? Is it merely to suit the wishes of the hon. gentlemen opposite? Sir, the people of this country will not wait. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said that Senator Cox would not wait. I do not know whether he will or not, but I do know that the people of Canada demand that we shall have a transcontinental railway. Therefore I do not see any necessity for delay.	.
If we are ever to have another transcontinental railway constructed, now is the time to begin operations, while we are on the crest of the wave of prosperity, while there is wealth in abundance, while money is plentiful and can be secured at a low rate of interest. Now is the time to take the initiative, now is the time to go ahead with the construction of this road. We are warned by some that hard times will be on us shortly, that there will be depression in the money markets of the world, that there w:" lie depression in our financial institutions. Why. Sir, it appears to me that the construction of this Crand Trunk Pacific, and the millions of dollars that it will be necessary to expend upon it. the money being brought in from a foreign country, will go very far to turn back the tide depression that is said to be approaching, and will prevent for many long years to come financial depression in this country. I say that now is the time for us to advance.
A good deal has been said about the transportation problem. We are told that grain cannot be carried from the west to the east by railway. Well, it seems to me that he must be a bold man who will prophecy anything about the carrying trade of the future. We know not to-day what conditions will exist five years hence when this Grand Trunk Pacific is constructed. We do know this, however, that grain is being carried from the west over the Canadian Pacific
Railway to St. John. We know further that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with their usual enterprise has purchased a line of steamships for the Atlantic ocean. They must have wheat as freight, and how will they get that wheat to St. John without, carrying it, at any rate for five months in the winter, by rail ? They will certainly carry it by rail, and if the Canadian Pacific Railway can carry wheat by rail from Winnipeg to the coast, how much more readily can the Grand Trunk Pacific, with its easier grades and its more modern appliances ? The Grand Trunk Pacific, under agreement with the government, is bound, to supply shipping accommodation not only on the Pacific, but on the Atlantic ocean, they must take care by their own shops of all the freight that is hauled over their line. So they will get grain from the west, and they will give a greater measure of competition than we have existing at the present time. They will give lower rates of freight by reason of that competition, and that is exactly what the settlers in the North-west require. What they must have is low freight rates in order to compete with the agriculturists in other parts of the world. I believe that large quantities of the wheat of the North-west will be carried by rail. The Minister of Agriculture told us in his speech the other day of the large quantities of wheat that were being carried from Chicago to the Atlantic ports by rail If wheat can be carried from Chicago to the Atlantic ports by rail, it can be carried in the same way from Winnipeg to the Atlantic ports, and this. I believe, is what this new railway will accomplish.
Now, Sir, what have we in this propositi n ? We have a line of railway extending from Moncton to the Pacific coast, we have tiie shortest transportation line from the wheat fields of the west to the markets of Europe. There is no line on the American continent which will afford as short a haul for the wheat which is grown in the northwestern part of the north American continent as the Grand Trunk Pacific will afford by the route from Winnipeg to Moncton and St. John and by steamer from there to I.iverpool. So that, we have the shortest transcontinental line from the west to the east. We will have a line of railway which will cost this country a trifle compared with the enormous resources of the country and compared with the amount of money which other railways have cost this country and cost other countries. We have a proposition which will be approved of by the people of this country and in contradistinction to the policy stated by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden. Halifax). I submit that there can be no reasonable or fair comparison made between them. I will not take up the time of the House any longer. Looking, at this proposition, Sir. from every point of view, I believe it to be sound, businesslike and patriotic, the best thing that

can be clone under existing circumstances for tlie North-west Territories, for Ontario, for Quebec, for the maritime provinces and for Canada at large. I venture to believe, moreover, that when this debate is ended, when the heat of partisanship has passed, at least some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will come over to our opinion in the matter and join with us in assisting the right hon. leader of the government in carrying out his wise and energetic policy to the end. I cannot believe that many intelligent Conservatives either here or elsewhere will remain long if ever attached to that monstrous absurdity the policy of tlie hon. leader of the opposition which will involve an enormous expenditure, an expenditure far greater than that involved in the policy proposed by the government and give us nothing in return but a system of shreds and ]intcli.es of remnants and job lots which will be of no avail in opening up our country either east or west. Notwithstanding our political differences we are all Canadians proud of our name and heritage, proud of the mighty future which seems to be ours, if we but be true to ourselves. Let us then get together and when this debate is ended strengthen and uphold tlie great Canadian at the head of the government while he devotes tlie next four or live years to consummating indeed work which promises to be a fitting crown to a long, meritorious and useful career.


Mr.   AV@: 

relief; will it reach the congested districts; will it be able to handle any great quantity of grain over its all-rail system during the close of navigation on the great lakes V Will it, because of its location, be able to compete successfully with other lines by rail and lake; will it in short be the best means that can be devised to accomplish the purpose for which it is designed ? If, Sir, these questions could be truthfully answered in the affirmative, then notwithstanding the immense outlay that will be caused by the construction and completion of the road; notwithstanding the immense liability incurred; this outlay and this liability will not have been incurred in vain. But, on the other hand, if it can be successfully demonstrated to members of this House that even after its completion this railroad will not fill the bill, will not meet the requirements of the people; if it is found that it is not the best means that can be devised; then, Sir, it will not only be a wilful waste of public money, but if it is persisted in after its defects have been pointed out to its promoters, they will deserve and no doubt will receive, just condemnation at the hands of an Indignant electorate. So far as the question of the abrogation of the bonding privilege is concerned, I think it is scarcely deserving of serious consideration from the members of this House. The argument has been so effectively disposed of that scarcely a member on the other side discusses the question now at all. They have dropped it so suddenly, that it is evident they themselves have recognized that it was a mere bogey set up by the Prime Minister to coerce the people of Canada into this large expenditure, when there was absolutely no fear on that score whatever. The Prime Minister was driven to a considerable extremity when he had to go back fifteen years to bolster up his opinion by quoting from a message delivered to congress by the then President of tire United States, Grover Cleveland, wherein he suggested the abrogation of the bonding privilege-a suggestion by the way which has never been acted upon up to the present date, and for the good reason that its adoption would react more upon American railways than on Canadian railways. Nor was the Prime Minister more fortunate in his quotation from Mr. Andrew Carnegie, a gentleman who of very recent date has been misrepresenting Canada and everything Canadian. Why, the Prime Minister himself had to take exception to the letter from which he quoted, in which Mr. Carnegie stated that our harbours and our ports were ice-bound during five months in the year. But still the right lion, gentleman used Mr. Carnegie as an authority to bolster up his views on this question of the bonding privilege. What would become of the great traffic that is passing from Chicago and the western cities over the Grand Trunk Railway system through Canadian territory to Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
Portland, Maine, if the bonding privilege were abrogated V What would become of the Canadian division of the Michigan Central owned and operated by Americans-a double track system nearly all the way on which an immense traffic is being carried from the eastern to the western states and vice versa ? What would become of other systems of railway traversing our country in which millions of dollars of American capital are invested, should this bonding privilege be abrogated by the American government ? Sir, the bonding privilege is in no more danger to-day of being abrogated than it has been at any time during these last fifteen years, or than it will be during the next fifteen years, and for the very good reasons that if it were abrogated the greater injury would be inflicted on the American people themselves. At any rate, suppose that the privilege were abrogated, the Prime Minister would leave the impression upon this House and upon the country that we would be absolutely at the mercy of the American people, when as a matter of fact we would be just as well off now as we will be after the completion of this government transcontinental road.
What do we find to-day ? We find that we can get on a train at the Pacific ocean and go through to the Atlantic and vice versa, without traversing one single foot of American territory. It is therefore that I say that this is a mere bogey put up by the Prime Minister in order to vent spurious convictions on his own part, and to inoculate other people with similar convictions, if he were successful in his attempt.
Now, Sir, when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway submitted their first proposition to this parliament, it was not at all the same proposition as that which we are now called upon to ratify. It provided for the extension of the Grand Trunk Railway from its present terminus at North Bay to the Pacific ocean. But there happened to be another charter in existence, that of the Trans-Canada Railway, held by some Quebec capitalists and other gentlemen; and pressure was brought to bear on the government of the day by these gentlemen and in turn by the government on the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, to extend their eastern terminus to the city of Quebec. The Liberal members from the maritime provinces, seeing the success of these gentlemen from Quebec, thought that their political influence might also be catered to by having the eastern terminus extended further, and located in one of the maritime provinces. But here a difficulty arose. The rival claims of St. John and Halifax loomed up on the horizon, as to which should be made the Canadian port. A solemn conclave was held by the Liberal members from the maritime provinces, to which, by tl'.e way. their fellow-members in the House of Commons of the Conservative persuasion were not invited, and a compromise was

effected by which neither St. John nor Halifax, but the inland city of Moncton, was selected as the eastern terminus; which makes it absolutely necessary to use the Intercolonial Railway from that point to reach either St. John on the one hand or Halifax on the other. The government are quite well aware of the fact that during the last few years especially there has been growing up in this country a very strong opinion in favour of government ownership of public utilities. But fearing to grapple with this question, not having sufficient statesmanship to construct a line right through to the Pacific coast under government control, they thought they would cater to this element of our population by seeming to adopt in part this principle, by constructing themselves a line 1,800 miles in length from Winnipeg to Moncton, and handing it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for a period of fifty years, allowing the company to construct the line from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast by the government guaranteeing their bonds and paying a certain amount of interest, which is practically a subsidy on the cost of construction. I venture to say that this scheme, which has been properly called a hybrid scheme, which possesses neither the virtues of government ownership nor those of company ownership, but the evils of both, will satisfy neither those of our people who are in favour of government ownership nor those who believe in leaving such undertakings to private enterprise.
Now, whatever difference of opinion there may exist in our country to-day as to the wisdom or otherwise of a state-owned and controlled railway through Canada from from ocean to ocean, we cannot shut our eyes to this fact, that in this age of rapid progress and advancement, what 'mig'lilt, to-day receive a half-hearted support at the hands of the people, may in a fewr years become their unanimous desire. But by this scheme of the government, we put it out of our power to have government ownership in the proper sense of the term in the next fifty years. No matter to what an extent public sentiment may have developed in the meantime, no matter how urgent may be the demand for government control of rates, if we adopt this scheme of the government, we put it absolutely out of our power to obtain relief by government ownership in that long period. We have already a system of government railways extending from the Atlantic coast to the city of Montreal, into which we have put about $70,000,000 of public money. Although th^t system is not paying its way, notwithstanding the prosperous times, the government now propose to construct another railway to compete with it; and thus, if not to render the expenditure of that amount of capital nugatory, to depreciate it to a considerable extent. A few years ago this parliament was asked to vote several millions of dol-
305*
lars for the purchase of the Drumomnd Counties Railway, in order to make it a portion of the Intercolonial Railway system -for what reason ? In order that the Intercolonial might gain access to the commercial metropolis, the city of Montreal, and get its fair share of traffic-in other words, to make it more than a merely local road. But now it is proposed to destroy it-yes, to condemn it, as is suggested; practically to parallel it and to take away trade from that r-ailway in which we have sunk so much money. So that, in estimating the approximate cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, we must take into consideration the large amount of loss that will be sustained on account of the future operations of the Intercolonial Railway system, an amount which no one but practical railway men can properly estimate, but which will be a large and serious drain on the public resources of this country.
Now, Sir, the government seem to have rushed into this enterprise without any, or with very little, consideration. The project of constructing a line to the Pacific coast was never mooted until a short time before the opening of the present session; and the proposal to construct the eastern section was never mooted until three months of the present session had rolled by. The government have not given the subject any consideration, as has practically been admitted by the right hon. the Prime Minister. They have rushed into it without any surveys, by which they can approximately estimate its cost, and without placing any information before the House in order that the members may be put in a position to approximately estimate its cost. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) state that the government are not bound to go on with this road, but that they are going to have surveys


An hon. MEMBER.: Backing down.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Yes, he is the first hon. gentleman on that side of the House who has spoken in that strain. He states that the government are bound to make the necessary inquiries and to have the country surveyed before they need build a mile of the road. Why did they not do that before signing the contract? They are pursuing practically the same course that they did in connection with the Yukon Railway, when they signed a contract ten days before parliament met, and placed themselves in a position to be mulcted for $400,000 damages. And the bon. gentleman states that the government are not obliged to build a single mile of this railway until they have these surveys. We suggest' that they postpone these expenditures until they have the necessary information, instead of taking a plunge in the dark as they are proposing to do. The hon. member for North Norfolk admits that this railway can

never be a grain-carrying road. What, then, becomes of it as a through route to the seaboard ? The western section will be constructed, and it will have its connections through American channels to the seaboard. The Grand Trunk Railway Company seem to be providing for this already, because I see by the newspapers that they are purchasing the Wisconsin Central Railway, which is going to be the link to connect with their western division in Canada.
Now, the 1,800 mites of this railway from Moncton to Winnipeg have been estimated to cost about $30,000 a mile. Even at that low estimate, that line will involve a cash outlay of $54,000,000, which must be added to our already large national debt.
I was amused when I heard the right hon. Prime Minister state as one of bis reasons why this road should be constructed, that it was necessary to implement a pledge made by a Conservative government twenty years ago. The right hon. gentleman need not have travelled so far afield in quest of pledges that required to be fulfilled. Year after year, session after session, policy after policy, pledge after pledge, principle after principle, have been brought to his attention, made by himself as the head and leader of the government and of the Liberal party, and made by his colleagues in the government, which have absolutely been repudiated or abandoned ; and he has to go back to twenty years ago to find one pledge that has not been carried out by a Conservative administration.
On this question of national debt and expenditure, do we not remember when the right hon. gentleman travelled along with the Minister of Trade and Commerce from platform to platform moaning and bewailing the condition of Canada, and lamenting that the people were being ground down and impoverished and were not even able to pay the interest on their national debt. And the expenses of administration were so heavy that if he were in power he would reduce them from $1,000,000 to $4,000,000 per annum. These pledges were not made twenty years ago, but a very few years ago. He need not go back twenty years, he need not go back even six months, to find his broken pledges. If he will take up the speech from the Throne at the beginning of this session, he will find in it the distinct pledge that a commission would be appointed to take into immediate consideration the transportation question. What excuse have hon. gentlemen opposite been able to give why this pledge has not been fulfilled ? Not one of them has ventured to explain the reason why. Why go back twenty years to find a broken pledge, when here is one, made solemnly to the representatives of parliament at the opening of this session, and which has had the fate of all the others.
The Minister of Finance, in his speech on the subject before the House, tried a little legerdemain. He called in an actuary, Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
and with the assistance of this actuary he assured the House he was going to pay for this road by simply taking $8,000,000 out of our surplus and putting it to one side. This amount on spot cash, when laid aside for a number of years, would cover the whole cost. If the hon. gentleman would only call in the same actuary and apply the same method in reducing our national debt, he would be doing an important service to the country and carry out one of the pledges of his party. He has here an excellent opportunity of adopting a splendid scheme for rolling off our heavy national debt.
No better evidence could be required than this debate has furnished to show that the right hon. the Prime Minister is much more at home in indulging in word-painting and in giving a display of oratorical fireworks, calculated to stimulate the enthusiasm of His followers and bring them into line, than in discussing coldly and logically a business proposition. Many of his followers are in their hearts opposed to this scheme, and a few weeks ago were very outspoken in expressing their opposition to it ; but under the influence of the party lash and their party fealty they are now falling into line and giving this scheme, their endorsation, and no better evidence could be required to show that the Prime Minister is more at home when engaged in this, to him, congenial occupation, than in grappling with a business proposition. WMn the right hon. gentleman declared that these eighteen hundred miles of railway were to be constructed without costing a single dollar to the people, he undoubtedly excited the enthusiasm of his supporters. But where is the money to come from? The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway people do not put it up, and the contractors are not such philanthropists that they are going to build the road out of pure patriotism. On the contrary, they will have no doubt to estimate sufficiently high on their contract to allow them to be milked to supplement the government election fund. When the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) asked why the government were rushing suddenly into this large expenditure without tiie necessary information, possibly he might have got his answer in the fact that the general elections are looming up in the near future, and the government, having no policy on which to appeal to the electors with confidence, feel compelled to fall back on ways that are dark and tricks that are vain, in which they are past masters.
Clause 24 of the contract provides that the government shall borrow this money, taking power to pay three and one-half per cent, and when the road is constructed, they are to hand it oveT to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to be operated by that company on the payment of three per cent on the cost, or at a loss of one-half per cent. For seven years the company, after the road is constructed and taken over by them, are not called on to pay one

dollar of rent. Estimating the cost at $30,000 per mile for 1,800 miles, the government will have to pay interest on $54,000,000 at three and one-lialf per cent, which will amount to $13,230,000 for the seven years. In addition they will be called upon undoubtedly to pay interest another three years, should the Grand Trunk Pacific be unable to pay three per cent per annum, which will entail an additional expenditure of $5,610,000. Then the company begins, at the end of the ten years, to pay rental at the rate of three per cent for the balance of the fifty years ; and if the government should have to pay three and a half per cent, that would mean a payment by the government of interest amounting to $1,890,000 per year, and a receipt by them of $1,020,000 per year, or a loss of $270,000 per annum, which would make a total loss, on this head alone, of $10,800,000. But that is not all. The government are called on pay interest-and I am taking the expenditure estimated by hon. gentlemen themselves-during the time of construction, and the time of construction will be at least, on this portion of the road, eight years. They allow five years for the western portion. but I think it will be found that in that difficult portion of country, where a great deal of rock blasting, [DOT] heavy cuttings and bridging will have to be done, 225 miles of construction a year will be a very good average, which will give eight years, and eight years' interest on half the total cost of the 1,800 miles, or on $27,000,000 at three and a half per cent will amount to an expenditure of $7,560,000 during the course of construction. In addition, by clause 16, the government is bound to pay for all betterments and replacements of structure, and so on, for the space of fifty years. This will be added to the cost of construction, but nevertheless it will go to swell our national debt. Then there is the indefinite bargain in connection with the Quebec bridge, which the Finance Minister estimates will cost us $2,000,000. Then the government finds all the terminals which will be necessary in Quebec, Winnipeg and Moncton. How much these will cost we cannot tell, but it will be a very large amount. With regard to that portion of the line west of Winnipeg, the government undertakes to guarantee the bonds to the extent of $13,000 a mile on the prairie section and $30,000 per mile on the mountain section. Estimating the prairie section at 800 miles, this will entail a liability of $10,400,000 on that section for principal, and $312,000 for interest, and estimating the mountain section at 600 miles, it will entail a liability of $18,000,000. This involves payment of interest on the mountain section of $540,000 a year or for seven years, of $3,780,000.
I must say that ordinary members of the House of Commons may be excused if they differ somewhat in tlie estimate of the mileage and the cost, because you cannot find two cabinet ministers agreeing on either of those two items. I am taking the mileage estimated by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice estimates that the mileage on the prairie section will "be 1,200, but I am putting it at 800. The Minister of Justice estimates the mountain section at 480 miles, but I am estimating it at 600. So that upon the whole, the Minister of Justice estimates a considerably larger mileage than I do. Six hundred miles at $30,000 per mile would amount to $18,000,000, on which the government will have to pay interest at the rate of $540,000 per year, or in ail $3,780,000 for the seven years. This is practically a subsidy. It has been stated that the government is not giving any land grant or cash subsidy. It may be true that, in the wide acceptance of the term, they are not giving a land grant, but they are giving the right of way over all govern-[DOT]ment property for stations and roadbeds, and they are giving as a gift, $3,780,000, which in reality is a subsidy, and for a further term of three years, they also covenant that the government is to pay the interest should the company not be in a position to do so, and I think you will find that the company will have the better of the agreement. This will be an additional $1,620,000 which the government will have to pay, taking the bonds as a security. So that taking the figures of hon. gentlemen opposite themselves, we have this total expenditure :
Cost of line, Moncton to Winnipeg.. $54,000,000 Seven years without rental, government pays interest	 13,230,000
Three years more interest, government pays	 5,670,000
Forty years loss \ per cent (difference between 3 and 31)	 10,800,000
Interest during time of construction say eight years	 7,560,000
Total government portion.. .. $91,260,000 Seven years interest on bonds, mountain section	 3,780,000

