1903-08-19

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 245) to further amend the Civil Service Act.
Mr. SPROULE.: Explain.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Speaker, the Bill deals with certain officers of the Civil Service. The matter has been pressed upon the attention of the government for some time by one of the hon. members for the city of Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) and .though the measure perhaps does not go as far as he urges, at the same time it does to some extent meet his wishes. It affects the position of the deputy heads, the chief clerks, temporary clerks or tem-Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.
porary writers and employees, as they are called, and also the members of the staff in several departments such as the customs, inland revenue and so on. It is a matter of detail affecting the salaries of officials. It will be better understood now that it is before the House, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will peruse the Bill he will see what it is intended to cover.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Who is senior major and who junior major of the 94th Regiment ?
2.	What is the qualification of each ?
3.	Where does each reside ?
4.	Have they each, or has either of them, leave of absence ?
5.	Has either one of them been absent for years from the Regimental District ?
6.	Was either one or the other appointed to his position over a senior officer ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: 1.	Senior major-Major R. Gillis ; junior major, Major D. A. McRae.
2.	Major McGillis, 1st class certificate (infantry), equitation ; Major McRae, 1st class certificate (infantry), equitation.
3.	Major Gillis resides at Sydney, C.B. ; Major McRae (not yet ascertained).
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Major Gillis promoted over Capt. J. P. McNeil, who was not qualified for promotion.
Major McRae promoted over undermentioned captains, who were not qualified for promotion to rank of major :


Oapt.  J. P.@: McNeil, Capt. J. D. McRae, Capt. J. S. McLean, Capt. A. D. McRae, Capt. R. Y. McKenzie.


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT-CONTRACTS AWARDED.
Mr. THOMSON (North Grey) asked :: 1.	How many contracts for public works, buildings, &c., have been awarded by the government from January 1st to July 31st of the present year ?
2.	Where are such works, buildings, &c., to be located, and what is the contract price in each case ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) in the absence of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland)-I beg to give the answer to his department as follows :
1.	Sixty-two.

2.	Burk's Falls, Out., wharf, $5,400.00 : Toronto, postal station ' O ' heating apparatus. $986.00; Orillia, Out., wharf at the park of, $8,389.00 ; Nelson, B.C., drill shed, heating apparatus, $215.00 ; Oromocto wharf, $6,200.00; Sturgeon Fails, Ont., wharf, $2,810.00; Kamloops, B.O., drill shed, heating apparatus, $365.00 ; Rossland. B.C., post office and building, fittings, $4,950.00 ; Nelson, B.C., post office buildings and fittings, $4,400.00 ; Aricliat, N.S., post office building, heating apparatus, $700.00 ; St. Ir6n6e, P.Q., addition to wharf, $10,399.00 ; Guysboro, N.S., public building, fittings, $1,650.00 ; Marysville, N.B., public building, heating apparatus, $825.00 ; Montreal, P.Q., examining warehouse, fittings, $4,000.00 ; Carnduff, Ass., N.W.T., court house, heating apparatus, $1,078.00 ; Ottawa post office building, elevator, $5,310.00 ; St. Francois, Island of Orleans, P.Q., isolated block, $11,800.00; Sandy Cove, N.S., public breakwater, $13,000.00; Tiverton,N.S., public breakwater, $17,000.00 ; Green Cove, N.S., breakwater, $6,475.00 ; Deseronto, public building, fixtures, $2,800.00 ; Blind River, Out., pile wharf, $9,310.75; Dredge St. Lawrence, construction of 36 buckets,, $1,872.00 ; Tug ' Delisle,' tubular boiler, $2,525.00 ; Short Beach, N.S., breakwater, $8,095.00; Hopewell Cape, N.B., approach to pier, $900.00 ; Herring Cove, N.S., breakwater, $11,475.00 ; Middleton. N.S., armouries, heating system, &c., $946.00 ; Granby, P.Q., public building, fittings, $2,650.00 ; South Bay, Ingonisli, N.S., wharf, $2,485.00 ; Pointe a Paquin, P.Q., supply of timber, $5,515.00 ; Quebec Artillery workshop, shafting for transmission of power, $1,879.00 ; Dundas, Ont., armoury fittings, $1,330.00 ; Cove Head, P.E.I., shear dam, $6,699.00 ; Sussex, N.B., armoury fittings, $4,029.00 ; Clinton, Ont., public building, heating apparatus, $17150.00 ; Arichat, N.S., building, fittings, $1,750.00 ; Cross Point, P.Q., wharf, $9,995.00 ; Kingston, Ont., gymnasium, R.M.C., heating apparatus, $1,910.00 ; D'Escousse, N.S., wharf and warehouse, $4,388.00 ; Huntsville, Ont., work to pile wharf, $320.00 ; Quebec Artillery workshop, electric light wiring and fittings, $442.00 ; Sarnia, Ont., public building, heating apparatus, $1,800.00 ; Washabuck Centre, N.S., wharf and road, $5,860.00; Marysville. N.B.. public building, fittings, &c., $1,300.00 ; Guelph, Ont., post office additions, $30,595.00 ; Carnduff. N.W.T., court house fittings, $269 ; Dundas, Ont., drill hall, veneering and flooring, $5,750.00 ; Tug ' Ottawa,' marine return tubular boiler, $1,700.00 ; Quebec harbour improvements, $198,700.00 ; Berlin, Ont., alterations and post office, $7,316.00 ; Dredge ' J. Israel Tarte,' bow and stern cable winches, $5,700.00 ; Kingston. Ont., gymnasium, R.M.C., electric wiring and fixtures, $575.00 ; Rivifire au Renard, P.Q., additional length to wharf, $41,485.00 ; Fort Lawrence, N.S.. pile wharf, $14,895.00 ; Toronto Junction, Ont., post office building, $23,450.00 ; Kaslo, B.C.. drill hall, fittings, &c., $525.00 ; Portage du Fort, P.Q., masonry, &c., of the bridge, $10,797.00; Edmonton, N.W.T., jail, $50,150.00 ; Fredericton, N.B., officers new stables, $3,110.00 ; Cheti-camp Point, N.S., wharf, $13,880.00 ; St. Hyacinthe, P.Q., inland revenue building, $21,089.00.


DISMISSAL OF DENIS MAYRAND, ST. JEAN, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	At what date was the petition asking for the dismissal of Denis Mayrand, a government employee, at St. Jean, P.Q., sent to the govern-^ ment ?
2.	What were the reasons set forth in support of the said petition for dismissal ?
3.	What persons signed the said petition ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. PrOfontaine).: 1.	There was no petition asking for the dismissal.
2.	As far back as 1896, the Hbn. Mr. Marchand brought to the notice of the department that Mr. Lord should be appointed, owing to the light being on his property, and any strange keeper attending to the light being very inconvenient to him. A recommendation was also made by the electors of the county of St. John asking for the appointment of Mr. Lord, the present keeper, signed :'J. O'Cain, J. E. Herbert, P. A. Chass6. H. Moreau, M.D., E. J. Paradis, A. U. Deland, N.P., Laurent Moreau.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this comparatively late stage in the debate to offer a few remarks upon the measure before the j House, I shall endeavour as far as possible to avoid any prolonged reference to those points in the debate which have already occupied so much of the time of the House -points which have already been pretty thoroughly discussed by men far more capable to deal with them than I can hope to be. However, Sir, I fear that in the remarks which I have to make it may be impossible for me totally to avoid them, but I can promise that any reference I may make to them shall be very brief. Representing, as I have the honour of representing, one of the interior constituencies of Ontario, a constituency already served by one line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by two lines of the Grand Trunk Railway, yet a constituency which will be far removed from the proposed line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ; I desire to lay be-

fore the House reasons which are strong enough to convince me that in giving my support to this Bill I am only acting In the best interests of my constituents, but in the best interests of the province of Ontario, and the best interests of the Dominion of Canada in general. Now, Sir, having regard to some portion of the addresses delivered in this debate by hon. members opposite, I feel that there is one point which we cannot too prominently keep before our minds in discussing this measure. That point is, that this question is in no sense of the word local or sectional. It is in no sense of the word provincial; but on the contrary, it is national in every characteristic. For no particular section of the country, for no particular province of the Dominion, would the government be justified in entertaining so vast a proposition or in pledging the national credit to so great an amount.
But, when we view the matter in its true light, when we realize, as I submit we should realize, that it is a matter of national concern, that this measure, when carried into effect, will advance us a long stride, not only in the matter of public convenience-for that is a comparatively minor matter-but that it will advance us; a long stride in national greatness and in national importance ; then, Sir, I* contend that in view of that perfect confidence which, we all share in the future of this country, the mere vastness of the proposal should not cause us to hesitate for a single moment, but, on that contrary, should inspire us with fresh resolution. We all know that in all large assemblies of men there are those whose judgment becomes somewhat unbalanced simply by the magnitude of a proposal. There are men who under normal circumstances exercise an ordinary amount of common sense and judgment, wDose opinions become unsteady simply from the effect of size and outward proportion. Now, after the first blush of this proposal has been submitted to this House, and when any effect which may have been caused by the magnitude of the proposal has passed away, I submit that upon second thought, upon mature deliberation this measure will commend itself to the vast majority of the members of this House.
Among our many differences of opinion as to the propriety of the proposal of the government, as engrafted in the resolution before us, there would appear to be one ground upon which hon. members on both sides can agree, and that common ground of agreement exists apparently from the appreciation of the fact that there is in Canada to-day a most pressing need for increased railroad facilities. The time when this proposition might be looked upon as something merely desirable, as something highly convenient if attained, has passed. The matter has now become a matter of pressing necessity ; a necessity which will Mr. GUTHRIE.
neither wait the time of man nor of parliament ; a necessity which if we do not satisfy may find its own outlet and its own remedy, for necessity knows no law ; may find an outlet and a remedy in foreign channels which in the future may require years of struggle upon our part and the expenditure of vast sums of money on our part, ere we regain ground which we may now lose by procrastination or by delay. I agree thoroughly with the statement made by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), when he said, that when trade once accommodates itself to certain specific channels it is a difficult thing to reclaim it. That is a very true proposition, and it is a proposition that we will have to face unless we take immediate action to direct trade through our own lines and through Canadian territory. I am aware, Sir, that hon. members opposite are inclined to chide the government with the statement that if this necessity is so great, if the matter is so urgent, why is it that you have taken seven years before you have awakened to the necessities of the situation V Hon. members opposite say to the government, you have had seven long years of power-long years, I suppose, they have seemed to hon. members opposite-you have had seven long years of power, and not until the fifth month of the present session have you decided upon action. I maintain that such a charge or such an insinuation is entirely without foundation ; such a charge or such an insinuation is utterly unfair to the government. I contend, Sir, that it is only within the last year or two that the difficulty has really arisen, that the congestion in western traffic has really become acute. True indeed it is that for many years past the people of Manitoba, the people of the North-west Territories, the people of British Columbia have suffered, and suffered immeasurably through the imposition on them of excessive freight rates ; freight rates which were the direct result of the monopoly clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, a clause which the late Conservative government permitted to be engrafted in that contract. The difficulty up to a year or two ago was one of excessive freight rates. You could generally effect shipment of your goods provided you were willing to take the small amount coming to you after payment of these freight rates. But the difficulty now is rather a double one. It is not only a difficulty in regard to freight rates owing to lack of railway competition, but it is also a difficulty arising from actual congestion of traffic in that western country. Now, Sir, far from chiding the government in respect to this measure ; far from insinuating that they should have realized the situation long before they did realize it; I maintain that the people of the country are to be congratulated upon the fact that they have in power a government, strong enough and bold enough, and pos-

sessed of sufficient knowledge in railway matters, to bring down a measure, large as it may be, difficult as it may be, intricate as it may be ; and a measure which, notwithstanding opposition criticism to the contrary, will be found to be a measure well considered in jorinciple and in detail, and one which when carried into effect will in my humble opinion to a very large extent relieve this country of the difficulties which it is suffering from to-day in respect to railways. .
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have noticed in many of the speeches delivered upon this question by hon. members opposite-in fact in all the speeches since the hon. ex-Minister of Railways resumed his seat, with the exception perhaps of the speeches delivered yesterday-I have noticed in these speeches that they have all been prefaced by the statement, or that they have all contained an intimation that, from their point of view, the ground had been so thoroughly and so effectively covered toy the ex-Minister of Railways, that because everything had been said that could be said in opposition to the Bill, that because every argument had been urged that could be urged in support of their contention, they naturally found themselves in the difficult situation of having to reiterate former statements or to repeat former arguments. That is a difficult position, no doubt, and hon. members on this side of the House sympathize with hon. members opposite in that difficulty. For I believe that when the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals delivered his address in this House at the opening of this debate he did thoroughly exhaust every ground of opposition which could reasonably be urged against this Bill. The hon. ex-minister had an incentive to do so. He had lately resigned from the cabinet. He had differed, and he was the sole one to differ, from the other members of the cabinet upon this question. His resignation caused a great deal of talk and a great deal of newspaper comment throughout the length and breadth of the land. He knew that the task was before him of justifying Ills position before the people oif this country. He knew that he had a difficult task before him, and he exerted himself to the utmost to gather together every jot and tittle that he might use to justify liis position. He exerted every energy and all his great ability in research, in examination and in preparation, if we may judge by the mass of manuscript from which the hon. ex-minister spoke in this debate. He had to justify his position, not only in this House, but in this country. Is it any wonder, then, acting under the incentive which he had that he should have exhausted the subject, that he should have elaborated every argument ? and is it any wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite, who have followed the hon. exminister in this debate, have been compelled for the greater part merely to reiterate
his statements and repeat his arguments ?- uot a pleasant task for any one.
Certain portions of the speech of the hon. ex-minister dealt with matters which were properly within his right to deal with. Other portions of that speech dealt with matters which I maintain he had no right to deal with, which it was pure audacity on his part to deal with. If the hon. member withdrew from the cabinet for any of a great number of reasons which he gave, he was perfectly right in withdrawing, provided he acted under conviction. He had a perfect right to object to this measure on the ground that it interfered with the Intercolonial Railway, and he was free to leave the cabinet on that ground if he so desired. He had a free hand to discuss the financial aspects of the problem ; and if on that ground he differed with the government, he had a perfect right to do so, provided he was conscientious in doing so. If his objections were on the question of mileage or the nature of the country through which the road might pass, the hon. ex-minister had a free hand on all these points ; and on all these points, judging from the speech which the hon. gentleman delivered, I thought he was serious and that he spoke under absolute conviction. But there were some portions of that speech which he elaborated, I'thought at the time, for the purpose of drawing applause from hon. gentlemen opposite, whose applause he had never received before. Those portions of his speech on which I thought he had no right to enlarge were that there was no urgency, no necessity, and no public demand for another transcontinental railway. The hon. ex-minister surely has a memory which will take him back seven or eight months to his memorable visit to the city of Vancouver and to the speech which he delivered on that occasion. If he remembers that speech, and if he was honest in his statements to this House, why did he argue that there was no pressing necessity, no urgency, no outcry, and no general movement in favour of this road ? Why, Sir, if credit is to be given to anybody. that credit must toe given to the hon. ex-minister himself for having first ventilated this question, for having first created this demand, for having first started this movement in favour of another transcontinental railroad. The hon. gentleman spoke at Vancouver. under what circumstances ? He had made a transcontinental trip. He had seen the country and the people, he understood the circumstances ; and at a time when ids mind was charged with all these matters, at a time when he had all the necessary information in his possession, he deliberately told the people of Vancouver that this measure was urgent and necessary-so urgent that not a minute was to toe lost. He also told them that not only one railroad, but in the near future three or four other transcontinental lines would be necessary. Now. I ask the hon. ex-Minister .of Railways and

Canals what has intervened to change his opinion from the opinion he expressed in Vancouver last fall to the opinion he expressed in this House a few days ago ? Has anything intervened at all ? I believe the hon. member spoke at Vancouver with absolute conviction ; and, if nothing has intervened since which could be expected to change the conviction of the hon. gentleman on the subject, then he must have spoken in this House absolutely without conviction, so far as the urgency and necessity of a transcontinental line was concerned.
But, Sir, thefe is a good deal to be gleaned as to the position of the hon. ex-minister from that letter which he himself submitted, and which has now become one of the records of this House. There is no doubt that in that letter he complains, and complains bitterly, that the right hon. leader of the government did not consult him, as he claims he should have been consulted, in regard to the preliminaries of this measure. I offer my humble opinion on that point. The right hon. leader of the government acted properly, did what he was entitled to do as a matter of right, having regard to his position, in the negotiations which took place respecting a great national transcontinental railway. Why, Sir, what more right had the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to be consulted than half a dozen other members of that same cabinet ? This proposition not only involves the Department of Railways and Canals ; it involves, and to a large extent, the Department of Finance. Surely the hon. Minister of Finance might have had the same right to complain that he was not consulted. It involves the Department of Customs ; surely the hon. Minister of Customs might have the right to complain that he was not consulted. It involves the Department of the Interior ; has not the hon. Minister of the Interior as much right to complain as the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals ? But is it not a fact that none of them had a right to complain ? Is it not a fact that, having regard to the nature of the measure, the man who should conduct the preliminary negotiations was the Prime Minister of this country, irrespective of his colleagues ?
There is ho doubt that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals is smarting on account of offencled dignity or injured pride. I can imagine no other reason for his conversion from the views he held and the policy he enunciated at Vancouver last fall. Nothing has intervened between that time and this to account for this sudden change of front. The hon. gentleman has not given us any reason for his change of opinion. He has given nothing to show why to-day he finds that there is no urgency, no need, no public demand for this transcontinental line. History, Sir, is full of the records of political conversions, but I fail to find in the record any such sudden conversion as this. So far as I know, all political conversions


Hugh Guthrie: have come about through the process of time. They have been the result of an evolutionary process. They have taken some little time. But the conversion of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals took but a few short months at the most, and during those months nothing happened to justify it. Why, Sir Robert Peel was charged with being a political convert, and lie certainly was with regard to the Corn Laws, but his conversion was a matter of some years' experience. The late Benjamin Disraeli was accused of being a political convert-a man who had entered public life as a Radical and then became leader of the Conservative party. Gladstone was accused of being a convert upon the Home Rule question. Certainly that great statesman did undergo a radical conversion, but that likewise was the process of years' experience and the result of evolution. But for a speedy conversion, without any apparent reason, I can compare the conversion of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to no other than that Saul of Tarsus. But there is this difference. Whereas the change of heart of Paul was due to Divine intervention, in the case of the ex-minister there was the intervention of no higher power and the operation of no greater influence than his wounded pride and offended dignity. But, Sir, to a very sensitive man, a wound to his pride or a slight to his dignity may perhaps be the strongest influence which we can bring to bear upon him. To a sensitive man, a slight to his pride will even turn friends into enemies at a moment's notice. It will rankle in his bosom until he loses sight of his former convictions, until he comes to detest anything, be it political measures or otherwise, which by any means of reasoning, he can connect with that which offended his pride or dignity. I believe that that is the secret of the demonstration which the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals made in this House last week. I believe that he was driven simply by the smart of insulted pride to take the position he did a week ago in this House. Let me remind the hon. gentleman of those words of Holy Writ: ' Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.' Under these circumstances, is it to be wondered that the hon. minister made an exhaustive statement and that hon. members opposite find great difficulty in making speeches, without repeating in great part the statement made by the ex-minister ?
On looking over the addresses delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite, I find that, with the exception of some trifling details and some very minor criticisms, their argument was drawn, until yesterday at all events, exclusively from the statements of the exminister. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) followed first on the opposite side of the House. I have always looked on that hon. gentleman as a man

of some intellectual breadth ; but after assaulting the proposition before the House with nothing short of wholesale condemnation, after repeating the arguments of the ex-minister, what was his main objection ? He spoke of the northern iiortion of the province of Quebec, he pictured to us the settlement going on around the Lake St, John district, he told us of the patriotic efforts of a certain number of men to populate that district, he declared that a colonization road should be built there, and for that reason forsooth this great transcontinental railway scheme should be set aside. If ever a man of broad intellect cramped himself into a narrow confine, if ever a federal member of parliament clothed himself in the garb of pure provincialism, we had that picture in this House, when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier advanced such an argument. He was followed on the other side by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who seems to have acquired the title or railway expert of the opposition. I do not know what the experience of the hon. gentleman has been with regard to railways. But I think it is confined largely to the legal side. I do not know whether he has had any practical experience or not


Mr. BENNETT.: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to tell him, the hon. member for Hamilton was for years the general manager of the Hamilton and North-western Railway.


Hugh Guthrie: Then he has had some practical experience which I was not aware of, but he did introduce into the discussion one or two points which had been omitted by the ex-minister in his exhaustive argument. The points on which the hon. member for Hamilton based his arguments were, in my opinion, minor ones. They were criticism of detail, and I do not say that this Bill or contract is entirely free from such criticism. I believe that in detail it may be criticised ; but I do not think that the hon. member for Hamilton for one moment denied the government proposition that a transcontinental railway should be built upon the principle contained in this contract and Bill. His objection was that you could not obtain proper running rights for more than one railway, that there would be a dominant and a servient railway, that the servient railway would be discriminated against, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, being the tenant of the government, would have the right to dictate terms to the other railways, and that these terms would bo so oppressive as to prevent the other railways from doing business on that line.
I think. Sir, that that question has been pretty thoroughly cleared up. It certainly is thoroughly cleared up so far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned, because the Intercolonial Railway is not in the position of any other road with regard to this system. It is stated in section 24 that the 285	'
Intercolonial Railway shall have equal rights in the running of that road, and not such rights as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway may see fit to offer. The Intercolonial Railway will have as good a right as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to operate that road, and the right to do so on equal terms.
Then the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) seemed to doubt the financial standing of the Grand Trunk Itqjlway. It seemed to me that that was a peculiar position for the hon. gentleman to assume. He said they had a certain amount of bonded indebtedness and he very seriously argued that it was questionable whether the Grand Trunk Railway could raise money on second mortgage bonds or whether the security of the Grand Trunk Railway was sufficient. That, I submit, is another criticism of detail, and of a detail that does not interfere in any way with the principle of the Bill.
Next, he argued that there would be a difficulty about supplying coal on the railway. There may be some slight difficulty in that respect. But, surely, that is a matter purely of detail which does not go to the principle of the Bill. And, from the whole speech of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) I should think that when the division comes upon this question, that hon. member would bury these-matters of criticism of minor detail and accept the principle of this measure, as I believe in his heart he endorses it. He was followed by another gentleman, who has been referred to by his leader as perhaps the most experienced and practical railroad man in the House. I refer to the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). Now, let any one peruse the address which that hon. gentleman delivered on this subject, and if he can find in that address anything which was not exhaustively laid before the House by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) he will do more than I have been able to do. I believe that the hon. member for South Lanark must have felt staggered by the proposition, because in one portion of his address he said : But it will be asked what have we to urge as an alternative course ? And then he goes on to urge delay, the appointment of a commission in order to ascertain the nature of the territory through which this road will pass, and the necessary length of the line-but to the principle of the Bill itself he takes no objection. He merely asks what has been asked in this debate by hon. gentlemen opposite that the matter be somewhat further delayed. So, with all the addresses delivered by those hon. gentlemen on the other side who spoke prior to yesterday. I do not think there is any serious opposition to the Bill, though there may be some opposition to matters of minor detail.
Now, I do not intend to touch upon the financial problem which will confront us when this Bill is passed. I believe this has



jaeen thoroughly dealt with, I should have had something to say on that subject but for the assurance given to this House by the hon. Minister of Finance when he made the statement here that the government would see to it that the road was built to the standard of a modern commercial road. He placed the figures of cost a little low, in my opinion, and I judge of this from what 1 have been able to learn through inquiries I have made. The hon. minister says it may be $25,000 a mile for the whole system, but he allows for an increase of 25 per 'cent, or a total of $31,250 a mile. I believe the estimate made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) will be found to be nearer the mark, and that the road will be likely to average about $35,000 a mile. But in going into this undertaking the government is going in with the idea that the road shall be built ns a modern commercial road up to the standard of a modern commercial road: and it does not go Into it bound within a limit of a thousand, or two thousand or even three thousand dollars a mile, so long as it attains the object that it has in view, of having a modern commercial road up to the standard now in vogue.
With regard also to the question of mileage, I have nothing to add to what has already been said. I say that the evidence offered to the House has been overwhelming that there will be a reasonable shortening of distance between I.evis and Moncton. The evidence is overwhelming that that shortening will be in the neighbourhood of 100 miles and may be as much as 120 and even 130 miles. Nor have I anything to add to the debate regarding the nature of the country through which the road will pass. I think that in that respect also the testimony we have before us is overwhelming, that the country will be an easy or comparatively easy country for railroad purposes. I believe, with the hon. member for Hamilton, that you can get the desired grade if you will spend the money, and that it is an easy railroading country and does not Involve vast expenditure. These and some other' matters. I think have been fully discussed and I do not feel called upon to deal with them.
But I should like particularly to refer to one branch of this subject which seems to me to be of more interest to residents in the portion of the country where I reside than, perhaps, in any other. You hear it frequently said, and you read it almost daily in the Conservative press, that tills railroad is going to deal a death-blow to our present Intercolonial system. Now. I grant that in western Ontario, we have not that intimate knowledge of the Intercolonial which hon. members from the maritime provinces possess. Probably it is on account of our ignorance of that railroad system that this argument of injury to the Intercolonial *does have some force with the people and Mr. GUTHRIE.
produce some effect in the western part of Ontario. I confess that I did not know much about the Intercolonial Railroad system myself until I had occasion to examine somewhat into it. From the examination I have made, I intend to lay down two or three propositions whieh I think I can establish, which I am sure I can justify, from the records of the Intercolonial Railway itself. Now, Sir, the first proposition is that the Intercolonial Railway cannot be joined as the last link of a great transcontinental system ; and the second, which I shall establish by figures of that railroad: itself, is that the Intercolonial to-day is not of the nature of a through road, .but is in the position of a purely local* road. It has been said in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite, and lias been urged by the lender of the opposition, that the effect of this Bill be to relegate the Intercolonial to the position of a purely local road. Now-Sir, there is nothing derogatory in the term * local road.' A local road may be of vastly more importance to the maritime provinces than a through road. But I intend to submit to you figures from the returns which, I think, will clearly establish the fact that the Intercolonial is to-day purely and simply a local road ; and, in the next place, I propose to show from these returns that the new line cannot have a detrimental effect upon that railway system, but, in all human probability, if it lias an effect upon it at all, it will be a good effect and not a bad one. Now I accept the statement made in this House as to the original construction of that line. We all know, as a matter of, history, that the Intercolonial road was not built for commercial purposes. We know, as a matter of history, that it was not laid out with a view to commercial business entirely, but its location was largely dominated by military and political considerations. We know that the best route, or that which Sir Sanford Fleming considered the best, was the route along the Maine boundary ; but that was not adopted for military and political reasons. I cannot more aptly describe the Intercolonial system as it appears on the map than to refer to the description given by tlie Prime Minister in his opening remarks on the introduction of this Bill, when lie said that if you will look at the map, starting at Halifax and ending at Quebec, following the Intercolonial road, you will see that that road fairly describes a semi-circle. Modern railroads, in their construction, pay the largest regard to the directness of their route. It is an axiom in modern railroad construction that the route to be chosen is the shortest distance between two points. As railroads are constructed now, they will even pass at a distance from great centres of population and of trade rather than have a circuit in their line of road. If they desire to reach centres of population and of trade, they do not make a circuitous route