But mark you, Mr. Speaker, that this does not include the liability on the prairie section or the mountain section, or the interest during the time of its construction. Nor does it include the cost of terminals and of the Quebec bridge. Nor does it include the deficits that will be incurred in the future operation of the Intercolonial. Altogether the cost would amount to considerably more than $100,000,000, which will be left as a legacy for our people to pay many years hence.
In regard to the equipment of the line, I notice that $20,000,000 is set aside for that purpose, but it is a significant fact that of this amount, $15,000,000 goes to the equipment of the western section, and but $5,000,000 goes to equip the eastern section. This rather indicates that the company,

even after the line has been constructed, have no serious idea of extensively operating the eastern section, at least that portion of the line east of the great lakes. The government have not even stipulated that they s lion Id have the option of purchasing the line owned by the company west of Winnipeg at the end of the fifty years, so that at the end of that time, if the government are desirous of operating the whole line as a government road from ocean to ocean, either because the company have thrown the line back on their hands, or because it is desired in the interest of the people to operate it as a government road, they would be left with a line whose western terminus would be Winnipeg, and which would have no feeders. We all know that no considerable amount of east-bound traffic originates at Winnipeg. The traffic which goes eastward from Winnipeg originates west of that point, and this line would be left without connections with the west. It is true that the government have the power of expropriation, but, as has been pointed out by the member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrop), it would have to expropriate at the then value of the road, and after taking into consideration the amount of capitalization and not the amount of cash the company shall have put into the enterprise. Therefore, I say that the government should insert in this agreement a clause to the effect that they shall have the right of taking over the road at any time and operating it as a government road by paying a certain amount for it.
No provision is made for the construction of branch lines to the government portion of the road. It is true that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company take power in this charter to_ construct a branch line to Port Arthur and one to North Bay and one to Montreal, which they may or may not construct. Of these, the first, at any rate, will be absolutely necessary if this road is going to carry any grain at all. Other branches will be necessary to reach the commercial centres of Ontario and Quebec unless. this road, because of the want of suitable eastern connections, is going to be seriously handicapped in handling westbound traffic in competition with the Canadian Pacific and other lines.
So far as running rights are concerned, I think it has been demonstrated by gentlemen much more conversant with railway matters than I am, that the exercise of running rights, in the manner suggested by lion, gentlemen opposite, over all this system of upwards of three thousand miles, will not be practicable. There is no parallel whatever between the running rights provided for in the scheme suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition and the running rights that are provided for in this contract. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) practically admitted that this Is a worthless concession, except in so far as Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
it might be a lever with which to exercise pressure on the company to secure concessions by way of reduction of rates or otherwise. I do not think the Grand Trunk Pacific I! ail way Company will at all fear such a lever when they are told in advance that if the government should exercise these rights they would do so at a loss. That has been stated, and I do not think the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will ever be frightened by the threat of exercising these running rights or will throw obstacles in the way when they know in advance that these rights can only be exercised by the Intercolonial Railway at a loss.
A few years ago the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) told the people of the west that this government, and he, particularly-he took credit to himself-were securing running rights over that portion of the Canadian Northern line then being constructed, called the Rainy River branch, between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. He said they were securing running rights and guarding the interests of the people over that line for the very purpose for which they are now asking this parliament to construct a new line, namely, to allow the Grand Trunk Railway access to the province of Manitoba. I have here a report of a speech delivered by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) in December, 1898. He was given a banquet at Boisevain, and his speech at that banquet is reported as follows :
The first free railways were built by his friend. Mr. Greenway. No one ever heard of the right of giving the railways running powers over other lines till Mr. Greenway inserted it in charters of Manitoba railways. The Dominion government had insisted that the same conditions should apply to the Crow's Nest Railway, and the same condition had been imposed upon the South-eastern (Canadian Northern Railway) Railway. The government were determined to secure this freedom of equal running powers in every railway charter granted at Ottawa.
The same minister, at the time the question was being publicly discussed, announced with emphasis his intention to resign if the same provision as to running powers that the government insisted on in the Crow's Nest Pass bargain was not secured in the Rainy River charter.
We all remember how Mr. Sifton, in replying to a St. Andrew's rapids deputation, in December, 1898 :
Introduced the question of the South-eastern-Rainy River road to Lake Superior, and declared that the government would take steps to preserve the independence of the road. He added also-and was applauded for the statement-that the government would take the same precaution that it had taken with the Crow's Nest Railway and reserve to itself the right to grant running powers over the road to any railway company that desired it, so that if the Grand Trunk desired access to Manitoba and the North-west it could have the privilege of placing its trains on the Rainy River and running them directly through to the west.

If tlie hon. minister hail been true to the pledge lie then made and had secured these running rights, why go to the trouble and the great expense of building another Hue through that country in order to gain the very power which he then said he had secured in respect to the Canadian Northern V Why not exercise those running rights ? 1 understand, however, that the running rights that he secured over the Canadian Northern are over an intermediate portion of that road, affecting neither the Port Arthur end nor the Winnipeg end, so that they are practically valueless.
The Prime Minister gave as one of the chief reasons for constructing this line the immediate and crying necessity of relieving the wheat congestion of the west, and yet this contract does not provide for a single branch line in the heart of the congested district, in the province of Manitoba. We do not, in fact, know where this road is going to run. It is true that the promoter of the charter, in reply to a question, said that it would run north of the Canadian Northern ; if that is the case, it will not toucli the heart of the congested districts at all, in fact, it will not go near the congested district. It will open up a new country, but it will not relieve the congestion. If it is built south of the Canadian Northern line, then, while it will afford that amount of relief that any trunk line will afford to a limited area on each side of the trunk line, it will still have no branch line in the heart of the congested district. When we take into consideration the vast amount of money that is to be put into this road and the liabilities it will impose on this country, the least we could have expected would have been that the government would have secured absolute control of rates ; but this they have not done. They should have secured control of rates in reality and not in name alone. The control of rates secured by this scheme is no greater than that which we already enjoy under the Railway Act of Canada, and we all know by our experience in the past how useless that is.
But in addition to this, because of the large capitalization of this road, $45,000,000 on the portion west of Winnipeg, which, together with the bonding powers of $30,000 a mile on the prairie-section and $50,000 a mile on the mountain section, will amount to upwards of $90,000,000, the fixed charges that must be met before the government can exercise control over rates will be so great that we can look for no reduction in rates for many years to come. How different has been the action of the government of Manitoba of recent years :	Hundreds of miles
of the Canadian Northern have been secured by the government of that province by a bond guarantee of $8,000 per mile.
It is true that the government at the last session of the legislature increased this guarantee to $10,000 a mile, but with this stipulation, that $2,000 of that sum
must go towards equipping the road, to purchase more rolling stock in order to prevent a recurrence of that blockade which had existed for a year or two. But owing to the fixed charges being so high on this line, the government have absolute control of the rates, and they have exercised that control. Last year they reduced the rate from 14 to 12 cents per 100 pounds. That is quite a control, they have a control in reality. An Order in Council has been passed to secure another reduction on the 1st of September, of another 2 cents per 100 pounds. That will bring the rate down from 14 cents to 10 cents per 100 pounds from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, giving the 10 cent rate that Mr. Green way, when premier of Manitoba, declared he would willingly give a million dollars of public money in order to secure, and which has been secured without the cost of a single dollar. The government takes by this contract the power to guarantee the bonds to the extent of $13,000 per mile on the line built through the prairie country, no more difficult of construction, and 111 return they secure not one single concession by way of reduction of rates.
Now, it has been shown that a very small proportion of our grain exported from the west goes over the north shore line, the allrail line by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in the opinion of competent railway men, of grain men thoroughly conversant with the transportation question, the all-rail route cannot successfully compete with the mixed route. So, after this railway is constructed, we will find that the great bulk of the grain will still go by the lake and rail route in preference to the all-rail system, only a small proportion passing over the all-rail system after the close of lake navigation. Now the average rate on grain from Port Arthur to Montreal by rail on the Canadian Pacific Railway, has been about 12 cents a bushel ; whereas the average rate by lake and rail has been about 7 cents a bushel, showing a difference of 5 cents in favour of the lake and rail route. But with the improvement in their waterways, if there is going to be enough money left to improve them after this road is built, if the company improve their gradients on the railway east of the Georgian bay, and make it easier to carry grain with longer trains, we will have this differential rate against the all-rail route still further intensified. I believe it is the intention of this company to construct the branch line from Port Arthur, 150 miles in extent or thereabouts, and if that is done, that will be the route that grain will take and not the all-rail route, and once that grain is in the elevators at Port Arthur or Fort William, it absolutely passes beyond the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific people. There is no provision in this contract that will compel this company to be responsible for the delivery of that grain at a Canadian seaport once it is

in the elevators at Fort William. Naturally the grain will seek an outlet, possibly by the Grand Trunk at Wiarton, Midland and Sarnia, anl there be transferred to the Grand Trunk Railway system to be conveyed where it will pay them best to convey it, namely, to the city of Portland in the state* of Maine, where, according to the Minister of the Interior, they have already expended some 25 or 30 million dollars in building up large terminals. The Minister of the Interior stated that after this road is constructed we will see grain carried from Winnipeg to St. John for 11} cents a bushel over the all-rail route. If the hon. gentleman is so sure of his ground, let him incorporate a provision in this contract pledging the company not to charge higher rates over the all-rail route than will be charged over the lake and rail route, then he will give some tangible proof that he believes in his own statement, and a considerable portion of the Objection from the west at any rate, now urged against the construction of the road will be done away with.
Now, it is not my own opinion alone, or of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, that the all-rail route will never be a .great carrier of grain. I am going to quote from an organ that the Minister of the Interior and his friends will not take exception to. I am not going to try, as the Minister of the Interior did, to leave a false impression on the members of this House by making them think that the paper I am quoting from is opposing, the railway. The hon. gentleman quoted copiously from newspaper extracts, notably from boards of trade, with the one idea of leaving the impression that they favoured this scheme of getting into the west. If he did not mean that, there was no point in his argument. This Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is the mouthpiece of the Liberal party, it is considered as an automatic machine to register the decrees of the Minister of the Interior, whatever they) may be, and will support any scheme propounded by this government because of its partisan character. It is true that it has moments of frankness, and in one of these moments of frankness it gave utterance to the following opinion :
That the new road, when in operation, will be able to quote a lower rate for grain from Winnipeg to the seaboard than the present Canadian Pacific Railway all-rail rate, is probable : but a fall in the lake-and-rail rates may make it relatively as unprofitable ten years hence as it is now to ship by rail to the sea.
That is quite an admission, but it is not an argument against the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Critics of that scheme should not overlook the fact that a line from Port Arthur is an esseutial part of the undertaking. When Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson was in Winnipeg he was given a dinner by the board of trade, and in a speech he out-Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
lined some of the services to the west that the Grand Trunk Pacific would render. He dwelt upon the excellent lake and rail route for the carrying out of the grain in the fall that the projected route would furnish. He pointed out that the Grand Trunk touches the lake at many points, such as Sarnia, Goderich, Wiarton and Midland, and predicted that the Grand Trunk, once it got a properly equippel road, could itself move the entire wheat harvest of the west across the lakes. Then the article goes on :
It is therefore more than probable that the great bulk of the wheat grown in the west will continue to go out by way of the lakes, despite the new road from here to the Atlantic ports.
That is the argument used by the Winnipeg ' Free Press.' Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this road is designed for the purpose of carrying constituencies rather than for the purpose of carrying grain from the Northwest. I might also quote Sir William Van Horne, but he has been already quoted, to the effect that the all-rail route will never be able to compete with the mixed route. But hon. gentlemen try to minimize Sir William Van Horne's opinion, saying that he is the ex-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that his interests are bound up in that undertaking entirely, and he would naturally be opposed to a rival enterprise. But Sir William Van Horne was the very gentleman whom the government considered head and shoulders above any other man in Canada as an authority on the transportation question, and had even asked him to be chairman of the transportation commission, in 'order to give them the benefit of his experience, and they pledged themselves to be guided by the advice of that commission. So it is too late in the day to minimize Sir Wiliam Van Horne's opinion as an authority on the transportation question. But I see another genial gentleman who has come into the House, and whom I am going to quote for the benefit of hon. members on the other side. They cannot take exception to his opinion, because he is a gentleman whose opinion is deserving of the very highest consideration. . Now, I am not going to try to make out that that hon. gentleman either is opposed to this l-oad, or at least that he will show it by his vote, because I believe that he will be foundi voting with the government. I find in the Montreal ' Star ' of July 6th, an interview held with our good friend from St. Lawrence division Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) in which he is reported to have said :
Mr. Robert Bickerdike, Liberal M.P., for St. Lawrence division of Montreal, said on Saturday that he thought the government would be wise to do one of two things, either to continue the Intercolonial from Montreal to the Pacific coast, or else to let some public corporation do it The government should own the whole of the transcontinental line, or should dispose of that portion of it that they

now operate from the Atlantic ocean to Montreal.
' I see.' said Mr. Bickerdike, 1 no object whatever in starting, say, halfway and running from Moncton to Winnipeg, if that is the programme at present. I would prefer to see the Grand Trunk Pacific or some other public corporation own the whole line. In one word, it should either be a government road from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, or it should be owned and operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Trans-Canada, but in any case what is most required at the present time is sufficient roads to carry the grain from the Manitoba district to Lake Superior, and then sufficient Canadian bottoms to bring the grain from Lake Superior to the seaboard.
I think that is very good advice, and I am sorry he did not get his friends to follow it. I think the hon. gentleman has not changed his mind though possibly by his vote the country may imagine so. The hon. Minister of the Interior also quoted a certain gentleman whose advice, or whose opinion was, he said, of great importance. The gentleman I refer to is Mr. James H. Ashdown, of the city of Winnipeg, whom the hon. minister said was one of the wealthiest and best-known business men in Winnipeg. all of which is very true. Mr. Ashdown was the Liberal candidate in Marquette in the election of 1896. Mr. Ashdown, the hon. minister says, gives an unqualified support to this measure. That is a favourite way the hon. minister has of twisting things to suit his own purposes. The hon. minister is very tricky. He has to be watched. I took the trouble to compare the statement of the hon. minister with the original interview given by Mr. Ashdown, and I find on .reading Mr. Ashdown's interview that he does not give an unqualified but a very qualified support to the measure. He distinctly states in the ' Free Press,' and his interview appeared before the hon. the leader of the opposition's scheme had been propounded, his preference for government ownership right through, but if he cannot have that he will hold up his hands for the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. That is not an unqualified approval of the scheme, and I think that when Mr. Ashdown reads and digests the speech made by the hon. the leader of the opposition he will change his opinion and he will be found supporting this scheme, notwithstanding the fact that he is a strong Liberal. The lion. Minister of the Interior quoted from the Winnipeg ' Tribune,' and sought to leave the impression that the paper, which he stated sarcastically was a friend of his, was in favour of the government scheme. The * Tribune ' is not a Conservative paper, but it is one of these old line Liberal papers which have broken away because of the non-fulfilment of the pledges of the Liberal party. I will quote from that journal of the issue of August 7tli, as follows :
By the purchase of the Canada Atlantic, the utilization of the lake route and the exercise of the running powers that Mr. Sifton boasts
the government possesses over the Rainy River road, the transportation question could be speedily and effectively solved, that is so far as the spout is concerned. The construction of necessary branch lines in the west could follow quickly. But there would be no chance for exploiters In such a scheme, no chance for ' great' spectacular speeches

Of course we all know what he is driving nt there.
-no chance for ' broad ' statesmanship, no chance for humbugging the people again. Great is Canadian ' politics.'
It does not look as if the 1 Tribune ' was itn ardent supporter of the scheme. But, I find that the Winnipeg 'Free Press' and several other Liberal journals have been culling what they consider to be gems of the right hon. gentleman's oratory, putting them into conspicuous places, and heading them * striking sentences.' The Winnipeg ' Tribune ' has got together some striking sentences which I shall inflict upon the House :
' Striking Sentences.'
The party press is publishing ' striking sentences ' from Sir Wilfrid's ' oration ' on tho Grand Trunk Pacific Railway deal.
Here are a few ' striking sentences ' which Sir Wilfrid might have uttered in view of the bargain about to be consummated :
Another transcontinental railway, every inch of it on Canadian soil, is a grand thing. We intend building one-half of it and handing it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for fifty years, part of that time for nothing, and for the balance probably at a loss, if money increases in value. For the balance of the road we will guarantee the cost. There is a heap of money in the contracts in sight for the boys. Remember it will be ' all-Canadian, all-Canadian, all-Canadian.' It' is a commercial necessity in view of the approaching general elections. It is a corollary of our status as a nation which exists for the enrichment of promoters.
Now Is the time for action ; the elections are near at hand. The flood tide is upon us that leads on to fortune for the promoters and the politicians who stand in with them. Soak the exporters of the west and the party dupes of the east. If we let It pass it may never recur again. The people are getting on to the game; if we let it pass the voyage of our political life, bright as some say it is, will be arrested in the shallows ; and where will it land our dear promoters aud their pals ? Pray Heaven, or somebody else, that the time is not yet too late.	,
'We cannot wait, because time does not wait and the hoys are in a hurry.
'The prairies of the North-west, which, for countless ages, have been roamed over by the [DOT]wild herds of bison, or by the scarcely less wild tribes of red men, are now invaded by the promoters. They will, if we have our way, be in possession for fifty years to come. -
'It will not only open territory hitherto idle and unprofitable,' but this gigantic deal will open the treasury, and it will make a big hole in the pocket hooks of our serfs, the settlers, whom we hind for the next fifty years.
The sum total of the money to be paid by the government for the construction of the entire line from Moncton to the Pacific ocean is some-


William James Roche: Moved by Mr. Scallion, of Virden, seconded by Mr. W. A. Robinson, of Elva, that :-
Whereas the parliament of Canada and the several provincial legislatures have granted under the heading ' Aid to Railways ' donations of money, land grants, bond guarantees, tax and other exemptions, the value of which, especially In the case of roads constructed In Western Canada, amounted to more than the cost of the roads so aided ; and
Whereas it is evident that these enormous subsidies have not been applied to the construction and equipment of these roads from the fact that the liabilities standing against them in stock and bonds are much greater than the cost of these properties ;
And whereas notwithstanding those enormous subsidies, and the excessive and oppressive rates levied by these railways on the traffic of the territory they are chartered to serve, to pay interest and dividends upon over capitalization, they have utterly failed to meet the transportation requirements of this country, in consequence of which the people have suffered great hardship and loss, and have' been compelled to endure a condition of things exasperating In the extreme and very detrimental to the progress and prosperity of Western Canada ;
And whereas the government of Canda can finance the construction and equipment of railways at a much less cost to the people than can any private company ;
And whereas the only real solution of our transportation problem lies in the ownership and control by the people of such a system of railways as shall ensure ample traffic *facilities, and secure rates on the cost of service and the interest on the bonds issued by the government to pay for the construction and equipment of such railways thereby relieving the traffic of this country from the burdensome rates now levied on it to pay dividends on millions of dollars of watered stock Issued in the interest of railway promoters ;
Therefore the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association in convention assembled respectfully urges the government of Canada that instead of entering into the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific deal, they proceed to build, equip and operate in the interests of the people such lines of railway as the transportation requirements of the country may from time to time demand.
That is an expression of opinion from an association of farmers, Liberals and Conservatives, met in convention since this government scheme was launched upon the public, and you will see that instead of endorsing it they condemn it in no uncertain tone.
The hon. leader of the opposition has shown that he possesses the attributes of a constructive statesman. He has not contented himself with retreating behind the lines of Torres Vedras, or with calmly folding his arms and saying : it is time enough to prescribe when I am called in ; as a certain otber party leader did, not many years ago on a certain memorable occasion. But Sir, the leader of the opposition is true to the instincts and to the traditions of the great party of which he is the honoured leader, and he is a worthy successor of his great predecessors. He has courageous-

ly and boldly propounded an alternative policy, and a policy which is in the interest of the people of Canada. That policy has been discussed in this House much more ably than I can discuss it. Briefly, it is the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay, either by the purchase of the Canada Atlantic Railway, or if it is more in the interest of the country, by the construction of an independent line ; it is to connect that line by a line from Scotia Junction, with the town of Sudbury on the Canadian Pacific Railway main line, which will mean the construction of from 100 to 120 miles of railway. It is to nationalize or to acquire by lease that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway between Sudbury and Port William, and to have it operated by an independent commission who would give equal running rights over it to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway. That portion of that line between Port William and Winnipeg, the leader of the opposition would assist by making its roadbed so that it could handle the grain with greater facility, by reducing the grades and double tracking if necessary, and on this he would secure equal running rights for those other systems of railway and would also secure absolute control of rates. What does that mean ? That means that the prime necessity which the Premier spoke of, of having another railway in there, especially the Grand Trunk Railway, would be accomplished within the next six mouths, whereas under the proposition of the government it would take five years at the very least to accomplish it. Under the proposal of the leader of the opposition you will have those other roads in the city of Winnipeg within six months, and the Intercolonial Railway would be in Winnipeg within a year or just as soon as that small link was constructed, and the Intercolonial Railway could be extended if necessary so as to give us absolute control of the rates in the west. As regards that portion of the line west of Winnipeg, the leader of the opposition has proposed that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway desires to build north of the Canadian Northern Railway through a country sparsely populated, he would assist them by guaranteeing their bonds. But if they decide to go through the country south of the Canadian Northern Railway in a thickly populated district, he would let them do so at their own expense, because there they would have a profitable road from the very first day it is put In operation. As to the mountain section the leader of the opposition suggests-although he does not suggest its construction immediately as the member for Welland says-the leader of the opposition suggests that the mountain section should be constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern, and as
both of them have access over it, that one line only should receive assistance. Failing that, then the government would build the line itself, allowing equal running rights to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway to the coast. In addition, the leader of the opposition provides for the improvement of our harbours on the Georgian bay, and on ports such as Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John, equipping them ip the most modern manner for terminals, and placing them in a position to compete with their American rivals. And, Sir, notwithstanding the calculations indulged in by gentlemen on the opposite side of the House-who apparently have not called in their actuary to estimate the probable cost of the Conservative proposition-as has been shown by the hon. member for Both-wetl (Mr. Clancy) to-day, all that is proposed by the leader of the opposition can be accomplished for less than one-half the money that the proposition of the government will cost. And, what is of far more importance, this scheme of the leader of the opposition will meet the requirements of the people of Canada, a thing which the government scheme will not do.
To summarize my objection to this scheme of the government : I object to it because it entails such an immense outlay of public money and a consequent addition to our public debt. I object to it because it provides for no reduction of rates. I object to it because it cannot successfully compete with the lake and rail route, and will never prove to be a grain carrier. I object to it because a'fter the government has constructed this 1,800 miles of road, it is to be handed over to be operated by the Grand Trunk Railway for fifty years, thus perpetuating the evil that our people are complaining of at the present day. I might go on enumerating very many other valid objections. If the government are to construct as a government line the eastern section through the most northerly part of the country, through a country which will afford little or no traffic, why on earth do they not construct that portion of the road which runs through the prairie section, which will have ample traffic and which will pay its way from the very first. Sir, this road should be an all-government road or an allcompany road with proper safeguards in the irablic interest.
This whole scheme has been conceived in haste ; it has been conceived because of political exigencies. The people will suffer through its iniquities, and the government who devised it will be dead and buried, once the people get an oportunity of pronouncing their funeral knell. And, Sir, in the place of this government will once more arise a constructive government, a Conservative government that will give evidence of statesmanship a$ they have done in regard to so many other national questions in the past, and which in grappling with

these questions in the past have made Canada what she is to-day. I ask the government to accept the challenge which has been thrown across the floor of the House by many lion, gentlemen on this side, and to allow the people of Canada to express their opinion upon this question.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Mr. Speaker, there is a variety in the arguments advanced by the hou. gentlemen opposite which at least lends charm to their speeches. As was correctly stated by one of them a short time ago, each is a free lance, each can advance such views as he thinks fit, and in this connection I observe that there are as many views upon the proposal of the government, and even upon the proposal of the leader of the opposition, as there are speakers on the other side of the House. Just now we have had an interpretation from the member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) of the proposition of the leader of the opposition, which differs entirely from the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). The view of one gentleman did not harmonize with the view of the other, nor does the view of either, harmonize with the view of the leader of the opposition. I should judge by the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) that although coming from the North-west, he is not altogether favourable to the scheme proposed by the government.
I should judge also, from his observations, that he is almost equally opposed to that of the leader of the opposition. I should judge, from the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that he also is opposed to the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition. The situation has undergone a change, Mr. Speaker, since this question was propounded in parliament on the 30th of July last by the Premier of Canada. On that occasion, after the presentation of the case, the hon. leader of the opposition arose; and, although he confessed that he had no knowledge of the scheme, and was utterly unable to under-stancf it, he was quite able to manifest a very marked hostility to it. He spent an hour in abusing and condemning it, from time to time throughout his speech expressing his ignorance of the nature of the contract. Although the government had given many months to its consideration, the hon. leader of the opposition, in a moment, without knowing the scheme, was able to pronounce against it. Well, Sir, as time went on, I think, he learned his mistake. He said that we had manifested undue haste in preparing our scheme, when every one knows that it has engaged the attention of the government and of the country for the best part of a year. He was apparently opposed to our undertaking the construction of the railway, and grew wrathy at the undue haste which he said we had been guilty of. Instead of reserving jvidg-


William James Roche: ment, he listened, I suppose, for a few days to the voices from without, and eighteen days afterwards came down with a scheme of his own. If there is anything, Mr. Speaker, that commands my admiration, it is that the hon. leader of the opposition, in a period of eighteen short days, should have been able, unaided, except perhaps by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to bring forth and submit to parliament a proposition of the gigantic character that is now engaging our attention. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) did not take long to discover the hon. gentleman's mistake. The hon. leader of the opposition propounded a scheme which every person who analyses it will, I think, pronounce, as the late Minister of Railways and Canals of this government (Hon. Mr. Blair) described some of it, as moonshine. The thinking business public, understanding the scheme propounded by the hon. leader of the opposition, have given a very good indication that it was necessary for the opposition at an early stage to recede from the false position in which their leader had placed them. And so we have the hon. member for Bothwell to-day professing to give an interpretation of the meaning of his leader's proposition. At one time, two or three weeks ago, in the estimation of the opposition, the government scheme to build a railway from old Canada to new Canada was wrong-there was to be no railway built. Eighteen days afterwards the hon. leader of the opposition said there should be two transcontinental railways built. To-day the hon. member for Bothwell says that all that the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition means is to build a railway from the city of Montreal to Winnipeg. A little later the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) rises and says that the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition is even bigger than that described by the hon. member for Bothwell. It is a scheme to construct a railway, ns the hon. member for Bothwell says, as far as Winnipeg; but it proposes also to do some other things. It proposes to aid the Grand Trunk Company to build a ^railway to the mountains, and, I suppose, a railway through the mountains to the coast. He also frankly said that it contemplated some operations in other directions. He was getting nearer to the scheme than the hon. member for Bothwell. He was rasher too, although I am afraid that his friends in the Northwest, who are especially suffering for the want of railway communication, and who desire the line proposed by the government to be built, will feel that he has not quite responded to the needs of the great Northwest. But inasmuch as these hon. gentlemen differ with the hon. leader of the opposition as to the meaning of his scheme I will take the liberty of going through it as I understand it, and will endeavour to make good my points, if challenged, by

reference to tlie words of the hon. leader of tlie opposition himself. Probably those words will be considered as indicating to some extent liis true meaning.
Before proceeding to that, however, I would refer for a moment to one or two points sought to be made by the hon. member for Marquette. In seeking to prove what would be the cost of this enterprise as proposed by the government, he said we would lose one-half of one per cent for the term of the lease, being the difference between the rate at which the money would be borrowed and the rate received from the company for the lease of the eastern division ; whereas everybody knows that while we have permission to pay as high as 3i per cent for borrowed capital, we will not pay more than the market price requires.


Mr. BROCK.: Probably 4 per cent.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend may be right, but the credit of Canada has never been such, since the Liberal party came into office, that we have had to pay 4 per cent. There was a time when we had to pay 4 per cent, when the hon. gentleman's friends were financing, and when this country was still in the condition of stagnation and depression into which they had brought it. If they were in power to-day, we would still have to pay 4 per cent; but thanks to the intelligence of the people of Canada, they called to take charge of their affairs a competent government, so that we do not now have to pay 4 per cent. We will lose nothing in the difference between the interest to be paid on the borrowed capital and the interest we shall receive from the company ; so that that half of one per cent which in the hon. gentleman's mind runs up to millions, may be wiped away as simply a vision of his imagination.
He stated that we would be obliged under the contract to expend large sums of money for the betterment of the road between Moncton and Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman, I am afraid, like the hon. leader of the opposition, has argued without reading the contract. The contract does not oblige the government to spend one brass farthing on betterments after the completion of the line. If any one says that is not correct, I think the hon. leader of the opposition, who is a professional gentleman, if he had seen such a contingency, would have pointed it out.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman in what respect 1 misstated the contract ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no reference to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: Just a moment ago the hon. gentleman said that the hon. member for Marquette, like his leader, had not read the contract. In what respect have I given evidence of that?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman on the 30th of July, explained that he had not seen the contract, but argued against the measure; and the hon. member for Marquette to-day alleges that this contract provides in one of its clauses what I say it does not provide. He says it obliges the government during the currency of the lease from time to time to expend capital upon betterments. Now, section 16 reads as follows :
In case, after the completion of the said eastern division and the taking possession thereof by the company under the lease thereof, hereinafter referred to, or at any time thereafter during the continuance of the said lease, the government shall deem it necessary to expend any sums of money for the improvement of the said eastern division, the replacement of structures by others more modern, or otherwise upon capital account for betterments, and not being ' working expenditure ' payable by the company, the government may expend such sums
And the amounts, if expended, shall be added to the capital cost, and bear interest. If we choose to invest any money in betterments, we can submit to our tenants, the railway company, items of proposed expenditure; and if they consent, we can proceed to make the betterments, and they will become liable to pay rent, which is equivalent to interest, upon that expenditure. But if the government should prefer, it need not make those expenditures. Therefore, when my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) builds up a great structure of expenditure on capital account and presents that as indicating another weak point, you will observe that he has read inaccurately the contract and has not seized its true meaning. His statement is about as correct as that of the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), who estimates that the eastern division alone will cost the people of Canada no less than $560,000,000. I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite should repudiate, as they have done so far, the estimate of their great financier. Even the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) only claimed that this eastern division would cost the country $112,000,000, whereas this financial leader estimates its cost at $560,000,000. I should not be surprised if, after a few more speeches, we will find hon. gentlemen opposite getting better informed and gradually coming down to the actual facts.
However, as it is hardly worth while to seriously discuss figures given with such rashness, I shall confine myself to the text furnished by the leader of the opposition. We have two policies before the House. At first there was but one proposition. It was simply a question whether or not there should be a transcontinental railway. The opposition took, side against us, and the issue was a railway or no railway. That was the issue on the 23rd of July, but that is all changed, and every one now appears to agree that we must have a railway and

build it at once. The only question is whether it should be the railway proposed by the government or that proposed by the leader of the opposition. It therefore becomes us to consider which scheme has the more merit. Ours is a very modest one. At one time we had it attacked as being a scheme of great magnitude; but when compared with the proposition of the leader of the opposition, its dimensions are considerably lessened. It only contemplates the building of a railway from Moncton via Quebec to the coast, a part of which is to be operated by a railway company, and which will only cost the people of Canada $13,000,000.
Some horn MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Hon. gentlemen opposite are so accustomed to big figures that they cannot understand small ones. Their financial leader has given them so large an estimate, $560,000,000, that they are ashamed of anything moderate. And finding that they had made a great mistake in opposing our modest businesslike and meritorious scheme, they set to work and brought down a scheme of their own. Ours is so well known that I need not explain its details. But what does my hon. friend the leader of the opposition propose ? We are told by the hon. member for Marquette that he has manifested the genius of constructive statesmanship, that he is a constructive statesman. Well, I welcome to parliament any one possessed of this quality, because that is the class of man we require in Canada. If he is possessed of the genius of constructive statesmanship, we will no doubt find proof of it in the scheme, that he has propounded. Eighteen days was all he required, in which to bring forth this scheme, aud certainly any one who can bring forth a scheme of this magnitude in eighteen days does manifest genius. What is his scheme ? It is, first of all, to get a through line from Montreal to the coast by buying up old lines and building new lines. The first part of the line from Montreal to Winnipeg is to be a government line. The intervening section to the mountains is to be a company line, and the mountain section is perhaps to be a government line. Well, we were told that our system is a mongrel one, that we had a line which was neither one thing nor the other, which was neither fish, flesh nor good red herring, that the government was to owTn part of the line, and that the whole line was to be operated from ocean to ocean by a company. That did not satisfy these hon. gentlemen. Yet, dispite this criticism, we have a proposition that the government should build and operate a line as far as Winnipeg, that a company should then build and operate a line to the mountains, and that the government should build and operate a line from the mountains to the sea.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is not stating my proposition correctly.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think I shall show by the hon. gentleman's ipsissima verba the correctness of what I am saying. I say that his speech on the 18th of August, as reported in ' Hansard,' involved the following scheme :	First, to
build a railway from Montreal to Coteau. Second, to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway from Coteau to Depot Harbour, a distance of 342 miles, or if that road could not be bought, to parallel it. He did not say to parallel it directly, but it was to terminate at Depot Harbour, and the hon. member for Bothwell to-day interpreted his meaning. He said that the policy of the leader of the opposition is either to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway from Montreal to Depot Harbour or build another railway which would parallel it to Depot Harbour. The hon. gentleman did not use the word ' parallel,' but the road was to begin at the same point and end at the same point. So that while paralleling in one part of the country is objectionable, in another part it is very desirable. The scheme of the leader of the opposition was to build a railway from Montreal to Coteau, to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway from Coteau to Depot Harbour, and then to build a railway from Depot Harbour to Sudbury.


Mr. BELL.: No, to Scotia Junction.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, to Sudbury. That is what he said in the speech anyway. What he said was this :
If we acquired the Canada Atlantic Railway, we could build a line from that point to join the Candian Pacific Railway at or near Sudbury.
I am arguing from what the hon. gentleman said, and if there is any other proposition let us have it. At Sudbury, instead of buying from Sudbury west he proposes to go back on his tracks a little bit and to go easterly and buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William. And he proposes to spend large sums of money in making the line between North Bay and Fort William fit for the work which it is expected to perform. Again he proposes to acquire control over the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg ; to aid the Grand Trunk Railway to build from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and to have the government build a line from Edmonton or some point near Edmonton to the Pacific coast, unless the two companies can be induced to do so on joint account. He has thus got to the coast ; then he goes back to the east again, tie has heard a voice from the east condemning his opposition to the government's scheme of a road from Moncton to Winnipeg and he lays his plans for a second transcontinental line. He proposes to build from Moncton

to Levis-practically to Quebec as Quebec is ou the other side of the river from Levis- then to extend the Intercolonial from Quebec to Winnipeg and to build a railway from Winnipeg to the coast. That is not enough ; the sea has to be conquered. First of all, he wishes to acquire and operate a railway line from Montreal to the coast, then he proposes to invade the inland lakes, to purchase the Canada Atlantic Transit Company's fleet and to go into the grain carrying trade on our inland waters. He wishes to thoroughly equip the Georgian Bay ports, to thoroughly equip our national waterways, to thoroughly equip the St. Lawrence route, to thoroughly equip our ports on the Atlantic coast, to abolish if necessary harbour dues on the Atlantic coast and harbour dues on the Georgian bay, to improve the harbour facilities at Port Colborne, to exploit the harbour of Montreal, to make Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John national ports, and free ports and to provide, at a nominal charge, storage equivalent to the capacity of 100,000 barns. Now that is the hon. gentleman's scheme as set forth in ' Hansard,' and I will discuss the details of it after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At six o'clock I had endeavoured to express what I conceived to be the two propositions before the House. I do not understand that at this present date there is any question as to whether there should be a new transcontinental railway, that point appears to be conceded by the leader of the opposition. Instead, however, of accepting our scheme for a transcontinental railway, he propounds another one, meaning in fact two transcontinental railways, together with many other important features involving large undertakings. Before six o'clock i gave to the House in detail the propositions of the leader of the opposition. An hon. gentleman on the other side appeared to question the accuracy of my analysis of the scheme, and I intend to endeavour to defend the leader of the opposition from the attacks made upon his scheme by some of his supporters. What he has done that he should be discredited, I do not know. But some of his supporters are certainly supporting him in a very extraordinary way. He has given us, we are told, a scheme which is the product of a great constructive statesman. Why a scheme coming from such a gentleman should be discredited by those who are bound to support him, who are here to support him, and who applauded his scheme, is something I am at a loss to *understand.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Or anybody qlse.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: * Or anybody else. It does seem a most extraordinary thing that the leader of the opposition should propound a scheme, that it should receive the loud applause of his colleagues about him, and that then they should proceed to discredit it-not ill so many words, but saying in effect that his whole proposition was absurd and ridiculous. Why they should hit him in this way from the rear, 1 do not know. Nevertheless it is my duty and my pleasure to come to his rescue, and to show his supporters exactly what he means. If they do not understand it, surely they will permit me to read it to them, and to dwell upon some of its features. I propose to read to them his own utterances, and to explain them to those hon. gentlemen that they may the better understand the true policy of their leader, tor they seem to have read but superficially either the government's scheme or that of the leader of the opposition. Let me summarize the propositions of the leader of the opposition. The government's proposition appears to have commended itselr to the judgment of the country, and the country is prepared to adopt it unless a better is forthcoming. The leader of the opposition has presented his alternative, and if it is better than ours, it is our duty loyally to accept it. I am sure if we can convince the majority of this House, and if we are satis-fled that public opinion is with us in the opinion that the scheme of the leader of the opposition is better than that of the government, it would be our duty promptly to accept his proposition. But let us understand it first. The confusion that seems to exist in the minds of the members of the opposition justifies a little attention to the details of that important scheme, emanating as it does from a gentleman of such gigantic constructive capacity. But remember I approach it with great deference, because, although it took ns a year or thereabouts to evolve our modest proposition, the gentleman who leads the opposition evolved his in less than eighteen days. Again let me give you for careful consideration, for prayerful consideration, the details of the scheme that we are now asked to adopt.
The leader of the opposition asks us to adopt the following proposition :
To build a railway from Montreal to Coteau, 37 miles in length.
To buy the Canada Atlantic Railway from Coteau to Depot Harbour, 342 miles in length, or to build another between the same points paralleling the Canada Atlantic Railway.
To build a railway from Depot Harbour to Sudbury, 120 miles in length.
To buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William, and to expend large sums of money in making it fit for its work.
To acquire control over the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern

from Fort William to Winnipeg, 850 miles. This may involve, it does in fact involve, the purchase of both those lines.
To aid the Grand Trunk Railway in building a line from Winnipeg to Edmonton.
The government to build the line from Edmonton to the coast unless the company builds it. I have omitted to give the number of miles on these lines, I will tell you their total in a moment.
Then coming back again to the east, to build a line from Moncton to Quebec, 400 miles in length.
Another from Quebec to Winnipeg, 1,400 miles in length.
Another from Winnipeg to the coast, 1,600 miles in length.
In all, to build 7,041 miles of road

that is all up to date, and that is a small portion of the proposition of the leader of the opposition. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have taken over fifty years in Canada to build 17,000 or 18,000 miles of railway. Now we are asked to authorize an expenditure to build 7,000 more, nearly 50 per cent of our present mileage. But this is only the threshold of the scheme.
To equip and operate a line from Montreal to the coast.
To equip and operate a line from Moncton to the coast.
To purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway transport fleet, and to operate it.
To go into the grain carrying trade on our inland waters.
Thoroughly to equip the Georgian Bay ports.
Thoroughly to equip our national waterways.
Thoroughly to equip the St. Lawrence route.
Thoroughly to equip our ports on the Atlantic coast.
Abolish any unnecessary harbour dues on the Atlantic coast.
Abolish any unnecessary harbour dues on the Georgian bay.
Develop harbour facilities at Port Col-borne.
Accept the harbour at Montreal.
Make Montreal a national port; make Montreal a free port.
Make Quebec a national port; make Quebec a free port.
Make St. John a national port; make St. John a free port.
Make Halifax a national port; make Halifax a free port.
Provide storage, at a nominal rate of the capacity of 100,000 barns, with the result that the government is to embark in the warehouse business.
Those are the leading features of the scheme of the leader of the opposition.


Mr. DAVIS.: They are going to build barns.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, and they will be getting under the barns


William Mulock: pretty soon. Now, Mr. Speaker, in introducing that scheme, the hon. gentleman declared that it would involve a limited expenditure of money. But what is money for, he asks. Money is made to spend, he tells us. Now I do not want to misquote the hon. gentleman, and I will try to prove step by step what I attribute to his authorship, especially as I do not observe him in the House. On page 9003 of the ' Hansard,' he says :
The people of this country are not afraid of spending money if it is spent in a sane and reasonable way.
Then he proceeds to give his ideas of sanity. I have myself given you these particulars. He says after referring to some of the government's proposals :
There is no reason to he afraid of spending money. I am not afraid of spending money and the country is not afraid of spending money.
He tells us that neither he nor the country is afraid of spending money and he asks us to adopt that policy. Now, although the hon. gentleman may not be afraid of spending money, perhaps those who are responsible for the expenditure and perhaps the taxpayers as well would deem it not a waste of time to consider from the standpoint of cost alone what the scheme of the hon. gentleman does involve. Our scheme, limited to an investment with the exception of a few years at the commencement when we [>ay interest or forego rent, involves a cash outlay by this government, not to be recovered, of not exceeding $13,000,000. That is the cost to the country of the government proposition.


James Clancy: How does the hon. gentleman know that it is going to be $13,000,000 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, that is a little over the estimate. The actuarial estimate puts it between $11,000,000 and $12,000,000, but I have given a margin. Thirteen million dollars is all that our little modest scheme involves in the way of money going out that does not come back. I must say that I blush at our modesty when considering what is involved in the magnificent scheme propounded by the hon. leader of the opposition. Let us analyze it. I do not think there will be much difference on either side of the House as to the cost excepting always of course the view of that hon. gentleman, who puts down the cost of our scheme at the trifling sum of $560,000,000. I am surprised at iiis modesty. But, taking the scheme and trying to actually reach an intelligent idea as to what the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition involves. I think we can, without much difficulty, arrive at a fair conclusion. For example, we are told that it involves the building of 37 miles of a railway from Montreal to CQteau.