for the main line, but build straight branches from the main line to the points to be reached. The object of the modern railroad, both on account of passengers and on account of freight, is to shorten their lines to the shortest distances between two points. Such a consideration never entered into the minds of the men who, in 1807, laid out the Intercolonial. They had no idea at that time of transcontinental Iraffic. There was no transcontinental trade when that road was laid out. There was no Dominion of Canada as we have it to-day. Canada existed then as far as the great lakes and no further. Subsequently we got Manitoba, later on we got the Territories, later on still we acquired British Columbia, so that I say when that road was laid out as an intercolonial railway, the idea of transcontinental trade had never entered into the mind of the men who laid it out and if that Intercolonial system could be used to-day as a portion of a transcontinental system it would be by the purest kind of accident and absolutely without any design on the part of its founders.
But. Sir, let us take a little of the history of that road because, living as I do far from the maritime provinces, I am probably entitled to hew to the line, let the chips fall where they may, with regard to the Intercolonial, at all events to a much larger extent than bon. members who live in the maritime provinces. Let us take in the first place the length of haul on the road. Look at it on the map, skirting up there by the Baie des Chaleurs, skirting the St. Lawrence to Quebec, look at that semicircle on the map if you have not travelled it. That is one thing that will always operate against that road as part of a transcontinental system. Then let us take the grades. I am informed by men who know, by experts on such subjects, that you will find on the Intercolonial fifty and sixty foot grades quite commonly. These grades would have to be removed and the distance shortened. Then let us take the equipment, neither the cars nor the engines are at present suitable for transcontinental trade. Take all these considerations together and then ask a man, will you saddle on a great transcontinental scheme the weakest kind of a weak link at one end of it? A chain we know is only as strong as its weakest link. If you will burden a transcontinental road with the Intercolonial system you will find it is a drag and a dead load on that system which may very seriously operate against the-success of the whole system.
Now, let us look at the history of the road and see just what business it has done aud what it is capable of doing. I find from the report of the Railway Department that we have invested to the 30th of June. 1902, in the capital of that road $74,194,307. that is over the whole system including the Prince Edward Island Railway; I find that on the Intercolonial system proper our capital invested amounts to $68,645.S53.
2854	'
Now, Sir, if you take the aggregate or the result of thirty-three or thirty-four years operation of that road what do you find V You find that throughout its whole history up to the 30th of June, 1902, the total receipts from all sources were $83,991,493, and the operating expenses were $92,574,580, or during that time there was an actual loss ou that system of $8,583,987, of operating expenses over receipts; without entering into the question of interest ou bonds or dividends or any question of that kind. Now what does that show ? For that is the net result under Liberal administration and under Conservative administration and again under Conservative administration and again under Liberal administration. It shows one of two things I submit, Mr. Speaker, that either there is something radically wrong in the management of the road or something inherently wrong in the system itself. I do not believe that the system of management has been radically wrong, but I believe the system of management under government or operation under government is not a successful system and cannot be made to-day in this country a successful system. The trouble with the road itself is that it is wrong in principle of construction, it is wrong in the territory through which it passes, it is wrong because it has too great haulage, it is wrong because the grades are too great and the equipment not proper.
Now. that is a summary for all the years, but let us look at the results of the operation of tile road for the year 1902. During that year, 1902, we find that the receipts for the Intercolonial system proper were $5,071,380. The operating expenses for the same year were $5,574,563, showing on the Intercolonial system proper a surplus of $90,823 or about one-seventh of one per cent on the capital invested. But when you add to that the loss which took place on the Prince Edward Island branch you will find that surplus reduced to about $57,000 or one-fourteenth of one per cent on the capital invested.	*


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Has tile lion: gentleman made any comparison of the rates charged on the Intercolonial and on the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Hugh Guthrie: I know it is stated and generally stated, that there is to some extent a lower rate charged on the Intercolonial than perhaps on some other railways, but I am giving these aggregate figures as the net operating figures of that system from the time it started to the present time, oue-seventli of one per cent on the Intercolonial proper, one-fourteenth of one per cent on the capital invested in the whole system, while other railways to-day are increasing their dividends and laying away large surpluses at the same time.
Now, railroad operation and management have become of the nature of fixed sciences. The railroad man to-day can tell you just

wliat it costs to operate every mile of liis railway or every train mile; the railway man can tell you just what proportion his operating expenses hear to his total receipts. We know that there were in operation in Canada in 1002, 18,711 miles of railroad made up of through railroads, local railroads and colonization railroads, railroads good, railroads bad and railroads indifferent. This whole system made its returns to the department. Taking the returns over the whole system of Canadian railways of 18,714 miles and taking the average of operating expenses on these roads and showing the proportions which they bear to the actual receipts of these roads gives us $68.54 as the proportion of operating expenses for every $100 of receipts. Now, $68.54 is rather a high proportion of operating expenses. Anywhere from $60 to $65 is about the proportion which railway men, I believe, expect. Out of every $100 they receive throughout the whole system of Canadian railroads, out of every $100 received $68.54 pays the operating expenses and the balance goes to pay dividends and to pay fixed charges, interest on bonds and the like.
But take the Intercolonial ($68.54 out of every $100 being the average upon all the good, bad and indifferent railways in Canada) $98.29 being the proportion of operating expenses on the Intercolonial ; it costs $30 more per $100 of receipts to operate the Intercolonial than it costs to operate the average of all railroad systems in the Dominion of Canada. If you turn to the Prince Edward Island branch, although that perhaps is not a fair comparison, you find that for every $100 of receipts it costs $136.24 to operate that road. Now what do these figures show. As I said they show to my mind that it is not the defective management of the road that is at fault, but it is something inherently wrong in the road itself. You will find by taking the average earnings on the Intercolonial per mile of their line and comparing that with the average earnings per mile on other lines you will find they fall below year by year in good round numbers. If you take the operating expenses per mile on the Intercolonial and compare them year by year with the average on the whole system of Canadian railways you will find that for the most part they exceed the operating expenses of other roads. I have made a calculation from 1890 to 1902, and I have made that calculation upon this basis : Where there has been an average loss per mile in receipts of the Intercolonial Railway and where there has been an average excess in operating expenses on that road, I have added these figures together each year. In years where the operating expenses have made a little better showing than the average upon other Canadian railways, I have deducted them from the losses in the average receipts and from these figures I find that the proper


Hugh Guthrie: financial standing of the Intercolonial Railway from 1890 to 1902, on the principle which I have stated when compared with the average of all other roads comprising the Canadian railway system as follows :
Year. 1890		 1891		 1892			Below average per mile.
1893		
1894		
1895		
1896		
1897		
1898		
1899		
1900		
1901		
1902		
Mr. ROSS (Ontario), eeipts ?	Is that in the re-


Hugh Guthrie: That is both the receipts where they have fallen below the average of other railways and operating expenses added where they have been above the ordinary operating expenses or by subtracting them in years where they have made a better showing. I have only gone back to 1890, but this shows that both under the Conservative and under the Liberal party, that road has made a showing far below the showing of the whole Canadian railway system, covering 18,714 miles. We have had good management as far as I know. We have had fairly good management, as good management as political management can attain to. These facts demonstrate that there is something wrong in the construction or the methods of the road itself, and if we have a showing such as that road is only able to make by incorporating that road into a great transcontinental railway system, I submit we are going to weaken that railway system in the last link of the line. As a fair proposition, as a reasonable proposition, would it be a right thing when your object is, as far as possible, to have an air line provided with all modern equipment and built on the principles of modern construction, to load down that new railway enterprise with a system which has made a uniformly bad showing during all the years which it has been in operation ? Then, my next proposition is this, that the returns of the road show that it cannot be operated successfully, with regard to through traffic tor heavy {commercial trade, and, secondly, that the returns of the road show that that road has been for many years practically what we would term a local road, serving the localities through which it runs, being of the greatest convenience and the greatest use to the people in those localities, but serving to a very slight extent the people of the rest of Canada. I have taken the receipts

of the Intercolonial Railway for 1902, and I have taken them for that year because It is the latest year for which I have been able to get returns from the operation of the system. I find that the receipts of the Intercolonial Railway were made up as follows :
Traffic.	. Receipts.
Passenger traffic	$1,787,094
Freight traffic	 3,676,813
Mails, express and all other sources	 257,083
Or, in other words, the receipts from the passenger traffic over the road represented 31-2 per cent of the total receipts, and the freight receipts, 64-03 per cent of the total. These two sources, passenger and freight traffic, supply over 95 per cent of the total receipts of the road.	How is the passenger traffic made up?	I have tried to investigate it, but I have not been able to get down to the details which I would like to have been able to arrive at, because I have only been able to get the returns that are contained in the blue-b ,ok issued by the department, but I find that so far as ocean-borne traffic is concerned, there were carried over the road 3,054 passengers, and that of these passengers 1,213 went westward by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and only 1,701 passengers representing this ocean-borne traffic went westward over the Intercolonial Railway. As far as the reports show, by far the greatest bulk of the traffic over the road is made up of local traffic between stations on the Intercolonial Railway. That traffic will in no sense be injured by the new proposition. That local traffic will go in the future as it has in the past, and as the country grows and becomes more prosperous, as we all hope it will, that local traffic on the Intercolonial Railway will materially increase. It should increase, because it has been increasing on other lines of railway. But, there is another feature in connection with the Intercolonial Railway passenger traffic which must not be lost sight of, and that is what is known as tourist traffic. There is a large amount of summer travel over the road, travel which will go there notwithstanding that the new line may be constructed. The Intercolonial Railway reaches the land of Evangeline, the land of the hunter, the land of the fisherman, it passes through grand scenery, waterscape and landscape, and these are the natural features which attract summer travel over the road and will continue to do so notwithstanding how many other lines may be in existence, and this traffic forms a considerable portion of the passenger traffic on the road. I maintain that, far from decreasing the passenger receipts, the present proposition is going to increase them. We have only one transcontinental railway system now. We have the Canadian Pacific Railway booking its passengers through on its own line from ocean to ocean. Any railway company would do the same thing. It is to be expected. It is right. But, with another transcontinental system, under an agreement such as the present agreement of the government with this company, I think we can safely assume that the new road having taken passengers down to Moncton or St. John, passengers who are going further oceanwards or further east will in all probability travel what is now the Intercolonial Railway system. There is practically no western travel over the road to-day. If passengers are brought east to Moncton or other points, it is quite within reason to assume that a large number of them will travel over the Intercolonial Railway, and this will be travel which that road does not get now. But passenger travel represents only 31 per cent of the total receipts of the road. The great bulk of the receipts of the Intercolonial Railway is made up from freight traffic, which represents no less than 04 per cent of the total receipts of the road. How is this traffic made up ? I mention these things because it has been so often stated that the effect of this new scheme will be to destroy the Intercolonial Railway. They say in this House, they say on the street, they say in the newspapers, that on the one hand the government has spent $70,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway and that on the other hand they are ruining that $70,000,000 of capital invested in the Intercolonial Railway.
No^y, Sir. the large bulk of the traffic on that road is freight traffic representing almost two-thirds of the total receipts, and the total freight tonnage on the Intercolonial Railway for 1902, amounted to 2,385, 810 tons, a very respectable freight tonnage it is. and placing that road fourth in the list as regards freight traffic in the Dominion of Canada. The tonnage was made up ns follows : The first item and the largest item is coal, representing 557,520 tons, or 23-09 per cent of the whole freight traffic of the road. The next item is grain, but that falls off to 65,627 tons, or a little over two per cent of the total freight traffic in tons over the road. The next item is flour, 13,170 tons or about 5J per cent of the total. The next item is lumber, representing 544,253 tons, or 22-08 per cent of the total. The next item is cattle, representing only 17,083 tons, of -07 of one per cent of th.e total. The next item is manufactured articles, representing 531,180 tons, of 22-03 per cent of the total. The next item is fish, 23,124 tons, or one per cent of the total. The next item is sugar, 41,275 tons, or about two per cent of the total, and the other freight carried on the road amounted to 460.890 tons or 20 per cent of the, total tonnage. I take these individual items simply because these are all that are given

in the returns, and if you examine wliat part of that freight is through-freight, and what part is local-freight, the figures will surprise any one who has not given them thought. According to this statement, the total ocean-borne freight going by the Intercolonial Railway to Europe and coming from Europe over the Intercolonial Railway f r the year 1902 amounted to 183,147 tons; or in other words, all the freight which passed over the Intercolonial Railway, going to Europe, and all the freight which came from Europe over that system amounted to only 8 per cent of the total freight tonnage on that line. And of that 183.147 toils, how much was local freight and how much was through-freight ? Why. out of that quantity 172,733 tons went to points on the Intercolonial Railway, or, originated at stations on the Intercolonial Railway and thence went east. Only about 10,000 tons of that whole local traffic went beyond the stations on their own line. I think, therefore, that we can assume that the whole ocean-borne traffic on the Intercolonial Railway is in the nature of local traffic. But, Sir, I can take them item by item, and we find that out of the total of 557,520 tons of coal carried on that road, there went further than the Intercolonial Railway's own stations the following :	Via Ste. Rosalie,
1,131 tons; via Chaudiere, 5,763 tons; via St. John, 3,640 tons, or a total of 10,534 tons went to stations beyond the Intercolonial Railway system, and might be looked upon as in the nature of through-freight, while 547,9S0 tons went to stations on the Intercolonial Railway itself. The next item given in the report is sugar. The total of raw sugar carried was 11,643 tons, the total shipments to points off the Intercolonial Railway west was 90 tons, and the total to stations upon their own line, 11,553 tons. The next item is refined sugar, and for the west they carried 10,793 tons, and for local stations on the Intercolonial Railway, 18,839 tons. In fresh fish the total carried on the Intercolonial Railway was 13,082 tons ; for the west, 7,605 tons, and for local stations, 5,477 tons. For salt fish the total was 10,042 tons, and for the west there were 4,840 tons, and for the local stations, 5,196 tons. In fact, the only showing of shipments of freight that cannot be considered ns local freight consist in their shipments of fresh and salted fish, because about half the amount they carried of these two items did go to points west. Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit from these figures, that tlie building of the new road will not affect the local traffic. We cannot affect the coal traffic by the building of the new road, and the coal traffic represents 23-09 per cent of the entire freight carried by the Intercolonial Railway. You will not interfere with the lumber traffic, which represents .22-08 per cent of the total. Where does that lumber come from ? The lumber includes cordwood in the schedule supplied


Hugh Guthrie: in the returns, and for the most part, it comes from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There are small portions of it coming probably from the Ottawa valley and some from the neighbourhood of Quebec, but the great bulk of that lumber and cordwood is carried from and to points in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and that trade will not be interfered with in the slightest degree by the new line. Then, Sir, the freight in manufactured articles represents 22-03 per cent of the total freight of the Intercolonial Railway. Where do the manufactured articles come from ? Probably from portions of Quebec and from the province of Ontario, but the great bulk of these manufactured goods come from Sydney and other points in Nova Scotia, where there are large manufacturing industries. I maintain that in so far as Ontario is concerned, the new line, not touching Ontario by many hundreds of miles, all the manufactured articles which go from Ontario to-day to the maritime provinces over the Intercolonial Railway will continue to go, notwithstanding the fact that you may build your transcontinental line. The next item is flour, but that is only 5 per cent of the whole traffic, and as a large amount of that comes from the province of Ontario, I submit that the Intercolonial Railway trade in that commodity will not be affected. And if you go through these items one after the other, you will find that over 90 per cent of the freight trade of the Intercolonial Railway is purely and simply local freight ; 90 per cent of it will be entirely unaffected by the construction of the new line. Nearly the whole of the present traffic on the Intercolonial Railway is local traffic, and that will be entirely unaffected by the construction of the new line. If the new line interferes at all with the Intercolonial Railway, it can only be in respect to a small portion to this through-freight and as to that freight, I am satisfied that hon. members on the other side will agree with me the Intercolonial Railway has been hauling it at an actual loss; it has been the losing part of the Intercolonial Railway freight trade.
Can it be reasonably said, from this statement of the Intercolonial Railway itself, can it be reasonably argued that a new line running anywhere from 30 miles to 100 miles from it, opening up a new territory, which will some day become developed and settled; can it be argued that that road, forming part of the new system, will in any way deteriorate the value of the Intercolonial Railway? And what is more, I submit that while it does not as a matter of fact get anything to speak of to-day in through-trade, while it does not send over its line anything to speak of in the way of through-freight, there is the probability, and the strong probability in the future, that by the construction of the new line y'off will be able to give to the Intercolonial Railway

a certain amount of through-freight which it never handled before, and which it may make something out of. But 1 am not very hopeful that the Intercolonial Railway system, as at present constructed and according to its present route, will ever be in a position, without a tremendous expenditure of money, to handle profitably what is looked upon as through-freight. In taking freight at Moncton I do not think that road is in as good position as the new road will be to handle it cheaply. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, as a sort of alternative proposition, said : Take the $15,000,-000-$15,000,000 is what he figured it out to be-which you expect to spend on the new line throug'h New Brunswick and apply that to the improvement of the Intercolonial Railway. Now, Sir, if-you did that, what would you have to do to the Intercolonial Railway ? You would have to change the route of that road; you would have to abolish that semicircle which the right lion, leader of the House described as being formed by the Intercolonial Railway between Halifax and Quebec; you would have to cut out these 50 and 60-foot grades; you would have to put down 90-pound rails; you would have to take off the present engines, though they are reasonably good engines, I believe, and equip that road with engines weighing from 100 to 110 tons, and you would have to give it practically. a new equipment in the way of cars. You would spend a tremendous amount of money in making that road anything like a modern commercial road; and I think the government have considered, and rightly considered, that the best way to cut the Gordian knot is to build a new short line through the province of New Brunswick, equipped as a modern commercial highway.
The proposition which I made at the outset was that the Intercolonial Railway, from its own reports, the nature of its construction, and the route it takes, cannot be usefully incorporated as a link in a transcontinental line. I think I have demonstrated from its own reports that it has now the business of a local road, and is serving the country as a local road ; and it can do better service to the country in that way than in other ways. I think, likewise, I have demonstrated that if the new line has any effect whatever on the Intercolonial Railway, it will have a beneficial effect rather than otherwise. I do not think it will have much effect. .
I have said that at confederation it became our duty, and it was a cardinal point in our contract, that that road should be built. It was also a part of our agreement that the road should be adequately maintained. The government, since they came into power in 1896, have placed the Intercolonial Railway on the best footing on which it could stand. They have brought it up to Montreal ; they have given it every opportunity;
they have given it practically a new equipment ; they have made it as good a local road as is to be found in the country. But the people of Canada are not bound to do more for that road. All these improvements have been made, and the people of other provinces have not uttered one single objection to the expenditure. Everything has been done for the road, I submit, that we were called upon to do. As an authority for that statement, I give the statement made in this House last session by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who, at page 3473 of ' Hansard,' said :
I have not gone Into details with reference to the Intercolonial Railway. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the various items as they come up, and of getting the fullest information concerning them from the minister. What I have sought to do is to draw the attention of the country to the enormous sums of money that have been expended on that road. What the people of Canada promised the people of the maritime provinces when they came into confederation was this-to build the Intercolonial Railway and to make it a good, efficient connection between these upper provinces and the maritime provinces.
That, I submit, is a correct statement of the case. The road was built as a link to connect the maritime provinces and the upper provinces. It has been maintained, and properly maintained. We have done all we were called upon to do with regard to the Intercolonial Railway. Shall it now be said that the mere fact that that road stands there, and that we have so much money invested in it, shall form a stumbling block when we propose a new transcontinental system ? Is it fairly to be argued that because we have that road there, which does not pay its operating expenses, therefore we must not go on with a transcontinental railway system, or. going on with it, we must incorporate with it the Intercolonial Railway as a drag and dead weight upon it ? I think not.
I have but a few observations to make on the question as to whether or not the new l'oad can ever become a modern commercial road. I think that is largely a matter of expense ; and we have on that point the pledge of the hon. Minister of Finance that it is the direct aim and intention of the government to make the new transcontinental road a modern commercial road, up to modern standards and modern ideas. Sir, if I thought for a moment that that end could not be attained, or that that promise would not be carried out, I would have m hesitation whatever in withdrawing my support from the measure altogether. But I believe that road can be made a first-class commercial highway in every respect, equal to any modern commercial road, according 1o the figures presented to this House by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). If we take the evidence which we have regarding the New Brunswick part of the country through which that road
*9103

*will pass, evidence given by men who know, notably that given last night by the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan), who says he has travelled over every foot of it, the route is through a country of easy railroad construction, presenting no great natural obstacles-no mountains to be encountered, no rivers of any magnitude to be bridged. It is a country of comparatively easy construction, and to say that you can start a line at RiviSre du Loup, and run southwards over a grade of 1,300 feet, in 16 miles, which is the grade on the railroad in existence there now, would be to block the whole enterprise as a modern commercial road. But, from the statement of the hon. member for Victoria made last night, and from other information'which has been laid before the House, the evidence is overwhelming that a favourable route can be obtained through the province of New Brunswick, which will materially shorten the distance. So far as I can see, the only great obstacle In the way is the St. Lawrence bridge ; but that can be arranged.
With regard to the country from Quebec to Winnipeg, we have as much evidence as any one can require short of the exact location of the line. It is not yet staked out; but we trust that in the near future it will be. But all the information which we have goes to show that there is no natural obstacle of any great moment in the way ; otherwise we would have known it merely as a matter of ordinary geography. What is the difficulty of railroad construction over 1,400 or 1,500 miles of a clay plateau ? That is easy work. Is there any difficulty about getting standard grades ? As a matter of fact, surveys have been made of the country from Lake Nipissing to Lake Nepigon, and in that stretch standard grades can be obtained, except in one or two spots, where I believe the reports are that grades will be about 1 per cent, and short grades at that. The standard grade has been stated to be 21 feet to the mile. That is bringing it down to a nice point. Engineers and railroad men have informed me that 26 feet to the mile is considered a standard grade ; that is 6 inches to 100 feet. But there is no evidence that standard grades cannot be obtained. No man has said, 1 have travelled through the country or have had engineers travel through it, and they have made such and such a report; but ail the evidence before the House is that it is a country for easy railroad construction, well adapted to settlement, and through which standard grades will be obtained.
A great deal has been said about this road never shipping a bushel of grain if it is completed. It has been stated time and again during the course of this debate that this road will never carry any grain. 1 believe that statement is based almost exclusively upon the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway in that respect. I Mr. GUTHRIE.
! contend that to compare the 500 miles of the I Canadian Pacific Railway between Port Arthur and North Bay with the country through which the new road will pass, is not a fair comparison.
If ever there was a difficult piece of railway construction on the North American continent, it is that north shore part of the Canadian Pacific Railway line. The Canadian Pacific Railway officials will tell you that. Indeed the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) told us that that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway road cost them $60,000 per mile to construct, and no one who has travelled over the road will wonder at it. It is largely blown out of the solid rock, and just ns soon as you begin to move rock, you begin to run into money, and very rapidly too. That road presented engineering difficulties almost insurmountable, but which have to a certain extent been surmounted, though not with a road which can be described as a modern standard, commercial line. The curves are tremendous, the grades frequent and uneven, and with the strongest engines the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot haul more than from twelve to fifteen loaded cars over it. If you cannot get a better road through the northern country than the Canadian Pacific, I would hesitate before venturing into the undertaking at all.
The hon. gentleman, the leader of the opposition, said last night that part of his policy would be to acquire that line of the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Port Arthur, some 500 miles, costing about $60,000 per mile through a country which is absolutely useless for the purpose of settlement, in which the timber was stripped and burnt long years ago, and which will never be of any value, unless perhaps some of these mountains and rocks contain some kind of mineral not yet discovered. Would any sane man enter into a project to obtain that road-535 miles of road at $60,000 per mile, the cost of construction ? That would amount to over $35,000,000. It would be a good bargain for the Canadian Pacific Railway, for there is no doubt that that is the portion of .the line which is the great hindrance and drawback to their carrying grain. If the Canadian Pacific had avoided those mountains and rocks, those curves and windings, and gone back into the country north of the height of land where the clay belt is, I believe that it would be able to draw grain every winter down to the sea.


Bennett Rosamond: Does the hou. gentleman say that there is a clay-belt north of Lake Superior ?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, according to the map issued by the Ontario Crown Lands Department, which was exhibited ;n . this House-


Bennett Rosamond: Supposing the Canadian Pacific Railway bad taken some other line, how could they have got to Port Arthur ?


Hugh Guthrie: Just as the Grand Trunk Railway will, by building a line down to Port Arthur, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will get there much more cheaply and on proper grades, over which they can draw grain, whereas the grades which are on the Canadian Pacific Railway road in that section absolutely prevent the carrying of grain.


William Humphrey Bennett: On what authority does the hon. gentleman make the statement that the Canadian Pacific Railway can only haul twelve cars loaded on that line going eastward ?


Hugh Guthrie: I say that on the eastern trip between Winnipeg and North Bay, there are grades on that road which prevent the heaviest engine on the Canadian Pacific Railway drawing more than twelve to fifteen cars loaded.


William Humphrey Bennett: On what authority ?


Hugh Guthrie: On the authority of railway men who have so informed me.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman is wrongly informed. Who is the informant ?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think I should be challenged any more than the hon. gentleman's own leader was, who, when he read statements! of men who had informed him, would not give their names because they are officials in a road which will be in opposition to this new road we are going to build. If we cannot vastly improve upon that north shore line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I think we might well hesitate before going on with this work.


Mr. WARD.: How does the hon. gentleman know that these letters read by the leader of the opposition were from officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Hugh Guthrie: I said that in my opinion they were. Another point is this, that the whole argument that this road cannot become a grain carrying road is based on the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The hon. the leader of the opposition, in hisf first statement, said what ? He said that the Canadian Pacific Railway is carrying 40,000,000 bushels of grain and only G per cent of that by rail. We have also the statement of Sir William Van Horne, published a few days ago, to the effect that we can not make that a graincarrying road. But on what is Sir William Van Horne's experience based ? Dike the leader of the opposition, he bases his statement on the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is going to be in opposition to the new road.
States. Seventy-five per cent is carried by water.


Hugh Guthrie: So far as I can learn, and I have consulted railway men in this country-and some in the United States- the facts are these :	If you can get a
standard line, with a grade of twenty-six feet to the mile-and it would be better of course if we can get it 21 feet to the mile- and if you can lay 90 pound rails and supply cars with the capacity of from GO,000 to 80,000 pounds, and .engines up to 100 or 110 tons, you can haul grain in competition with water routes. There are engines to-day that weigh 135 tons, but I do not see that we need engines of that kind in this country. Only one road in the United States uses such engines, and that is one of the iron roads of Pennsylvania.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman name a road on the continent of America * which hauls grain from 1,800 and 2,000 miles by rail ?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the longest concerning which I have any figures, are from Chicago to Baltimore, New York and Boston. We know that the Illinois Central is hauling corn from Chicago and New Orleans and transhipping it there in competition with the river and rail route. That is 932 miles all by rail.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are their freight rates for that distance ?


Hugh Guthrie: Between Chicago and New York, and Chicago and Baltimore and Boston, the rates are about seven and a half cents per bushel, and I know that these trunk lines are hauling large quantities of grain. Let me point to another fact. The New York Central has made to the government of the state of New York the following offer : If you will give us to improve our road what you propose to spend on the Erie canal, we will draw grain from Buffalo to the seaboard, 442 miles, at two cents. That is a well-known standing offer on the part of that railway. Indeed if we have the equipment and the grades, the engines and the cars, there is nothing to prevent an engine of 110 tons drawing from fifty to sixty cars containing each 50,000 to 60,000 pounds of grain, and then you will be In a position to compete with the water routes. But I would not argue for a moment that the summer grain trade on this road will go by rail if it can go by water. Water rates may, and probably will, come down, and I would at the earliest opportunity support any expenditure to still further improve the water route of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. KEMP.: Why go to Quebec city if you cannot draw grain over that road in the summer time V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The leader of the opposition gave the experience of the United


Hugh Guthrie: I estimate that there will be a good deal of freight besides grain. And

I would ask the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) if this is not a correct estimate. The last year the total receipts of the Canadian Pacific Railway were $43,-
900,000.	Its grain traffic was less than nine per cent of these receipts. Will the other road have no chance of getting any of that transcontinental traffic, with better facilities on the eastern coast and a shorter route to the sea, and with terminals on the Pacific 7 Will not the commerce of Toronto and Guelph and my own county and the principal part of Ontario be shipped east and west on that road as it is now on the Canadian Pacific Railway 7 I have not a doubt in my own mind that the hon. member himself will be a shipper on that line as soon as it is constructed. Now, having given these rates as given to me let me ask : What is one chief object of the building of this road V It is certainly to relieve the congestion in the western traffic. As I understand it the crop in Manitoba is harvested about the end of this month. The crop in the territory is harvested later than the end of this month. About the beginning of September, the crop in the western country can begin to move. And the canals are frozen up, or navigation is stopped, from about the first to the middle of November. This means that you have about sixty or seventy days during which you have to move probably about 60,000,000 to 70,000,000 bushels of wheat or, with other grain, amounting to about 100.000.000 bushels. There is the problem confronting you with which you have to deal. There is a portion of that grain which gets to the lake ports in time for shipment through the canal, but by far the larger quantity does not reach these ports in time. Where, then, does it stay 7 It stays all the winter in elevators, from the time it is shipped to the first of May. The charge for storage is about one and a half cents per bushel for the first month and one-half cent a bushel after that until the spring. As I say, a small quantity goes out in the fall, but a large quantity remains in the elevator at a charge for handling and storage until it goes out in the spring. Would it not be better, if, in the fall of the year, the farmer could ship his grain at reasonable rates- and I will discuss the rates later on-down to the seaboard at St. John or Halifax, thus avoiding the warehousing of the grain all winter and the paying of warehouse rates upon it. Why, the warehouse rates themselves would amount to some four cents or five cents a bushel, and that should be added to the freight. I believe that the day will come, after this road is constructed, when, in all probability, grain will be shipped from Winnipeg to Quebec at eleven cents, twelve cents, or thirteen cents a bushel. If I understand the situation, grain is shipped now to Port Arthur from Winnipeg at seven and a half cents a bushel. It is then taken by water carriage to Quebec for say five cents to six cents a bushel.


Hugh Guthrie: That means that it is costing the farmers to-day eleven cents or twelve cents a bushel to take their grain from Winnipeg. I have not the slightest doubt that, if such a road as has been described is constructed in this country, eleven cents, twelve cents or thirteen cents a bushel will land the same grain by rail at those points which it now reaches partly by water and partly by rail 7
But, Sir, there is a vast amount of freight going over these roads, and a vast amount of freight which might go which is not now going at all. If a road were dependent on the grain trade, it would be a failure, for
65.000.	000 bushels of wheat, which is the quantity we have at the present time, will not support a road-there is no question about that. We must have regard to this fact, that there are now actually engaged in agriculture in Manitoba and the Northwest about 40,000 men. These men produced last year, and will produce this year, about
100.000.	000 bushels of grain, of which about
60.0000.	000 to 70.000,000 is wheat. Now, the wave of immigration had hardly set in up to last year. Last year we had about 100.000 settlers, while this year the number will probably exceed 100.000. Instead of having 40,000 men engaged in raising grain, you will soon have ten times that number. That is not an unreasonable estimate. I agree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that we are going to require many new roads to haul the crop of that country. He says that he believes that in the near future, instead of having 100,000,000 bushels, we shall have a product of 400,000,000 bushels of grain in that country. I believe the hon. gentleman is within the mark in this estimate. I believe that we in this House are going to live to see the day when the prediction once made in this House by Sir Charles Tupper, that we should raise
640.000.	000 bushels of grain, will be literally fulfilled, though it will be twenty or twenty-five years late in its fulfilment. Will not that furnish a trade, such a trade as we could not handle at all at this moment 7 The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) said in his speech last night that it will be five or six years before you have your road constructed and, in the meantime, the Grand Trunk will send their traffic through the United States. What does that prove 7 Does it prove that we shall wait 7 No. It proves that we should go ahead with all possible speed; that we should not wait a single moment; that we should satisfy ourselves at once as to the measure and push forward the road, so that it may furnish a Canadian route and not have our traffic going via Chicago or Duluth. The statement was made, I believe, that to-day grain is brought from Duluth by the Canada Atlantic Railway at three cents a bushel. According to-the information I have received on that subject, it was shipped at those prices because the boats had gone to Duluth laden, and took the grain at that figure

ratlier than make the return voyage light. There has been no such rate maintained for shipment by rail and water as three cents per bushel.


Albert Edward Kemp: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I see the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) agrees with me in that proposition. Then, there is the question of cattle shipping. That was dealt with by the Minister of the Interior. The part of Ontario in which I reside is greatly interested in that question. Many a man has shipped from Ontario to the North-west a carload of cattle or several carloads. That is an all-rail shipment, not water. The demand of the people is for a competitive rate. Let there be two roads to take in these cattle, just as the farmers of western Canada want two roads to take out their grain. Then, there is going to be a vast quantity of manufactured goods shipped into Manitoba and the North-west, and it is evident that for this traffic two roads will supply the country better than one. That, I believe, is a good business proposition. Practically, all the necessaries of life, except bread-stuffs and beef, will have to be shipped into that western country for many years to come- clothing, iron manufactures, especially agricultural implements, and all other manufactured goods. So far we have only seen the beginning of the trade that is coming from that country within the next five or six years, for the benefit of the whole eastern portion of this Dominion. I believe that Ontario is as vitally interested in this project as any other part of the country, and perhaps more so. Whatever helps eastern Canada, and western Canada, is bound in my opinion, to help central Canada; and, Ontario, being the great manufacturing portion of this country, will be put in a position by this new route to make shipments of machinery, implements and manufactured goods of various kinds upon terms as good, indeed far better than that of the dealers of St. Paul and Minneapolis in the United States, notwithstandng that the duty may remain where it is. I think that is a sound business proposition also.
Now. Sir, do not let it be supposed for a moment that the government has any idea of abandoning the water route. I have heard no such expression of opinion from any quarter whatever. On the contrary. I think I may say, it is well understood by the government and by the people of this country that every facility is to be given for tlie water transportation of grain and other traffic. I look forward to the day when we shall have, not merely a fourteen-foot. but a twenty-foot or even a twenty-five-foot water-way through from Port Arthur to the sea ; when the St. Lawrence will be made as safe for navigation as any part of the Atlantic ocean. I would support, and heartily support, any reasonable scheme
for the exploration of the Hudson's bay route. I do not say that I would consent to the building of a road until we know what the conditions of navigation are. To my mind, a sum of money might well be appropriated to settle the question of navigation of that great island sea. It is stated that navigation is possible not only for cue or two months, but for five months in the year. If navigation in Hudson's bay is open for five months in the year, the people of this country should know it, and steps should be taken to make that also a grain route for the traffic of this country to England. I believe that within the next ten years we will require all the roads we now have and more, in fact all that we can possibly have.
But, Sir, speaking from the standpoint of the province of Ontario alone, I believe that this road is going to be as great a boon to the province of Ontario as anything that has transpired in Dcmtnion or provincial affairs for many a long day. We are going to have what we have been longing to have, an east and west railroad through 700 or 800 miles of the northern portion of our province to open it up and develop it. The government of the province of Ontario is convinced that that country is one worthy of the expenditure of considerable sums of money and are themselves building a railroad into it and are prepared -to go further north to connect their road with this line. There are other schemes and projects on foot for running railroads into that country north and south but what we need and most need in Ontario is a road east and west, crossing these other lines and projected lines at right angles. What the people of Canada and the people of the cities want is new towns and new villages. They want new markets for their goods and it must be borne in mind that the home market is ever the best market and our Ontario people should have it in their own province. We want new markets in this country. In my own city of Guelph we ship in car lots to the west woollens and carpets, and cream separators and agricultural implements and carriages as well as cattle and other goods. The people of the city of Guelph engaged in mercantile pursuits want that road for the purpose of obtaining competitive freight rates if for nothing else. They want two lines in order that they may be able to choose, which they have wished to do for many many years past.
Sir, it has been said by lion, members opposite that this road through the northern part of the province of Ontario will be the lean end of the contract. Sir, I believe that before that road is constructed and operated there will be many a settlement in there awaiting the construction of that railway. Why do I say that ? Why, Sir, it is known and* known almost to a demonstration that that country has the greatest wealth of pulp wood in the world. It is estimated

that the pulp wood resources of that district amount to 280,000,000 cords.
At one o'clock. House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, when the House arose I was discussing the question of the position of the province of Ontario in respect to this new transcontinental railway project, and I was dealing at the time incidentally with the question of pulpwood, and referring to the fact that in Ontario, north of the height of land, it is estimated that there are at least 288 million cords of pulp-woud standing and so far untouched. All this pulpwood will become of commercial value by the opening up of that territory by this proposed line. We know that it has been charged throughout Ontario frequently that the pulpwood concessions already granted in Ontario have practically exhausted the supply, and that in a very few years the pulpwood of Ontario will be entirely exhausted. This fact should be borne in mind in regard to the area of ipulpwood that all the concessions so far granted and numbering seven or eigiit or nine or thereabouts, are south of the height of land, and it has been stated by men who have made calculations that if all the existing pulpwood concessions were gone on with, if the mills were built upon them and they were operated to their fullest extent, it would take in the neighbourhood of 200 years or more to exhaust the pulpwood supply in northern Ontario. That pulpwood is in itself one of the most valuable assets which Ontario has. So long as the country remains undeveloped, so long as the pulpwood is beyond the limit of railways or of roads, so long as we cannot get at it, it is absolutely worthless to us, and by putting this railway through that section of the country, as it is proposed to be put, the province of Ontario will at once have a tremendous asset which perhaps it might not have otherwise. I think that Ontario is one of the provinces that is going to derive great benefit If this project is carried through to a conclusion. I do not know of any other province, except perhaps Manitoba, which will receive the benefit which Ontario will receive when 700 or S00 miles of well wooded territory will be opened up for settlement. I believe that the burden on, the people of Ontario in connection with this enterprise will perhaps be heavier than the burden cast upon the people of other provinces, but, Sir, while the burden may be slightly heavier the compensation will be vastly in excess of that which is given to any other province by the building of this road.
I had not intended to say very much more, nor do I intend to now, but there are one or two things that I would like to refer to before resuming my seat. I watched with the greatest interest the very able'speech delivered by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden. Halifax! in this


Hugh Guthrie: House. I must confess to some feeling of disappointment regarding it, as I believe the people of the country have looked forward to his statement as a statem'ent which would bring forth some definite alternative policy in regard to this railway project. I am aware that the hon. gentleman has submitted some nine propositions in regard to this matter which he lias put forth as a sort of alternative policy. But these nine propositions are so general in their character, and are so greatly in accord with the policy which we entertain on this side of the House, that one can scarcely realize that the leader of a great party in this country would put such propositions before the House in the nature of an alternative. The first proposition he puts forward is this :
To secure the lowest possible rate for transportation in order that our people may obtain a portion as large as possible of the price at which their products are sold in our domestic and foreign markets.
That is one of the underlying principles of the present measure-perhaps it is the chief underlying principle. Secondly, he says :
To secure the transportation of Canadian products through Canadian channels.
That is another underlying principle of the government's measure at the present time. Third :
To promote trade and intercourse between the two great divisions of our country, the east with its great industrial future, its vast resources of the field, of the forest, of the mine and of the ocean, and the west with its vast plains capable of suplying the food not only of the empire, but the world, and beyond the province of British Columbia with its great mineral and other resources.
Another underlying principle of the measure which the government has brought down, and so throughout the whole nine propositions which he has laid before tbe House, perhaps with the exception of his mention of the Intercolonial Railway, I say that the hon. leader of the opposition, in the policy he submits as an alternative policy, lias given the best evidence that be himself at heart approves of the policy which the government has now submitted to the House, and will soon submit to the country. I find that when lie starts to elaborate his nine propositions it is not quite as clear what the hon. gentleman means regarding them. He certainly starts out to advocate the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay. Now, at some time in the future such a movement may he a very proper one. I doubt very much the propriety of doing so at the present time, but on looking at tbe speech delivered by the hon. leader of the opposition yesterday I find in column 9293 this proposal :
If we acquired the Canada Atlantic Railway, we could build a line from that point to Join the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Sudbury.

But on page 9289 tlie lion, gentleman says :
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not wedded to the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway.
I think there is something inconsistent in that statement, and so we find it all through. The hou. gentleman's policy is a very general and vague one, and if you examine it from beginning to end, with his proposal to carry the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay, with the proposal to carry the Intercolonial Railway from there to a point near Sudbury, with his proposal to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William, over 500 miles in length, with his proposal to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William under certain terms, which he does not explain, at most the whole proposition can only be called a piece of patch-work. He proposes that the government should go ahead and improve the grades and curves on the most expensive section of the Canadian Pacific Railway, according to the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). Another objection that the hon. leader of the opposition has taken, and it is more in the nature otf a legal objection than otherwise, is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not 'bound by this agreement. No one has pretended that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a party to the agreement. It certainly is not a party to the agreement. The men who signed the agreement represented themselves as signing on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. This bargain or contract will not be consummated until thirty days after it has passed parliament, and it will only be consummated by the deposit of $5,000,000 in cash or securities. If the deposit of $5,000,000 is put up, I am satisfied that the men who are putting up such an enormous sum of money are not entering into any contract with the idea of fooling the government, but are genuinely proceeding with the proposition now before us. I notice also, in the remarks of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), that he found some peculiar objection to the preamble of the Bill and to the recital in the contract itself. As I read the preamble of the Bill, it is in the following language :	.
Whereas, an agreement has been entered into, bearing date the 29th day of July, 1903, between His Majesty the King of the first part, and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, C.B.,	G.C.M.G., and
others, representing therein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company incorporated by an Act of the parliament of Canada passed at the present session thereof.
The agreement is drawn in precisely the same form : the parties to the second part of the agreement being Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and the others associated with him in seeking that incorporation. What point the hon. member (Mr. Northrup) sought to
make out of some discrepancy which he imagined, I failed to see then, and after an examination of the contract I still fail to see. There was one point in regard to this contract which the hon. member (Mr. Northrup) particularly dwelt upon. It was that point, started by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who said that it was in the power of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to hire or lease rolling stock to the extent of $5,000,000 and place it upon the line, and that that would be a compliance with the terms of the contract. All I have to say in regard to both the hon. memberr for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), is this : that while they may be entitled to their own opinions upon the strict legal meaning of the contract, and while I entertain for both gentlemen's legal ability the very highest opinion, yet, I would be prepared to accept the opinions of such gentlemen as Mr. Shepley and Mr. Gormully and the Deputy Minister of Justice of Canada, in preference to the opinions of the hon.. members for East Hastings aud Hamilton upon that point. We have been assured that independent men who have no political bias in this matter have examined this contract and that lawyers of the highest standing have said that the clause is reasonably clear that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway can only comply with the terms of that agreement by placing its own rolling stock upon that line. But does it matter much whether they place their own rolling stock upon that line or somebody's else 7 By section 22 of the contract, the company is bound to put $5,000,000 worth of modern rolling stock upon that road and maintain it in a good condition for a period of fifty years. If they do that, I don't think it matters one iota whether that rolling stock is in fact the property of the company, or whether the company may have leased it for a period of fifty years. Another point which seemed somewhat to bother my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup), was that in clause 7 of the contract it is provided iii the following language :
It is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to, and approved of, by the company before the commencement of the work.
I think that is a very reasonable and a very proper provision. The company has to pay the rental at the rate of three per cent on the amount Invested in the road, and they having intimate knowledge of railway traffic and railway requirements, should certainly have the right to look over these specifications before finally completing them, but the point which bothered the hon. member for Hastings most was, that he thought the government had nothing to do with the letting of the contracts, and that section 7 only referred to the specifications. Well, if he had read section 9 of the Bill he would have found :

The construction of the said eastern division and its management until completed and leased to the said company pursuant to the provisions of the said agreement shall be under the charge and control of three commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor in Council, who shall hold office during pleasure, and who, and their successors in office, shall be a body corporate under the name of ' The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,' and are hereinafter called * The Commissioners.'
And it' lie had looked at paragraph 16 of the Bill itself, he would have found that the contracts for construction were to be let, not by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway hut by the commissioners, and that these contracts were to be let by tender in the ordinary way. At the time 1 was not impressed with the contention of the hon. gentleman in this respect, and l find now that his argument, that the government had no part in letting the contracts is entirely erroneous. A point which the hon. leader of the opposition dwelt upon, is the effect of paragraphs 42 and 43 of the contract regarding the routing of freight and the share of freight which shall go over this new line from Quebec to the seaboard. The hon. member (Mr. Borden, Halifax) when he first addressed the House said that clauses 42 and 43 contained nothing more than empty words ; that the Grand Trunk Railway would only he bound by a moral obligation and that we were absolutely dependent upon the bona tides of the Grand Trunk Company for the carrying out of the meaning and Intent of these provisions. That contention is likewise erroneous. The hon. gentleman probably had not time to read over the contract, because if ho had he would see that by clause 25, on tin; completion of this railway, a lease is to be entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the government of Canada, and clause 25 provides :
The said lease shall also contain such covenants and provisions including proper Indemnity to the government in respect to the working of the railway, as may be deemed necessary by the government to secure the proper carrying out of this agreement.
I submit, Sir, that we can well, trust the hand that drew that contract, difficult and intricate as it is ; we can well trust that same hand to draw that lease and to put in that lease covenants and stipulations which will guarantee to the people of this country the carrying out of the letter as well as the spirit of this contract.
Further, X will only add, that it is apparent from all that has taken place in this debate, that almost the entire argument of hon. gentlemen opposite is based upon the statements made to the House by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair). He certainly is a man of great experience and a man of great capacity, hut it is strange to me that hon. members opposite who until three or four weeks ago considered the ex-minister to be anything but a


Hugh Guthrie: railroad man or a railroad expert, should pound their desks and cover their faces with smiles of satisfaction, as lie propounded his objections to the carrying out of this project. Now, witli regard to the Intercolonial Railway itself, let me for a moment give you something of the opinion of that road Held by the ex-Minister of Railways, who I lie other day said that we were going to destroy it, and that we should consider it in connection with through traffic. Speaking in this House a year ago last April, at page 3424 of ' Hansard,' the hon. ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) thus speaks of the Intercolonial Railway :
It happens that this road has never been, and perhaps it never may be, a great surplus-paying road. Conditions exist which may for some years to come control the financial results of the undertaking. It would be unfair to hold the Intercolonial to the same strict rule to which you would hold railways which are built for commercial reasons, and in view of commercial considerations exclusively. I wonder to what extent commercial considerations entered into the question of the location of the Intercolonial Railway. If we had been building a road to yield a handsome net return to the government every year from its earnings, who would undertake to build a road by the roundabout route which the Intercolonial Railway has taken ?
Is that not an admission by the hon. exminister that that road is not suitable as a commercial road ? Surely, then, it would be insane to Incorporate some 1,600 miles of railroad into a road that is to be built purely for oommercinll purposes, at the eastern end of that long line, simply to weaken and possibly to destroy it. But, Sir, the hon. member for South Lanark has also given us his views on the Intercolonial Railway. It was during the same session and during the same debate, where he says, in the course of his remarks, at page 3475 :
By the course we are now pursuing, we are simply flinging immense sums of money into a sink-hole-these expenditures are of no benefit to the country whatever. This idea of developing the Intercolonial Railway as a heavy freight line, providing heavy locomotives, and then making heavy tracks and strong bridges to bear them, is an absurdity. The road can never have the heavy, long freight trains of a western road, and these new locomotives are not as suitable for traffic upon the road as were those the road already had.
Clearly proving the conviction of the hon. member for South Lanark, who has been heralded as the greatest authority on railroads in this House, that that road cannot be adapted as a commercial highway for carrying the heavy trains which are now used almost exclusively on commercial railroads.
It is interesting also to note the opinion of the hon. member for South Lanark as to the capacity of the hon. ex-minister in regard to railroads. It was during the same debate that the hon. member for South Lanark, who !s the great railway

expert of the opposition, or of the House, as his leader would have us believe summarized th'e capacity of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, at page 3453, in the following words. After reciting a long paragraph from some statement which had been formerly made by the ex-minister, he goes .on to say :
The hon. gentleman led the House to believe that the country was virtually Incurring no fresh debt by purchasing the Drummond County Railway and acquiring the entry into the city of Montreal. The facts are against him, as I will soon show. His purpose was he said, to put life into the old concern, to make it a going and prosperous business, to show what the energy and ability of a man of business could do in the management of a concern that was put under his control. You would have thought that the hon. gentleman had been a railroad expert from his birth up. He is good at declamation ; he is good at making statements and promises, but none of them ever pan out. Nothing he promises to the people of this country is ever fulfilled.
That was the opinion which the hon. member for South Lanark entertained of the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals but a year ago or thereabouts. But, Sir, take another extract from the same debate, at page 3475, where the hon. member for South Lanark thus describes the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals :
The Minister of Railways and Canals has made a statement concerning his administration of the Intercolonial Railway which railroad men when they read it, from one end of the country to the other, will laugh at. It Is a perfect farce.
With such statements before us, how is it possible that the hon. members, who applauded the hon. member for 'South Lanark only a year ago when he was so severely criticising the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, should, but a few days ago, almost to a man, and the hon. member for South Lanark himself, applaud the hon. exminister until there hands were sore from pounding their desks ? I believe the hon. ex-minister never in his life enjoyed live hours more than he did the five hours of his opening speech in this debate. He had at his mercy, under his thumb, the great body of the opposition who had been maligning him and criticising him for the last six years in no uncertain language. For five hours he held them at his beck and call. When he desired them to rise to the occasion, he would make some sweeping general assertion against the government's project, and they would rise to the occasion, every man of them. But when he finally desired to produce something in the nature of a climax, when he desired one hurrah greater than any others, he himself stooped to make the mean insinuation that an honourable senator of this country had something to do with this scheme, and made them pound again like so many tin soldiers, while he himself stood laughing at
them. The hon. ex-minister has had the grim satisfaction of wiping out six years of the oposition's denunciation of him, and of appearing to them within the last week or so as a hero and the propounder and exponent of the only objections they have been able to raise in this House against this measure.
With reference to the speech delivered by the hon. leader of the opposition, it is but fair to assume that our grounds of difference in connection with this proposal are but few and slight. I believe that on the great features of the proposal we are practically all agreed. It is only in matters of detail, and in many instances minor details, that we lack a consensus of opinion. We are agreed that there is an urgent necessity for greater transcontinental railroad facilities in this country. The expanding trade and commerce of our country demands it. The rapid development of our Northwest country demands it. The want of competitive freight rates demand it. The steady onward march of commercial and industrial methods, rendering competition keener and still more keen, until the question of railway facilities and railway rates becomes not only an important but a dominating factor in most commercial transactions, demands it. That man were dull indeed who, either in this House or out of this House, would express an opinion contrary to the opinion that I believe we all share, namely, that the necessity is great, that the moment is opportune, that the ability of our country to meet her national requirements is beyond a peradventure. These being our common grounds of agreement, they are the main questions involved in the consideration of this measure. Our differences appear to arise as to the best methods of putting our conclusions into effect.
While I submit that there is not in this country to-day a condition of affairs which would justify a government in taking over the railroad systems of the country and operating them, either by a commission or otherwise, I do not despair that at some time in the future there may be such a condition of affairs as to render that sort of management possible. Certainly the management of the Intercolonial Railway system is not very encouraging as an example of government management. We have in this House an hon. member who occasionally starts on bis favourite theme of the nationalization of railroads. I refer to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). I do not think the hon. member has a very clear or concise idea of what he means by that high-sounding term; but time and time again, in this House, and in his newspaper in Toronto, he elaborates on what he is pleased to term the nationalization of railroads, as the only mode of relief from all our difficulties-as the only panacea for all our ills in connection with railway mat-

ters. Surely the people of this country, if they pay any attention to the statements of the hon. member for East York will say :
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York.
But, Sir, so far this idea, I think, is in embryo only. I look forward to the day when the matter may be taken up seriously, but I do not think that at present any one can seriously contend that we should go in for government operation of railways, either by commission or otherwise.
We know that the Conservative party always consider it a tremendous triumph that they had a great deal to do with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think that this country can look with very great pride upon the accomplishment of that great work. I know that when travelling in other countries, notably in the United States, and hearing the puffing and blowing which goes on there about their miles of railway, my own breast has swelled with pride when I thought that in a country of 5,500,000 of people, we have the greatest system of railway, under single management, in America and perhaps even in the world. I look forward to the day when we will have another such system. I believe that we are taking the first steps towards realizing that expectation at present, but I do not think that the Conservatives are entitled to the credit. Nor were they entitled to all the credit for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That was a road which the people of Canada, as a whole, constructed. I notice that the hon. leader of the opposition, in his remarks yesterday, proclaimed to his followers, as he turned towards them with a grand gesture :	We built the Canadian
Pacific Railway. Sir, it was the Canadian people who built it, but the unfortunate feature is that although we built it, we do not own a dollar of it. Since then a radical change of procedure has taken place. That part of the new transcontinental line which we are going to build, we intend to own ; and while we do not intend to operate it ourselves, we shall lease it and allow other railway companies to have running powers over it, and operate it, in conjunction with ourselves, if we so desire.
Our hon. friends opposite say that there is a great deal of sentiment in this proposal. I am glad to know that there is, 1 have heard it claimed that there was a great deal of public sentiment behind the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, and one of the most cheering facts, in connection with the scheme before the House is that there is so much public sentiment behind it. But if therp be sentiment behind it. it is certainly a high and noble sentiment-that sentiment which we call patriotism is perhaps the highest the human heart is capable of. Long may the people of this country have that sentiment with regard to all their institutions, their great railways, hanks and public systems of one kind or another ;


Mr. PUTTEE.: and so long as that sentiment has force, Canada will be assured of a prominent place among the nations of the world.