The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) allowed that the cost of that piece of road would be $1,200,000. I am not going to put it that high. I am putting it down at $1,110,000. Probably no exception will be taken to that item. We then proceed to the next link of this railway, that from Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour, involving the purchase of the Canada Atlantic Railway. The Canada Atlantic Railway Company owns, 1 am told, 400 miles. The hon. leader of the opposition told us that, and I give him as my authority. Of this 400 miles of railway fifty-seven miles of it are in the state of Vermont. If the hon. leader of the opposition proposes to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway system he will have to buy it all. Do hon. gentlemen opposite only figure upon buying 342 miles of railway from Coteau to Depot Harbour, or do they propose to buy it all ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is quite well aware that there has been an offer open to the world for not only the whole Canada Atlantic Railway, but for the whole system, including steamers and elevators, for $11,000,000. Although I did not include it to-day it has to be included in it.
The POSTMASTER * GENERAL. The hon. gentleman says that the whole Canada Atlantic Railway system was at one time offered for $11,000,000. That may be, but we are not speaking of one time ; we are speaking of now.


James Clancy: That is within twelve months.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am assured that there is no government or person who can acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway for anything like $11,000,000. I understand that the minimum price placed upon the system is not less than $17,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I have information exactly the opposite.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: To what extent does-the hon. gentleman's information go 1 w


Robert Laird Borden: I have information that it can be bought for $14,000,000 at the outside, and probably for $12,000,000 in cash.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. leader of the opposition says $14,000,000 and the hon. member for Bothwell says $11,000.000. I am told that the market price is not less than $17,000,000, if it can be purchased to-day. At all events, between these prices we can put it down as $15,000,000, and that includes this fifty-seven miles of railway in Vermont. What the government of Canada is going to do with fifty-seven miles of railway in the state of Vermont, I am at a loss to understand.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How much has the Grand Trunk Railway in the United States ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: X am speaking of the government buying railways in the United States ; I am not speaking of private citizens doing so. If it is proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition or by the party supporting him to expend the people's money in the acquisition of railways in the United States, then, a different proposition is involved. If we were going to make such a purchase, I question very much whether the people of the country would consent to their money being used for acquiring such a road. But an alternative is proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, and if at any stage in my observations I misquote him, I shall be only too thankful to him if he will correct me. T do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily by quoting his exact words in 1 Hansard.' but I am prepared to do so in support of anything I may say, if the accuracy of uiy statement is doubted. The hon. gentleman said that he was prepared either to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway, or to build another line between Coteau and Depot Harbour paralleling it.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not correct. I said to a point on the Georgian bay.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The whole story of the leader of the opposition had reference to the Canada Atlantic Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not confine myself to Depot Harbour.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not care whether it is Depot Harbour or the Georgian bay. The Canada Atlantic Railway goes to Depot Harbour. The hon. gentleman says :
The Canada Atlantia Railway extends from Depot Harbour on the Georgian bay to Coteau Junction a distance of 342 miles.
Then he proceeds to point out the possibility of connecting with that point. Having stated that the Canada Atlantic Railway extended from Coteau to Depot Harbour, he proceeded to point out what a magnificent harbour Depot Harbour was, and he said that the tonnage that had come to Depot Harbour, proved that it was a magnificent connection between Duluth, Fort William and the west with the east. Having so described Depot Harbour he proceeds :
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not wedded to the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway. I am only propounding a policy which I think ought to be followed, namely, the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to a Georgian Bay port. May be that after expert advice has been obtained some other scheme may be found that would be better than the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway. So let it be. If, however, the Canada Atlantic Railway commends itself to the judgment of experts, and from what information I can obtain with re-

gard to it, I should think it ought so commend itself, and I would think that the extension of the Intercolonial Railway between Coteau and Jacques Cartier Junction, and the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway to Depot Harbour, would place the Intercolonial Railway in a very much better position than it is at present.
The hon. gentleman says he did not pledge himself to build an alternative paralleling- line to Depot Harbour. Is that not playing upon words when he is seeking to get to Georgian bay, and to get the traffic that now comes to Depot Harbour 1 It is not the particular terminal point that is involved ; it is the traffic that is involved. The leader of the opposition is prepared to build a competing line to Depot Harbour, or some point on the Georgian bay, to parallel the Canada Atlantic Railway and to destroy it by the expenditure of public money. That may be constructive politics, but I think it is destructive politics, and any way it would cost the taxpayers of Canada at least $15,000,000. Again, the hon. gentleman proposes to build a railway from Sudbury to the Georgian bay and on this point he says :
I have referred to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay. If we acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, we could build a line from that point to join the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Sudbury.
And the hon. gentleman says that the mileage would be 120 miles. I think my hon. friend from Bothwell figured it at a higher mileage, but I will be content to put the figures at 120 miles, and then the cost would be $3,600,000


James Clancy: I mentioned Scotia Junction and by actual measurement it is 104 miles.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There again the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is at variance with his leader. Scotia Junction is an inland point many miles from the Georgian bay, but the leader of the opposition wants to build from the Georgian bay. When the leader of the opposition makes his connection at Sudbury he looks westward to get to Fort William, and Sudbury is 73 miles westerly of North Bay, and is a point upon the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The leader of the opposition proposes to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from North 'Bay to Fort William, a distance-of 634 miles, and on that point I might as well give his own words, spoken on the 18th of August, as follows :
I say it would be a proper thing and a wise thing for this government to acquire this railway from North, Bay to Fort William.
Not from Sudbury as the hon. member for Bothwell says, repudiating his leader, but from North Bay, which means a few miles more to be thrown Into the hill of costs. Thus the leader of the opposition Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
proposes to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway for 634 miles from North Bay to Fort William, and when it is acquired to spend a few millions on it in betterment to make it fit for the traffic which it is supposed it will carry.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has not quoted all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What have I left out ?


Robert Laird Borden: This :
You could acquire either the ownership of that railway or the absolute control of running rigfits over it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman says we could acquire the ownership or absolute control of running powers, and I suppose be would argue that running powers are equal to ownership. His scheme is not merely that the Canada Atlantic Railway should have running powers over the road he is arranging for between Montreal and the west, but that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway shall have running powers as well. He proposes in his scheme to secure if possible a national railway highway ; one that will be available on fair terms for all railways, now, If I can show that the hon. gentleman's opinion is, that no railway under the control of any one company will meet his expectations In that regard, I am sure he would not for a moment propose to deceive the House by pretending that he did not mean the actual acquisition by purchase of the ownership of that road. You will remember that in the government scheme we propose to own the railway from Moncton to Winnipeg and to reserve authority to enable us to grant running powers, just, and equitable and ample to all-comers. We attach a great deal of weight to that feature of that scheme, and we presented it to parliament with a great deal of confidence, but the leader of the opposition expressed his opinion on that question. The Prime Minister spoke on the 30th fif July Inst, and the leader of the opposition In criticising the Prime Minister's remarks, expressed himself in these words :
It is well known, not only amongst railway men but to those who are not railway experts, that the company which has the management or control of the line can regulate the running powers granted to other railways in such a way that they are of no practical advantage to the railway having these running rights. I do not think there is any doubt in the mind of any railway man in regard to that, and therefore [ think that the running powers which are pro posed to be granted over the line from Moncton to Winnipeg are of no real value.
Now, if on the 30th of July It was the opinion of the leader of the opposition that running powers even over a government

road reserved for other lines, were of no value ; what does the hon. gentleman wish us to infer from his statement of to-night, that he only proposed to acquire running rights over the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Winnipeg. Why, Sir, the member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) in expounding the proposition of his leader, understood this to mean the actual purchase of the road. The leader of the opposition proceeded to elaborate upon the principle of eminent domain and the right of expropriating railways if needs be in the public interest, and all his followers in giving their estimate of the cost of such scheme figured it out upon having to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway for its railway from North Bay to Winnipeg. But now for the first time to-night the leader of the opposition intimates that he did not mean that.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 beg my hon. friend's pardon ; I merely directed his attention to a portion of my remarks that he had not quoted.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Very well, if the remarks have any meaning at all, what is the meaning of them ? The hon. gentleman advocated his scheme to buy from North Bay to Port William, because among other reasons, the Intercolonial Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, the Grand Grand Trunk Railway should have running rights over that road. But he told us on the 30th of July last that running rights were no good over a company owned road, and, therefore, what good will that line be if the Canadian Pacific Railway owns it and only running rights are acquired in it. The hon. gentleman either means something or he means nothing.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman wish me to answer him?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am willing that the hon. gentleman should do so.


Robert Laird Borden: In the one case, there is a lease to the Grand Trunk Pacific giving it control over the road. In the other case, which I have just suggested, the government would have either the ownership of the road or the absolute control of the running powers. In either case the running powers over that road, so far as all the companies are concerned, would be regulated by an independent power.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: May I read to the hon. gentleman, for his information, a clause in the proposed lease, which he criticised on the 30th of July last? As the hon. gentleman is aware, the government is to own the eastern division, to be the landlord of it, and is to grant to the Grand Trunk Pacific a limited interest in it. This clause says :	*
The said lease shall also contain proper and usual provisions,-
(a.) Reserving to the government in respect of its ownership, present and future, of the Intercolonial and any other line or lines of railway, running powers and haulage rights over the said eastern division upon equal terms with the lessees, subject to such reasonable restrictions as may be necssary to secure safety and convenience.
And so on. Then, as regards outside companies :
(b.) Reserving power to the government to grant running powers and haulage rights sufficient to enable any railway company desiring to use the said eastern division, or any part thereof, to do so upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the companies, or, in case of their failure to agree, then upon such terms as may be deemed reasonable and just by the government, having regard to the rights and obligation of the lessees.
Under that wording, the government remains in possession to the extent that is necessary to give to all railways such running power as the government deems reasonable and proper.


Robert Laird Borden: Having regard^


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Having regard to the rights of the lessees, and the rights granted are subject to the reservation. The reservation is as large as. the rights, and all have to be read together as one scheme, and the government is the tribunal who determines the rights of other companies and the terms upon which other companies shall use the road. And yet the hon. leader of the opposition expressed his opinion on the 30th of July, not only with reference to these words, but generally, that running rights such as these are of no practical value. If so, what is the meaning of his scheme to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Port William, with the few words thrown in, that perhaps running rights might also meet the case ? The hon. gentleman's own colleagues all understand his scheme, which contemplates the purchase of the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William, a distance of 634 miles ; and the question is, what will that piece of railway cost ? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not in the habit, I think, of giving (anything away at less than its value. I would not blame them for hanging on to their own; and if the bon. gentleman thought of expropriating-and this is what he hinted at-this line of railway, he will be confronted at once with an estimate of what it cost. The hon. gentleman's own colleague, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), speaking no doubt from his experience as Minister of Railways and Canals, stated that the cost of the railway from Fort Wiliam to North Bay had been $60,000 a mile. If we got it at cost, I think we would be very fortunate. I do

not propose to put it higher than cost ; but I do say that the hon. gentleman will not succeed in expropriating that piece of railway from the Canadian Pacific Railway at less than its cost, as stated by the hon. member for South Lanark.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman know what estimate was put upon it by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) last night, which was less than was put upon it to-day, and that from the authority of an engineer?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I only know the estimate put upon it by the exMinister of Railways and Canals of the late administration, who, with all the knowledge his office gave him, spoke officially in fact when he told us that the cost was .$60,000 a mile. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) himself told us that he put the cost at $45,000 a mile, in addition to which he was going to allow $5,000 a mile for betterments.


James Clancy: I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I distinctly said that I did not put any estimate upon it. It was an estimate put upon it by a competent authority.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman, at all events, in trying to satisfy this House what it would cost to carry out the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition said that the estimate was that this particular railway would cost $45,000 a mile, and that a large sum would have to be spent for betterments, which I think amounted to $5,000 a mile. So that the hon. member for Bothwell put the railway from North Bay


James Clancy: No, from Sudbury.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman started from Sudbury, but the hon. leader of the opposition started from North Bay. You see, our hon. friends opposite are not in harmony, and I am defending the hon. leader of the opposition. That hon. gentleman is buying the whole railway from North Bay to Fort Wiliam, and the hon. member for Bothwell puts the price at $50,000 a mile, and it is a question whether we will take his figure or the figure of the hon. member for South Lanark, viz., $60,000. I think it probable that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has a more accurate knowledge of the facts. At his figure, then, the 634 miles from North Bav to Fort William will cost us $38, 040,000.
We have now reached Fort William. There we meet two railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. The hon, gentleman proposes to acquire some estate over the Canadian Pacific Railway. His scheme is to get a continuous line of railway from Montreal to Winnipeg available for the Intercolonial Railway and all other railways. He has already told us that running powers are a delusion, that they cannot be acquired so as to be of any value. Therefore, when he proposes to make use of these two roads in a certain way to make them effective, it cannot be under the old scheme of a company owning a line and giving running powers over it to others. He says :
The third point which I would submit to the consideration of the House, as a sound policy, is to assist in improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Port William, upon the condition that complete control of rates is obtained and that the Grand Trunk Railway as well as the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Port William to Winnipeg.
His object is to secure a highway available for the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Intercolonial and the Canadian Northern. He has already told us that running rights cannot he acquired where a company owns the lines. How, then, is he going to acquire a proper highway to meet the services he is seeking ? He is going to expend public money upon the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway or both between Fort William and Winnipeg.. There is only one way, he says, by which the public money expended on those roads will be saved, and that will be by the public owning those two roads. He might as well have said frankly that his purpose was to purchase these roads out and out, and that is practically what is admitted by his friends behind him. fiut, if he buys only one, which one will he buy ? Does he pretend that he could buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg and use it In rivalry with the Canadian Northern Railway or vice versa ? I question if that would he considered a just arrangement. He must either buy both or none, for each has equal rights, and if he proposes to buy one, that carries the responsibility of buying both or ruining the other. But if he should buy only one, which one ? The government of Canada built the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg and paid for its construction $15,638,549. The government then made a free gift of it to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Without adding one penny to the original cost of that line from Fort William to Winnipeg, it would cost us, if we only had to pay what was originally expended" upon It, $15,000,000. Then take the Canadian Northern Railway, which runs side by side, that cost $25,000 per mile, and no one will say that that is an over estimate. If that estimate he satisfactory, it means that the purchase of the Canadian Northern Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg will cost $10,625,000. Now, the purchase of these different roads and the construction of two pieces would aggregate in all $841,015,549. And when he has this road to Winnipeg, I presume he pro-


William Mulock: poses to equip it with rolling stock. How much he proposes to expend on rolling stock, I do not know, but if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway consider $20,000,000 not too much to expend on rolling stock, with which to equip its proposed new line, at least half that would be required to make this extension of the Intercolonial Railway effective. If so, that would mean $90,000,000 odd for bringing the Intercolonial to Winnipeg.
Assuming that the leader of the opposition has carried out his policy, assuming that he has expropriated the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port William to North Ray, I would like to know w'hqt effect that is going to have on the railway system of the Canadian Pacific Railway and our western trade ? Everybody knows that the 634 miles operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway between Fort William and North Bay is about the most unprofitable piece in all Canada. Everybody knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway have an alternative route from Duluth to Sault Ste. Marie, a distance of nearly 400 miles, which they would be only too glad to use if they could get rid of the expensive north shore piece of railway. The hon. gentleman proposes to take out of the Dominion treasury $38,000,000 and hand it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purchase of its railway from Port William to North Bay. The Canadian Pacific Railway could then turn around and build a short line of railway, 360 miles in length, from Winnipeg to Duluth, side track Port William and Port Arthur, and divert the whole traffic west through Duluth, going down from and coming back to #Cana.da by the Sault Ste. Marie. The Canadian Pacific Railway is at present maintaining two lines of railway for its western traffic going east, with the exception of a short link between Winnipeg and Duluth of 360 miles. Every day it runs a train from Port William to North Bay, it loses money. I am not in a position to say how much but an hon. gentleman oppositespeaking with I do not know what authority-suggests that $1,000,000 is the annual loss in operating the railway between Port William and , North Bay. That may or may not be correct. But that line follows a rocky coast, as every body knows, on which there is not sufficient traffic to make it pay, and besides the grades are bad, the curves are severe, and it is altogether an expensive road. Nothing therefore would suit the Canadian Pacific Railway better than to be relieved of the cost of keeping open that road; and were the hon. gentleman's policy carried out and the Canadian Pacific Railway paid $38,000,000 of the people's money to sell out what is a dead horse, namely, the line from Port William to North Bay, they could take $13,000.000 of that money and build a road from Winnipeg to Duluth. That would be the outside cost, and they would then have complete connection between Winnipeg and the Soo, around the south shore of Lake Superior and could divert all the Canadian traffic over that route from the hon. gentleman's common national highway. The hon. gentleman proposes to give the Canadian Pacific Railway $38,000,000 to divert traffic from Canada to the United States, to destroy our own ports, Port William and Port Arthur, and to build up Duluth in their stead. We, on the contrary, aim at having a Duluth of our own on the north shore of Lake Superior. The hon. gentleman proposes to Americanize the Canadian Pacific Railway, to rob it of its national character, to divert the commerce of Canada to the United States, and build up the rival city of Duluth as against Canadian ports. What would be the effect of the hon. gentleman's scheme if he could carry it out ? If the grain of the North-west, which the Canadian Pacific Railway carries, were brought to Duluth instead of to Fort William or Port Arthur, Canadian shipping would immediately be made subservient more or less to the laws applicable to the United States, mercantile marine. It would mean the driving away largely of Canadian mercantile marine from the lakes, and all for what purpose ? Can any one tell us w'hat purpose will be served ? Who has been the hon. gentleman's adviser ? Does the hon. gentleman feel proud of this scheme, the products of eighteen days reflection ? It cannot be that it is the outcome of eighteen days reflection. It must have involved long consideration by persons better versed in these matters. As the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) once said, there must have been some gold bricking done; and I submit that on this occasion a very considerable gold brick has been passed on the leader of the opposition by the Canadian Pacific Railway. What are we to gain by spending $54,000,000 to buy up the existing roads between Montreal and Winnipeg ? The expenditure of that money wifi not open up for settlement one additional square mile of country. It will transfer many millions of the people's money into the treasury of some company, but it cannot possibly be of any service to the people of Canada. It will take $84,000,000 out of the treasury of Canada and put it into the treasury of some railway companies which have already been well subsidized. It will do worse, if will throw upon the country for all time the cost of maintaining an unprofitable section of railway between Fort William and North Bay. In every way, it will be adverse to our interest and yet we are told by our hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that it is a work of constructive statemanship. The hon. member for Bothwell, in his description of this scheme, stopped at Winnipeg. Why did he go back on his leader ? His leader did not stop at Winnipeg. The hon. member Cor Bothwell either di'd not understand the scheme or he is going to repudiate

it all west of Winnipeg. Let me again come to the rescue of the leader of the opposition; his is a larger scheme than that:
The fourth point


James Clancy: The hon. the Minister of Finance stated that the length of that section would be 480 miles.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not the figures of the Minister of Finance


William Mulock: before me, but I understand that from this point at Edmonton it will be some 600 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that it would be 480 miles from Edmonton.