Arthur W. Puttee: Although this debate has been rather prolonged, Mr. Speaker, the question before the House has so much to do with the future of this country, that it is hardly necessary for me to offer any apology whatever for putting my views upon record concerning it. I think we may put from our minds altogether the expectation that we shall dispose of this question and conclude this debate at an early I day. It seems to me a question on which we may rightly expect representatives from all parts of the country to express their opinion. This session is already in its sixth month. To-day it completes its twenty-third week, and those of us who are from the extremes of this country, either in the west or in the east, feel that we have a very just cause for complaint indeed at having been kept here so long, but we consider also-that it would be unreasonable to expect this parliament, after it has sat here, from month to month, quibbling and quarrelling over comparatively insignificant questions, to dispose in an off-hand way, of a matter so important as the one now being considered.
I wish to pay some attention to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). I find that speech a most peculiar one-one I can well imagine he will yet wish he had not been under the necessity of making. In it he made a radical reversal of his former attitude on the principle of government ownership as applied to railways. The necessity for his doing this, he explained in an early stage of his remarks, when he told the House that he would not have addressed it at all on this subject, had it not been for the fact:
Some years ago I advocated a proposition, which has been mentioned in the course of this discussion, as a possible alternative to the policy propounded by the government. Shortly after the acquisition ot the Drummond County Railway, a report obtained currency that the government was about to purchase the Parry Sound road for the purpose' of still further extending the Intercolonial Railway and pushing it forward in the direction of the green fields of the west. It seemed to me at the time that this was a logical sequence of the steps already taken for the extension of the road to Montreal.
When an hon. gentleman has to admit that a few years ago he was advocating a system of government ownership, when he has to admit that he was advocating a policy of removing the Intercolonial Railway from the position it had hitherto occupied, of merely being operated in accordance with the terms of confederation-when he admits that he advocated making it a competing road by extending it to Montreal, and afterwards further on to Georgian bay, in the expectation of still further extending it into the west-when an hon. gentleman

has to admit that that was his position a few years ago, and that he is to-day obliged to reverse that position, I feel for him. When he finds that in the whirligig of events it was necessary for him to go back completely on the stand he took a few years ago, he has my deepest sympathy. But it is unfortunate that public men, when they are under such necessity, will not fairly and frankly tell us the real reason, and not try and explain something which cannot be explained. I am prepared to admire the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), who got up and said : I believe in government ownership, my people believe in it, we want a government road through the west, but we cannot get it, and I accept this scheme for the good there is in it, but I only accept it because we cannot get what we want. There is something to admire in frankness of that kind, but one can only feel pity for an hon. gentleman who is under tiie necessity of arguing against, his own convictions ; and I think we might very well ask such men not to render up to party what belongs to mankind.
The hon. member from Hants (Mr. Russell) laid down this proposition, as a finality on the question of government operation :	He
prefaced his proposition by telling us that human nature will have to be altogether regenerated, that governments will have to be administered on a different basis, that the general public will have to move up to a higher plane before we could consider government operation and ownership of railways as a practical proposition.
In a democratic state there never will be a government railway operated in successful competition with a private railway.
And he seems to take the position that until that occurs which he says will never occur, his argument remains good. Well, his statement is so laid that it is beyond the reach of demonstration. What would be ' successful competition ' of a state-owned railway in a democratic state with a privately-owned railway ? What would be the relative quality of success. A private railway is operated for private ends, for private profits. Its success depends on its being able to get the maximum rate and make tiie maximum profit. But with the publicly-owned road in a democratic state the object is to serve the public-it is a public end, and not a capitalistic end that is to be obtained. Success ? How can success be measured in a matter of this kind ? Well, let us take a parallel case. Speaking of railways in this country or any other country where the railways are privately owned, we should lay it down as a rule that a small railway cannot successfully compete with a big transcontinental line. That seems to be a proper way to state the question. And, until you cau show a small road successfully competing with a big one, the hon. member for Hants would not agree 286
that competition is possible. Well, the outcome of this kind of test is that the big road acquires and extinguishes the small one. That is success in the big road. What has been the experience in those democratic states and the other states where there has been public operation of railways? Every time, the result has been that they have acquired the other roads. That is their success. To make his statement good, the hon. gentleman quoted the cases of Belgium and Prussia. Now, I imagine that he did not quote them as democratic states, but it is true they did, have an experience of partial government operation and partial private operation of railways. What lias been the result ? I would direct the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Russell) attention especially to this. As he has referred to the matter, I will give him the result in these two countries :
When Prussia took over the railways (passing the law near the close of 1879 and taking the roads soon after), one of the first steps of the government was a great reduction of rates, with the result of a great increase of traffic. The policy of reduction has been continued, and the rates are now among the lowest in the world, as will appear shortly, yet the roads pay very well, indeed. Prussia is realizing a profit of $75,000,000 a year on the railways above operating expenses and interest, and in the last fifteen years she has realized a clear profit of $500,000,000 above operation and interest. The capital has been very greatly reduced. I cannot state the exact figures, but it is the policy of the government year by year to make certain payments reducing the capital, so that by the middle of the next century there will he no capitalization of the railways at all.
Is that an answer to the hon. gentleman's challenge? Is that any evidence of the success of state-operated roads in competition with private roads ? It can hardly be denied that success has been obtained, for private roads have been absorbed. Now, take the case of Belgium :
The Belgian government, at the outset, established very low rates-about four-fifths cent a mile.
Hear that, Canadians.
Later an express service was started at somewhat higher rates, but the ordinary fares were reduced from time to time, and are still the lowest in the world, except perhaps, on some of the lines in India. The average fare, third-class, in 1898, was two-thirds of a cent a mile, and on the whole traffic, including all the classes, the average fare was 0'88 of cent a mile.
And then the hon. member for Hants, to make his point good, referred to the handicap the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was under in trying to operate the Intercolonial before it was extended so that it could compete for traffic. Well, that is "*ranted But what would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) do ? He was. in favour of that extension to Montreal where the Intercolonial could compete for the whole



traffic of tfie west. But I find it is not only the principle of government ownership that the hon. member for Hants finds fault with, but he isi very sarcastic in his description of those who advocate that principle. He tells us, on the information of Mr. Ackwcrtli :
that the movement for government operation is like the scarlet fever. It is liable to attack any community and at irregular intervals to become epidemic, but its attacks as a rule are severe, only in the case of the younger and more irrepressible portion of the population.
I think, if the hon. member's statement is to be taken seriously, that there is a large amount of fever of this kind among the irrepressible, the youthful, and the folly-stricken in this country at the present time. He admits that he made an exception of the the two ex-ministers in this House. And he admits also :
Now, I must admit at the outset, that I have a great degree of sympathy with the views those hon. gentlemen have presented to the House. I have been at times seriously threatened with the symptoms of the disease with which they are afflicted.
He admits that he at one time was afflicted of the disease. But he has got better. Oh, yes. And it is to be noted that his recovery was remarkably rapid and remarkably complete. And now we are told that those who believe in and advocate the government ownership of railways are the cranks, and; schemers, the youthful portion of the population, the hopeful, the optimistic. Well, if that is true, the hon. gentleman must carry out his own logic in its application to the nations of the world. And I would like to line up the nations of the world according to the standard set by the hon. member for Hants. He can say at once, as he does say to Canada : Be quiet : Agitation cease :	You have the railways :
You have not been imposed upon by the young, the hopeful, the optimistic. Of course, you have a great deal of agitation upon this subject, but that is ail a mistake. You, fortunately, through a good deal of tribulatiou, chose the right way ; you were led by the wisdom and experience of the older heads. And he will say to Britain : This sentiment expressed for so many years in your country that you would like to'have an opportunity of again inaugurating this railway system is all wrong. You started exactly right ; your older and wiser heads were the ones that' had control of your affairs when this policy had its inception. It is true you have complained that for years continental products have been delivered at your ports, and to your interior cities, at lower freight rates than are given to neighboring towns in your own country. It is true you have had to send goods from Liverpool to Newr York and ship them back to London, because it is cheaper to do than to ship them 20(1 miles by rail direct to London. That is all very true. But you are


Arthur W. Puttee: quite mistaken in the conclusion you draw. The great army of railway workers of Britain who are working for far less wages than those employed in other branches of industry in that country, look across to the continent and wonder how it is that understate operation there the operatives of the railway lines are better paid relatively than other labour in those countries. They may wonder how it is that it is sixty-four years since the parliamentary rate of oue penny per mile was passed and it has never been improved on leaving Great Britain today one of the highest priced countries for railway travelling in the world. They may wonder how these things are, but the member for Hants tells them * you are right, you are old and not young.' And to the United States with its marvellous railway development he says that the agitation there has been a mistake. Nearly forty state railway commissions have been called into existence for nothing, they were only dreams or were created to rectify grievances that evidently never existed. They complain there that the railway monopoly was the father, sponsor of all the big monopolies, that it has discriminated against and ruined cities and even states and that It has corrupted legislators and judges and that it Is to-day and has been for years past enabled to put a restraining influence even on the professors of sociology and political economy so that this rising generation shall not know even of the wisdom of these men who put aside all of these little follies in the early years so that wiser heads prevailed and they kept clear of state ownership and operation. It would be novel indeed to hear Chancellor Bismarck charged with being carried away with youthful fancies and follies. He was wrong, the member for Hants says he was wrong, that he was foolish in 1876 when he told Prussia that it was-time to put a stop to the exploitation of the public for private interests, when he said that the carrying ou of these roads was to all intents a public service and when he said it should be done by the public and for tlie public. He was wrong, the member for Hants told us so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Arthur W. Puttee: And Australia, democratic Australia, you started wrong. The successes that you achieved are bad, you have started wrong, you have allowed your young men to prevail, those who would prefer to run Australia for the benefit of the people who are in Australia, you who have got a railway system to which as a matter of fact we do not pay much attention in Canada. Great Britain and the United States, because it compares favourably under state ownership with our own. You have been mistaken. Nova Scotia is willing to correct you.
And democratic New Zealand, New Zealand who have been so remarkably successful

ill sociological experiments that other nations have not dared to attempt. In New Zealand where you have at last found out a way to construct branch lines to districts where there seem to be no call for them whatever, where it is being done now by contract with settlers that come to settle upon the lands which the branches shall serve. These men enter into a contract with the government that in addition to clearing the lands and planting crops they shall also construct the right of way and grade up everything ready for the metals and do it at so much a day. Thus living right there they construct their lines even in the districts that are so poor-and they have many districts poorer than ours-too poor to support a good line of railway, but they have these railway branches built in this way and have thus a sufficient supply and service to meet their needs and they have arrived to that extent at the very forefront of democratic operation and ownership of railways. But the member for Hants says if you do not fall in with his theory, you are behind the times.
What shall I say about Switzerland V Surely here is a case of the old growing young, a nation that started wise becoming foolish. A country, remember, composed of more, varying peoples, languages and religions than are settled on any other spot of similar size, who have been able to so govern themselves as to live together in peace, as to be a model for the continent in which they are located. These people have been getting worse. They started with private roads and it was only five years ago, only in 1898 I believe,' that by popular vote by two to one these people showed evidence of this youthful fever and converted every private railway within their bounds into a public railway and are to-day operating them themselves with remarkable success.
Well, are there no others ? Yes, surely there are others, there are two others. There is Spain and there is Mexico. The hon. gentleman will like his company. Take Spain for instance. I can imagine the hon. gentleman telling Spain that she is the model of wisdom, that her people are the old heads, that they are not feverish and I can imagine the candid man in Spain replying to the member for Hants, ' yes, we" have been before reminded that we are a back number.'
And Mexico. Well Mexico is in our class. The member for Hants has said so. And China. Here is proof positive that they are in the sear and yellow leaf of wisdom for they have not only refused to operate railroads, not only have they given such railroads as they have over to private control and private profit, but they have kept to this principle with the post offices and have left them to private control. China indeed. China must be the apex of the hon. gentleman's logic.
2861 [DOT]
And, Sir, I forgot to mention in passing in connection with the case of Great Britain that the gentleman to follow out his reasoning would commend them for their system although they so bitterly regret that is was ever started on the private system. This country that has confusion worse confounded in the railway world is the country that has been most successful in operating a post office system, one with an adaptability and elasticity and usefulness to the people of the country that make it a model to all democratic people and this applies not only to the post office but to the telegraph service as well. You find them here, these two principles operating on the same ground and operating so diversely and how the hon. member for Hants feels so sure in congratulating that country on the private ownership of the railroads is more than I can understand.
In passing let me mention one point from which the hon. gentleman extracted much fun, and why he did so I cannot imagine. He wanted to know whether, if we nationalized this road or any other -road, we in Canada who are not used, as a matter of fact, to very large salaries, would be prepared to sit quietly and see any commission or government hire railway operators or managers at $40,000 or $50,000 a year-yes, $50,000 a year, and they go all the way up to $75,000 a year, I believe. It is true that men do get these salaries

five, six and seven times as large as are. paid to the Prime Minister of this country. I wonder that the hon. gentleman did not see that that was one of the evils of the very system he was defending. These men cannot earn as much as $70,000 a year at such employment. Are these experts in this business so vastly superior to men who are fitted and well fitted to be the Premier of this country; to be cabinet ministers or judges, or to take up the leading positions of life, that they can command ten times the salary paid to those occupying the high positions which I have enumerated ? It seems to me that the argument is against the hon. gentleman. If we did take over these roads, if we did at the present time proceed with a national policy of railway construction and operation, perhaps we might, and perhaps we would have to, and perhaps it would be profitable for us, to pay the high salaries that others pay. It seems to me quite likely that we would have to do as other roads do, and we would find ourselves doing what has become too common a practice in this country, going across the line to the United States and giving to the citizens of that country all the big salaries that we have to pay. We might have to do that, but I believe we could soon train our own people to be more successful managers than we could get from amongst the people to the south of us who would not be acquired with the system in this country. I believe we could very well train men in this country to take

provincial governments for subsidies and grants of moneys and lands of large proportions for these corporations ;
And Khereas the policy of bonusing with money and bestowing the public lands on such corporations is vicious in principle, and has resulted in grievously burdening the settlers, and provides all the incentives for corruption in political life ;
And, whereas another development of this system is becoming prominent in the transferring of large blocks of land to irrigation companies ;
Therefore, be it resolved, that we reiterate our opposition to all proposals for the continuance or extension of the iniquitous bonusing policy, or pledging the public credit for private interests, and affirm our belief that this is an opportune time to enter upon an unqualified system of government acquisition and construction of railways, including the extension of the Intercolonial Railway through to the west.
That was the invariable conclusion of these resolutions. That resolution was Passed at a meeting in Winnipeg on March 12, the day on which this House met.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay a little attention to the contract we are discussing. My principal objection to that contract is that it is a contract, made by the government of Canada with private persons who seek to secure the carrying out of a public service. As an advocate and supporter of the government ownership of railways, my principal objection to this contract is that it is a contract. For that reason I do not compare it with the old Canadian Pacific Railway contract. I have never been accused of saying much that could be construed as being favourable to the government or the parliament that endorsed that contract. It seems to me that it would be absurd to rejoice over a contract that gave $35,000,000 in constructed works, $25,000,000 in money, 25,000,000 acres of land, exemption from taxation for twenty years and an absolute monopoly for twenty years, wholly into private hands, practically without any reservation or real control. In addition to this, the right to interfere with rates was put absolutely beyond our control. It was stated that the rates should not be interfered with until the company earned 10 per cent, and I suppose for all practical purposes that time will never come ; the company will see that it will not. In that respect the country must have been saved a lot of trouble in regulating the railway, because we contracted ourselves out of it.
I have never felt, even considering the times and the circumstances in which that contract was made, that the right and proper thing was done. I regret that when the country stood ready to do so much, it should not have done all-that evqn if it put into private hands the operation of the railway, it should not have retained the ownership, which it could almost have done with the money it put into the railway.
The present contract has been before the country for some weeks, and it is remark-


Arthur W. Puttee: able what little attention it is attracting. This big work and this big line of policy that has been outlined, does not touch the popular chord by any means. What a difference there would have been if there had been laid before the country a proposal for the construction by the government of a railway from the east to the west, the government retaining the ownership and control. As a matter of politics it would have been one of the most popular things that could have been devised. It would have got the assent of more people in this country than anything else that could be named. I recognize the objections which are urged against a course of that kind. The political objection is this, that the people, e' cn though you serve them, do not remain constant; that although you do what they desire, they forget ; that other questions come up, and they deal with them as they arise. The corporations do not. The corporations never forget. They never forget a friend. We have had experience of this in our province, and also in this Dominion. But that simply strengthens my position- my belief not only in the feasibility, but in the imperativeness, in the interest of good government, and of the country generally, of our owning and controlling these large services.
Looking over the clauses of this contract, and tracing the projected line, one is struck -and I do not care who that is or where he sits-with our intense ignorance of the country through which the greater part of this road is projected. It may be better than we suppose. We hope at all events that the country to the north of us is good country, that can be settled, and is worthy of development. Perhaps it is ; but whatever it is, we can never be disappointed or surprised, because we know nothing about it. It is best to acknowledge at once that we do not know what this north country is. If it turns out well, we shall be gratified. If it does not, let us hope that a railway will not be put through it. That I believe must be the ground on which this contract is entered into. This question of knowledge before action is a very important one. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was not a success. Had there been more deliberation, at all events had a proper route been chosen, the development of our western country would not have been retarded twelve or fourteen years, as it was. The country is developing now, people are going in, and it is taking the position we expected it to take. But for twelve or fourteen years it looked as if that were not going to be the case. We practically stood still during those years, and I cannot imagine that that would have happened if the Canadian Pacific Railway had been constructed through one of' those passes through which this contract contemplates that this new line will be taken. It was a

serious mistake to make in the first instance. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had been taken to Edmonton, probably by this time it would have been advisable to construct a line along the route where the Canadian Pacific Railway is now ; but the result of putting it there at that time was to retard the development of the country for twelve or fourteen years. We ought to have been in a far better position than we are to-day. The men who were in this country then know that their expectations for many years were not realized. If the Canadian Pacific Railway route had been better chosen, Canada would have been to-day far different from what it is. This is an important question, and I hope, whatever may be the necessities of the government, after this contract is ratified, if it is ratified, that they will not be led, notwithstanding the taking idea of rapid construction, to start constructing this line until they thoroughly understand where it is going and what is going to be its general condition. I must say that I think that that would be the right course to take, and one which would meet the necessities of the case. What is wanted in the immediate future is government connection between Winnipeg and the great lakes, and from the east of the lakes to the Intercolonial Railway. Giving those connections, we will be able to handle the traffic that will offer until we are certain that this road not only can be constructed, but will be constructed in the place best calculated to give the best results.
The hon. member for North Norfolk, (Mr. Charlton) attracted a good deal of attention, and properly so, but for the amount of ' ifs ' which he made use of in discussing the character of this proposed route between Quebec and Winnipeg. He did not at all commit himself to any statement that the ' ifs ' could be carried out. If the grades, if the general conditions of the country, and so on were of such a character, it might be possible to transport grain from the prairies of the west to St. John in the east. That was as far as the hon. member would go, and that simply confirms the opinion I am trying to put before the House that we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by any idea of rush in this matter. It is better to provide the required facilities to the lakes and then from the lakes to Montreal and the eastern coast rather than start this work, which it will take years to complete in any case, and which, when completed, may enable the hon. member for North Norfolkj to say : You did not consider my ' ifs,' and the road is not fulfilling the purposes for which it was intended.
The hon. member for North Norfolk gave all his attention to the section from Winnipeg to Quebec. True he was dealing with that because that is the government constructed portion ; but as far as the traffic is concerned-and the great object of this
proposed line is to give an outlet to the traffic of the west-why should not the government construct and own the whole line from the east to the coast ? The hon. member for North Norfolk, however, left the west to take care of itself. But the far west, which is the new west that is being developed, is too far west, and St. John and Halifax are too far east, for us to pay attention only to the grades ou the eastern section. The waters of the west are too near the far west, and if the position be such-and there is hardly any doubt that it is-that it will be practicable to take the products of the far west to the waters of the west, it would be suicidal to allow any private company to refuse to overcome the grades and the obstacles that exist in the Rocky mountains for the sake of forcing traffic right across this continent to the seaboard of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. However much sentiment there may be in the matter-and by the way our shippers in the west do not pay much attention to the sentiment of an all-Canadian line, it is the freight bills they look after-it would not be to our advantage, as a nation, to attempt to force traffic over a continental haul to eastern ports, if that is going to cost more than to send it across the Rockies and put it on board ship at a Pacific port. At present the products of the western states are being exported from San Francisco. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) told us the other night that as the chain of mountains in British Columbia go north, they also go west, so that our western country is nearer the Pacific ocean than are the western states. If the transcontinental railway is going to be the benefit to Canada which it can be, no expense should be spared- and I doubt if a private company would most effectively do this-in keeping the grades through those mountains down, so that our traffic from the west would be able to go a few hundred miles into Fort Simpson. The products of the western states are carried around Cape Horn, and the products of British Columbia and west of the mountains, are to a large extent, carried around Cape Horn. But that is not always going to be the case. How long will it take to complete this projected work ? Five years is the first estimate, but suppose we say eight years, in that time the United States expect to have the Panama canal constructed. That canal is going to make a vast difference in the Pacific trade and also to our western ports. It is going to make it impracticable to ship grain 3,000 miles by rail when you are within a few hundred miles of Fort Simpson. Yesterday's cable news gave the information that the Colombian senate had rejected, for the time-being, the contemplated treaty with the United States for the acquisition of this tract, but they have simply given the Colombia government power to make the