James Clancy: The statement was that the mountain section would be 480 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not from Edmonton.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Taking the length of the line from Edmonton to the coast at 600 miles, and estimating the cost at $50,000 a mile, we will have $30,000,000. Thirty million dollars added to the $84,015,549 which it has cost to bring his railway to Edmonton makes $114,015,549. That is the cost of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to the coast, including aid to the prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has got one railway to the coast and you would think that that scheme ought to have satisfied the ambition of any ordinary man. But not so on this occasion. The hon. gentleman told us, and he told us particularly, that the country was not afraid of spending money, and the hon. gentleman is not afraid of spending money. I take him at his word, I have not the slightest doubt of the accuracy of that statement, because, having got to the coast, he turns back again to the east with an eye to Moncton and Halifax-and I do not blame him for that. He considers how he is to square himself with the people of the east on the unfortunate position in which he placed himself on the 30th of July last. So he approaches the question a little gingerly but still his meaning is not difficult to discover. On the 18th of August, addressing himself to the subject of a government line, he says :
I say that If there is a better line between LSvis.mr Riviere du Loup, or any such port on the Intercolonial, and Moncton, a line the construction of which will give to Halifax and St. John a better fighting chance, for western traffic than that which they have at present, I will support the construction of that line. But I will not support it with the object for which this Bill provides. I will tell my hon. friend how I will support it. I will support the construction of that line as part of the Intercolonial Railway.
'Therefore, hp says, If a better route can be obtained he is prepared to extend the Intercolonial from Moncton to Levis. It is not a question of cost; it is not a question of paralleling the Intercolonial. He is prepared to build a railway from Moncton to L6vis; he is prepared to take the through traffic or all traffic if needs be off the main line of the Intercolonial which now follows the south shore of the St. Lawrence; he is prepared to incur all the expense if a better road can be obtained. It is not a question of cost, he commits himself up to the handle because every one knows that a better road

than the existing line of the Intercolonial can be obtained if you do not object to the cost. Engineers can get you what you are prepared to pay for. It is a question of a better line and money does not concern him because as he said :
The people of the' country are not afraid of spending money, if it is spent in a sane and reasonable way. .	. .
There is no reason to be afraid of spending money, I am not afraid of spending money. And the country is not afraid of spending money. But let us spend it in a reasonable and proper way.
Every one will concur in the hon. gentleman's statement that he is not afraid of spending money after the words I have quoted from his speech. He is prepared, if a better line can be got, to build from Moncton to Levis and I am sure the hon. gentleman could not go back to Halifax to-day and say that he was not honestly in favour of the construction of a line between Moncton and L&vis-not only in favour of constructing such a line, but of constructing it at the earliest possible moment, and I expect that before this debate is concluded the hon. gentleman will come all the way over and say that he heartily approves of the immediate construction of a line from Lfivis to Moncton.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say that he has misquoted my remarks in that he has not given my entire statement, on this point.
I said, immediately following the words the hon. gentleman has quoted :
Iu all this, act reasonably, survey your country, consider your course, consider the distance to be saved, consider the cost of haulage to be saved. Do not plunge into the thing rashly, do not undertake to build it upon a survey made thirty or forty years ago when railway conditions wrere different from what they are at present. Go into the enterprise sanely, after having obtained information which would justify you in believing that it would give a better chance for trade to the people of the maritime provinces.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The hon. gentleman has not at all disputed anything that.I said. I did not pretend to read all his words. I read the portion of his remarks wherein he said that if a better line can be procured he is prepared to build a line from Moncton to Levis. The question of cost is a circumstance, but it is not a controlling circumstance with the hon. gentleman, who, I am sure, will not say in this House that he is against the building of a line from Moncton to Levis, nor for that matter from Levis or Quebec to the Pacific ocean. The hon. gentleman is prepared to build a line from Ottawa, to put it under contract from Moncton to L6vis if an engineer can tell him that a better line than the existing Intercolonial line can be obtained. That is his position, ,he has put himself on record and from it he
cannot recede. Either tfiat is true or he did not intend to express himself as he did in the language which I have quoted.
Hon. gentlemen have said that it will cost $10,000,000, I think they say $15,000,000 to build from Moncton to Levis. If that line would be 400 miles long and $25,000 a mile is put down as the cost, it will cost $10,000,000. I am sure there is not an hon. gentleman in the House who will say that this is an unreasonable estimate.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Too low. The POSTMASTER GENERAL. Well,
I won't say whether it is too low or not. The Minister of Finance, I think, estimated it at something like that. Now we have to go to LCvis at the south side of the river St. Lawrence, a mile or two from the city of Quebec. What is his policy when he gets to the city of Quebec ? Again, I will read his words :
So far as the line from Quebec to Winnipeg is concerned, I am not disposed to minimize the possibility of that northern country. Looking at the history of the great west, there may be a great flood of settlement into that country north of Lake Superior, some day or other, at least up to a certain point west, but I do not think we know enough to justify us at present in saying that there will or will not be, because I do not know how far that country is, capable of competing, in the early future, with the magnificent country we have in the North-west. I have some doubts as to whether or not that great northern country may compete as early as we would desire with the great western country. But I am not disposed to minimize its importance in any way, and to my mind the rational way of dealing with that road from Winnipeg to Quebec is this. To thoroughly explore and understand it, and then to build that line from Quebec to Winnipeg, as a colonization rdad, according as the requirements of the people and colonization demand. To build it after you have obtained the fullest possible information and obtain that information with the least possible delay. You may find curious conditions surrounding you when you get into that country. You may find that, the road, which is the most direct line to the Pacific coast, will not be the road that will open that country for colonization. You may find the road running one way for colonization purposes and another way direct to the coast.
You may also find that a line running north from the northern part of Ontario will be required for the development of that country. You must go upon information, upon sound and reasonable lines, and when you do that, give to that country all the development which the people require. Not only build that line, but operate it as a government line. A. government line, it seems to me, would be peculiarly suitable to that country for colonization purposes, and I see no reason why the problem should not be solved in that way.^ If within a certain number of years, a practical route be found, then extend that road to the Pacific coast ? Build it as a government road from Quebec to the coast. Be not afraid to undertake that project, but do not undertake it until you have the information, the data which will enable you to deal with it. I am not saying this for the purpose of delay. I

9775
believe in going ahead with the work once you get the information and the data which are necessary.
I have read all that the hon. gentleman has said on that point, and I think the fair deduction from it is this :	The very moment you get enough information, go ahead with the road. Surely the hon. gentleman, in this age, is not going to say that the people must go into that terra incognita before there is a railway. To-day railways are the pioneers of settlement. If that country is to be settled, railways must go first. The hon. gentleman says that as soon as there is information obtained about that country, go ahead with the enterprise.
I am not saying this for the purpose of delay, I believe in going ahead with the work once you get the information and the data Which are necessary.
Now, if to-morrow the information and the data were forthcoming, then the hon. gentleman would believe in proceeding at once with the work. As the First Minister has explained, there are mountains of information upon this subject.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where are they ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are everywhere. There are more on the Table of this House than any hon. gentleman of the opposition has -waded through. The library is full of them, the woods are full of them. There are survey parties in every part of that district to-day, and in a few short months, probably, there will be no part of Canada better known than the country between Winnipeg and the city of Quebec. As soon as the snow goes away next spring, I have no doubt that the surveys will be in that forward state that the actual work of construction may be and will be undertaken. Now if the information is forthcoming the hon. gentleman's policy is to build at once, not to wait. Now, we have him on his second transcontinental trip across the continent. We have got him as far as Quebec. Now to Winnipeg the distance is 1,400 miles. I will allow that here he proposes to build a colonization road. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by a colonization road. I suppose he means a cheap road, a road inexpensive to operate. If so, I would take exception to the wisdom of putting In a cheap road in a country that is about to be settled up. If there is any class of people who are entitled to cheap rates, to the best railway facilities for their commerce, it is those people who are the pioneers of settlement in the unknown solitudes of the north. Why the hon. gentleman will pass upon them a cheaply constructed road, though expensive to them, I am at a loss to understand. However, he proposes to treat these people with a colonization road, a cheap road to the country, a dear road to them. If so, if it costs the government $25,000 a mile to build a first-class road from Win-


William Mulock: nipeg to Quebec, I will take off $5,000 a mile, and suppose that w* can get his cheap colonization road at $20,000 a mile.


James Clancy: The Minister of Finance put it at $28,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Minister of Finance was speaking of a properly constructed road. The Minister of Finance proposed a good trunk line, useful for other purposes as well as for colonization-the leader of the opposition proposes what he calls a colonization road, which I suppose is not a road of this character, but a road of severe grades and many curvatures, a cheap but expensive road for the purpose of supplying traffic. I would not favour that kind of a road ; but as the leader of the opposition is now submitting his policy, I am endeavouring to present it fairly to the House. Fourteen hundred miles of a colonization road between Quebec and Winnipeg could be built for $20,000 a mile, amounting to $28,000,000. Then the hon. gentleman proposes to extend that line across the continent. I do not see why, after building a government line from a point near Edmonton to the coast he should build another. Speaking on page 9295, on the 18th of August, the hon. gentleman says:
Not only build that line, but operate it as a government line.
Then he proceeds to say :
Then extend that road to the Pacific coast.
I would have thought it more economical to endeavour to connect that road with the mountain section which he is going to build from Edmonton to the coast, but the hon. gentleman probably had some other scheme in his mind. Therefore, we have to figure this line through to the coast, and if so, we have to allow, I suppose, at least $20.000 a mile for 1,000 miles, costing $20,000,000. Then there is another $30,000,000 for the GOO miles of the mountain section, making in all $93,000,000. So his second transcontinental railway will cost the trifling sum of $88,000,000. His first transcontinental railway has cost $114,115,549. Add to that the cost of his second transcontinental railway, $98,000,000. and his two lines will cost $202,113,549. He is not afraid of spending money. It will have to be equipped with rolling stock, both these lines are to be operated as government roads. The Grand Trunk Pacific undertake to put $20,000,000 on their line, it will take twice that to equip the two lines. I add, therefore, $40,000,000 for equipment of the two lines, and you have the total cost of the two lines as $242,113,549. I am 'ashamed of our modest scheme involving an expenditure of only $13,000,000. Now, let us leave the railway. There are other features of this scheme. The hon. gentleman proposes to purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway transit fleet. What does that involve ? Let me give the hon. gentleman's words. Having pointed

out the great service performed by the Canada Atlantic transit fleet, he proceeds to say :
While there may be some difficulty in the Crown owning steamers which ply in foreign countries, X should suppose, though I did not consider the question very carefully, a difficulty of that kind could be overcome by maintaining the present organization ; or in other Words, the legal title to the steamers would remain vested in the company, and the government could own stock in the company in the same way that the British government can own stock in the Suez canal.
He proposes that this government shall go into the grain-carrying trade on the upper lakes. What effect will this action have upon private ventures of the same kind V There are many millions of dollars of Canadian money at the present time invested in vessels upon our inland waters engaged in the grain-carrying trade. How will the owners of these vessels be able to compete with the government steamers engaged in this same line of trade ? Will it be fair to them that they shall be liable to the competition of the government fleet of steamers ? Why, Sir, it is only necessary to propound that proposition to cause any hon. gentleman to withdraw from it as an unsound policy. Either the government has to engage in the whole grain-carrying traffic on the lakes or nothing at all. The government cannot engage one ship in the grain-carrying trade on the upper lakes in competition with private capital, without being called upon to purchase all the vessels engaged in the traffic and be responsible for the whole traffic. It is either all or none, and as to what it involves anybody can form a fair estimate. It means the government buying up all the vessels now engaged in the traffic, it means putting an end to all private enterprise of this character, it means a system of paternalism in connection with the carrying trade that no business man would seriously propose and yet that is what the hon. gentleman proposes in this scheme. He says :
Thoroughly equip our Georgian Bay ports

What does that mean 1 Everybody is in favour of the equipment of the ports as rapidly as the circumstances of this country will permit. But it cannot all be done at once. The demands upon the treasury of this country are great. I doubt if there is any five millions of people in the world having greater responsibilities and rising more to the occasion than the people of Canada, but we cannot equip our great inland waters all at once. Remembering that we have inland seas and rivers 2,000 miles in extent it is impossible for any government at once to be able to complete the equipment and pnt everything in a perfect state such as only time and the greatest experience and expenditure will produce. But he says :
Thoroughly equip our Georgian Bay ports, our national waterways

I sympathize with that proposition.
-our St. Lawrence route

I sympathize with that proposition.
-and our ports on the Atlantic coast.
I sympathize with that proposition. Then he says abolish if necessary the harbour dues on the Atlantic coast and on the Georgian bay. Will the hon. gentleman tell us what is involved in that ? Has the hon. gentleman considered the consequences of abolishing the harbour dues in any harbour in Canada ? Take for instance the harbour of the city of Quebec. The city of Quebec collects dues upon shipping. It is a practice common in all parts to impose dues upon shipping, these dues being funded and expended in improving the harbour facilities, the construction of docks, dredging, elevators and providing other harbour advantages. The harbour commissioners have to incur debts in order to provide these facilities and the only revenue wherewith they can pay their debts is derived from the dues collected from shipping. The hon. gentleman proposes to make free our Atlantic ports, our inland ports, the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and others. It is in the power of parliament to abolish the dues collected by the - city of Quebec. The city of Quebec to-day has borrowed and owes for money expended in improving its harbour, $5,803,538, and the only way whereby it can pay that money is by imposing dues upon shipping. The hon. gentleman proposes to abolish those dues. If he abolishes those dues he has to assume the debt of the Quebec harbour. You then have to add to the cost of this scheme the debt of the harbour of the city of Quebec, amounting to $5,803,538. Then, coming to Montreal, the harbour commissioners of Montreal have been doing their best to improve the harbour of that great city, and they have expended and are authorized to expend $8,054,156. If, Mr. Speaker, we carry out the hon. gentleman's policy and wipe out the dues upon the shipping that comes to that harbour, no matter how desirable it would be if the circumstances allowed, how are we to meet the debt of the harbour commissioners of the city 6t Montreal ? We have to pay that debt as well. Add that debt to the debt of the harbour of Quebec, and add that to the other Bill and we have $255,971,233, as the ascertained cost in giving effect to the hon. gentleman's scheme. Again I deplore the insignificance of our little scheme alongside of this one. That represents the two harbours of Quebec and Montreal, and I am proud to say they are not the only harbours In Canada. There are other harbours that have debts. I need not mention them all. We have harbours on the Atlantic coast. I do not know to what extent they are in debt.


William Ross: There is no debt on the harbour of Halifax.


Xlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Happy Halifax. Perhaps that was a circumstance that led my hon. friend into this mistake, but there are harbours where there are debts. What about the harbours ou the Pacific ocean, and what about the harbours on the inland waters ? Are all these to be made free harbours ? You cannot make one a free harbour at the public expense without making them all free harbours, and we can contemplate the cost that would be involved in paying the debts of all the harbours of this great broad Dominion. That is involved in the policy of the hon. gentleman. Then, there is one extraordinary enterprise in which he proposes to embark.
I do not wish to misrepresent him, and therefore I will again quote from his words. Speaking as to terminals, he goes on to say :
The elevator question in the west, in connection with these terminals, is a very important one, and it is one that will have to be dealt with by the government, and dealt with under the best possible expert advice. We know' that in the western states a farmer, on putting his grain in the warehouse, gets a certificate which is guaranteed by the state, and which is practically so much money to the person for whose benefit it is given. He can go to any bank and draw the amount at once. This iS a matter that I have not studied or carefully considered

I am inclined to agree with him.
-but it seems to me it would be a proper subject for this government to fully investigate, with a view' to deciding w'hether some similar system could not he adopted in this country, so that the farmer of the west, putting his grain into warehouse would receive such a certificate, would, if necessary, have the whole faith of the country pledged to the accuracy of the certificate, and be able to realize upon his grain at once.
Well, Sir, there are a large number of people iu Canada pursuing the business of warehouse men as a calling. They have their warehouses and their business arrangements, and if this government is going into this business of warehousing grain for hire, what is to become of those who have already invested their capital in it. They could not compete with the government, they would have to retire from business, and so the hon. gentleman proposes to displace the warehouse business in which hundreds of people in Canada are engaged, and to have that business carried on by the state. It may be a forward movevent; it may exist in some places in the world, although I am not aware of any government ever having taken upon itself such a responsibility as that. But most extraordinary of all, the leader of the opposition proposes to go into the business of building barns, and storehouses, and elevators and warehouses, and he goes on to say :
We shall have enormous grain crops in the North-west, and It would be an economic waste, it seems to me, for 100,000 farmers to build 100,000 barns or warehouses, w'hen, by Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
means of proper transportation facilities, their grain could be stored for a merely nominal charge in elevators erected as a common enterprise.
There he proposes to go into the elevator business as a common enterprise, and not as a mere business transaction, but to carry it on at a nominal price. Let us read it again :
We shall have enormous grain crops in the North-west, and it would be an economic waste, it seems to me, for 100,000 farmers to build 100,000 barns or warehouses, when, by means of proper transportation facilities, their grain could be stored for a merely nominal charge in elevators erected as a common enterprise.	[DOT]
That is the policy which the hon. gentleman proposes to us. I wonder if he formed any estimate of what is involved in that proposition to provide elevators for him to store at a nominal charge all the grain that would be stored in 100,000 barns in the North-west. Is he going to provide elevators for other farmers than those of the North-west ? There are to-day millions of dollars invested by private capital in elevators and warehouses and is the hon. gentleman prepared to buy these concerns. If he is going to build elevators what becomes of those now existing through private capital and which in order to make them pay have to impose substantial charges, and not merely nominal charges. If he provides elevators and warehouses! for 100,000 farmers in the North-west to store their grain at a nominal charge, does he not think that he would have to build as many elevators and barns and warehouses as would be necessary to store all the grain of Canada at a nominal charge. If you build warehouses and barns and elevators for 100,000 farmers in the North-west, why should you not do the same thing for the farmers in other parts of Canada.


Mr. COWAN.: That's a barn-yard policy.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: From the Intercolonial Railway. It may cross a railway; but it is because it is going to be so productive that we And public opinion in New Brunswick to-day overwhelmingly, unanimously, in favour of this scheme. The voice of New Brunswick speaks for itself.
I cannot say from my own knowledge how it will affect the province of British Columbia; but I had a letter put in my hand today from a gentleman in Victoria, B.C., who, speaking of this measure, expresses himself as follows :
With regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, it is very well received all round. Of course, there are some who would kick anyhow ; but, so far as British Columbia is concerned. I think it is a scheme which will be found acceptable to the large majority of people in the country. At any rate, it is one which I think people will be very foolish to pass, now an opportunity of that kind is afforded, and, if knocked on the head, of which I do not think there is the slightest prospect-
Nor does any one here

-it would be very difficult to get the same scheme again, or one "which affects the country so well.	'
That is from a gentleman in high standing in British Columbia. Tbe name of the writer of this letter is H. G. Helmken, K.C. He is president of the Conservative Association of the city of Victoria.
Mr. Speaker, it has been stated by a number of tbe members in opposition that we have no mandate from the people to build this railway. A number of them challenge us to go to the country first. We had; some challenges of that kind thrown across the floor of the House to-day. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) particularly sought to make the point that the government had no mandate from the people to build a transcontinental railway. If the government twice sustained at the polls lias no mandate from the people to build one transcontinental line, may I ask whence the opposition, twice defeated at the polls, derive their authority to build two transcontinental lines ? If, according to their reasoning, each defeat carries with it a mandate to build another transcontinental line, perhaps I would not be inaccurate in prophesying that in the not distant future they will receive a mandate to build a third transcontinental line. Why, may I ask, did the people in 1896 summon the Liberal party to power ?


Mr. WILSON.: God knows.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Was it in order, Mr. Speaker, that the country might remain in commercial stagnation, and mark time, as it did for many years under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite ? It was not necessary to have bad a change of government in order to maintain that state of affairs. The hon. gen-


William Mulock: the whole of the Atlantic coast states of the United States, extending from the state of Maine, within a few miles of our own River St. Lawrence, down to the coast of Florida, and around to the Gulf of Mexico. That vast solitude is lying to-day as a wedge of separation between old Canada and new Canada.
For my part, I am unable to understand how the millions of people who are to settle in our great North-west, many of them citizens of foreign countries, are going to have implanted in their hearts the feeling that they are living in a united Canada, I fail to understand how we are going to cultivate in them a love for Canada, a determination to stand for all Canada, and to die, if need be, for all Canada, if there is to be continued commercial and social separation between the east and the west. In my opinion, the national life of Canada is involved in this enterprise. We see in the east the consequences of separation. We all deplore, every day of our lives, the circumstance that the state of Maine projects into Canada to a large extent, separating the maritime provinces from their sister provinces in the west, and yet this land of solitude, unpeopled and undeveloped, between Quebec and Winnipeg, is larger in area than a dozen states of Maine. The question before us is whether we are going to have one Canada or two, one people or two peoples. In my opinion, you cannot have one people if you have this hiatus of settlement. In order to have one people you must have a continuous settlement from ocean to ocean, from Quebec to Winnipeg, and on to the waters of the Pacific. We are urged to delay. The First Minister said, and said wisely and rightly-and in saying it he touched the hearts of the people- there is no time for delay. The occasion demands action. We have a tide of immigration flowing into Canada to-day exceeding that flowing into any otheh country in the world. Let this tide of immigration be checked, and how many years will be lost before the movement can be started again ? Now is the time to strike. Hon. gentlemen opposite want us to wait until depression overcomes the land. One would imagine they were praying for depression. Well, we have had depression and may Heaven prevent Canada from its return. Wait, they say, until depression overtakes us. Why, Mr. Speaker, Canada to-day is a country of promise ; and it is because it is a country of promise, because our outlook is so bright, we have been able to make such a satisfactory bargain. Now that we have the opportunity, let us clinch the bargain. Let us strike while the iron is hot, get the railway completed at the earliest moment, and give permanency .to that prosperity and development which now so happily blesses this country.