necessary treaty, and the supposition is that they are simply expecting to get some concessions. The United States have got their preparations made and have parties organized ready to go down to the Panama canal, and expect to complete that work in eight years. And as the cost is only $150,000,000, there is no reasonable doubt that they will carry the work through as soon as they get the necessary rights. But even if they do not. they will then build the Nicaraguan canal. This was the canal which they had selected, and which would have been in proceess of construction by this if the old Panama Company of France, had not offered its old works at a reasonable price. In all probability this Panama canal will have an immense influence on the western traffic of this country. It will reduce the time to the old country tremendously and at once put freight rates, for the products of the west, far below what we may expect, even with the low grades to be hoped for over 3.000 miles of rail haul. I am surprised that the hon. member for North Norfolk should have overlooked this matter of grades in the west. Surely if we are goiug to guarantee a line in the west, there must be some importance in that question. The reason why a great deal of trade has not already gone through the Canadian Pacific Railway to the port of Vancouver is the excessive grades on that road, owing to the ill-judgment of the locators in constructing it through the Kicking Horse pass.
As regarls the running rights under this contract, I have heard them discussed from every point of view, and an ordinary person would be excused for saying that the possibility of various railways exercising running rights over one line depended altogether on who was speaking. But looking at the contract, I see that all railways are to have just about the same rights as they have under the Railway Act. They have running rights, if they want them, under terms that are favourable to the company that grants them. But the Intercolonial has special privileges over that road, which, if hon. gentlemen on the other side were not attempting to reduce the character of the Intercolonial, might at some time be used to make the Intercolonial a trunk line. But I do not think there is any intention of doing so, and the cause to which I have referred will probably never be taken advantage of. But this does not begin to meet my views of a government trunk line. I can thoroughly understand that many hon. gentleman would not be prepared to support my views in favour of the nationalization of railways who would yet commit themselves altogether to government ownership of the trunk line. So. it seems to me, I have a right to look in this contract for a proper scheme of a government trunk road. Taking the plain meaning of the contract and the circumstances under which it was drawn up, we can only Mr. PUTTEE.
conclude that the object to be attained is this : There is a large section of this country in which we fear there will be no local traffic, but through which must be hauled the grain of more prosperous districts. If the government builds that road and so controls the capitalization, it can keep down the rates on this non-productive and costly7 road to the actual cost of construction and hauling. That appears to me to be the proper meaning for me to take out of the contract. But if this is the object, it seems to me the government should build the road from Quebec to Winnipeg and put it in charge of an operating company and keep that as a trunk road for the use of all parties who want to use it. The operating company would have nothing to do with individual shippers or with freight bills or collections. It would simply take the cars from the companies delivering them at terminal points or branch line points wherever indicated. It would provide the motive power of course, and the necessary staff to pass over that trunk line all cars that were given into its hands. There would be no duplication of authority ; there would be no question of running rights; no question whether it would be possible, or practicable or profitable for the operating company to grant running rights to other companies. They would be an operating company only, and there would be no possible friction. Early in the history of the road, it could be demonstrated what it actually costs to haul a car a mile, and that would be the basis of the price to any one who wanted to send a car over the road. If local trade should be developed, some arrangement could be made with another company to pick it up, or the operating company itself could pick it up. Outside of that, all traffic should be passed through in bulk, in carloads. This, it seems to me, would be a proper government trunk road. If run in this way it would be of some use to the west. For any districts in the west that were settling up, if the companies for any reason did not see fit to put in a branch line, or if the people did not want to be in the hands of a large corporation, the people themselves could form a company or a small body7 of capitalists could construct a road to the point where the freight would be handed over to the trunk road, and they would send their traffic over that road on equal terms with all others. It would be understood exactly7 how much it would cost to pass a car over the road, so that the charge to all would be known to everybody, and the other roads would simply give their price to haul to Winnipeg where the traffic could be handed over to the trunk line. This, it seems to me, would be a proper plan for a government-constructed and government-owned trunk line. I am surprised that it has not been adopted in this case, that is, while recognizing the fact

that the government does not believe in government ownership and is not prepared for the nationalization of the railways, yet wants to do everything possible to develop the country and to avoid putting it in the hands of railway corporations. That, it seems to me, would be a proper way to spend the people's money on a trunk road.
Now, Mr. Speaker, other gentlemen far more competent than I am, have dealt with the matter of guarantees and the general bonding privileges of this road. I have not much to say on that subject. But I have listened attentively to the explanations that have been given by others. We are to pay all the money for the construction of this expensive, non-productive eastern section, and we are to guarantee 75 per cent of the balance of the cost from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada guarantees the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for the other 25 per cent. The government, I suppose, gives the first guarantee, and I do not quite understand what is the value of, or necessity for. the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. For the last few years, the company has been in better shape than formerly, but I do not regard its position as superior to that of the government. Just what is the use of their guarantee I do not quite understand. It reminds me of a few lines the poet put together in this form :
In Klon, that town of monks and bones, And pavements fanged with murderous stones,
And hags and rags and hideous wenches,
I counted two and seventy stenches All well-defined and separate stinks,
Ye nymphs that reign o'er sewers and sinks, The River Rhine, it is well known,
Doth wash your city of Colonge ;
But tell me, nymphs, what power divine Shall henceforth wash the River Rhine.
And when this guarantee was explained to the House the question struck me : Who is going to guarantee the Grand Trunk ? The country is, of course. Well, if we have to guarantee everything, for there is no doubt that practically the credit of the government is involved in these railways; why do we not construct them and own them ?
How does the account of the Dominion of Canada stand with regard to its railway operations ? I take from the Statistical Year-book the following facts :	Bonuses
granted to railways, 852,831,000. Suppose we strike an average between the estimate of the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific and add $70,000,000 for that. Then, the government roads owned and operated by the government represent an expenditure of $74,194,000. This makes a total of $197,026.000 in money spent on the railways- the greater part of the national debt. The number of acres of land granted to railways is 58,288,092. Of course, about 8,000,000 acres have been granted by the province,
but all out of the public domain. But we will say 48,000,000 acres. The bigger part of the national debt and 48,000,000 acres of land and what have we got for it ? Surely we ought to have a lot, the biggest part of our national debt Is on this debtor account of the railway ledger. What have we got ? Well, in two or three generations we shall have, provided these corporations do not get so large as to be able to negotiate with us beforehand, in two or three generations we shall have a trunk road there, to hand over to posterity. It will have no branch lines and no connections but there will be a road. Of course the bonds will have to be floated again, it has to be bought about that time but we shall have the road ; and then we have the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railway. The Intercolonial as far as it is possible and practicable seems to me at present to be a first-class railway. There has been a good deal of money spent on it, and I believe the late Minister of Railways and Canals is justified in boasting that he has brought that road up to the condition of a really useful practical railway of first-class character. We are going to relegate that to a second-class character, and then all we have got is our interest simply as users of the other railways of the country when we have to travel and we have to pay a high rate for that. I believe that our passenger rate is practically higher than on any other extensive system in the world. We have given the bigger part of our national debt, we have given a kingdom in lands and that is the way the ledger stands at the present time. Why, Sir, 1 never feel that I have to apologize, that I have to plead my youth or my rawness or my optimism when I say I am in favour of national railways, and at this time, when the opportunity presents itself and has to be met as perhaps never before ; it seems to me that this is the opportune time, to start on the method that lias been tested the world over and proved successful, the method of the government not only paying for and constructing and owning but also operating its own roads.
Mr. Speaker, I came to this House four years ago an advocate of the nationalization of railways. There is a good deal of opportunity during the protracted sojourns that we have in this city for a man to try his theories, to test his beliefs, to hear and to read the other side. The magnificent library in connection with this parliament is of great value in this respect particularly. We can not only see and read and understand what we have in our own country but we can understand and become acquainted with what has been done under other systems in other lands and other continents. I say that for four years I have watched the work of this House. A greater part of our time has been taken up with struggles in the Railway Committee especially, with all kinds of Bills, some legitimate enough, some

good enough considering our policy, and some bad enough. I have noticed that the promoters of the worst ones have generally tried to get a certain following on one side of the House and then to make it a party question when their Bills would often not stand close straightforward criticism; they try to make it a party measure so as to get it through the House. I have seen during this time, every member has seen it, and must liave been impressed as much as I have with the amount of time and the amount of trouble and even I believe the amount of loss to public rights that has been caused by the passage through this House time after time, session after session, of railway Bills. I have seen too the lobbies filled with railway men, with their lawyers, the very best lawyers. They have their business to do under our system. I am not complaining while we follow the practice of granting charters, I am not finding fault with them, but I see they are here, they are the most prominent, outside the members themselves, the most prominent and most constant and the most devoted to their duties


An hon. MEMBER.: And the most aggressive.


Arthur W. Puttee: Yes. and the most aggressive of all those that are around this House, and I say that I have noticed these things. I have opposed every time the Subsily Bill. I am opposed to subsidies and these things have not made me more favourably disposed to them, and, Mr. -Speaker, I believe that my temperament is such that it inclines me, impels me often to take no part in a discussion or a debate for the fear perhaps of being considered as posing, as seeking simply to get a little notoriety, but I say I have the consent of any little intelligence that I have got in saying that this whole system is wrong, that it is an imposition on the people who sent us heite to look after their interests and their interests alone. It is a giving away of prerogatives and privileges, of property and resources that should only be used' and exploited for the public good and we give them for private good and for private benefit. I say we become forgers of fetters, creators of taskmasters for the very people of whose interests and whose interests alone we here as the parliament of Canada ought to be preservers and protectors. Believing that, Mr. Speaker, -believing that that principle is right, believing that it is practically unassailable, I think, and I have thought, that at this time at this change of the policy of the country that it was right and proper for me to put these sentiments of my own on record and to state exactly where I am on that railway proposition and those that have in the past come before this House.
Now, I want to deal shortly with the question of government ownership as it is before us, and although the hon. member Mr. PUTTEE.
for Hants seemed to think that those who proposed to advocate this principle were the few, were the cranks, the schemers, the youthful unreliabl-es and although 1 have not come to that conclusion by observing the members of this House during the last session. I have come to the conclusion and I believe there is a very strong feeling among the members of this House in favour of a new policy of this kind and that is one reason why I regret that this contract is brought down here as a contract so that it closed the mouths and changed the current of thought and changed the method of expression that would otherwise have been given by the members of this House.
But I am not so lonely, I quote here for instance from the hon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) who said :
My decided preference is for a government owned and government operated railway across the continent.
That is mine too, and the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, a man of experience, a man who has never that I can remember been in the habit of coinciding with the hon. gentleman who was last Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) the Hon. John Haggart, during this debate said :
There is no probability of this parliament acceding to any such thing as a government railway, although in my heart I believe, judging from the experience of other countries, that a government railway can be managed and run as economically as any other railway. My experience upon the Intercolonial Railway was that you could get a service as cheaply and buy supplies cheaper than upon any other railroad in Canada.
I do not feel as lonely as the hon. member for Hants would have the House believe.
I have quoted statements of two men whom we may look upon as being experienced in railway matters, as we have a right to do. A man who has been Minister of Railways and Canals for seven years and a man who has been in that position in previous years certainly have experience in these matters, and I consider that in this parliament we are bound to accept their opinions as having greater weight than opinions which are not based upon actual experience. The right hon. Prime Minister said :
I formed my opinions some years ago, and perhaps I may he permitted to relate a personal experience which went far to form my own conviction in this regard. In the fall of 1896, Mr. J. R. Booth, of this city, invited me to visit his railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway. which was then in process of construction. I accepted the invitation. The road had been built almost to the shores of Georgian bay, perhaps within half a mile of it. When we left the train we walked to the shore of the lake, a bleak shore with not a building upon it. Mr. Booth said : this is the terminus of my Railway. I asked Mr. Booth : Where is the trade to come from ? His answer was : I have to create it.

One of the first and most expensive and boldest tilings Mr. Booth did to create that trade was to construct the Canada Atlantic Railway. Is that not the experience in every case ? You have to provide the service first and if you do provide the service you can get the trade. Did the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), when he extended the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, go down there to create the trade ? No, he went there to accept the trade, he made it a success and the acquisition of that piece of road was the one thing that put the Intercolonial Railway in a better position than it had ever occupied before. The question which is now presenting- itself to us is really the one of ownership vs. control. We are now proceeding upon an attempt to control. Without going into the matter. I want to say that this has been a very thorny road to tread. It has not so far been* attended with any alarming amount of success. In the United States they have spent millions, they have had some forty state commissions and they have their interstate commerce commission, and yet they have been able to make no very great success out of it. We attempt to control railways for the sake of keeping the rates down, for the sake of serving our people better and for the sake of drawing the claws of the railway companies; of trying to hold them down, trying to prevent them from taking too much from us, but from all the experience that we have had in efforts of this kind this attempt is likely to be expensive as well as unsatisfactory. It would be better to face the alternative at once and adopt a national policy in railway operation.
Some hon. members have expressed themselves in favour of government ownership and they have told us that this contract is in itself one step towards government ownership. Well, it may be or it may not be. Probably it will not have this effect ; certainly it has not had this effect so far because hon. gentlemen who have hitherto been supporters of the principle of government ownership are obliged to go back on their records, to go back on the arguments put forward by themselves in former times in favour of this principle and as a believer in it I do not accept this proposition as one step towards government ownership. Then, there is another reason to commend it, and it is this : If the operating company, the Grand Trunk Pacific, default, if they cannot pay the interest, the contract becomes null and void and the road becomes our own. not only our own to have and to hold, but to operate. In other words, if it is a success it belongs to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, but if it is a failure it belongs to the people of Canada. I was speaking of the account of the Dominion of Canada in regard to railway business. The opposite side of the picture is disclosed by our publie reports, which show that $03,000,000- the hon. Minister of Justice mentioned $S3,-000,000, and he is probably right-have been spent on our canals. We own our canals, because they are not interest earners. They do not produce interest and profit and therefore we own our canals. If the Grand Trunk Pacific is not a paying concern we will have all the duties of government ownership thrown upon us.
The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), who advocated very strongly the principle of government ownership this session in the Railway Committee has spoken on this question, but he has also found it necessary as an advocate and sympathizer with government ownership to change his position. He regrets that it is not practicable. He regrets that he finds it necessary to part with his hope of constructing and operating a transcontinental railway bv the government. This is the reason he gives :
Another feature of the government embarking in a general scheme of ownership of our lines of railway would be the questions that might arise in the future as to the construction of additional lines and of branch lines. There would also be involved, by reason of the pressure that might be exercised upon parliament. the question of the duplication of railway lines. There might be too tight a rein exercised, or it might be too free. It would all depend on the political pressure that would be brought to bear. To the extent that this might operate either in the one direction or the other, it would be productive of injury to the public interest. You could not be too stinted ; and it would not be in the public interest to have too free a hand. The interest of communities not served by railways, or not having the advantages of government lines, would always be brought to the front and parliament would be besieged time and again for the duplication of lines, in order that these communities might share in the advantages of government-owned railway's.
His objection to advocating this principle is that it would be impracticable, unprofitable and unsafe, because the government would be open to influences, that the people would use their influence to get lines constructed, deflected or duplicated. That is a line of argument that has been urged and sometimes it has been urged with some effect. But, what is the reverse ? Is it a defect that is inherent in public ownership ? I say not. It is merely a defect that is peculiar to our present system. I have never been along the line of the Intercolonial Railway, but I have carefully noted all that has been said in this House by men who know, and my firm belief is that there can be no reason for the construction of the new line from Quebec to Moncton, except that very political reason which the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) has urged against the policy of government ownership. That line may be profitable, and in the future necessary, but from the day the private Bill of the Grand

Trunk Pacific Railway was introduced until now, tlie only vital reason that has been given for the construction of that portion of the line, whether it parallels the Intercolonial Railway or not, is the reason that it is a political railway. That being true, and I submit to every reasonable man that it is true, there is no argument in it against the public ownership of this road. Indeed, it is an argument in favour of public ownership. I am opposed altogether to any system that would be open to abuses of this kind, and that could be effected by influences of this kind. The sad truth is, however, that railway matters do mix up with politics in this country. They meddle with our political institutions and, they meddle too effectively. There are too great interests involved in the private ownership of railways, and under our system of government these interests are altogether too powerful. There is no doubt that we often legislate in opposition to the general consensus of the opinion of this House, and against the intelligence of this House. We often legislate on railway matters in a manner that we would not legislate, if railway interests were less powerful than they are.
The trouble is with many of us that we are slaves to the thing that is ; that we have been reared, in contact with, the tiling that surrounds us, and that we are apt to believe in it just because it exists. We found it in existence here; we were born in it, some of us ; we cannot imagine anything else ; it is the thing that is, and we are committed to it. Last year I had the pleasure of meeting a gentleman who was then outside of Australia for the first time. He had been able to visit leisurely a great part of the United States, and he had travelled to a considerable extent through Canada. I met him on the steamer as we were leaving Canada for the old land, and finding that his comparisons between democratic Australia and the United States and Canada were most interesting, I asked him :	What strikes you as the most remarkable thing in this country, and he replied :	' The most remarkable thing to me
is that your railways are controlled by private individuals. I was born in Australia, where the railways are under public control, and having lived under that system it seems to me that in a great democratic country like this which declares that all men are born equal, and which provides that its citizens shall be well protected, 1 believe that the government itself should be the owner of the railways, and not tremendous railway corporations. It seems* to me, he said, although I do not know it, that these corporations must wield a powerful. and I would suppose, mischievous effect on the body politic. He was convinced that the wealth and Strength of these corporations. in promoting their own interests, which must necessarily sometimes be antagonistic to the interests of the public, must have a very pernicious effect on our political system. I have said we are slaves to that which is ; we are slaves to the things we are used to. Iin that instance this gentleman had been used to exactly the opposite system which we pursue in this country, and it was the strangest thing that he had met with on this continent.
Now, Sir, I want to lay down the proposition that railway transportation is properly a government function. When that is conceded, as conceded it must be. it tlieu becomes a question of expediency as to whether we should delegate our powers to private parties or whether we should exercise them ourselves. It never occurred to me but that this definition of the character of a railway would be properly understood, until I heard the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Morrison), a gentleman of the law, speak the other evening. He said :
The whole contract discloses the fact that the Liberal party have apparently, for the first time recognized the cardinal principle which seems to underly our constitution, and one which heretofore has been ignored by hon. gentlemen opposite, namely, the subordination of transportation corporations to the sovereignty of parliament.
He was of the opinion-and I do not blame him for not holding that opinion before, except that he may be blamed for having taken so long to learn it-he was of opinion that parliament is sovereign, that this matter of transportation is a function of government. We have wandered so far away from the recognition of the principle that even a lawyer is struck by the fact that we are coming back to it. In 1876, Bismarck explained that railway transportation was a function of government, and he proclaimed the doctrine for economic as well as for state and military reasons. John Stuart Mill, who is generally accepted as an authority who cannot be gainsaid on such matters, distinctly lays down the proposition that the operation of railways is a government function. Indeed, when we pass a railway Bill in this parliament, we put in a clause delegating our powers, when we state that the Act is for the general advantage of Canada. We recognize that we give to private parties powers that by right belong only to the government. The railway commissions of the United States in their reports to their various states and to the central government, are continually reiterating this principle. It seems as if they are doing it in a spirit of despair, for time and again they have to draw attention to the fact that the powers they are trying to control are powers that should belong to the government. And, Sir, that principle, conceded as it must be conceded, I lay down the further proposition that this power can be exercised by government aside from the influence of politics, and that it can be used by the gov-


Arthur W. Puttee: eminent for the public benefit without the damaging influence and interference of partisan politics. If this is a power that belongs to the government, we should not delegate it unless there are good and sufficient reasons. If it is a power that can be used by us and exercised by us properly for our own benefit, then I say it should be exercised by us for our own benefit. That it can be so exercised I am going to show by simply taking the experience of the colony of Autralia, as given by Mr. H. H. Lusk, who has been forty years in that colony, at one time being Secretary of State of New Zealand, and who has lived in the United States for three or four years, long enough to form a fair opinion of the system there.


Mr. COWAN.: What are you quoting from ?


Arthur W. Puttee: I am quoting from a report of a hearing before a Senate committee of the United States in 1900, given to Mr. Lusk, whom the hon. geutleman will recognize as an authority on Australian matters :
In Australasia altogether there are 15,000 miles of government railroads, and they are operated to the entire satisfaction of the people. There are no complaints whatever as to any favouritism as between one class of persons and another. There are no complaints as to discourtesy or want of attention on the part of officials, and there has absolutely, during the last ten years, been no complaint that politics has interfered in any way with them, and my only wish here is to state what our experience has been and, as far as I may, why it has been so. Now, I think that our experience, both of the efficiency of the service and of its absolute freedom from political abuses may be referred to the mode in which the service has been organized. You see, it is not merely that we have experts from the outside to manage it, but it is that every employee of the railroad is a civil servant of the government. Not one of them can be dismissed except for cause. Not one of them can be defrauded of his right of promotion if he deserves it, in his turn. Their rights in that way are strictly preserved to them by law. If complaint is made, the employee has a right to a public investigation before he is punished by degradation or loss of office. Up to a certain age, different in different colonies, they are entitled to remain in the service and in most of them, if not in all, there is a provision made for retiring allowances at an age which is fixed. :	.	.	. With regard
to the question of politics, there is no possibility of exercising governmental influence to make the men vote one way or the other.


The CHAIRMAN.: It is pretty difficult to get them to vote against the government ?


Mr.   LUSK@: Not the slightest in the world. Sometimes they do vote against the government. I remember one case in New South Wales in which the vote of the operatives of the railway was regarded as being very strong against the government, owing to certain legislation that was supposed to be opposed to the labour interst, and they naturally went for the most part in favour of the interest of labour, and they were certainly not in favour of the government at that time.
Then, referring to New Zealand and the question of political control there, he says : The thing would have been a dead failure if any attempt of that kind had been made ; but rio attempt was made.
I could make other quotations along the same line, blit I will not take up the time of the House with them. At the same time,
I believe that the matter which I have introduced from this report is valuable, and I have not seen it referred to before in this country.
I would like to call the attention of those hon. gentlemen who are opposed to this principle of government ownership on the ground that it is impracticable, to the similarity between the conditions existing in Canada and those In Australia. The people of Australia live under a government similar to ours, they speak the same language, they have the same sentiments, the same regard for their rights and the same business methods. They have practically a continent to govern, as we have. Their population is sparse, and it is important to them, as it is to us, to have lines of railway connecting the different parts of the country with each other. The mileage of their railways is large, as ours is. So that the comparison between the two countries is very apt. We have a population of over 5.000.000; they have a population of about 4.000.000. They have 15.000 miles of railway owned and operated by the government. We have over 18,000 miles. If I had time. I could quote from Mr. Lusk, to show that their experience of government railways has been altogether satisfactory. After living in tlie United States, where private ownership of railways is supposed to have reached almost the flower, he claims that the service there is not better than the service in his own country. In Australia, the value of money is not quite so high as it is in Canada ; but the rates on their railways 'are about the same as ours, except passenger rates, which, as in almost every other country, are far below ours. One thing that should not be forgotten is that on government railways, practically in all countries, school children are carried free. That country, which boasts of having made such a success of its railways, has a debt of $600,000.000 on account of the 15,000 miles of railways owned by the government-a good many of them constructed by the government, but the major portion of them, I believe, purchased from private parties, with all the disabilities that are incident to their construction and ownership by private parties. In Canada with between eighteen and nineteen thousand miles of road the liabilities are over a billion of dollars. It is not fair to contrast the United States railway system or even the British system, with that of Europe. The comparison between Canada and Australia is about as fair a one as can be made in a matter of this kind, and that comparison

is undoubtedly in favour of the government ownership and operation of railways. My great objection to private corporations operating railways under special privileges, and using powers delegated by the government, that properly belong to the government, is, after all that the system results in erecting vast private enterprises, which are naturally first and foremost for private interests, and not for the public interests. That is to a large extent the reason for my opposition to these private roads. I believe, too. that these private corporations do meddle in politics a great deal more than they care to admit and that the cause of good government will gain by not encouraging the formation of these corporations. The interests of good government lie altogether in the public ownership of our great railways. But, we are also far behind in our civil service, in the way we operate it, in the influences exerted upon it, and it seems to me that if we could reform that system, which is badly in need of improvement, it would be a good secondary result of a plan of government ownership.
Then, there is the question of discrimination-a question that can never be buried under a private railway system, a question that comes up now and again more strongly than at other times, that flourishes all the time in the United States, and is never absent from this country. The question of discrimination can never be settled except by the national ownership of railways. Then there is the other matter of fair and equal service to all. This is something which is no less important than low rates.
Before I close my remarks, I want to advocate what I think would be right and what I have advocated before in this House, and that is that questions of this kind should not be settled off-hand even in this parliament. This is a question which affects every citizen of this country. I would be prepared to support a policy of expending our own money on our own roads with the idea of keeping these roads and using them for our own purposes. But when we are making a contract with private parties, when we are giving them either our credit or large sums, when we are following a policy which, X am confident, the majority of the people would not approve, opportunity should be given to the people to declare their opinion on this policy before we finally adopt it. In my opinion, the people would gladly escape from this policy of bonusing and subsidizing and guaranteeing, which makes more distant the policy of the people owning and operating their own roads. Before committing the country to a contract of this kind, before committing it to the large expenditures involved in this contract, it is only fair that the people should have an opportunity of declaring whether they are in favour of it or opposed to it. I am a believer in the principle of the referendum. I believe that


Arthur W. Puttee: we would not be doing anything derogatory to the dignity of this parliament if this contract were sent to the country and submitted to the vote of the people. The question before the people would be this contract or public ownership. I believe that the people should be given the opportunity of declaring themselves on this question, irrespective altogether of partisan influence. I do not mean simply the return or the defeat of the government at a general election. At a general election all sorts of questions are discussed-separate schools, bonding privileges and railway policy, tariff, and each of these has more weight in some constituencies than it has in others. But what I submit is that this particular scheme should be referred to the people for tbeif sanction or rejection. As I have said before, I believe in the nationalization of railways. I have never seen the necessity for government ownership so strongly as I do at present, and I am going to place in your hand, Sir, an amendment declaring what a really national railway policy would be.
I beg to move, therefore :
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted :-
By reason of growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada, and especially the western part thereof, the time is opportune for 'he adoption of a definite policy of government construction and operation of railways, under a properly safeguarded civil service system, put entirely beyond the influence of partisan politics.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved that the House go Into committee on Bill (No. 229) for the relief of Ellen McDermid.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair,
I wish to point out one or two things with reference to this case. This Bill is for the relief of Ellen McDermid, who is described in the Bill as being from the village of Gilbert Plains, in the county of Marquette, in the province of Manitoba. This lady is obliged, if she has just cause for claiming a divorce-as, no doubt, she has-to come from Manitoba to Ottawa to secure that act of justice. She comes here at great expense, beyond question. The expense and difficulty of securing a divorce is so great that the only wonder is that the attempt was made at all. I desire to call the attention of the House, not for the first time,
I to the absurdity of our law. If divorce

is properly granted, if there is any reason why it should be granted, it is a judicial act, and an act of justice to the one making claim for relief. As it is an act of justice it should be obtainable without the expense and difficulty attending the present proceedings. This lady, if she has just cause for claiming divorce, should have had, by the law, facilities given her to obtain that act of justice with less expense and less difficulty. She should have been able to obtain it in the province of Manitoba. There should be some provision made whereby this judicial Act could be performed in that province instead of making It necessary for the claimant to apply to the parliament of Canada. I think that this case, among many others, illustrates in a striking manner tlie absurdity, to say nothing of the injustice of our laws.