Adam Carr Bell: Nothing could be more gratifying, Mr. Speaker, than the

sentiments expressed by the hon. the Postmaster General. The strong language he used in favour of one Canada instead of two Canadas could not fail to arouse a great deal of kindly feeling, and received a warm welcome on this side of the House. I think that we ought to commend the language of the hon. the Postmaster General. We welcome it, we are delighted to hear it, because it was not always the language of that party to which the hon. gentleman belongs. There was a time when an effort to overcome that great hiatus, which lies between the east and the west of Canada, was being made by a Conservative government. In those days, did the hon. gentleman or his political associates have a word to say in favour of one Canada as against two 7 Not one word, Sir. Every effort these hon. gentlemen could make was directed to preventing the unification of Canada, and every word they spoke to the people taught them that the people with whom we should do business, the people who are our proper customers, are the people who live to the south of us. There was a whole school of Grit politicians who spent the best years of their lives doing all they could to prevent the unification of Canada. And now that we hear statements made, with such apparent sincerity, by the Postmaster General on behalf of Canadian unity, for my part, I welcome those sentiments, and hope they are heartfelt. But there is always a danger of a relapse, there is always a danger of backsliding in the ease of gentlemen who show their conversion under peculiar circumstances. There was a time in the province of Nova Scotia, when the political associates of the hon. the Finance Minister welcomed the visit of a Governor General of Canada with a very liberal display of Yankee bunting. But when the Liberal party came into power, in 1873, those American flags disappeared, and there were no more loyal people to be found anywhere than those same Grit rebels or pseudo-rebels so long as Mr. Mackenzie remained in power. But our Grit friends' loyalty is not of the right stamp. It is not all wool and a yard wide. It does not wear well in adversity, and the consequence was that when Mr. Mackenzie was defeated and these gentlemen came into opposition again, we found that Farrar and his friends became their advisers. They then had no word for the unification of Canada. They were for continental trade, commercial union, they preferred the American dollar to the British shilling. They wrere rebels, so far as they could be rebels without danger to their persous ; and when these gentlemen come here now with professions of loyalty while we welcome their professions, they must not expect us to accept them as altogether reliable. We have had experience, and our experience has not been in their favour. However, let us hope that this time they are more sincere, because it would
be a dreadful thing if they were to backslide a second time:	and we hope, for
tlieir own credit and the good of our common country, that when they go again into opposition, which may be at a very early date, their loyalty will prove to be of the kind that stands adversity, and not simply of that fine weather order which manifests itself only when they have control of the treasury.
I am not going to waste my time in following the hon. Postmaster General through the extraordinary speech he made to-night. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition owes a. great deal to the Postmaster General for the very unkind, unsympathetic manner in which he expounded the policy of the leader of the opposition. His criticism was too carping, too biased to affect the judgment of any reasonable person. His intention to be unfair was too manifest. The slip-positions he put into the mouth of my leader were too absurd and too remote from those that hon. gentleman stated. He did not attempt to answer the speech of the leader of the opposition, but insisted upon making a speech for * him, and as he went along the thing became grotesque. I shall, however, refer to one or two things. The Postmaster General is very much shocked at the idea of our forgiving the debt of the harbour commissioners of Montreal and the harbour commissioners of Quebec. He speaks as though it was a perfectly improper thing that the government of Canada should intervene to relieve the commerce of the country from the burden which is imposed by the exacting from that commerce of the tolls and charges which make up the revenue of those boards. What has the government done during this present session, this same government which now you would think looked upon it as the height of folly to relieve commerce of charges at certain points 7 This same government, a few months ago, took off the canal tolls. If it had been the purpose of the Postmaster General to make himself and the government he represents supremely ridiculous I am sure he could not have selected a more effective way to accomplish that result. Why should we not make the harbours of Canada as free as the canals ? Our canals have cost S80.000.000. Who would advise that we should exact from the commerce of Canada to-day, sufficient money to pay the interest on that 880,000,000 7 Not the government of to-day, because as I have said they have during the present session relieved that commerce of this precise charge. Therefore, when my hon. friend the Postmaster General scouts the idea that a premier of Canada should act as our leader suggests and relieve commerce of that imposition, then I say he is making the case he represents, he is making himself and the government supremely ridiculous. The Postmaster General in establishing to his own satisfaction, I hope, for he did not to

the satisfaction of any other person, the allegation that the proposition of the leader of the opposition would cost the people of this country $254,000,000. I think he made that quite as clear as he did the allegation that the proposition of the government would cost just $13,000,000; one is as obvious as the other. There is not one single feature in the scheme propounded by the hon. leader of the opposition which the gentleman who has just criticised it from the government side could successfully attack, and he resorted to the very extraordinary position in his great efforts to find something to challenge, of charging that the proposition of the leader of the opposition would involve the paralleling of some railways. He said that it is unfair that the government should build a road to parallel an existing railway at the same time he is here advocating the building of a railway which is intended to parallel, not only the Intercolonial, but the Canadian Pacific Railway, in so far as it runs from the neighbourhood of North Bay into the city of Winnipeg. To that extent the railway proposed by the government is practically paralleling the Canadian Pacific Railway and depriving it of the business which it at present enjoys. This government not only proposes to construct a road which will, in the east, parallel the Intercolonial in the sense of taking traffic but will parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway in the west. More than that will any one for an instant deny that the proposition now being made to subsidize or to aid with a guaranteed bond issue the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway west of Winnipeg ? The line shown on the map which is displayed in the Railway Committee room to-day, is paralleling the Canadian Pacific Railway west of Winnipeg, there cannot be any doubt of it, the line is drawn through a country already fully occupied. In order to find something in criticism of the proposition of the leader of the opposition the hon. gentleman is compelled to go to the length of condemning the very system that his government is to-day submitting to the people of Canada, because it is open to the charge of paralleling 'other roads and of instituting an unfair competition with private capital or with the capital of corporations. Thus we may attribute the whole speech of the Postmaster General to a vain and ineffective attempt to find something to say in criticism of the reasonable speech of the leader of the opposition. Now, I shall not for the very obvious reason that it would be absolutely unprofitable, follow the Postmaster General through all his speech, but I have here an estimate made up in the most careful fashion, not by guess work but by information obtained from competent authorities, which shows that the whole scheme as laid down by the leader of the opposition would cost the people of Canada only $00,000.01)0. That would give to the Intercolonial Rail-Mr. BELL.
way, would give to the Grand Trunk Railway, and to the Canadian Pacific Railway communication with the city of Winnipeg. It would unite Winnipeg with Halifax by the Intercolonial and with St. John by the Canadian Pacific Railway and with all the points in Ontario and Quebec reached by the Grand Trunk Railway via that railway. It would afford all of that at a cost of $60,000,000 because, as I said, these estimates are not guess work, they are not made by assuming a distance of so many miles at a cost of so much per mile, but are derived from figures compiled by persons of competent knowledge. That being the case, it is not hard to see that when the Postmaster General attacks such a scheme as this it is necessary, not to attack that particular scheme, but to imagine and set up an entity different proposition against which he could direct his attack. His speech before its conclusion really seemed perfectly absurd. He was not doing himself or the government he represents any credit or any good and was expounding his case very ineffectively. It required no penetration to see that he was criticising in the most unfriendly manner the proposition which has been laid down by the leader of the opposition after the most mature consideration and with the support of his followers. There could be nothing more amusing than to see the solicitude of the Postmaster General to defend the hon. leader of the opposition from the attacks of bis supporters. There can be no doubt at all that those gentlemen on this side of the House who cheered the hon. leader of the opposition when he presented his scheme to the House understood what lie proposed, that they knew exactly the scope of that proposition, that they knew what it was intended to effect, that they knew all the limitations and the conditions of it and that when that hon. gentleman proposed to the people of Canada a scheme that would cost a sum in the vicinity of $60,000,000 and which in his opinion and in their opinion would at once effect for the people of Canada all that they could hope to effect by the scheme proposed by the government. My hon. friend the Postmaster General when he insisted that the leader of the opposition was pledging the Conservative'party and this country to immediate action in connection with the road between Quebec and Winnipeg was simply distorting the language of the hon. leader of the opposition. His attempt was in absolute defiance of the plain and explicit terms in which the leader of the opposition had challenged the government for acting hastily and had laid down the proposition that whatever was commendable in their scheme could best be carried out after full and complete inquiry had placed us in possession of necessary information. I am glad that the leader of the opposition took the trouble to make it perfectly clear to the people of this country

that we as a party, and he as our leader, are not standing in the way of any legitimate expenditure of money required to make our country more progressive, more happy, more prosperous, than it is at the present. We are not afraid to spend money when it is properly spent, we never have been, as a party, afraid to spend money when we thought it was proper to spend it.
There can be no question that this scheme, although it seems large, still so far as boldness is concerned, so far as an effort on the part of the people is concerned, it bears no comparison with the scheme that was propounded to the people of older Canada by Sir John A. Macdonald when, in 1873, we undertook to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. That railway, for the people of that day and for the government of that day, was an infinitely bolder scheme, involving more sacrifices, and throwing a greater strain upon the country than this scheme proposed by the government to-day. The reason we are objecting to their scheme is not because it is going to cost money. You cannot have any results without expending money ; you cannot have a prosperous country very long which thinks too much of economy and too little about a legitimate expenditure. The man in private life, the village, the town, the city, the country, which shows itself to be careful about expenditure, which pays too much attention to small economies, is not the wisest man, the wisest community or the wisest country. It is the country which utilizes its resources the best, which most wisely makes liberal expenditures, which will prosper the best. It is not because the scheme of the government is going to cost money that we attack it, it is because it is not an advisable expenditure. Now what do we find when we come to consider the proposal made by the government ?


Mr. LOGAN.: The hon. gentleman states that the cost of the opposition scheme will be $60,000,000. May I ask if he includes in that the building of a road from I.&vis to Moncton ?


Adam Carr Bell: No, that Is not included. It will be remembered that it was stated by the leader of the opposition that that would only be built in case full inquiry should show that, for a reasonable cost and with regard to the' requirements of the situation, a better road than the Intercolonial could be obtained. It was not a fixed part of the proposition made by the leader of the opposition, it was one to which conditions were attached :	therefore there is only included in this estimate what has been proposed to be carried out with reasonable haste. Now the proposal made by the government is one which involves, in the first place, a very regrettable and a tremendous lot of doubt. It is not possible, however anxious one may be, to know what that scheme involves, what is its extent.
It is not possible for any one to satisfy his mind upon that subject. We are told by some persons that the road is of this length; we are told by others that it is of another length ; there have not been two supporters upon the government side of the House who exactly agree as to the length of the whole road, or as to the length of any part of it. As I do not know the length of the road and the government have not the plans or figures upon the Table that will inform me, I am taking what I suppose to he the fairest estimate, and that is an average of the estimates made by gentlemen who have spoken for the government, by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Finance and by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who, on this occasion, was put up by the government in such a manner as to make it reasonably fair for (is to assume that he was speaking for the government. The fact that he was put up to reply to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and come to his task evidently thoroughly prepared, would seem to justify us in assuming that on this occasion he spoke for the government. Now, taking all these estimates and averaging them, it will be found that the eastern section of the road will be about 1,840 miles in length ; the prairie section 1,200 miles, and the mountain section 500 miles. As I say, no two speakers agree exactly, and I am taking an average. Now the 1,840 miles will cost, at the estimate made by the Minister of Finance, and I assume he made a careful inquiry, because in this respect he represents the government-that eastern section of the road will cost $51,520,000 ; the mountain portion will cost, in guaranteed bonds, $15,000,000, and the prairie section, $15,600,000. Now, what would the cost to Canada be ! It would be the cost of the eastern portion of the road, the interest on the' bonds, on the cost of construction,, because we will assume that the bonds which are guaranteed by the government will be carried forward in the course of time by the company. Now, the interest on these bonds and the interest on the road manifestly have to be paid for ten years ; the contract says for seven years, but it makes provision that for three years longer the interest may be paid by the government, and I think it is fair to assume that that will be taken advantage of. Now, that will make about $20,000,000. The interest on the bonds and the interest on the road for ten years will make $20,100,000. The Minister of Finance added as interest during the period of construction $3,309,676. That makes $74,929,676 : say $75,000,000. There was an estimate made by -the Toronto 'News,' a paper friendly to the government, putting the cost at $79,000,000. Therefore I think we may fairlv assume that the cost of this road will be about $77,000,000 or $78,000,000. Now what does this estimate depend on ? It depends entirely on the cost of construction,

whicli is here placed at $28,000 a mile for the section from Quebec to Winnipeg ; at $25,000 a mile for the portion of road in New Brunswick between Levis and Moncton. These are the estimates of the Finance Minister, I am taking them throughout.
Now, I think all the evidence we can secure on the subject goes to show that the road cannot be built for any such figures. The quality of the road must manifestly be tlie consideration which will determine its cost. Now, what kind of a road is this to be ? The hon. member for North Norfolk, whom we may fairly assume was speaking for the government, describes the road as to be of the highest class. But if you are not satisfied with the authority of the hon. member for North Norfolk, I will quote to you what the Minister of Agriculture said, who specified that the road should be one which should have no grade exceeding one-half of one per cent, or 26 feet to the mile. Now I need scarcely say that a road with grades not exceeding one-half of one per cent, if it is to be a first class road, must have curves of an easy degree, must have an equipment of a first rate kind. I will refer again to the authority of the member for North Norfolk, who not only demands a grade of not more than twenty-one feet to the mile, but he insists on 90 pound rails being laid ; he insists on locomotives weighing 100 tons, on cars which shall convey fifty tons of load each ; he demands bridges which shall not only carry this heavy rolling stock, but which shall be fifty per cent in advance of its requirements, which shall be able to carry a tonnage fifty per cent greater than that I have mentioned; a road in word so equipped as to bear trains drawing loads of 2,000 tons.
Now we are fortified in that idea by an. other consideration. What is this road being built for ? What did the right hon. gentleman undertake to build the road for ? What did he tell us ? It is built in the first place and mainly to compete with water and rail carriage and to carry wheat from Winnipeg to St. John, in competition with the ports of New York, Boston, Portland and Baltimore. It is very manifest, that, if the right hon. gentleman is to be gratified, if his road is to succeed in carrying wheat and that is a point of as much importance perhaps as its ability to compete, he must carry his 2,000 ton trains and he must carry them on a road that is of the highest possible class ; otherwise the object which the right hon. gentleman has will fail of accomplishment. What reason have we to believe that a road can be built of the character that I have just specified for $28,000 per mile through a country which is admittedly one of great difficulty ? It is not a prairie country, and it is not such a country as extends between Ottawa and Montreal. It is a country which is manifestly one of some difficulty. If we are to believe what we see described to us as the route of the road Mr. BELL.
it is one that crosses innumerable rivers all of which are making their way to Hudson's bay. It is to. have many bridges and they must be costly bridges to carry heavy railway trains bearing a 2,000-ton load. Everything that has been said by the government goes to demonstrate that no such road can be built for $28,000 a mile. We may ask the government to point out to us some roads of equal construction, of equal quality which have been built somewhere for $28,000 per mile. Can the government in all North America find a road 1,800 miles long which will satisfy the conditions laid down by the hon. member for North Norfolk ? There is nothing like it either in Canada or in the United States. They may find small portions of the road, such as the road 400 mile in length between New York and Buffalo, but they cannot find any road of this extent that equals in character the description of the road which is exacted by the government as represented by the hon. member for North Norfolk. But, we have a few examples to refer to, and if the right hon. gentleman had not been in such an awful hurry and if time would wait a little while, for him, he could have satisfied himself by looking at the reports which he can find in his own government offices, in which eminent engineers in Canada give good ground for the opinion that a road of that kind cannot be built for $28,000 a mile. In the library the right hon. gentleman could have found the report that Sir Sand-ford Fleming made upon the Intercolonial Railway, made upon the very road which the right hon. gentleman is contemplating constructing between Levis and Moncton. What does Sir Sandford Fleming say ? He says that the road from RiviSre du Loup to Truro upon which he had run fifteen trial lines through central New Brunswick, through the country through which the right hon. gentleman is proposing to construct a road as a betterment of the Intercolonial Railway, would cost $46,000 per mile. Hoes the right hon. gentleman think that by any witchcraft he can succeed in securing the construction in 1903 for $28,000 per mile of a road which it was estimated in 1864 would Cost $46,000 per mile, at a time when the requirements in respect to railways were not at all as exacting as those of the hon. member for North Norfolk, at a time when labour, as the right hon. gentleman is aware, was probably thirty or forty per cent lower than it is to-day in Canada 7 Still the right hon. gentleman comes before the parliament of Canada and before the people of Canada and tells them that a road of which he has proof cannot be built for less than $46,000 per mile, is going to be built for $25,000 per mile. As represented by the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), he is not even going to give $28,000 per mile ; he is going to give $25,000 only to construct a road capable of transporting loads of 2,000 tons over a route by which Sir Sand-

lord Fleming in 1864 said that it would cost $46,000 a mile to build a-road.


James Clancy: And not that kind of a road at all.


Adam Carr Bell: Of course the road that Sir Sandford Fleming estimated for was not of the class at all that the government demands. The road that Sir Sandford Fleming, as I will show in a short time, estimated for, had grades upon it of one per cent to the mile, or grades of 52-8 to the mile, but the fact is that Sir Sandford Fleming was going to build the road in the country, or expected to build it, while the right hon. gentleman is going to build his road in parliament with words. The difference between talk and deeds is just about the difference between $25,000 a mile and $46,000 a mile. One was an actual business proposition, the other is, to my mind, not an actual business proposition. But, we have other evidence. We know that it has been stated here to-night by the right hon. gentleman's colleague, the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), in his criticism of the policy propounded by the hon. leader of the opposition, that the road built by the Canadian Pacific Railway along the north shore of Lake Superior cost $60,000 per mile. We do not know by what route the right hon. gentleman proposes to carry his road from Moncton to Winnipeg, but we know the two ends of it. We know the road from Moncton to Levis. We know it from wlmt the engineers have tohl us, we know it not by guess, but by the statements of thoroughly accomplished engineers. We know the road between North Bav and Winnipeg. We know, although the right lion, gentleman says that it does not exactly coincide with his proposed road-we know the road between Fort William and Winnipeg, and we know that the hon. Postmaster General has, here to-night, standing beside the right hon. leader of the government, stated that that road cost $60,000 per mile. If it be a fact that the Intercolonial Railway at one end cost $53,000 a mile, as shown by the returns given to parliament every year in the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway, at the other end of this proposed system, cost from $50,000 to $60,000 per mile, according to the authority of the hon. Postmaster General, may I ask the right hon. leader of the government upon what extraordinary expectation he bases his hope that he is going to be able to build that road in part for $25,000 a mile and in part for $28,000 a mile, more particularly when the roads to which I have referred one not at all of the class specified by the right hon. gentleman, and why he is going to throw away this Intercolonial Railway, which cost $53,000 per mile in order to supersede it with a better road, which he is going to build for $25,000 per mile through the same country ? Therefore, I


BEVISED
[Stage Direction]
say there is not one jot, not one tittle of evidence to show that that road can be constructed for $28,000 per mile, and although not an engineer, I do not believe I will be at all departing from strict veracity when I state that a road of the class described by the government, or by the hon. member for North Norfolk, could not be built over that country for $100,000 per mile, unless it were lengthened to such an extent as to make it a perfectly farcical operation. We all know very well that if a railway has to overcome an eminence of 400 or 500 feet and is limited to a grade of twenty-one feet to the mile
Mr. WADE.: What section of the road is the hon. gentleman speaking about ?


Adam Carr Bell: The whole section from Moncton to Winnipeg, if built of the quality specified by the member for North Norfolk and kept at a reasonable length. We all know that if a railway has to overcome an eminence of 400 feet, it would take 20 miles approach to get over this 400 feet of eminence at 20 feet to the mile, and we will take 20 feet to the mile instead of 21. The right hon. gentleman would have to lengthen his road by curving-as is done in the mountains of British Columbia, notably on the short road between Trail and Rossland- back and forward to an extent that would, lengthen his road over four times that of the air-line which he is going to cover, or else, he has got to construct enormously expensive works of excavation, filling or tunnelling to keep his road within a reasonable limit distance. In one case if he resorts to the policy of lengthening his line so as to overcome these grades, he is going to have a road that would be absolutely out of the question as being of any valuers a commercial road. If he is going to take the other course, I can tell him that it would require some of the magicians, the genii of the Arabian Nights to build such a road as he proposes at the price he has set down, of from $25,000 to $28,000 a mile. It cannot be done by engineers. If such a road is to be built, it can be built of course. The Czar of Russia, I am told, if he wants to build a railway draws a line upon the map and says : That road has got to go there ; and with the almost inexhaustible resources of an empire at the back of him, an engineer can put it there. But an engineer could not put it there if he was limited to $25,000 a mile. [DOT] He would be worse off than our old friends, the .Tews, when they were expected to make bricks without straw, if he were expected to construct a road capable of drawing trains of 2.000 tons, from Quebec to Winnipeg, to compete with water and rail carriage and to do it at a cost of $25,000 a mile. Now, the Intercolonial Railway, on the authority of the government blue-books, cost $53,000 a mile. The Canadian Pacific Railway, on the authority of tiie Department of Railways,


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
cost $52,000 a mile. The Canadian Pacific Railway along tlie north shore of Lake Superior, cost $50,000 a mile. The Canada Atlantic Railway is stated to hay-e cost $50,000 a mile. But there is a better example still which was quite within the knowledge of the right h6n. gentleman, and that is the Grand Trunk Railway road which he is particularly interested in now, and if we can believe the figures that are given to us

not in books which the Prime Minister could not find, but in the report which is published every year on the authority of the Minister of Railways-the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada in all its branches cost $106,000 a mile. This road in which the right hon. gentleman has great confidence ; this road to which he is going to entrust his new line ; it cost $106,000 a mile, and he is confidently going to bring together the fat and the lean in this case, by adding to the Grand Trunk Railway system of $106,000 a mile a new system of $25,000 a mile. The right hon. gentleman undertakes confidently and coolly to do away with the Intercolonial Railway, to do away with it at a great cost to the people of Canada, and to make what is now not a very profitable asset to the people much worse by giving it competition, and taking away all through-traffic from it. The right hon. gentleman is undoing what his government has done for the last five years, in buying the Drummond County Railway and expending large sums of money to better it in order to enable it to haul through-traffic. He is now deliberately undertaking to wipe the Intercolonial Railway out of existence as a through carrier, and he is going to substitute for it a road to be built at a cost of $25,000 a mile. And, with what kind of a road is he going to supersede the Intercolonial Railway ? The maximum gradients on the Intercolonial Railway are few. At Bedford there is a grade of 1 41 miles of 63-8 feet to the mile, and that is in favour of the grain traffic going to Halifax. At Folleigh Lake, whm-e the road crosses the Cobequid mountains for 2-77 miles there is an average grade of 51 "6 to the mile. And at the most difficult point on tb.e line where it crosses the range of the height of land between the St. Lawrence and the Restigouche, for a distance of 6 [DOT]21 miles over an elevation of 299 feet, there is an average of 48-3 feet to the mile. The Intercolonial Railway is a first-class road. There is no other grade on the whole of it which exceeds one per cent, and where that occurs on curves is compensated for curvature. It has cost $53,000 per mile and the right hon. gentleman is going to send it to the scrap heap, and to supersede it with a road to cost $25,000 a mile built through much more difficult country. If the right hon. gentleman had not been in such a hurry ; if he could have put a little more confidence in time ; if he could have made himself believe that time might wait for a day or two, he could have discovered Mr. BELL.
with very little difficulty that the best pass to be found between the basin of the St. Lawrence and the basin of the Restigouche, is the pass which is used by the Intercolonial Railway where it goes down the Matapedia river. The member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) gave us figures showing the elevations which have to be crossed at various points between the St. Lawrence and the Restigouche, and in every instance they were very much in excess of the elevation which has to be overcome on the Matapedia. But the right hon. gentleman has not left us in doubt. He has put on the walls of the committee room a plan. It is not much of a plan, and it only shows about 37 miles of the road. It is largely drawn from the imagination of the engineer, and being an honest man the engineer has been careful enough to put a note upon the plan telling us that the real line is a very difficult one, and that the shaded line is one which he has derived from his imagination. He is an honest man ; I think the government might do well to employ him ; he is careful enough to see that he is not held responsible for any plan which springs from his imagination. And what does that plan of the engineer reveal ? It reveals the fact that in place of getting over an elevation of 744 feet, which has to be overcome by the Intercolonial Railway, he has to look around until he has found a level of 1,423 feet somewhere near a place called Lake Pohenega-mook. He tells ns that after a good deal of difficulty he gets down to this lake with an almost unpronouncable name, which forms the boundary of the north-east angle of Maine and extends for some considerable distance north. Here the right hon. gentleman is going to keep his word in respect to making this an all-Canadian route, and to do it he has got to go to the outlet of that lake and put a trestle over it so as to keep on the sacred soil of Canada, and then he gets across the lower end of that lake at a level of 651 feet above the sea. He has then managed to get from an elevation of 1,423 feet to reach an elevation of 651 feet ; 90 feet lower than the very highest summit upon the Intercolonial Railway/ This road which is to have grades of 21 feet to the mile and is to carry train-loads of 2,000 tonsi at a time has to make a descent without a break, of ten miles, at the rate of 76 feet to the mile, so far as I can .iudge from the plan. The engineer has specified 71-28 feet to the mile as his opinion of the grades, and he must be correct, but judging the distances on the plan there is a continuous grade for ten miles of 76 feet to the mile, or 71-28 feet to take the figures of the surveyor, to get to a point which is only 90 feet lower than the highest summit of the Intercolonial Railway. All this goes to show that when the right hon. gentleman tells us that he is going to build this road to supersede the Intercolon-

ial Railway, to carry a greater traffic at a lower rate than tfie Intercolonial, lie must mean something that we do not understand. There must be some reservation, something held back. His language cannot be reconciled with the facts as they have been submitted to parliament. -His statement cannot be reconciled with the plan which the right hon. gentleman has affixed to the walls of the Railway Committee room for the use of the members of parliament. There must be some reservation, some holding back.
But to show in another way how absurd it would be to try to better the work of the Intercolonial Railway between LOvis and Moncton by the system proposed by the right hon. gentleman, I will take another illustration. The Minister of Finance drew an air-line from Levis to the north-east corner of the state of Maine, and another air-line from the north-east corner of Maine to Moncton. He called attention to the fact that this was not one air-line, but two, having an angle in the middle, and representing a distance of 351 miles. Of course, he first proposed, very generously, to add 10 per cent to that for curvature, making the road 386 miles long. How much is added to that 351 miles by the present despised route of the Intercolonial Railway between LSvis and Moncton ? The Intercolonial Railway engineers added 40 per cent to the air-line distance; but then they were building a railroad with picks and shovels, with theodolites and levels, while the Minister of Finance was only talking about a railroad. If he is going to better the grades on the Intercolonial Railway between Levis and Moncton, he has to do it in either one way or another; he has to add even more than 40 per cent to the length of the line, or he has to resort to an enormous expenditure to cut down those mountains and fill up those ravines or tunnel through some of those rocks, in order to get within the limits he has fixed for himself. The Intercolonial Railway, with an easier route and with' 40 per cent added for curvatures, cost $53,000 a mile. Let us knock off $7,000 per mile and call it $46,000 a mile as the estimate of Sir Sandford Fleming. On a route which manifests enormously increased difficulty, the Finance Minister is going to build for the Premier of Canada a road good enough to supersede and to send to the scrap heap the Intercolonial, for $25,000 a mile. The whole thing is, I regret to say, so far as that part of the line is concerned, an absurdity-an irreconcilable contradiction. There cannot be the construction of such a road for the price named. In my estimation, the road can be built if the people want to build it, and if they are willing to pay from, $60,000 to $75,000 a mile to do it. But the right hon. gentleman cannot get a competent engineer to say that such a road can be built for $25,000 a mile; and if fie cannot, he is not treating the people of Canada fairly in representing that 307i
he can build that road for any such money. Everything we know contradicts that statement, and, much as we are disposed to accept everything which the right hon. gentleman says, with that parliamentary courtesy which requires us to do so, there are difficulties in the way of our accepting that opinion of the right hon. Premier which, to my mind, are insuperable. The whole possibility of making that rather surprising statement which the right hon. Premier has made, and which the Finance Minister and one speaker after another has repeated, that this road is going to cost the people of Canada only $13,000,000, depends on the other statement of the government that it is going to build this part of the road for $25,000 a mile. If they frankly admitted what the cost of that road would be, it would be no longer possible for the government to maintain that extraordinary contention that for $13,000,000 they are going to give this country a road of the class spoken of by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and by other hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House.
That is the first condition upon which the whole case of the government depends- that the road can be built for from $25,000 to $28,000 a mile. We have seen that that is exceedingly improbable. There is another condition that must be complied with, even if the road is built for $25,000 a mile, before the right hon. Premier can make good his assertion that he is going to build the whole road for $13,000,000; that is, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will implement its part of the contract-will take this road when it is built, and pay 3 per cent per year upon the cost of its construction. Now, as the people of Canada are making a very important bargain with the Grand Trunk Company, it is only a matter of common sense and caution to find out as much as we can of the people with whom we are making our bargain. The Grand Trunk Company recently held its semi-annual meeting in London. I find published in all the financial journals a statement of the affairs of that company. I find that its whole capital -not all its capital, but all those portions which the papers think it necessary to enumerate-come to £41,656,.364.	Turning that
into our currency it amounts to a little more than $202,000,000. On the 30th of June, 1002, the Grand Trunk Company paid £253,026 in dividends, and carried £2,609 to the reserve account. Its total net earnings for the half-year were £255,635. At the next half-yearly meeting it declared a dividend of £324,673, and carried forward £4,000, although I see that another and perhaps more authoritative statement represents that these £4,000 are a deficit. For the half-year ending June 30, 1903, the company divided £258,626 among its shareholders and bondholders and other creditors. It declared a dividend upon its 4 per cent guaranteed stock, its first preference stock and its sec-
[Stage Direction]
ond preference stock. In December last it declared for the first time in its history a dividend on its third preference stock, and passed the dividend in the following June. Practically the position of the Grand Trunk Railway Company .is this, that it pays interest at the rate of 4 per cent or 5 per cent on one-fourth of its liabilities, while upon three-fourths of. its liabilities to its shareholders and the public from which it has obtained its money to carry on its business, it is not paying one cent of dividend. Those who are curious to see the facts for themselves will find it by referring to any of the hand-books issued by any of the investing companies. These give the full particulars, showing that practically this concern, which stands on that lease between the government and the people of Canada, and the necessity of paying interest not only on the cost of the eastern division of this railway, but possibly interest on the bonds on the western division as well, has only paid interest at the rate of 4 per cent on about one-fourth of its capital, or interest at the rate of 1 per cent per annum upon its whole capital.
Now, there is another way of looking at this thing. The Grand Trunk Railway, we are told by its friends, has 3,142 miles of road, and the dividends it has declared amount to about $800 per mile of its system. That system is operated in a good country, largely in the province of Ontario. It has a branch to Chicago, and a large through-traffic over that branch, and it does an important business in Portland. In Ontario its operations are carried on in a country thoroughly settled and filled with wealth. And on that system, on which it owes $202,000,000, and on only one-quarter of which debt it pays interest, it manages to earn $800 per mile. Yet we are told that the First Minister places his full trust in the fact that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is going to take off the hands of the government a road which the government estimates will,cost $28,000 per mile, but which is more likely to cost $50,000 per mile, and pay 3 per cent on its cost. Should it cost only $28,000 per mile, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will have to pay $840 per mile to the government as rental, or $40 per mile more than is earned by that magnificent system concerning which we have heard such laudations. Should that road cost $50,000 per mile, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will have to pay a rental of $1,500 per mile. How is that road going to earn that amount of money, when the Grand Trunk Railway, running through a magnificent country, and paying no interest, can only earn $800 per mile ? If the Grand Trunk Railway cannot earn more than $800 per mile on its own road, running through a thickly settled country, how can the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway be expected to pay from $840 to $1,500 per mile on a road running through a country which for years
will provide very little traffic ? The right hon. the First Minister has shown by his speech that he has a great 'deal of piety and faith in his composition. No one without the most abundant stock of faith could ever put his trust in two such absurd propositions as the propositions that the road from Moncton to Winnipeg could be built for $28,000 per mile, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other lessee, could take it over and pay $840 per mile for the use of it. Still, in face of these facts, which cannot be controverted, we are assured, from day to day, that the whole programme is to go through, that the road is to be built at a cost of $28,000 per mile, that the lessee will pay 3 per cent on its cost, and that the Canadian people will not be liable for a cent. And side by side with that statement, you have the statement made, and not contradicted, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company exacted from their president, when he met them in London, the promise that not one dollar of liability should be attached to them in connection with this enterprise.
Just see what a programme the government is offering the people. It is very manifest that this is not a commercial, but a political railway. Why, in introducing this question to the country and parliament, neither the First Minister nor any of his supporters was willing that it should be discussed on its merits. No, they defied any one in the opposition to attack it because it was agreeable to the people ot this province and the other. In the lower provinces, ihe scheme could not be attacked. The government could not take the road to St. John, where possibly grain might be taken, although ostensibly the road was built for the purpose of finding a winter port. That, however, would interfere with the political character of the scheme, and the road had to be dragged this way and that, until, in compliance with the demands of the government supporters from the maritime provinces, it was located at a compromise point and brought to Moncton. Was it brought there to cheapen the cost of transporting grain to St. John ? No, but it was brought to Moncton in order that the maritime supporters of the government might be able to go back to their constituents and say to iliem : See what we have done for you, we could not get the road into the province of Nova Scotia, but we got it as near as we could.
William Ross: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to the road going to Moncton ?


Adam Carr Bell: I am criticising this scheme. I say this, that if the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, wants the road to go to Moncton, it is not because he is very anxious to see grain shipped by Halifax or St. John, but because he wants to have some


Adam Carr Bell: kind of an excuse to offer his people for supporting such an absurd proposition.


Alexander Johnston: Then the hon. gentleman is opposed to it ?


Adam Carr Bell: The hon. gentleman is prepared to stand by the declaration made by his leader. This being the character of the scheme before the House, let us understand the reasons advanced by the First Minister for introducing it. What are these reasons ?
I suppose we should take them in chronological order, and begin with that vein of piety which broke out in the hon. gentleman, and his regard for the passage of time ? He could not wait; there was great urgency. As an hon. gentleman said in this House, there was a crisis somewhere. And I think the suggestion was that somebody had it in his pocket. But apart from that urgency which has such an influence on the right hon; gentleman, there was the danger of the abrogation of the bonding privilege. Well, the right hon. gentleman has been Premier of Canada for seven years, and this urgency never seemed to strike him until now. Was he afraid of the abrogation of the bonding privilege at any other time ? Does he consider that this tide in our affairs never began to flow until the year of grace 1903 ? Have the susceptibilities of the right hon. gentleman received a sudden awakening in 1903 ? Or can it be possible than an election believed to be imminent has anything to do with his sudden zeal ? Well, let me first deal with the question of the bonding privilege, you can fairly estimate the chances of anything happening by experience. You can calculate the chances by what has occurred. What chance is there that the bonding privilege may be interrupted. Has it ever been interrupted ? How long has it been in force ?


William Ross: It has been threatened.


Adam Carr Bell: Might 1 ask the First Minister how long the bonding privilege has been in force between the two countries, and when it was put in force ? It has been in force, Sir, between the United States and Canada at least forty-seven years, and has never been interrupted. It has possibly been in force fifty years without interruption. It has been threatened, as my sagacious friend from Victoria says, but he ought to know, as a good Scotchman, that a threatened man lives long. When was it threatened ?


William Ross: By the President of the United States.


Adam Carr Bell: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for the valuable information. It was threatened by the President of the United States at a moment when an election was imminent. It was rather a remarkable coincidence that just as President Cleveland used the bonding privilege on his
side of the line for electioneering purposes, so the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier uses it on this side for like purposes. And neither of them meant a word he said, I am afraid in this connection. We have very good reason to believe that President Cleveland was not very much in earnest. He played his capers quite frequently when an election came on, and I am quite sure in saying that the right hon. the First Minister never lost any sleep on account of his fear that the bonding privilege might be interrupted, and is not likely to lose any. It has been in force fifty years and never been interrupted, but it has been threatened and idly threatened. We have no need to be afraid. The bonding privilege is quite as valuable to the people of the United States as to the people of Canada. It rests upon our treaty rights with the people of the United States. The right hon. gentleman shakes his head. It is true that the treaty of Washington has been repealed, but there is a much older arrangement between Great Britain and the United States, made in 1830, under which the people of the United States were admitted into the West Indian ports on condition that Canadians should be admitted on equal terms into American ports. [DOT]There is, therefore, no reason why we should doubt that the bonding privilege is unassailable. If the Americans were to take so unfriendly a course as to refuse us admission into their ports, ipso facto, their ships would be refused admission into the West Indies. And now that the different portions of the empire are drawing a little closer together they might even find that the mother country is not disposed to give up her coasting trade to the Yankee ships if the United States should attempt to treat the people of Canada in an unfriendly way. But apart from that there remains the fact that the bonding privilege is more valuable, if possible, to, the people of the United State's than it is to the people of Canada. The returns show that in the course of the last year the total amount of Canadian trade that passed through the United States was 98,000 tons, 78,000 tons of foreign merchandise coming or going through the United States between Canada and foreign countries and 20,000 tons of domestic freight that passed from one part of Canada to the other. Why there is crossing over the Canada Southern Railway every year between one part of the United States and another, 4,000,000 tons of freight, a large portion of which unquestionably belongs to the United States. One-tenth of the trade carried on railways in Canada is carried under this bonding privilege, and the United States would certainly make a very great mistake in withdrawing the bonding privilege, and they have not the remotest intention of doing so. The question is raised occasionally in the United states by gentlemen of President Cleveland's stripe, and what do you see? At

once every powerful, intelligent and leading community in New England raises its voice against any such absurd proposition. I venture to say that nothing in the comic papers this year has amused the people of the New England states one-half as much as the Premier's statement as to the bonding privilege being in danger.
Through the Welland canal every year the people of the United States send 200,000 or 300,000 tons of freight each way. They enjoy all the privileges of our waterways. The approach to the great city of Detroit is partly in Canadian waters and might be'closed if the people of this country found it necessary to answer unfriendly act with unfriendly act. There is no more danger of the bonding privilege being interrupted than there is of the comet striking the earth and changing the length of the day, and the right hon. the Premier knows it as well as any person in this country. In every case in which an attempt has been made by the United States to act towards us in an unfriendly manner it has failed. An attempt was made to smuggle into a tariff Bill a discrimination against Canadian exports : it was set aside and disallowed by a competent authority in the United States. Our rights rests upon legislation in the United States and that cannot be easily interfered with. If it should be interfered with, why would it hurt us to have to move over our railways 98,000 tons of freight that we do not move to-day.
But in addition to all that we can get in from the sea without depending on bonding privilege. We have the Intercolonial which is capable of handling that 98,000 tons ten times over in the course of a year. In addition to that we have a second road from St. John to Rivl6re du Loup, tapping the Intercolonial at that point. The construction of 120 miles of railway by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Quebec to Edmund-'ston would give two roads utterly independent of one another from the sea coast through the maritime provinces into Canada. But to avoid this awful danger the right hon. gentleman is going to build 3,000 miles of railway which fortunately, however, will cost only $25,000 a mile. So much in respect to the bonding privilege.
Then there is another very important matter engaging the attention of the Premier and it was in connection tvith this that he found it impossible to wait. That is the diversion of the trade of Canada through the United States. How am I expected to know the right hon. gentleman's authority for the opinion that we are losing trade to the United States ? If he looks at the daily papers, he will find that even more United States grain than Canadian grain came into Midland and Georgian Bay ports this year, and that 20 per cent of the grain that went out of tlie United States by water came to Canada. AVe are if anything taking away tile


Adam Carr Bell: trade of the United States. There is one physical factor in the geography of North America that guarantees that we will continue to take it away if we do not abandon our chances, and that is the fact that, as the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said last night if we make Lake Superior the key to our transportation system we are undoubtedly going to take the trade of the United States. AVe can draw to Lake Superior ports with greater advantage than it can be drawn anywhere else grain, from a distance of 600 miles within the United States and turn it into the St. Lawrence route.
AVe have in the St. Lawrence river the power not only of holding our own but of taking to the ports of Canada trade from every port and from every tract of country tributary to every port in that great lake system with that magnificent water-way there, the right hon. gentleman would go hundreds of miles north into an unknown country to endeavour to keep the trade of Canada from parsing into the United States, overlooking the advantage of the situation. Overlooking the fact that the key of the situation is to be found in these waterways, the bon. gentleman would build this railway through northern wilds where it will have no more effect upon the carriage of grain between the North-west and Europe than if it were built in a straight line towards the North Pole. The line could not compete with the Canadian water-ways. It will never have an opportunity to compete. There may be a small quantity of wheat coming out in the winter brought out by the Canadian Pacific Railway and other lines to be ground at Canadian mills or by the Canadian Pacific Railway to furnish a ballast for their ships, but the great bulk of Canadian trade will go down through the lakes and the St. Lawrence and for a time a certain part of it may take the lake and rail route via the Georgian Bay ports and thence across Ontario to Montreal or Quebec.
A good deal of the discussion during this debate has turned upon the question of railway freight rates versus water freight rates. Most ingenious arguments have been built up by hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that the railway rates can be cheaper than water rates, at least, I presume that is what they are trying to do. The government of the day need not go very far afield, they need not go to any interstate commission for their authority, they may go to their own blue-book in -which they will find on this point evidence so clearly and succinctly put by their own officials that I might say the whole matter is put in a nutshell. In the report of the Department of Railways and Canals we are told that for ten years the average cost of water-borne freight'has been 1'07 mills and for the last five years -95 of one mill. The average freight and I think, in this case, the lowest freight rate between New York and Chicago, (the Lake Shore and

Michigan Southern Road being selected on account of the advantageous alignment and good roadbed which it possesses and the great competition and low rates to which it has to submit) was 3 '20 mills. Let us take the average water rate as 1 mill and the average all rail rate as three mills, nqt 3-20 mills but three mills, and there you have the statement supported by the authority of the government officials that it costs three times as much to carry grain by rail as by water. Our North Shore road, away in the north country, a $28,000 a mile road, I do not think can equal the rates of the Lake Shore and the Michigan Southern. The average rate from Chicago to New York for lake and canals is 6-90 against 12-97 as the average by all-rail. This is a matter that seems to have been settled years ago; still, in order to try and make up some kind of an argument to support this preposterous scheme of building a road to haul wheat from Manitoba to Quebec and St. John by rail, it is necessary to disprove the most obvious facts of economic knowledge; and things that have been admitted for years are now denied, and an effort is made over and over again, and sometimes not in the fairest fashion, to disprove them. For instance, what was the Minister of the Interior driven to do ? He quoted to this House a rate of freight from Kansas city to Chicago of five cents per 100 pounds, and he figured that out to be three cents a bushel. Now, the very page of the Inter-state Commerce Commission report from which the hou gentleman was quoting, stated, not what he told the House, but something that I might almost say was the very opposite. Let me read what it says :
The railway lines from this city, leading to the eastern Atlantic seaboard are the oldest and most powerful. But the distance to the gulf ports is much less, and the railways serving these ports, insist that a considerable portion of this grain should be exported by that route.
The conditon has given rise to the most active competition between rail lines leading in various directions from Kansas city and the result has been a very low rate upon export
grain from that section	During the
past summer the open traffic from Kansas city to Chicago has been twelve cents per 100 pounds ; but the .actual rate at which wheat has moved has been as low as live cents. The published rate from Kansas city to Lewiston has been fifteen cents for export while the domestic rate for the same service has been thirty-seven cents.
Now, the Minister of the Interior was so desperately driven to try to. make an argument for his case that he suppresses all these facts, which he had under his eye and hand, and he culls out of that extract the one statement that wheat has been carried as low as five cents a bushel, an exceptional rate, and he comes to parliament and submits that, as the rate on wheat between Kansas city and Chicago, and argues therefrom that wheat can be carried by
this precious new road from Winnipeg to Quebec.
There is another very ingenious argument which the right lion, gentleman has been using with a great deal of force, namely, that one reason why he wants to build this railroad, one reason why time won't wait, is to open up a tremendous tract of country for colonization purposes. That is to a certain extent a very unselfish idea on the part of the right hou. gentleman, because no country that is unsettled has votes. But after all, it was rather a persuasive argument to be adduced by a member of the government, who said that Quebec and Ontario ought to support this scheme because the government was actually going to build colonization roads for .them for nothing, an argument that looks very much like an act of wholesale bribery, and which might have some effect in those provinces. In this country we have already a tremendous area of lands open for settlement, lands supplied by many railroads, but which are unable to hold the people that are upon them. The fact is well known in Quebec and in the maritime provinces, and indeed in some parts of Ontario, that the temptation to go to the west, to that garden country where a man can for a comparatively small sum procure a farm already fit for the plough, where the harvest conditions are almost perfect, where the farmer's lot is cast under the most happy circumstances-these conditions, I say, render it almost impossible to keep the people of the older provinces on their farms. Under these circumstances, .with provinces that are amply supplied with railroads, with lands upon which it is almost impossible to keep the people to-day, to undertake to transport people hundreds of miles into a new country, no matter how good it may prove to be, where there is neither siettlemejnts, nor civilization, nor the conveniences of life, nor the comforts of home, is certainly not a commercial proposition.