Mr. CLARKE.: What would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) suggest ?


John Charlton: A divorce court. Some judge connected with the courts of Manitoba should be clothed with power to hear and deal with divorce cases without additional expense to the country and without very mucli additional trouble to the judges on whom that duty would devolve.
Motion agreed to ; Rill considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.


RELIEF OF STEPHEN WILSON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL (West York) moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 228) for the relief of Stephen Wilson.
John Charlton: We have here another case, Mr. Speaker, just a little worse than the one we have just dealt with. Mr. Stephen Wilson, I see, is a resident of Red Deer, in the district of Alberta, North-west Territories, who, this preamble recites, has just cause for asking for divorce. He was brought to Ottawa from Red Deer, away off in Alberta, to obtaip here an act of justice which, the law provides, shall be obtainable by him if the circumstances are such as to warrant it. Now, I would like to ask what reason there is for bringing Mr. Sephen Wilson to Ottawa ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: To get a divorce.


John Charlton: If Mr. Wilson is entitled to get a divorce, the law lays down the reasons for which he is entitled to it. If he claims that divorce under the law, there must be a judicial procedure to ascertain whether his claim is or is not well founded. About the most awkward body for this to be referred to that one could imagine is the Senate of the Dominion of Canada. If you referred it to a divorce court you would have a proper procedure,
and a proper decision in accordance with the law. Referring it to the parliament of Canada, great expense must be incurred, and there is, perhaps, some little doubt as to whether the decree will be obtained, some uncertainty as to the manner in which the committee will deal with the matter. At all events, it can be asserted without hesitation that the matter will not be dealt with more in accordance with the principles of the statute, the decision will not he prompter or more just in its character, than if the case were referred to a divorce court. I think it would be well to call attention to this absurdity time, and time, and time again, as often as a Bill of this kind comes before this House. It is a disgrace to this government, it is a disgrace to the parliament of Canada, that this condition of things is permitted to exist. I repeat that, if a divorce is obtainable, it is obtainable for cause. If there is cause, the law must define what it is. If there is cause defined by the law, the person who claims that he has just cause for seeking a decree of divorce should go to a divorce court, which should be constituted for the hearing of these cases. Let a proper class of judges in each province be authorized to hear these cases ; let the procedure be simple, speedy and inexpensive, instead of, as in a case of this kind, bringing a man here at an expense of $1,000 or $1,500, deterring many who are justly entitled to a decree of divorce from attempting to obtain it.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: 1 think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) could take a much more effectual way of having the law passed which he proposes. He brought in a resolution, which was discussed at some length, in favour of a divorce court being established. I had the pleasure of strongly supporting that resolution ; and I see that the different law societies in Ontario have, in very strong articles in their journals, backed it up. But, instead of taking up the time of the House mow, and on other occasions when these Bills come up, if the hon. gentleman would use his influence to induce the right hon. leader of the government, whom he follows most closely, to allow such a Bill to pass, his work would be much more effective. For the right hon. Prime Minister promptly sat on the hon. gentleman's resolution. Yet, the hon. gentleman follows his leader very closely. Although a year or two ago he seemed somewhat restive, he has suddenly become now a most devoted follower. If instead of delaying the House in going over a proposal which has been fully discussed, he should appeal to his leader and the leader of the House, and the controller of the destinies of this country. I think it is idle for the hon. gentleman to express these sentiments in public. He would better serve the object he advocates by bringing his influence to bear upon the right hon.

gentleman who leads the House, but who declines to allow his Bill to pass.


Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough).: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) for once is wrong. The very fact that a member cannot persuade the government which he supports to bring forward a Biil like that is no reason why he should not at every opportune time raise the question in the House. That is just the way that gains can be made. If as a matter of fact there should be a majority in the House opposed to the measure that is no reason why on every occasion the subject should not be brought up.


David Tisdale: He withdrew the motion, he did not press it to a division.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am one of those who are in sympathy with having a divorce court subject to the highest court in every province in the Dominion. But the only way we can gain that is as I said by on every occasion having the views of those who are in favour of it presented to the House.


David Tisdale: Then bring in a Bill.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We might not be able to carry it. You cannot change the views of a government on such a question and the majority of those who support the government may not be in favour of it and I understand that that has been the case with every government that ever existed in Canada.
I think on the general question of divorce the strongest case should be required to be made out, but I do think it a hardship in a case as clear as this that a man should have at great expense to come from the Northwest Territories here and to pay large fees and I shall in the House pursue the same course of expressing my views in the belief that the only way of gaining anything in a matter of this kind is by continually pressing for it notwithstanding the opinion that has been held by all governments in Canada. There never was a government in Canada that would bring in a Bill like this, that is the unfortunate part. In Nova Scotia we are much more favoured because like British Columbia and New Brunswick we had a divorce court previous to confederation and they could not take it from us. 1 think myself we should have this court, but I also think that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has a right on all occasions to bring his views before parliament. As I said before only on the strongest case being made out should a divorce be granted, but there are cases in all civilized countries in which I think it would be a great hardship that a man should be obliged to live with a woman or that a woman should be obliged to live with a man during a whole lifetime, and it is only by bringing it up on every occasion in the hope that a majority on both sides will


David Tisdale: join together to bring about that which no government up to this day has done that progress can be made.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: On this occasion I have to differ from the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). The question before the House is whether a particular individual is entitled to a divorce. We are not discussing the general question as to whether there ought to be a divorce court in this country or not. The objection taken by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) was that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was not discussing the Bill before the House. He was bringing up an abstract question with which we are not dealing at the present moment. Now, Sir, I think if we are anxious to promote the particular object which the two gentlemen opposite have been advocating the better way is to introduce every session a definite and positive resolution upon that question and discuss it in the House, not to bring it up on questions of this kind where, instead of helping the gentleman or lady, I do not know which it is who is seeking relief on this occasion, by discussing an abstract question we are departing from the question before the House as to whether we shall grant the relief asked for on this occasion or not.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill reported, read a third time-on division-and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway.
Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Speaker, this debate has continued for several days; it has been participated in by hon. members on both sides of the House with very great ability, and I would not presume to hope or think that at this stage I could add any new points to the discussion. The most I can hope for is to perhaps review some points brought up and to place them before the House in a slightly different light possibly from what we have heard them discussed by hon. members who have spoken. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) this afternoon or this morning, and I think both this morning and afternoon, spoke in regard to the opposition as having applauded the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he was making a speech in this House. Before proceeding to discuss this question I would like to draw the attention of the hon. membeT to the fact that so far as my observation goes the members on this side of the House have paid very little attention in their speeches to rvhat the ex-minister said ; they have *worked out this problem from their own

standpoint and I think they can be excused for applauding some of the things the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said, some of the principles he enunciated. The members on the government benches have as a matter of fact taken up five or six times as much time in discussing the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals than the members on this side of the House. There is another matter to which I would like to draw attention. I notice in one of the newspapers published in Toronto, a paper which lends its support to the Grand Trunk Pacific project very earnestly and very enthusiastically, that that paper is giving out from time to time reports of surveys which are being made from Winnipeg east as far as the Quebec boundary. Jt is stated in that paper that these surveys are being made by the Grand Trunk Railway. I would like to inquire from the government why it is that the Grand Trunk Railway are making these surveys. As 1 understand it this railway is to be built by the government and as I understand the situation it seems to me the government should send out exploration parties and survey parties and that as fast as these parties are able to make reports these should be placed on the Table of this House. I would like to have some member on the opposite side of the House explain what is the reason that the Grand Trunk Railway are making these surveys and whether the government intend to act upon the surveys which are made by the Grand Trunk Railway.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the observations which were addressed to this House by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I listened to what he had to say in regard to patriotism and I also hadi in my mind when he was speaking the position 'he took upon this question in May last. The hon. gentleman referred to the question of the patriotic motives of hon. members on this side of the House and I wish to refer very briefly to that subject. I shall read what he said :
A first-class road from Winnipeg to Quebec and the maritime provinces for the purpose of securing the trade of the North-west for these ports-that is the object had in view by the government, that is the purpose they intend to attempt to attain ; and if our hon. friends on the opposite side wish to throw obstacles in the way of that purpose, I merely say that in that regard they are not patriotic.
I think that might have come perhaps with better grace from some other hon. member on the other side of the House. The question suggested itself to my mind when the hon. gentleman used these words whether the hon. gentleman had any recollection of document No. 4062 which was filed with Secretary Carlisle of the United States government, indexed ' Charlton, John,' on behalf of the Michigan lumber interests iu which document, which was pre-287
sented as a petition, the hon. gentleman undertook to advise and petition the United States government in connection with the framing of the Wilson Tariff Bill, that, in case the Canadian government imposed an export duty on logs, power should be taken under the Wilson Bill to revert to the McKinley tariff and put a higher duty on Canadian lumber ? These sentiments came with ill-grace from that hon. gentleman and I hope we will hear no more on that subject from any other hon. member on that side of the House. I think we are perfectly justified in criticising this proposition now before the House and that our patriotic motives should not be questioned.
But, the hon. gentleman was put up by the government to reply to a speech made by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and I listened with very much interest to what the hon. gentleman had to say remembering what he had said a few weeks ago on this very subject. When the hon. gentleman stood up to address the House I wondered what he was going to say. I wondered whether he would approve the government policy or disprove of it in some respects because he was clearly on record as being opposed to this scheme in May last. I wish to draw the attention of the House to what he said on that occasion. He spoke as follows :
That trade will seek the waters of the great chain of lakes ; inevitably, during the season of navigation, that grain will he carried to Lake Superior, and improvements have been made in the construction of lake vessels and the deepening of channels between the head of Lake Superior and Buffalo, which enable forwarders to secure the shipment.of wheat from Duluth or from Port Arthur to Buffalo at a ridiculously low rate as compared with rates prevalent a few years ago. For a cent and a quarter or a cent and a half per bushel, you can lay down your wheat at Duluth or at Port Arthur, and a cent and a half will put it in
an elevator at Buffalo	So you have
the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for within three cents a bushel, or at most within four cents a bushel. Now there are conditions which render it, in my opinion, impossible at present to compete with that route. It is useless to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all-rail route to Quebec

That was three months ago.
-or to Halifax at prices such as those I quoted with regard to the American lines.
Then he went on to say :
If, after having given to our seaports connections in the form of a railway to Quebec right through the country, and a railway from Quebec for winter communication with Halifax and St. John, we attempt in addition to affording facilities and the best facilities that can be given, roads with low grades and great capacity for hauling heavy loads-not the loads that can be hauled over the New York Central and Lake Shore of 2,000 tons to a train-to force trade over these roads we will make a mistake, because we have to allow this trade to find a natural outlet	We must



simply make with care and .nalce efficiently provision for securing this trade in our own seaports under circumstances which are possible, having regard to our natural facilities and natural advantages.
Then he went on to say :
I do not believe that we are in a condition to-day, even if we decided to improve the Ottawa River Valley route, to decide what are the proper conditions upon which to proceed. For this reason I think the appointment of a commission to take this whole question under consideration is in the highest degree desirable, is not only desirable but is necessary. We are now confronting conditions that require careful consideration. We are called upon to inaugurate a policy and to proceed in a direction that has for its purpose the affording to the great North-west of transportation facilities. It is beyond all things necessary that we should make no false step, that we should proceed upon no false hypothesis or basis ; and for that reason it is a wise thing to appoint a commission, composed of men who are capable of examining this question and arriving at correct conclusions. We oanuot do it here in an expert and scientific manner, we must rely upon the service of men of the character of those who are to be composed of this commission. Let us wait until we have the decision of these men as to the proper course to pursue.
It is said by the right hon. leader of the government that time will not wait. Well the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is willing to wait. We had the hon. gentleman giving the House the benefit of his knowledge and talking in a way directly opposite to these sentiments. If this is the course which hon. gentlemen opposite are going to take reliance cannot be placed upon their statements. They should not change their ground quite so soon.
As far as this transcontinental railway policy is concerned I wish first to say in regard to the Grand Trunk Railway that I feel I ought to congratulate the company on having at its head a man of such marked ability as Mr. Charles M. Hays, the general manager. It would be a good thing for the North-west Territories and for the development of transportation facilities if we could get the Grand Trunk Railway into that country under the able management of that gentleman, because I think we could accomplish a great deal. I think if we could do so it would be a good thing for the North-west Territories, good for the Grand Trunk Railway Company and good for the country generally. The position seems to be, however, in regard to this project, as far as the eastern end of it is concerned, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company and Mr. Hays did not want it, that they do not want it now, that it has been forced upon tbe Grand Trunk Railway Company and as a result we have before us a bargain which is full of complications and is going to lead to a great amount of trouble in the future. No doubt what has given rise to tbe discussion of this question of Increased facilities in the North-west was the congestion which took place throughout that i Mr. KEMP.
country last fall, a congestion caused by tbe shortage of cars and motive power on the Canadian Northern and Canadian Pacific Railways. This is what brought about this discussion, and this is why a great deal of enthusiasm has been created over tbe project we now have before us. I wish to say that it was my hope, and I stated it publicly, that when the government brought before the House this transportation policy hon. members on this side of the House would find it to be their duty to support it.
I felt that it was impossible for us to be opposed to it. I felt that the appointment of a commission was a step in the right direction, and I felt that we would be able to support the policy of the government. It has been charged by bon. gentlemen opposite that we on this side of the House are making the same mistake in criticising this policy of the government that the Liberals did in criticising the policy of tbe Conservative government in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway project. The ground which these hon. gentlemen take is false ground. They have no cause for making such statements. I submit, Sir, that the Conservative party have not made any very great errors in respect to any great national policy which they have ever propounded to this country. The Conservative party made no mistake as to our fiscal policy ; they made no mistake in regard to commercial union with the United States.


Edward Cochrane: No, siree.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You made a bad mistake in 1896.


Edward Cochrane: The country made that mistake.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Conservative party made no mistake with regard to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, nor in regard to any other great national policy which they have submitted to tbe people of Canada. Let me point out briefly tbe history of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project. The idea seemed to prevail in certain quarters that the Canadian Northern Railway was a ripe apple ready to drop from the tree into the hands of certain men and certain financial interests, and so they prepared to gather it in. On the 24th of November last the plot or tbe scheme or whatever you like to call it, was launched on the public in the form of an interview given to tbe ' Globe ' newspaper by Mr. Hays, general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway. In the ' Globe ' of the following day an editorial pointed out, that tbe interview of the previous day was an official one given by Mr. Hays. That interview stated among other things, that the Grand Trunk Railway intended to purchase the Canadian Northern Railway, and when Sir Charles Rivers-Wil-son came to Canada he also stated that such was the intention of the Grand Trunk Railway. In due course Mr. Mackenzie, of the [DOT]

Canadian Northern Railway, stated that the Canadian Northern Railway would not sell out, but that on the contrary they intended to build east to Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec. The Canadian Northern Railway proceeded to carry out its design, and they acquired the Great Northern to Quebec, and they also acquired a charter to enter New Brunswick. After this matter had been discussed In the public press for a month, and after a good deal of alarm had been expressed by the public as to whether it was the intention of the government to put through the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and also to bonus the Canadian Northern Railway, on the 24th of December the Toronto ' Globe ' stated editorially that two lines would not be bonused, I take it for granted that this statement was inspired, because I do not think the ' Globe ' would undertake to speak for itself on such a matter without having some indication as to what the government intended. Mr. Hays had been to Ottawa on previous occasions with regard to this matter, as reported in the public press, but on the 4th of December he came here and interviewed the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe there was a cabinet meeting on that day, and it was stated in an interview by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that Mr. Hays had been acquainted with the views of the government in respect to this transportation question. Nothing of moment occurred until parliament met, and then we read these words in the speech from the Throne :
The graat influx of population into our North-western Territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
That announcement was followed by the Order in Council dated 'May 19th, under which a commission was appointed to inquire into the transportation question and was given instructions as to what the nature of their Inquiry should be. This document has been read to the House before, tuft the principles laid down in it are so sound and patriotic, that it cannot be read too often, and therefore I intend to submit it to the consideraion of the House. It says :
On a report dated April 6, 1903, from the Minister of Public Works, stating that he had under consideration questions affecting the transportation of Canadian products to the markets of the world through and by Canadian ports with a view of placing the Canadian producer in a position to compete, and compete successfully, through all Canadian channels with the producers and exporters of other countries.
287|
The minister submits that it may be assumed that grain and other products will naturally seek their markets by the .cheapest routes, and therefore the method of attaining the object desired should be to make the Canadian routes cheaper and more convenient than competing routes.
That the development of North-western Canada has manifested the inabilty of existing Canadian transportation agencies to take care of Canadian products.
That our agricultural exports can only command the prices over seas to which their natural excellence entitles them when they cease to he confounded and confused with the inferior and often adulterated articles produced elsewhere ; and to preserve their separate identity they must go through Canadian channels.
The minister further states that the questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to he sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world.
This involves the consideration of their transportation
From place of production to Canadian seaports.
From place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
From Canadian seaports to Europe
From place of production through Canadian ports on the Pacific.
As it affects the products of the eastern provinces of Canada it involves their movement :-
To the seaports.	.
From the seaports to Europe.
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can he reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made regarding :-*
The conditions of original shipment and the possibilities of improvement in the conditions surrounding such shipments.
The storage requirements of lake, river and ocean ports.
The harbour facilities of the inland lakes, rivers and Atlantic and Pacific ports.
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St/Lawrence route, and, generally, any improvement, enlargements, or other matters affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.
The minister further states that in making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but, if necessary, new surveys should he made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ;
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by our competitors should he carefully studied and reported upon.
The minister apprehends that in these circumstances it devolves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, and it is thought that the

most efficient method ot conducting such an inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts who may be appointed and authorized under the provisions of chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
Tlie routes to be inquired into as within the scope of the commission were the rail and water routes, and it seems to me beyond question that it was then the intention of the government to carry out the policy which they had promised last year to the Canadian Northern Railway, by bonusing it as far as Edmonton, and then to rest until they had inquired into the transportation facilities of the country. It is natural to suppose that the government did not get expert evidence in regard to the questions involved in this document of instructions to the commission ; it is natural to suppose that the government knew nothing more about the questions referred to in this document now than when they appointed this commission, which has not yet sat. Is it fair to assume, however, that no expert information has been given to the government in regard to a railway running from Winnipeg to Quebec and St. John which as a transportation medium through which the grain of the North-west could be transported in competition with other routes, is entirely impracticable and therefore if it can be shown that the government went into this scheme hurriedly, and for reasons which are not very clear to the House now, it must be assumed that had this transportation commission reported, the government would not have been able to justify their position in the eyes of the country in building the eastern end of this transcontinental railway, at all events, rather than take the chance of their transportation commission condemning the scheme as they would surely have done, they took a leap in the dark.
The idea of a transcontinental railway, running across the map as nearly as possible in a straight line, seems to ha ve seized the members of the government and made such an impression upon them that they have worked out the proposition which we have before us. The first proposition made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company was not an unreasonable one. That proposition, as I understand it, was for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to start at Graven-hurst or North Bay. to connect with the Canadian Northern system at Port Arthur, to obtain control of the Canadian Northern system, and to build a line from its western terminus to the Pacific coast. That was the first proposition brought to the attention of the House and the country, and it seems to me that it was a reasonable one for consideration. Had that proposition been carried out, a train could have started from Halifax or St. John and reached the Pacific coast without running over a single mile of the Canadian Pacific Rail-


Albert Edward Kemp: have they for committing the country to the vast expenditure which this project will involve, and which will result in our not having the necessary money for improving our waterways and other transportation facilities ?
The hon. the Minister of the Interior endeavoured to show that there was a demand in certain parts of the country for this project. He quoted from certain newspapers in the North-west. He quoted a resolution of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, but that resolution was not in reference to this project at all. It was rather a resolution of censure on the government for not taking any steps to relieve the congested state of affairs which existed in the North-west with reference to the transportation of grain. It had no reference to the project before the House at all, but simply called on the government to take measures to alleviate the existing conditions. The hon. Minister of the Interior also laid particular stress on a resolution of the Board of Trade of Toronto, which was passed at a meeting of the council of that board. But I would like to impress on the House the fact that that really was not a resolution of the board of trade. On the 23rd of June, the council of the board of trade did pass a resolution upon a report of a certain committee appointed to investigate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway charter. I had the pleasure of securing for the secretary of the board of trade a number of copies of the Bill in order that he might distribute theu among the members of that body. Instead, however, of bringing the report upon that Bill before the council of the board of trade, the gentleman who had charge of the committee, who was chairman of the committee, and vice-president of the board-and I may say that my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell), who also has the honour of sitting on the council of that board, was present, I believe, at the committee meeting-and my hon. friend1 from West York with others decided to bring in a resolution regarding the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project. This resolution was brought in on the 23rd of June, when there was very little known about the project, when there was very little about it in the newspapers. But in some mysterious way or other, those gentlemen who supported this resolution, got an inkling of what the government intended to do, and in order to strengthen the hands of the government, a resolution was framed and rushed through the council, contrary to the practice which has prevailed for many years in matters of this kind. In all such matters, the usual practice has been to refer them to an open meeting of the board of trade, to which the public and the press are admitted. But in this ease, there was a star chamber inquiry, and this resolution was rushed through, although it was not at all adopted unanimously. This resolution was in favour of an outlet by the shortest and Mr. KEMP.
cheapest route for the productions of the North-west. But it seems as though tbe committee must have been informed that the government would perhaps go further than they desired, for at the end of the first paragraph I see these words :
And tbe advisability of competition without the extravagance of the duplication of lines.
They seem to have been possessed of the idea that the government intended to duplicate the Intercolonial Railway. They were afraid that the government would do something silly, and so guarded themselves in this way. What happened afterwards V Mr. Peleg Howland, of Toronto, who is a good supporter of this government, and who also helped to put this resolution through the council of the board of trade, came out in an interview a short time ago, in which he said :
I am strongly opposed to building a line from Quebec to Moncton, and I think for the present at least the Intercolonial Railway is sufficient. Personally I am not fully convinced that the time has arrived when a line should be built from Quebec to Winnipeg, but if so, then I believe it should be built and owned by the government, and running privileges given all roads desiring the same.
In an interview, Mr. J. D. Allen, vicepresident of the board of trade, and who was chairman of the sub-committee, which investigated this question and brought in this resolution, heartily approved of the government's decision. But when I say that Mr. Allen, who is a good friend of mine, was the defeated Liberal candidate from West Toronto, I think I have said enough on this subject to show how it came about that this resolution came to be passed. It did not by any means, represent the opinion of the board of trade, and I believe the board of trade would not endorse the project to-day under any circumstances whatever.
Now, in regard to the matter of the transcontinental railway the Prime Minister seemed to rest his ease mainly on two points, the question of the bonding privilege, and the question of carrying the products of the North-west to the seaboard in a more economical way than has been possible in the past Take the question of the bonding privilege first. The right hon. gentleman seems to have been seized of the importance of this part of the question, and he represented to us that it is absolutely necessary, because of this bonding question, to have this railway built, although- a point which seems to have been largely overlooked-we have now two railways going through New Brunswick, the Intercolonial and tbe Temiseouata line, from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston, and from Edmund-ston to St. John by tbe Canadian Pacific Railway. Tbe right hon. gentleman refers in bis speech to the discussion which took place in this House in regard to the short line through the state of Maine to St. John,

New Brunswick. He tries to lead us to believe that the resolution which he moved at that time, had it been carried, would have prevented this railway from going through American territory. I confess, I cannot so interpret that resolution. The Prime Minister said in his speech introducing this Bill :
I am sorry to say that this motion was defeated. If it had not been defeated, if the policy which was there enunciated had been implemented, probably it would not be my duty today to ask this House to vote money for the building of another line between Quebec and Moncton, for the line would have been built oh the very ground where we now propose to locate it.
The right lion, gentleman took up a great deal of time in dealing with the bonding privilege as one of the arguments in favour of this project. We all agree with the loyal sentiments he uttered. We are all loyal Canadians-it is not necessary to say that, for that is taken for granted. But I would point out to the House the position which the right lion, gentleman took with regard to this bonding question on a previous occasion. The right hon. gentleman took part in a discussion on the contract to the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate, and his position then was directly the opposite of that which he takes to-day. The right hon. gentleman spoke on December 21st, 1880, and this is what he said, according to the 'Hansard' report:
The only point on which there is any disagreement is as to the expediency of building the whole road at once, or only as rapidly as the wants of the country require. I think it must be perfectly manifest that this section on the north shore of Lake Superior is not required at the present time, that its construction might be advantageously postponed until some future period, and that it would be quite sufficient, at present, to build the eastern section as far as Sault Ste. Marie. The fertile plains of the west are separated from the east by an extent of barren territory in the region north of the lake, while it happens that the route along the southern shore would pass through some of the best lands on the continent -through several of the most important states of the Union. Would it not be better, under these circumstances, to bring the road immediately to Sault Ste. Marie, tap the American system of railways, and secure not merely the trade of our own North-west, but a large share of the traffic from those states. This is so evident from a geographical point of view, that I will not stay to discuss it.
The policy enunciated by tbe l-iglit lion, gentleman on that occasion was not to build tbe railway north of the lakes. He was perfectly willing to take his chances on the bonding privilege, and he was also perfectly willing to cut off our great Northwest from eastern Canada by making our railway connection through the United States. And he comes down now, when there is not a sign of trouble with the United States, and urges the danger of the abrogation of the bonding privilege as a
justification of the whole scheme. My impression is that the Prime Minister made a great mistake in making so much of this bonding matter. It was not a good thing for us to raise the question. It is undoubtedly a great benefit to this country to have the products of the United States come to our seaports for shipment; but it is a greater benefit to the United States to have our products go to their ports. There were times in our history when signs were not wanting that the American people might cancel the bonding privilege. But those days have long gone by. The people of the United States tried to coerce this country with a high tariff, the McKinley tariff-advocated, I am sorry to say, by some Canadians as a means of coercing Canada-they tried to force us into a commercial union with their country. But the Americans now are convinced1 that this policy of coercion will not succeed. They are more friendly with us now than ever before. They are holding reciprocity conventions and passing resolutions favouring closer trade relations. We have the Michigan Central Railway running through Ontario, which would be very seriously affected if the bonding privilege were withdrawn. We have the Wabash Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway also. Then it must not be forgotten that the people of New England are interested in the maintenance of this bonding privilege and would protest most strongly if it were withdrawn. We have all these railways running through Canada, helping to bring business to American ports and helping also to reduce the charges for the transportation of American . products which go to the New England states. In days gone by the United States tried all their experiments of foreign policy upon this country. Now they have Cuba and the Philippines and they must have a more conciliatory foreign policy. The fact that they have launched out into colonization in this way is a guarantee of their good behaviour. In discussing this bonding question the Prime Minister laid a good deal of stress on what the New York ' Sun ' had said in days gone by in reference to this question. Therefore I take the liberty of reading a few words from the New York ' Sun ' to show what it thinks now on this question. A few days ago the New York ' Sun ' said :
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Canadian Premier, addressed the parliament at Ottawa on July 30 and formally committed the ministry and the Liberal party to the support of the Grand Trunk Pacific transcontinental railway project. Mr. R. L. Borden, the leader of the Conservatives, replied on behalf of his party, and it is quite evident that Mr. Borden had not a little the best in the argument. Sir Wilfrid's speech was of considerable length, filling in solid type an entire page in the newspapers.
We have already commented upon the merits of the proposed railway plan. A point of more important immediate interest to the American people appears in the speeches of Sir Wilfrid