William Rees Brock: They won't go.


Adam Carr Bell: We are told they won't go. It has been the experience of every country in the world that in settling public lands the best lands are taken first. It is a fundamental idea in economics that so long as there is good land open to a settler he will not go on to inferior land. What reason is there to believe that you are going to stop and direct elsewhere that tide of immigration that is now landing in Halifax and Montreal and pouring past the eastern provinces and going thousands of miles into the west, making for the goal of their ambition, the point they had in view before they left home, those magnificent wheat fields of western Canada 7 What reason has the government to suppose that by building this road they are going to stop these people from going into the North-west, and are going to induce them to settle in this abso-

lutely unknown country, a country that we are told is wooded, but to clear wliicb Involves a life of labour, hardship and self denial, a life, however, which the pioneers of eastern Canada did not shrink from undertaking 7 Why should the right hon. gentleman expect any great results from his colonization scheme 7
We are told-and it is very singular how hard put some hon. gentlemen are for illustrations-we are told in some of these reports of that northern country that it is very much like the county of liimousld. That expression occurred in one or two of the reports I heard read in this House. What has been the experience of the county of Rimouski 7 The county of ltimouski has a railroad, the .county of Rimouski has churches and schools. 1 It is a county in which there is no lack of room. It has 3,574,4G9 acres of land, which would compare not unfavourably with the magnificent tract about which the Postmaster General waxed eloquent. It is pretty large, 5,585 square miles. The population of that county, in 1871, was five to the square mile, or 27,000 in 1881,' six to the square mile, 33,000; in 1891, six to the square mile again, 33,430; in 1901, with the assistance of an admirably taken and economical census, the population rose to 7-02 per mile, or 40,000 people. If the county of Rimouski be, as we are told, a fair sample of this country that is proposed to be opened in the north, I would like to know what rational man would leave the county of Rimouski, where there are certainly all the evidences of a railroad, or any other county that is equally fit, and many of them are better off-what rational man would leave that county to go into this northern wilderness 7 As a colonization scheme, it strikes me that this effort of the Premier may be fitly called a howling success because it is to be carried out in a howling wilderness.
There is no need so far as room is concerned to open up new lands. I take the county of Rimouski as an example of how the people are treading upon one another. It has only 7'2 people to the square mile, which evidently indicates a thronging population. Where is the crowd of people 7 If it is necessary to make room somewhere, to my mind it would be a very futile undertaking on the part of the government to make room in any of the older parts of Canada so long as the government are in a position to open either for the people of this country or for immigrants from the older countries, such lands as are to be found in the North-west Territories. There are difficulties connected with the building of this road through this country which would seem to be almost inconsistent with its construction for .$28,000 per mile. It taps the water at Quebec, at one end, and you can take in supplies from Winnipeg at the other, but how can supplies be taken into those portions of the road that lie from 150 to 200


Adam Carr Bell: miles away from anywhere ? One of the great difficulties in constructing the Canadian Pacific Railway, notwithstanding the fact that it ran comparatively close to the lake shore, and one which affected the cost of the road was the difficulty of getting supplies in to the road. The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Mackie) informed us here the. other night that the very lucrative business of bringing out pine timber could not be carried on very far up the Ottawa, because it costs too much to bring out the wood on account of the cost of getting supplies in. There is no doubt that the cost of getting supplies in is going to form a considerable part of the cost of this proposed road which the right hon. gentleman says can be built for $2S,000 a mile. It is a costly undertaking and it will likely eat into the $28,000. The right hon. gentleman submits this scheme to parliament as a colonization scheme, but he at the same time submits it as a great through-traffic road for transporting the grain of the west to the market at the lowest price. Not one foot of the road is located, as far as we know, and a large portion of the evidence laid before the House was the evidence afforded by the Trans-Canada railway promoters, not at all the same road, not at all going where this road goes, a road passing fifty miles from James bay and an average distance of 100 miles from the line along which it is proposed by the government to carry this road south of Lake Abitibi and north of Lake Nepigon. The testimony given by the Trans-Canada Railway promoters does not apply to this country. The project is an entirely different one, and as was very properly observed by the hon. leader of the opposition, if this work is carried out, it may be found that it will be perfectly impossible to reconcile the features of a colonization road with the purposes of a road constructed for through-traffic. I hope that we will be able to undertake the construction of that road. There are features of it which are of the highest importance to the people of Canada. It may be constructed by a line from Quebec to Port Simpson which would constitute the shortest transcontinental railway in North America. If we can believe the engineers' estimates we may be able to secure a comparatively level road, and if it could be carried out in connection with a fast Atlantic service to the maritime ports, with a class of steamers equal to any on the Atlantic, we might hope to get a great volume of passenger travel between the east and Europe, passing over this line. - This is a road which might at some day give to Canada a magnificent advertisement, it might be the means of turning a large part of the traffic between the east and Europe across our country and it might have some good effect by giving us greater depth of territory, a greater development of mining wealth, a development of agricultural wealth, and therefore, it is a

work to which I believe the people of Canada should turn their attention. But, I will say that they should turn their attention to it just on the basis which the hon. leader of the opposition has suggested, not by plunging into this undertaking at once, not by saying there shall be such a road going from Quebec to Port Simpson, we know not where and we know not how, but by devoting a sufficiently large portion of the wealth and the resources of Canada to making the people so thoroughly acquainted with that country that they will know where that road ought to be built, and as soon as it can be shown that it is a feasible undertaking, as soon as we can realize that by the construction of the road we will gain these desirable ends, then, I say, this is a proper undertaking for the people to enter upon, and I am glad that I am in this respect as in respect to other matters, in a position to support the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition.
Now, in conclusion, we reviewed the character of the road to be built, we have re-viewed_ the grounds there are for believing or for not believing the figures which have been given by the government as to its cost, we have dealt with the bonding privilege, we have realized the strength and value of that bogey, we have dealt with the matter of colonization, we have dealt with the matter of freight rates, and from every point of view I say there is no reason, at all events, which has been put before parliament, why parliament should proceed with this work as it has been suggested. There may be other and better reasons. We have been told by one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House that he was in favour of the railway, but not for the reasons which have been stated by the right hon. gentleman. There is one very peculiar suspicious and unsatisfactory feature in connection with this whole matter, and that is the mystery in connection witli it. Why did the right hon. gentleman not submit this scheme at an early stage in the session ? We are told that they had a whole year to prepare it. The hon. Postmaster General has informed us that the government have dealt with this matter for a year, that they have considered it for a year, and after having considered it for a year they kept parliament sitting here since the 12th of March for some four months, and then they submit their scheme without one vestige of information, without an estimate, without a scrap of a plan, except the few feet of tracing paper which is affixed to the wall of the Railway Committee room, and which represents a railway which is absolutely too ridiculous to discuss, a road with a continuous grade of no less than seventy feet to the mile and bearing upon it the inscription of an honest engineer to the effect that he did not hold himself responsible for the imaginary line there traced. The right hon. gentleman proposed to the people of Canada
in the early part of the session, at a time when he must have had this matter under consideration, if the hon. Postmaster General is not misrepresenting matters, that he would submit it to a commission that would deal with all the different details of water routes andi rail-routes, improvements to harbours, improvements to waterways, improvements to ports, with every feature of the scheme ; yet, the government of Canada, after making a promise to investigate all these matters, have absolutely failed in every jot and tittle of that promise. Criticism is addressed to the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition because it is manifold, because it deals with all these subjects and because in that respect it carries out in a much greater degree the original programme of the government than does the scheme which the government has proposed. The plan 6f the hon. leader of the opposition follows closely the details of the submission which was to be made to the commissioners by the decision of the Governor in Council. In that respect it shows very much more regard for what was outlined as the policy of the government than does the programme submitted by the right hon. gentleman. But the right hon. gentleman is disposed to be facetious in dealing with the opposition. He knows very well that parliament has been kept sitting for at least a month past its accustomed time for adjourning, and when he brings down at this late hour of the session a programme so important as this, he is inclined to laugh at us, and when we ask for information he says there are mountains of information in the departments and in the library. And then, in order that the right hon. gentleman might stamp upon the pages of ' Hansard ' the contemptuous manner in which he was dealing with the parliament of Canada, and with the people of Canada, he laid upon the Table of the House these mountains of information.
Fleming's Canadian Pacific Railway report 1873 ; Fleming's Canadian Pacific Railway report, 1874 : Fleming's Canadian Pacific Railway report, 1877 ; Fleming's Canadian Pacific Railway report, 1878-9 ; Fleming's Canadian Pacific Railway report, 1880 ; Marcus Smith, Canadian Pacific Railway survey, 1878 ; Canadian Pacific Railway maps, 1874; report of Pine River survey by Joseph Hunter, 1878 ; report proposed short line between Montreal and maritime provinces, 1885.
And that report was as to a line across tlie state of Maine inconsistent with his allCanadian route.
Report of survey for most practical route between Montreal and Halifax or St. John, 1885 ; report Commissioner of Public Work!!. Quebec, 1871 ; report Commissioner of Crow-n Lands, Quebec, 1885 ; explorations at Lake S';. John and James Bay, O'Sullivan, 1901.
That is the last but not the least; it is only two years old-all the rest are old enough to vote. This government has come to

the country absolutely without Information on this subject, and the proof of that is in these documents which the Premier has submitted to parliament as those upon which he bases his proposition. The result of the investigation which I have been'able to conduct for a short time to-night, goes to show that he did not take the trouble to even read these reports, for his proposal is absolutely inconsistent and absurd in the face of the knowledge that is to be found in these reports. That is a nice way to deal with such a condition of things in this country. There must be some very urgent reason why the people of Canada are asked [DOT]to decide upon such a question absolutely Without information. It is not an unfair challenge that is being made to the government, to submit this matter to the people. It is perfectly evident that the government have not taken the trouble to make themselves acquainted with the facts necessary to form a solid judgment on the subject. The Postmaster General throws back the suggestion that the government should go to the country, and in that the hon.i gentleman showed how little comprehension he has of the position in which the government is. The proposition made here by our respected leader is one that must be submitted to the people before we can have an opportunity of putting it into effect. We are not in the position the government is in, of being able to make a hard and fast bargain, with even such a company as the Grand Trunk Railway, and put it through parliament with the power of a majority, and then go to the country and say : there is the contract, and you have to accept it or pay such damages to the company as they can exact in the courts. We on this side have to take the risk of our proposition, and we are ready to do it, because we know that that proposition will commend itself to the people of the country.


Alexander Johnston: What if we accept that proposition.


Adam Carr Bell: Yop dare not do it.


Alexander Johnston: What would you do if we did?


Adam Carr Bell: We would decide when we come back from the country in power. There is no trouble about us getting back.


Mr. KENDALL.: Lots of it.


Adam Carr Bell: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But they did not.


Adam Carr Bell: The hon. gentleman has not spent Ms money yet ; he is only talking about it. The people of Great Britain cannot say their securities did not drop. The Finance Minister of Canada proposes to increase the debt of Canada by at least 50 per cent in the course of the next ten years, and would it be surprising if with such an increase our securities dropped 18 per cent ? And if they dropped from 89 to 71, what would they pay ? They would pay 3i exactly.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him what he understands governs the value of consols ?


Adam Carr Bell: I have no doubt, like everything else, it is governed by the demand for them.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Certainly,- and what makes the demand ?


Adam Carr Bell: I hope the hon. gentleman is not trying to puzzle me with conundrums.
I presume that what makes the demand is the presence of buyers.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will explain that the value of consols depends on the value of money in Great Britain, and the value of money depends on the demand for money for other enterprises.


Adam Carr Bell: I suppose we might argue that the value of the 2i per cent inscribed stock of the Dominion of Canada depends on the value of money in Great Britain, because the market for it is in London. So that I think the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to show us that he is very wise to very little purpose.
One feature that has not been very nice in this debate has been the manner in which the Liberal party have seen fit to treat a very recent friend of theirs, the hon. exMinister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair). A good many gentleman would have acted more becomingly if they had held their peace. Some gentlemen who perhaps owe a good deal to that hon. gentleman, some who owe their presence in this House to him, felt at liberty to score him very freely, and the whole Liberal party seemed to take much relish in that performance. A very profound thinker, speaking of a party not very far from the party I am addressing on the other side of the House, recently spoke as follows :
Were it needful to dwell on indirect evidence, much might be made of the behaviour of the so-called Liberal party, a party which, relinquishing the original conception of a leader as a .mouthpiece for a known and accepted policy, thinks itself bound to accept a policy which its leader springs upon it without consent or warning-a party so utterly without the feeling and idea implied by liberalism, as not Mr. BELL.
to resent this trampling on the right of private judgment, which constitutes the root of liberalism-nay, a party which vilifies as renegade Liberals, those of. its members who refuse to surrender their independence.
That is the position In which the Liberal party have chosen to put themselves in reference to an hon. gentleman who recently occupied a very important position in their councils, and, in the opinion of this writer, who is apparently a gentleman of some discrimination, they have not reflected much credit upon themselves in so doing.
One of the most striking features of this debate has been the statement of hon. gentlemen opposite that the whole cost of this railway will not exceed $13,000,000. The Minister of Finance puts it far less-at $8,000,000 or $10,000,000. He does that by anticipating the payments, which _ he has no more assurance of than the Minister of the Interior has of the sale of his lands. It is true that money out at interest accumulates. If you have to pay a debt next year and will deposit with any reliable banker a sum which, with the interest, will amount in a year to the sum due, you will have in that time the money to pay your debt. There is nothing new about that, and I do not see why the Minister of Finance went to the trouble of introducing it into this question; and I am certain that when he hears what is said in reply, he will find that he will get very little thanks for his pains.
The right hon. gentleman bases his calculation on the supposition that the road will be built for about one half what it will actually cost, and then he pays off this amount, not when it becomes due, but a year or two beforehand, by means of a deposit at 3 per cent interest. That is the very business which the Finance Minister is doing to-day for Canada. By means of a sinking fund, he is accumulating capital and interest in order to pay off the debts of. the country as they mature. But is he realizing 3 per cent on his deposits ? Let us turn to the blue-books, and we will find that he is realizing 2 per cent, and not 3 per cent, for the people of Canada ; and the institution with which he has invested the sinking fund are much better financiers, because they can realize 50 per cent more from the investment. All the members of the cabinet are contributing to this scheme. The hon. the Postmaster General has done a great deal. He has given us a speech, but that is nothing to what he may yet do. And possibly Sir William Mulock, Postmaster General and Minister of Labour, may put out a new issue of postage stamps-not .lubilee stamps this time-but inter-oceanic transcontinental railway stamps, in commemoration of a line of railway which is to be built from ocean to ocean, on all-Canadian territory, built with Canadian material, by Canadian labour, and without the slightest taint of water connection. This

government is not only imitating the example of its opponents, hut going back, to a large extent, on its former leader. That policy of Mr. Mackenzie was one which combined railway stretches and water stretches, but water stretches are very obnoxious to these hou. gentlemen now. There are to be no water stretches ; they will take it straight. They show not only their admiration of Sir John Macdonald by imitation which is the sincerest kind of flattery, but actually turn their backs upon their great leader, who, to their great discredit, they did depose during his lifetime. The First Minister has been associated with a good many cries in this country. He has instructed his supporters to preach loyalty here to-day, but not many years ago men talked about Laurier, Farrar and commercial union. Within a very recent period it was possible to suggest that ' Laurier, Stratton and purity ' might be associated, and now we have the rallying cry of ' Laurier, Cox and caution.' The right hon. gentleman has precipitated his party into this extraordinary contract. Why has he done it ? Why has he failed to take ordinary precautions ? Why did he not acquaint himself with the details of the Bill he is presenting ? Why did he not avail himself of all the information that was lying about him on every hand in the blue-books ? He tells us it is because time will not wait, and he pays the English speaking members a very high compliment, when in order to illustrate his position, he quoted from the greatest writer in the English tongue. It was William Shakespeare who gaid :
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is hound in shallows and in miseries.
It is a compliment to us, but a poet's dream is a very poor basis on which to construct a transcontinental railway. What impelled the right hon. gentleman to go into this measure ? Why did he decide to keep parliament sitting ' over four months and then commit the country to such a scheme? Why has he not faith enough in Providence and time to wait a few months and call an early session and meet parliament with a proposal supported by information on which hon. members could make up their minds ? I fail to see any reason except one. The right hon. gentleman feels that he has to improve his opportunities while he is in power. That may not be very long, and he desires to erect to his memory a monument in this great scheme of a transcontinental railway. In everything he has done since coining into power, he has imitated the conduct of his predecessors, and condemned every act and word of his former political life. He has not had a policy of his own, but has adopted that of his predecessors. Although he canvassed the country in favour of free trade, he has adopted the
national policy, and now it strikes him, as he expects that the time may not be far distant when he may have to leave the sphere of politics, that this is the opportunity in which he must recant all he ever said or did and imitate these men, who, in the face of every difficulty and obstruction, did build a transcontinental railway to link together the separated parts of Canada. Now, he says, the time is ripe, when I must set my seal of approval on those acts of my great predecessor to which I was opposed. Now I must set the seal of flattery on that great project of that great Canadian, by imitating it, in my own feeble and ineffective fashion. It is true that there is no great necessity for such another railway to-day. It is not a matter of life and death, and it is a comparatively easy thing to do. We know all about the western country. We have companies only too anxious to build railways in that country, but if I can only go down to posterity as having built another transcontinental line, even if it be a poor second edition of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I will htive done something to make my name live in the country. If that be the right hon. gentleman's opinion, we must look with a certain amount of charity on his desire ; but I sympathize to the fullest extent with a gentleman, one of his supporters, who remarked that while he was prepared to support the government scheme, he found it very hard to swallow the reasons given for its support, and that if he could not divise better reasons for the construction of the railway, if better reasons did not inspire his conduct with reference to that matter, he would not have voted for the Bill before the House.
On motion of Mr. Wade, the debate was adjourned.


ADJOURNMENT-TREADGOLD COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before that adjournment I would like to bring to the attention of the House a telegram from Dawson city which I will read :
Commission refuses peoples solicitors concession; flies brought from Ottawa by special official. Put question, ask commissioners be instructed by wire to produce them. Inquiry balked. Mass meeting to-night. People greatly incensed.
Does the hon. gentleman know anything about this matter ? I do not know anything about the circumstances beyond what is contained in this telegram.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is I the signature.

Mr. BORDEN Halifax). W. A. Beddoe. t do not know anything about the circumstances beyond what is contained in the telegram, but I thought it might be better to bring the telegram to the attention of the government and to make the inquiry.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no personal knowledge of' the matter, but, I will cause inquiries to be made.


Robert Laird Borden: I might also mention that the Prime Minster stated the day before yesterday or yesterday, I am not sure, that he would to-day give us the information as to the formation of the Transportation Commission. It may be that the information was given in my absence from the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A gentleman has been agreed upon to replace Sir Win. Yan Horne, but I would prefer that the Prime Minister should give out the name. If my hon. friend will renew the question to-morrow I have no doubt the Prime Minister will make an announcement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 27, 1903.