Laurier and Mr. Borden in reference to the bonding privileges extended to Canadian goods in transit through the United States. Upon that question Mr. Borden had much the best of the discussion, both in point of fact and of patriotism. Sir Wilfrid advanced an argument in favour of the proposed line, evidently Intended as an appeal to the patriotic sentiment of his people, that the government laid it down as a principle upon which they were willing to be judged by friend and foe alike, that Canada should have a transcontinental railway ' with its terminus on Canadian waters, and every inch of it in Canadian territory.' With all respect to Sir Wilfrid, this savours of gallery play, an oratorical display for effect only. The United States has no transcontinental railway from sea to sea, unless the ' Sunset Route,' the eastern terminus of which is at New Orleans, be counted as such. We have systems and connecting lines which make up such a route, but no through single line from ocean to ocean. Although she has only one line where we have several, Canadians or Canadian products can now go from Vancouver to Halifax without touching an inch of our soil.
From this false premise, Sir Wilfrid argued Canadian dependence for transcontinental transportation upon the good-will of the United States in maintaining the bonding privilege over American lines to American ports. Having highways of their own	
Whatever Canada ships through the United States is just so much an advantage to the United States. There are also articles produced in Canada whereof an increased shipment to the United States would be of mutual advantage.
Now, the Prime Minister took the liberty of quoting from the New York ' Sun,' and I take the liberty also, and I think it shows there is very little agitation or no agitation at all and no hope on their part that the bonding privilege will be cancelled, and I think so far as that excuse for this great project is concerned it falls to the ground. At all events the hon. gentlemen on thie opposite side of the House who have spoken since on that subject have referred very gingerly to this aspect of the subject as enunciated by the Prime Minister.
It was said by the Prime Minister that the eastern part of this railway would cost the country $12,000,000 and not one cent more than $13,000,000 and that the cost of the western section would not exceed $3,780,000. In this connection I would like to know why no mention is made in the contract of what the grades on this railway are to be and what the curvatures are to be ? it seems to me that this is a very important thing. Supposing this railway is not built to the satisfaction of the Grand Trunk Pacific can they not say afterwards that they cannot carry grain over this line because it was not built to the proper standard ? It seems to me that will be the position they can reasonably take. The argument of the Minister of Finance is that the government is going to build a cheap railway and he makes ills figures fit into a cheap railway. The Minister of the Interior says it is going to be a first-class railway and is going into Mr. KEMP.
competition with, and will carry grain as cheaply as it is carried over any railway in the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have made up the cost of this project and I am prepared to give the details of my figures and to have them open to criticism. The first cost that . I made up I thought was a little high; I had calculated the interest at three and a half per cent. I think it will cost the government more than three per cent to get money. A very large amount of money will be required and with expenses and everything I think it will go over three per cent. I do not know that it will go quite three and a half per cent, but I feel justified in stating that my figures should bear three and a quarter per cent interest. A good deal has been said about the cost of this railway from Moncton to Winnipeg. An hon. member on the government side speaking in the House to-day put the cost at $35,000 a mile. From what inquiries I have made on the subject I do not believe that a railway such as it is contemplated to build for the purpose of carrying grain with grades such as a road of this kind requires can be built for anything like that. This railroad it must be remembered runs at right angles with the rivers. There will be a great amount of bridging; the country in many places is rocky and the rocky ridges or mountains run at right angles to the route of the railway and I believe the cost will be not less than $40,000 per mile. I believe that is the figure that will be necessary to build the railway. Calculating the distance from Moncton to Winnipeg at 1,825 miles at $40,000 per mile gives the cost of that section at $73,000,000. Calculating the interest as I have said at 31 per cent for seven years (compounding once a year)-and in this connection I want to say that I have not brought to my help an actuary as the Minister of Finance did,
I have simply figured this matter in the way I figure ordinary business transactions and the way I have been taught all my life; I cannot understand the way the Minister of Finance explained it; it seemed to me he was juggling with figures-I figure the interest on $73,000,000 for seven years at 31 per cent (compounding that interest once a year) at $18,317,345; and then there is an additional three years during which we are likely to have to pay interest and I assume we will have to pay interest that will make in all $27,513,282.
Then we give this road to the Grand Trunk for forty years, and they pay us 3 per cent. Now, supposing they pay 3 per cent, supposing the revenue of that road is sufficient which I doubt very much-I believe it will be found that the cost of maintenance will take everything and I do not believe the Grand Trunk Pacific will be able to pay 3 per cent, but even if they are able to pay if we have to pay 31 per cent that leaves in the forty years $7,300,000. The five years

of construction figured as two and a half years and 3i per cent compound interest on $73,000,000 will give $6,086,715.
Then we have the mountain section. The Prime Minister stated in the House that the length of the mountain section would be between 600 and 700 miles. The Minister of Finance makes it less and 1 am taking the figures of the Prime Minister at 650 miles. Taking this at $30,000 per mile we have a cost of construction of $19,500,000 and the interest on this for seven years at 3 per cent (compounded once a year) is $1,482,540. Then for an additional three years making in all ten years we have interest of $6,706,368.
I take the Quebec bridge and terminals at $5,000,000 and this totals up to $125,606,365. not including any depreciation on account of paralleling the Intercolonial.
Then we have a liability or what perhaps some might call an indirect liability of the guarantee of bonds of the mountain section 650 miles at $30,000 per mile, $19,500,000 and 1,150 miles of the prairie section at $13,000 per mile which comes to $14,950,000, these two guarantees coming to $34,450,000. This gives a grand total of $160,056,365 including cash expenditure and liability or in other words not taking into consideration the liability but only the cash payment a debt against every family in this country of $114 calculating five to a family on our population.
1 would like to point out in this connection, Mr. Speaker, to show the magnitude of this thing that the paid-up capital of all the chartered banks in this country is $76,660,301, but this railway, this project according to my figures will cost $125,606,365, leaving an excess over the paid-up capital of the chartered banks of $48,946,064.
Now, Sir, something has been said about Canadian produce going over this line and two clauses, clauses 43 and 44 have been referred to as ' the pious clauses,' and I believe that they are so in every sense of the word. I think that they cannot be enforced. I do not think it is possible under these clauses to oblige the Grand Trunk Pacific to take grain from Winnipeg to St. John and transport it to a Canadian port and I believe they will not do it.
In passing I would like also to draw attention to the fact that the distance from Montreal to St. John by the Canadian Pacific Railway is 481 miles. From Montreal to St. John by Riviere du Loup and Edmundston, the line in existence to-day is 585 miles and I do not believe that the government if they build this railway through New Brunswick will get a shorter line from Montreal or Levi>s" to St. John, New Brunswick, than the existing lines. There was a point which was referred to in this debate by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). He gave it in a very graphic way when be said that Mr. Hays in the Railway Committee was willing
to do almost anything that the committee wanted him to do.
He was willing to promise to build the road anywhere and everywhere and at any time and all times and to change his route on the suggestion of any particular section and to go on a thousand miles on the mere hint of some member of the committee.
As the hon. member for Hamilton pointed out that was the attitude of Mr. Hays before the Railway Committee, and while Mr. Hays was willing to extend this railway to Quebec or to the maritime provinces in committee he was downstairs later in the day making a bargain with the right hon. leader of the government that the government should build the road and assume the whole responsibility for its cost.
There is also another question about which we have not heard very much from our hon. friends opposite, and that is the arrangement made with the Grand Trunk Pacific as to running rights over the Intercolonial Railway from Moncton to Halifax and St. John. It has been said, and said very truly, that this policy of the government when carried out will largely control the policy of the Intercolonial Railway. I remember that, when a few years ago the question of selling the Intercolonial Railway to another railway company was brought up, when it was suggested that the Canadian Pacific Railway could operate the Intercolonial Railway to better advantage than the government, the people of the maritime provinces rose up in protest against any such proposition. I would like to ask if this proposition does not give the Grand Trunk Company as much control over the Intercolonial Railway as the Canadian Pacific Railway would have had if it had assumed control of the railway, and whether the Grand Trunk Railway are not going to assume control over it ?
The question of paying 3 per cent on the capital expenditure on this railway is a very important one and I have wondered if the government ever expect the railway reallly to pay this 3 per cent. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have to pay the expense of maintenance, to pay the officers' salaries, &c., and they have to put $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock upon the road which at the present prices of locomotives, freight cars and passenger cars would mean that they would put on 100 locomotives, 3.000 freight cars and 60 passenger cars. At present prices, that number of locomotives, freight cars and passenger cars would amount to $5,000,000. The ordinary rental that is charged by one railway to another for the hire of a locomotive per dav is $10. for a box freight car 75 cents, and for a passenger. car $4. That gives a total rental on the basis of the number of locomotives, freight cars and passenger cars that I have mentioned of $3,490 per day. I would like to find out -what the agreement says in regard to the prices

the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are going to charge for the hire of their rolling stock to be used upon the railway and to ask if they cannot charge almost any price they like. If they charge at the rates which I have mentioned, the total of which is .$3,490 per day, it would amount in one year to $1,273,850, or 3 per cent on $40,000,000.
Now, I come to what is perhaps the most important part of this discussion-the question of freight rates. I have said that the government have largely built up their case on the bonding privilege and on the question of being able to handle the grain of the west and I have observed that the members of the government who have spoken upon this question have referred very gingerly to tbe_ question of the bonding privilege. I noticed also that the members of the government who have spoken, with one or two exceptions, have hardly touched the question of the cost of transporting grain. The hon. Minister of the Interior, however, was willing to tackle that question and he approached it with the courage of a Napoleon. You will have noticed that a lawyer very frequently, when he expresses his opinion in regard to a question of law, is very careful as to what he says, but when it comes down to a question of this kind we have an example of a lawyer expressing his opinion in regard to a matter of this importance in a very reckless manner indeed. The hon. Minister of the Interior gave us two or three illustrations of the way he figured out this matter of transportation. He had found somewhere or another-I do not know how he came across it-but he had found, he said, that grain was carried from Kansas City to Chicago for 5 cents per 100 pounds. I understand that he gave the page of the book in which he found that statement. It is not, however, to be had in the library and I was anxious to have seen it to have found out what explanation there was for such a statement, because, as a matter of fact, no such rate exists from Kansas City to Chicago. The rate from Kansas City to Chicago is 14 cents per 100 pounds, not 5 cents per 100 pounds. The average rate from Kansas Citv to Chicago is not less than 12 cents per 100 pounds, and I do not think it has been less than 12 cents for a long time past. That is more than half a cent per ton per mile. The hon. Minister of the Interior then went on to say that if grain could be carried-and he built up his case on that-from Kansas City to Chicago for 5 cents per 100 pounds, you could carry it from Winnipeg to St. .Tohn for 111 cents per bushel. It seems to me that there should be a limit to what a minister of the Crown should say in this House and can send forth to the country.
I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce anything to contradict the statement I make that the rate from Kansas City to Chicago is 14 cents per 100 pounds and that the


Albert Edward Kemp: average rate is not less than 12 cents per 100 pounds. The hon. gentleman also referred to the rate on the New York Central from Buffalo to New York as being 21 cents per bushel, but later on he said that":
I talked with a prominent member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange the day before yesterday, and I asked him, how that 10-85 cent rate would compare with the rates which he Is now paying from Winnipeg to New York by lake and rail. He tells me that, taking into account the rate by lake and the rate by rail, and a small additional charge for extra insurance which they have to pay by reason of this mixed carriage, the rate to-day from Winnipeg to New York is 164 cents.
He states at the top of the column that the New York Central rate is 24 cents per bushel, and here he says that the statement which was made to him by a prominent member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange was that the rate from Winnipeg to New York was 16* cents per bushel. We all know that the rate from Winnipeg to the head of the lakes is 7* cents per bushel. We all know' that the rate from the head of the lakes to Buffalo is not more than 2 cents per bushel ; 7-1 cents added to 2 is 94 cents, and 94 cents subtracted from 164 cents is 7 which, therefore, according to his own figures is the rate per bushel from Buffalo to New York. So that, he actually says himself that the rate is 7 cents from Buffalo to New York ; yet,, he figures out a rate of 10-56 cents a bushel from Winnipeg to St. John, on the basis of a rate of 24 cents per bushel on the New York Central. He then comes to the Canada Atlantic Railway and he makes up this rate of 10* or 11 cents a bushel on the basis of the rate at which the Canada Atlantic Railway carries grain for. There is a very low rate existing at the present time on the Canada Atlantic Railway to Montreal. There is very little grain offering for carriage as last year's crop was shipped by the first of July, and the boats on the lakes are trying to get a little return cargo, they are cutting each other's throats and in that way they have got the rate down to a very low figure. In the fall when the new crop comes to be handled the rate will go up to 4 or 44 cents a bushel from Parry Sound to Montreal. The government have built their case up largely on the basis of being able to carry grain from Winnipeg to Quebec and to Halifax and St John. Even if we could carry grain over this road upon the most favourable conditions that it is carried over the American roads, could we attempt to compete with their lowest rates in face of the climatic conditions in winter in northern Canada, which renders the motive power of a railway engine, often from 25 to 33 per cent less, than if that engine were operating under favourable conditions on an American railroad, not taking into consideration the long rail haul over this proposed railway. We have some evidence' as to what it costs to carry grain. There

was an inquiry made a few years ago by a special comfuittee of tbe Senate, and the evidence was published, and I have tbe testimony here of Mr. G. A. Thompson, of Duluth, a man who is well posted in regard to the cost of carrying grain by water and by rail, and this is what Mr. Thompson says :
There has been a magnificent reduction in the rail rates corresponding to this table which I have shown you here, but suppose we turn now to the water rates. We find that on the Erie canal the rate is very much less. Turn to the lakes. There at the outlet of Lake Superior the records are kept very close, and in 1896 the average price received for the transportation of freight which went through the canals at the outlet of Lake Superior was ninety-one hundredths of one mill. We can state the fact broadly by saying that in general the cost of deep water transportation is only about one-tenth the average cost of rail transportation. Suppose I go, just for a moment into a little further elaboration of the figures. During that same year, according to a statement made before a meeting of the Lake Carriers' Association, the average rate of freight transportation on all the great lakes was only eighty-five one hundredths of a mill, and that mainly because there was deeper water in some of the channels below than in the St. Mary's canal and some of the outlets in that neighbourhood. Let us now- find the ultimate limits of competition :n order to discover the cheapest known form of transportation. A careful series of experiments conducted on the Grand Trunk Railway here in Canada some years ago showed that the actual net cost of transportation, that is exclusive of interest on bonds, &c., was five mills per ton per mile. The average net cost in 1896 on the . railroads of the United States was Bomewhat larger than that, being nearly six mills per ton per mile. There are a few coal roads where practically all the loads are carried by gravity, and the engines are used merely for the purpose of running the empty cars back again, and on these the average cost is three and half mills per ton ; but the best rate in actual railroad transportation under ordinary conditions is four mills per ton per mile.


Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL.: Does that include the long and the short haul ?


Mr. THOMPSON.: Yes. The road on which freight is carried at that low cost is the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway. Coming back to the story I was starting to tell you about the two railway presidents, I may mention the name of one of them. The western man was Mr. James Hill, president of the Great Northern road. He said [DOT]	' I have built some
steamships myself. Those steamships are built to the full draught of water at the Sault. This was before the larger canals were opened. They carry twenty-seven hundred tons of freight, and they make the run from Duluth to Buffalo in three and half days, and cost ail average of $120 per day. Now, in round numbers, almost as exactly as we can name it the distance from Duluth to Buffalo is 1,000 miles, and working that down we find that the cost is fifteen one thousandths of a cent per ton per mile. Turning that into figures that business men understand better than they cannot understand these microscopic rates, it means one-twenty-seventh of four mills, and that is the absolute net cost of carrying freight on the great lakes. That is to say. we do on the great lakes for $1 what it cost the best situated
railway in the United States $27 to do. Therefore, without going further into these figures-
I could give them by the hour, if necessary- you will agree with me in my conclusion that water transportation is the cheapest, and therefore if economy in transportation is the chief factor in the prosperity of nations, that nation which enlarges its waterways and developes them to the greatest possible extent will have done for its citizens, its producers and its consumers alike, the very best which can be done. But -we are not through with these interesting matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place one or two illustrations before the House as to what it means to carry grain at so much per ton per mile, as is referred to in that evidence. Certain hon. members have dealt with this subject on the assumption that there is no basis of cost in regard to matters of this kind. They have proceeded under the assumption that railroads have been running in Canada and the United States all these years, and that they have not yet got down to any figures as to what it costs to transport grain, and as to what they have to pay for wear and tear, for coal, for the wages of men, and for all the things that enter into the operations of a railway. This report says that the figures Mr. Thomson gives do not include the interest on the bonds. Now, if it were possible to force the grain out of the North-west over this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the seaboard, I would like to show what it would cost to the people of the North-west, basing my calculations on what is the actual cost of transportation. As was pointed out by the leader of the opposition yesterday, the cost to the Grand Trunk Railway for hauling freight where they have return cargo, and where they have plenty of traffic, is five mills per ton per mile. I will first take the calculation at five mills per ton per mile and then I will take four mills per ton per mile, although it is quite certain that this new road can never attain to the position in this respect of the best American roads, and this gentleman says in his evidence that the best-situated railways in the United States can haul for four mills per ton per mile. I will take the calculation at five mills per ton per mile, or, a half cent per ton per mile. From Winnipeg to Quebec the distance is 1.425 miles, and at five mills per ton per mile that would mean $7,121 cents per ton, or 36 cents per 100 pounds. The present rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur is ten cents per 100 pounds, and from Port Arthur to Montreal eight cents per 100 pounds. I am assuming that the rate from Port Arthur to Montreal is not 31 cents per bushel, which is a cut rate, but I am taking five cents per bushel as the rate from Port Arthur to Montreal, which I know' is the current rate under normal conditions this year. Therefore the rate from Port Arthur to Montreal is eight cents per 100 pounds, and the rate from Winnipeg to Montreal would be. as 1 have shotvn, eighteen cents per 100 pounds.

The all-rail rate half a cent per ton per mile from Winnipeg to Quebec would be 36 cents per 100 pounds, whereas the present rate from Winnipeg to Montreal is eighteen cents per 100 pounds, which would leave a difference of eighteen cents per 100 pounds in favour of Montreal, as compared with any possible rate that could be charged on the new railroad to Quebec. That would mean that a bushel of wheat in Winnipeg which at present is worth eighty-five cents would only be worth 74-20 cents if carried by this new^ line of railway. If we had an export of 50.000,000 bushels of wheat, and if it were posible to force wheat over this railway to the extent of 50.000,000 bushels, then, at a loss of 18 cents per 100 pounds it would mean a loss on that amount of wheat of 85.400.000 to the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west, at the rate of half a cent per ton per mile. Now, making the basis of the calculation four mills per ton per mile, instead of five mills, then from Winnipeg to Quebec the rate would be $5.70 per ton, or 284 cents per 100 pounds, and that is a difference in favour of the present rate to Montreal of 104 cents per 100 pounds. That would mean on an export of 50.000,000 bushels a loss of $3,150,000 to the farmers of the west. Now, if we attempt to force to St. ,Tohn, N.B., 25,000,000 bushels of wheat over this new line, then basing the rate at five mills per ton per mile, there would be a loss on that quantity exported of $4,350,000. and on the basis of four mills'per ton per mile there would be a loss of $3,000,000, calculating the present rate from Port Arthur to Montreal at 18 cents per 100 pounds. The idea of hauling grain from Winnipeg to Quebec over this road would be just ns reasonable as if the Canadian Pacific Railway would talk about-hauling grain from Winnipeg to Montreal to compete with the water route, with this exception, that the new railroad might possibly be a better railroad for transportation, and that is the only advantage which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railroad could possibly have over the Canadian Pacific Railway. But be that as it may. the Canadian Pacific Railway would never think of doing anything of the kind.
I have made, the calculation as to the carriage of this wheat to St. ,Tohn. N.B., and if it could possibly be carried to Halifax the distance would be 100 miles greater, and the cost proportionately greater. I have read to the House the statement that it costs $120 per day to run one of these vessels carrying 90.000 bushels of grain, and lion, gentlemen can see how infinitesimal that cost is as compared with the expense of keeping up a railway.
It lias been said that grain could be carried from Port Arthur to Port Colborne or Buffalo in one of these large vessels carrying 250:000 bushels, at from 1} to 14 cents per bushel, but I believe that grain can be carried nearly a thousand miles from Port Arthur to Port Colborne at one cent, and Mr. KEMP.
from there to Montreal for two cents more, so that grain could in the' near future be carried from Port Arthur to Montreal by water for a sum not exceeding three cents a bushel. In this connection I would like to say that it seems to me that it should be the policy of the government to eqttijp Port Colborne, to build elevators, and to make further improvements there, in order that we may be able to compete with Buffalo, for the grain will come to one or pther of these ports.
The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway carrying the products of the North-west, but the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) admitted candidly, that it was not possible to carry grain to Quebec by this road. He said there would be other things to carry. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, has there been any demand in this country that there should be a railway built for the purpose of carrying the manufactures of this country to the North-west ? What business of that kind will there be for this road that any other road in existence could not carry without any increase of rolling stock or of capital or anything else ? This road will not decrease the cost of carrying manufactured products to the North-west by one cent. The existing lines could carry six times as much of those products as they are carrying at the present time.
The right hon. Prime Minister made a great point of the importance of the proposed road for the shipment of manufactures to the North-west. I would like to read what he said on this point:
For one, two, three generations, at least, and perhaps more, these new settlers will grow cereals, and probably nothing else. They will have need of everything that is required by civilized men. They will have need of clothing, furniture and every other kind of manufacture. Then, Sir, what shall we do ? Shall we allow them to be supplied by our American neighbours, or shall we provide a railway which will enable our manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec to supply them with what they shall require ? There is one thing above all which will be their chief need, and that is lumber. They must have lumber for their houses, their barns and their stables, and all their buildings. Where are they to get it ? Not from the section of country where they live and work. The lumber is not to be had in that section.
But luckily for us, the other section of the road, the section between Moncton and Quebec, is rich in lumber of every kind ; and the moment the road is open, there will be established an important trade between the older sections of the country and these newer sections.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I think I have dealt sufficiently long with the bonding question and with the grain question, and I would like to take up this question of lumber very briefly. The Prime Minister proposes to take lumber from New Brunswick to build barns for the farmers of the North-west.
I wonder what the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who knows some-

thing about the lumber business, -would say of this suggestion. The hon. member for North Norfolk ventured to go as far east as the Timiskaming district in northern Ontario for lumber, but he thought be had better stop there, and not go any further east. The price of common pine in Winnipeg to-day is $19 per thousand feet. The cost of transporting lumber from the province of New Brunswick to the prairies beyond Winnipeg would be more than lumber is worth in Winnipeg. We all know that lumber cannot be transported any great distance without great cost, because it is such a cheap and bulky product; and yet the Prime Minister suggests that the people of the province of New Brunswick are going to send lumber over the proposed railway for the purpose of building barns for the settlers in the North-west. Why, the Lake of the- Woods district, which is only a little over 100 miles east of Winnipeg, is full of lumber, and there will be no lumber whatever going from New Brunswick to the North-west, a distance of 1.600 miles. I merely mention this to show some of the astounding arguments which hon. gentlemen opposite have resorted to on this question.
Now, I feel very much interested in the building up of the St. Lawrence route. Some people ask, how is it that our canals do so little business, and that our great St. Lawrence waterway is not utilized to a greater extent than it is ? Well, Sir, the reason is very clear. For many years we had no Canadian bottoms on the lakes, or at least very few, to move the grain from the west. The Americans had the business, and they managed to keep it, and it has been going to Buffalo. I have here a letter which was written to me on the 3rd of June, 1899, by a gentleman who used to be a member of this House, the late George H. Bertram. That gentleman, in the conduct of his business, and in this House, advocated the consideration of this transportation question on broad lines. In this letter he said :
I am quite satisfied in my own mind from a thorough examination of the whole question, that the St. Lawrence route via the Welland canal will ultimately be the controlling route, as to rates, provided there are sufficient Canadian vessels to do the business, and ample facilities at Montreal for receiving and exporting the grain of the west.
I quite agree that a greater necessity than ever exists to increase ' the number and capacity of Canadian bottoms at present engaged in the grain-carrying traffic upon the great lakes,' and that the government should encourage in some substantial way, the creating of a large Canadian marine capable of hauling the North-west grain.
Mr. Bertram was very anxious that the government should give a bounty on The registered tonnage of Canadian vessels to offset the duty on the fittings of vessels which come into this country, while British
bottoms come in free of duty. He did not succeed in convincing the government of his views. Other gentlemen have urged the same views on the government. If the government adopted that policy we would have more Canadian bottoms on the lakes than we have at the present time. However, through private enterprise we are getting a Canadian marine together by slow degrees. There have been imported into Canada from Great Britain this year for service on the lakes thirteen new vessels, a large number were imported last year, and there have been three vessels made in this country this year. But what the government should do is to encourage by a bounty the building of Canadian vessels for service on the lakes, and if we succeeded in building up a Canadian marine, we should be able, with the improvements in our canals and waterways between the head of the lakes and Montreal, to carry our own grain at least. The situation is very encouraging at the present time. The increased tonnage of the Canadian marine is showing its results perceptibly in our exports. In the last few years the total tonnage of seagoing vessels which left the port of Montreal from the opening of navigation up to the 1st. of August in each year was as follows : In 1900,	644.312 tons :	in 1901.	719,082 ; in 1902,	726,820 tons, and in
1903, 922,911 tons. But what is more encouraging is that the total tonnage of inland vessels arriving at the port of Montreal from the opening of navigation up to the 1st of August was as follows : In 1900, 774,729 tons ; in 1901, 743.926 tons ; in 1902, 852,761 tons, and in 1903, 1.956,949 tons. So it will be seen that what wTe have long hoped for, namely, the development of the St. Lawrence route and the diversion of the grain traffic from the Buffalo route, is coming about. I have always claimed that the St. Lawrence waterway will be the regulator of freight rates, and that we shall not be obliged in future, as we have been in the past, to say that the Erie Canal and the New York Central Railway are the regulators of freight rates. But what we have to do is to equip the St. Lawrence waterway so that we shall be able to carry our own grain in competition with the Buffalo route, and when we have done that we will get American grain also, and carry that to our own seaports. The grain of the North-west is bound to come out of the country by the lakes and the St. Lawrence waterway, or by the Georgian bay, and then on by rail to Montreal ; and if the Prime Minister would be a_ little patient, and instead of forcing on this railway to Quebec, would devote himself to improving the means of transportation by water, he would accomplish in that way what he will never accomplish by this railway. We have heard it said that grain has been carried to Quebec for 31c. per bushel. There

is no doubt that Quebec will be a great port in the future. I am as much an admirer of Quebec as any bon. member of this House; but we do not want to go into the great expense of this proposed railway at the present time just because of the solicitation and the earnest appeals of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, who, rightly, no doubt, because their constituencies are in Quebec, advocate this project. If the government desired to do something of real benefit to the farmers of the North-west, let them follow the example of the Manitoba government, when they said to the Canadian Northern people, You will have to reduce the cost of carrying grain from points in the west to the head of the lakes 2, 3 or 4 cents per 100 pounds. When this bargain was made, the rate from Winnipeg to the head of the lakes was 14 cents per hundred pounds. It has since been reduced to 12 cents per hundred pounds, and on the 1st of September it will be 10 cents. If this government had undertaken, in connection with this deal, to find out what the average rates were, and said to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway : ' What you have to do is to put before us a scheme whereby the cost of carrying grain to the sea-board will be reduced one, two or three cents per hundred pounds, such a policy would have interested the people of the North-west, and carried the country. This does not in any way relieve the conditions of the North-west. It does not reduce the cost of transportation to the farmers of that country one-millionth part of one cent. But whatever this proposal may accomplish, it has led to a very interesting debate, and we have had from hon. gentlemen supporting this project demonstrations of how you can force water to flow up hill. I have given a very full statement of this question of grain rates, and challenge any member of this House to contradict anything I have said. You cannot compete with the water system of the St. Lawrence by a railway paralleling it, and I have every hope that the great bulk of the grain of the Northwest will go out by way of Georgian Bay or Welland Canal, and the St. Lawrence route in the future, as well as a large share of the grain of our neighbours to the south.
When I interrupted the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) this morning, by calling his attention to the fact that this road could not carry grain in competition with the water route, he admitted my statement, but he said that manufactured products would go over it. But that will not be of any benefit, because the rates will not be reduced, as the railways now in existence can carry much more freight than they are able to secure. He also said that the Intercolonial Railway would not be handicapped because freight from the west to the maritime provinces would still go over that line. How does he make that out ? The Grand Trunk Railway has a system Mr. KEMP.
which gridirons Ontario, which gathers the manufactured products from most of the cities and towns of Ontario, and the Grand Trunk Railway will take that freight to L&vis, over its own road, and will not haul it over the Intercolonial Railway. It will do what it can to earn the interest it will have to pay the government.
Again, it is said by hon. members that if we cannot take grain over this road in the summer, we surely will take it in the winter. But grain does not go out of our Northwest or the American west in the winter time to any great extent. The transportation rates are so high that it pays better to store it away until the spring. Grain is sold for certain deliveries, and as much as possible is forced out of the country in the fall. What is left is held in the elevators, and the cost of carrying it in the elevators is very much less than would be the cost of taking it out in the winter.
The hon. Minister of Justice said that the day was dawning when the city of Quebec would get justice. Well, I want to see that city get justice, and I believe that the port of Quebec will benefit by the transhipment of grain, and the increased tonnage of ocean vessels which will go there. But I say that it will not be practicable to send grain to Quebec by this route. What the government should do, and what I would urge the hon. minister to advocate, is to improve the St. Lawrence system, so that vessels may go to the St. Lawrence ports just as easily and as safely as to any port on the continent, and also to improve our canal system. If that be done, the port of Quebec will be sure to reap a large share of profit.
The government have no mandate to push through this scheme at present. I believe that they should proceed along the line they laid down at the opening of the session, and appoint a commission. I look upon the government as occupying the position of trustees, and I cannot see how they are going to justify themselves before the people, when they have rushed into this project without having any expert knowledge of the cost of carrying the grain and other products, and of the capabilities of the country through which this railway will go. The have absolutely no knowledge of the conditions except the meagre information which they have placed before us, and are therefore not justified in going on with this project.
A good deal is said about diverting traffic and making it run from east to west or west to east, instead of from south to north, but in this connection you must not consider railway facilities only. In fact railways only occupy a minor position with regard to this matter. You must have your tariff so arranged that the products of the United States will not go from the south to the north. You must adjust your tariff to suit Canadian industries, and then you will have traffic for your railways

running east and west Tlie questions of fiscal policy and transportation policy go hand in hand, and the government will do well to consider these two questions as one. I am sorry to say that the government are weak on the tariff question, just as they have shown themselves weak on the question before the House. They would not have shown themselves weak with regard to the project before us had they followed out their original policy of appointing a commission to inquire into the whole question of transportation. A good, deal has been said about wild speculation. We have heard of loan companies and private individuals going into wild speculations and gambling in stocks ; but I would like to know if a more impulsive unconsidered thing was ever done by a private individual than has been 'done by this government, when, in a few weeks, it jumped to a conclusion and placed the project we are now discussing before this House. I would like to know if there is any record of anything of the kind having ever before been done by the government of any civilized country. If you take the cost of the railway at $125,000,000, and add that to our national debt, it brings our national debt up to the sum of nearly $400,000,000. It makes the liability to which we are committing ourselves in one session of parliament, including the guarantees we have assumed, including the estimates of this session, which I put at $65,000,000, including the guarantee of the Montreal harbour bonds, and the Canadian Northern Railway bonds, including all these, it makes a liability which we are incurring in one session, of $237,350,365. What I would like hon. members on the other side to give their attention to, when discussing this question, is the appointment of a commission on the transportation question. I would like them to explain why it was not appointed. Let us know the reasons which made the government go back on that policy V I would like to have them also show, if they can, that the figures I have given of the cost of transporting grain to the sea-board are wrong. I would like to know also how lumber can be brought from New Brunswick to points west of Winnipeg, and how the grain which the Grand Trunk Pacific. Railway will bring from the lakes is going to Canadian seaports. I would like to have the government show how the farmers of the North-west are going to be benefited to the slightest extent by this project ? Where the grain and the other produce of the North-west are going, while the eastern section is being constructed, and after the western section has been completed ? I would also like to know if it is necessary, in connection with a great national project of this kind, that a corporation should come to this government or any government with terms, conditions and schemes. Surely if we were going to build a great transcon- j
tinental railway we should have had an opportunity of making our own plans and specifications and asking for tenders on those plans and specifications in a businesslike way.
Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for having taken up so much of the time of the House. I did not intend to speak so long. In bringing my remarks rapidly to a close, I would say that there are two things which it is desirable to keep in mind. The first is to send Canadian goods through Canadian channels to the seaboard, and the other is to provide low rates in favour of the producer of the west. The result of the government's policy will be to send goods for years by way of Chicago, as the line to Quebec will not be built, and, even if it were finished, it would not be able to take the business. Moreover, the scheme will not reduce the cost of transportation. I shall be glad to have any Ontario members like my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) defend this scheme from an Ontario standpoint. I am especially interested in seeing some of my friends on the other side from Ontario attempt to defend this scheme along the line on which the government have attempted to defend it.
I am in favour of providing the west with all the transportation facilities necessary. We must adopt a generous policy with regard to Manitoba and the North-west Territory. As this scheme stands, the most objectionable part is the eastern portion of the line. That is an impracticable scheme; the road will only be a sink-hole for all time to come, and a burden upon the country. What the country wants is adequate transportation facilities to the North-west and cheaper rates. This road will be a burden upon the people of the North-west as well of the rest of this country ; it will not realize the millioneth part of a cent, so far as reduction in freight rates is concerned. The effect of it will be to place the Intercolonial under the control of the Grand Trunk. The distance is not likely to be materially shortened between Montreal or Quebec and St. John or Halifax. Even if there is a shortening of the distance to the extent of 60 miles on a transcontinental railway 3,600 miles in length, this shortening of the distance will be of no practical value. The people have not shown that they are in favour of this scheme ; they have not petitioned for it. There is every reason to believe that they are against it. If the government reduced the freight rate two or three cents a hundred, that would have pleased the people and would have been a good business proposition. The result of the policy of the government with regard to this scheme will be that the western part of the road will be in operation many years before the eastern part. A channel for trade through the United States will be established, a channel that we do not now use. And even when the whole railroad is

in operation, it will not lie able to carry tlie grain in competition with the water route. I would also like to refer to sections 42 and 43 of the contract which I have referred to as the pious clauses. I would point out that there is a dispute between the Grand Trunk- and the Intercolonial in reference to the wording of the traffic agreement now existing between them. I believe that the Grand Trunk will interpret that agreement strictly according to the legal and technical wording of it, and I think that nothing less can be expected than that they will do so. What I would do would be to improve the St. Lawrence water-way so as to take a large share of our trade to tlie seaboard, and, when this was done we could get a larger share of the American trade. This is not a party question. It it too serious to be handled in that way but impartially and carefully. I again appeal to the government to reconsider the question of the eastern portion of the road. That portion will not answer anything that is expected of it as an addition to the transportation facilities of this country. I hope that in the interests of the country, in regard to that part of the scheme, at any rate, the government will see their way clear to reconsider it, and, having withdrawn it, will secure expert evidence which will enable them to develop a plan more in accordance with the interest of the country as a whole.


Mr. JAMES J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, from certain articles I have seen in the newspapers and from information received from other sources, I am led to believe that a good deal of misapprehension exists in the minds of some persons in the province from which I come in regard to this national transcontinental railroad. I deem it my duty, therefore, to remove, if I can, some of this misapprehension. In my judgment the strongest and ablest-certainly the strongest-speech in this House against the proposed scheme, was that delivered by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). I believe that it was the speech that had the most effect in the country. This was not entirely due to the speech itself, but was, in my opinion, due to the fact that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals had been for many years associated with the Liberal party and had been for seven years a member of the government and the head of the Department of Railways and Canals. The part of that speech which appeared to the hon. gentleman himself, I think, to be the strongest, that part at least, on which he laid the most emphasis, was the part in which he alleged the undue haste, unwarranted and unexampled haste with which this project had been sprung upon parliament and the country. He said there had been no demand, from any party or any province of the Dominion, that there was no need of the railway, and he could not understand what induced the Mr. KEMP.
government to proceed with it. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on this point, I will, with your permission, read a short extract from the hon. gentleman's speech, which was delivered on the 11th day of this month :
The government of this country, realizing the enormous magnitude of this measure ; realizing that it is perhaps a measure without parallel in the history of this country ; realizing that no question so momentous in its nature, and involving such large responsibilities on the country had ever been presented to parliament since the confederation of the provinces of British North America ; realizing also that this decision and determination to carry this project through, if it could be carried through this parliament, and if the assent of the country could be secured for it ; realizing all this, my right hon. friend very naturally felt that the people of the country would expect that some satisfactory explanation should be furnished, as to why, with such unusual and such unexampled haste a measure of this magnitude and this character had been pressed upon them. My right hon. friend, realized this as any one with the same responsibilities and occupying the same position would have realized it, and therefore, we observe that the very first feature of this whole question to which the Prime Minister directed his attention, was to repel if possible the charge, or to answer if possible the accusation which must have entered into the mind of almost everybody from one part of Canada to the other, that this question had been sprung with undue haste and without deliberation. The right hon. gentleman undertook an answer to that phase of the case, and I will give the-House in his own words the answer which he gave. Let me tell the House in the first place, however, wherein it was that the right hon. gentleman did not offer an explanation of his course. He did not deny that there had not been deliberation ; he did not aflirm that the government of the country had availed itself of all proper sources of information, and had waited until they had exhausted all the means in their power-to ascertain what the conditions were in the various portions of the country which this road was to traverse ; he did not tell us the need which had arisen for us to jump headlong into a scheme of this kind ; he did not tell us that he had summoned to his assistance the wisest counsels which the country could afford ; he did not tell us that he had sought the assistance of experts in order to know what the traffic conditions were which would make this railway desirable ; he did not even pretend to tell us that he had done these
things	I have been a willing listener to
any demand of this kind, .and I am hound to say I have not heard any great outcry for another transcontinental line from ocean to-ocean. I do not know where the cry was made that it reached others. It was not made, at all events, so that it reached me	
I make bold to say that there is no evidence that the people of this country demand this legislation. I will commence with the province of British Columbia and ask you :	Is there any
call, loud or weak from the province of British Columbia that another railway should be put through the passes of the Rockies and carried to Fort Simpson ? If there is, I have not heard it. I would like to see the proof that can be brought in support of any such statement. Such | a feeling does not exist.

vince of Ontario ? Have we heard even a whisper of it before this thing was suggested?
Now, Sir, in the course of his remarks he further said that there was no demand from the great province of Ontario, that there was no demand from the North-west Territories and that in fact there was railway accommodation in the North-west Territories for 5,000,000 population ; there was no demand from British Columbia. But was the hon. gentleman of that opinion a few months ago ? Some seven or eight months ago he was on the Pacific coast and this is what he was reported to have said in reply to an address from the Victoria Board of Trade, and I presume the hon. gentleman gives utterance to sentiments there in accord with the views of the Board of Trade which he was addressing. This was on the 9th of October and he said :
There is no country where the soil is more fertile than in the millions of acres in Canada which the plough has not yet touched, and which man has not yet invaded. Railways were necessary to open up these great fertile tracts. If we are to invite the people from the world outside to immigrate here, they have a right to expect that the government can assure them the means of transportation. That means a great many railways in many parts of Canada and we feel as a government that we have ample justification in going to all reasonable lengths to meet this need. The tide of immigration was just setting in full and strong towards Canada particularly from the south, and he believed the time was near when there would be a greater immigration than ever before to Canada from the motherland. This influx of settlers he said, must bring its problems ; it meant an increase of soil production and necessarily of means of transport. We cannot long remain content with only one transcontinental line.
It cannot come fast enough to satisfy me and I am doing all I can in my small way without public pretense about it to ensure its construction.
There are young men, perhaps the middle aged men, who are listening to me who will live to see four transcontinental lines running through Canada. And they will not see more than enough.
That was on the 9th of October. Did the hon. gentleman change his opinion a little later ? Of course up to this time he could not have heard of the resolution passed by the Truro Board of Trade, of the resolution passed by the Halifax Board of Trade, of the resolution passed by the Moncton Board of Trade, of the opinions expressed by the leading merchants of Montreal and other cities, of the resolutions passed by the Toronto Board of Trade, of the many articles which appeared during the previous months in the leading newspapers of the country and the expressions of opinion that had been received from various bodies.
But on the 24th of November the hon. gentleman was still of the same opinion. He gave an interview to the ' Mail and Em-288
pire.' On that day the ' Mail and Empire ' correspondent ' asked the minister to-night if he had at the time in his mind the possibility of the extension of the Grand Trunk to the Pacific coast,' and Mr. Blair replied :
Well, so long as the subject is one now of public knowledge I may frankly say that 1 knew what was coming. Mr. Hays has discussed the matter with me on several occasions, but until a definite conclusion was reached by the company I did not feel at liberty to speak of it. I am free to confess that in my judgment the development of the Canadian North-west and British Columbia will be so rapid in the next few years as to afford ample traflie for three transcontinental lines, and I am glad to know that the Grand Trunk Railway Company seeks to share in that development. To build a railway from Gravenhurst or North Bay through New Ontario, across Manitoba and the territories to the Pacific coast via the Pine or Peace river passes-the route which, I believe, the Grand Trunk Railway contemplates to adopt- cannot be less than 2,500 miles. It is a pretty big undertaking but it has been done before, and can certainly be accomplished again.
The bon. gentleman did not believe on the 24th November last that there was ample railway accommodation in the North-west Territories for 5,000,000 of people.
But perhaps as that is some seven or eight months ago he changed his mind a little later on ; of course every man has a right to change his mind if he wants to. But here is what I find. I find that he did not change his mind up to the 13th of July. Of course I believe the hon. gentleman had very considerable objection to the extension of the line from Quebec to Moncton, but even for that piece of road he had not an insuperable objection. He had no particular objection as you will see by his letter to the Premier to the building of the line from Quebec to the Pacific ocean. On the 13th of July, he says :
As I have said, I am in favour of the whole line being built and owned by government ; but having abandoned any expectation In that regard I am equally in favour of the whole line being a company line, if any portion of it, or a substantial portion, is to be a company line, and therefore I am prepared, since Council has determined to go forward with this undertaking at once, to co-operate With my colleagues in guaranteeing the bonds over the whole line to an extent not exceeding three-quarters of the cost of the construction of the railway.
The hon. gentleman seems not to be unalterably opposed to guaranteeing the bonds of the whole line at least from Quebec to the Pacific coast. He was not opposed to the extension of the line from Quebec to St. John, no not entirely opposed to that even, although later on he said it would parallel and destroy the Intercolonial. But on the 3rd of June, I find the hon. gentleman voting in the Committee on Railways and Canals for the line to be extended to St. John. Now in my opinion if the building of this line from Quebec to Moncton will destroy the Intercolonial, will parallel the

4*187

Intercolonial, will duplicate the Intercolonial, the building of it to St. John would [DOT]certainly have that effect to the same de-sgree. Now, Sir, as I have said, in the speech made by the hon. gentleman on the Uth of this month, he dwelt particularly and emphasized strongly his principal objection to that portion of the line between Quebec and Moncton and he said It would destroy the Intercolonial and I think the hon. gentlemen opposite who have followed him since have largely followed '.his views in that respect up to last night. I am bound to say that last night the hon. the leader of the opposition said he would not oppose the building of the line from Moncton to Quebec for or from Moncton to LSvis which is practically the same thing so that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals is thrown over by his friends at least to that extent. Now, Sir, would this line if built from L6vis to Moncton parallel and destroy the Intercolonial ? The only way it could do that I apprehend would be by taking trade and traffic from the Intercolonial and it could only do that if it were a shorter and better road. Now, our hon. friends opposite, most of them, say that it Is almost impossible if not altogether impossible to build a road there that will be much shorter and that it is impossible, almost if not entirely impossible to build a road that will be equal to the Intercolonial so far as grades and curves are concerned. So that when they say that this road will take traffic from the Intercolonial Railway and at the same time that it will not be as good a road as the Intercolonial Railway they are proving too much and they are contradicting themselves. But, why will this line destroy the Intercolonial Railway ? According to the arrangements that have been made it will hand over to the Intercolonial Railway the transcontinental traffic that It will bring from the west, traffic which the Intercolonial Railway would not and could not obtain in any other way, traffic that it has not now, that it never had and consequently as far as that goes it will be an advantage to the Intercolonial Railway. It will not, of course, take away any local traffic from the Intercolonial Railway. Nobody has said that it will do that and it will not to any large extent take away any through-traffic from the Intercolonial. The Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway at the present time have an agreement which will run for upwards of ninety years that the Grand Trunk Railway has to deliver at Montreal all the trade it gathers up in the province of Ontario and at points west of Montreal which Is destined for points cast of Montreal to the Intercolonial, and while that agreement lasts no other railway could take away that trade that the Intercolonial Railway now gets. But, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden. Halifax) last night said that be was not opposed to the building of an-
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.)
other road from Moncton to Quebec, but that he would have it a government road. Then, if that were carried out the government would have two roads on its hands from Quebec to Moncton. The government would then have to hustle to provide traffic for two roads instead of one. Would that not injure the Intercolonial Railway if it could be injured ? Under the present arrangements when this road is built and leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the government need not worry any more about it. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has to provide traffic for that road and the government can turn its attention to the upbuilding of the Intercolonial Railway, and surely the government will be as efficient in the future as it has been in the past. The hon. leader of the opposition last night stated that he was not opposed to the building of a line from Quebec to Winnipeg but he said he would make it a colonization road. Surely, it would be well if the road were built to make it both a colonization and a transcontinental railway. Why not use it for both purposes V Would there be any objection to having transcontinental freight going over it and at the same time making it a colonization road? The hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken appear to be in favour of building a line from Winnipeg to North Bay. That would have no effect at all in accomplishing the object we have in view. The traffic that the Grand Trunk Pacific under these circumstances would bring down as far as North Bay would find its way to Montreal and Toronto and ultimately to Portland. Would that be a desirable thing? That is what we are anxious to prevent. If we can carry that traffic to our own country and ship it from our own ports would that not be a desirable thing to do ? Particularly as the road from Winnipeg to North Bay would cover about three-quarters of the whole distance would it not be well to go on and build the other fourth and thus complete the road to Quebec, an ocean port on the river St. Lawrence, especially as this road will bring Quebec as near to the wheat fields of the North-west Territories ns Montreal now is with the existing lipes. In addition to that Quebec is 180 miles nearer the ocean than Montreal and the traffic that goes over the Grand Trunk Pacific as far as Quebec must either be shipped by Quebec or sent on to some maritime province port. It cannot then go out to a foreign port. But, it has been said that it will be impossible to carry grain by this line from the North-west Territories. Sir Wm. Van Horne has been quoted as saying something to the effect that no railway would voluntarily carry grain from the wheat fields of the North-west to Montreal and to the ocean ports. As a matter of fact, according to the statement made by the hon. Minister of the Interior and even by the hon. leader of the opposition himself, large quantities

of grain are now being carried by rail from the North-west Territories. Although he is an experienced railway man Sir Wm. Van Horne is not the only man in Canada who is an authority upon these questions. There are other railway men who are second only if they are second to Sir Wm. Van Horne. There is the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, Mr. Hays. He surely has had some experience. There is Mr. Wainwright and Mr. McGuigan who assist Mr. Hays in the management of the Grand Trunk Railway and they claim that grain can be carried by this route. They do more than make that claim; they are willing to put their money into the enterprise and back it up by their reputations as business men and railway men, and according to the ex-Minister of Railways they will put 828,000,000 of their own money into the undertaking. Whether grain can be carried or not, certainly, in the estimation of these men, sufficient traffic will go over this road to enable this company to pay interest on the cost of construction for forty-three years out of the fifty. That to my mind is the strongest possible proof that can be adduced in favour of the building of this road. When you get a company, like the old Grand Trunk Railway Company of this country, and when you get capable railway managers, like Mr. Hays and those who are associated with him, going into this enterprise and agreeing to operate the road, to keep it up to a high standard of efficiency, to pay all the operating expenses and to pay interest on the cost of construction for forty-three years it shows that in their estimation, at all events, it is going to do business. We need not worry very much about what kind of business it is going to do. It must not be forgotten that there are other kinds of trade in Canada besides the business of carrying grain. There is another industry in the North-west Territories that is perhaps second only to the business of grain growing. I refer to cattle raising. The great ranches of the North-west Territories are only beginning to be used and when better facilities are given to the people who are in the ranching business for getting their cattle out to the markets of the world, an enormous development will take place in that business as it will in other businesses in which the west is engaged. Last year ten million dollars worth of cattle were shipped out of the country, and a large portion of the cattle shipped from the North-west could not find sufficient railways to carry them east and. I think, 30,000 head had to go through the United States and be carried by United States railways to the seaboard. Is that a desirable state of things ? It is possibly true that grain during the summer months will take the lake route in preference to the rail route, but cattle cannot be carried by way of the lakes. The cattle must travel by rail the whole way from the point where they are raised to the point where thev are embarked 288i
on the ocean, and it is therefore necessary that we should provide facilities for handling this large traffic. Then, there is another industry that would be very important as far as this railway is concerned and as far as the settlers in the North-west Territories are concerned. That is the lumber industry. It is impossible, according to the information that I have received, according to information that has been given to this House and according to what we know, that the North-west Territories can be settled, that immigrants can go in there, and live unless they can get lumber with which to build their houses and barns and other buildings that are necessary for them. This road when built will go through the great lumber regions of northern Ontario and Quebec, and through the mountain districts of British Columbia and will be enabled to carry lumber to the settlers on the plains. This of itself will give rise to Important industries. The establishment of mills on these rivers in northern Ontario and in British Columbia where this lumber would be manufactured, will give employment to thousands of hands and call for the investment of ten of thousands of dollars.
But. the point which most concerns the province from which I come and for that matter the other provinces, I suppose, is the financial aspect of this question, and that is the point which has been most misrepresented by hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Finance went pretty fully into this question and anybody who followed him closely ought to have a good knowledge of the financial side of this proposition. I need not say that the words of the Finance Minister will be accepted in this House and in this country pretty generally. He showed conclusively that $13,750,000 now invested in interest-bearing securities would provide sufficient money to meet all the demands the government would be bound to meet in connection with this transcontinental railway. There is another way of looking at the question. It appears to me that our friends opposite ignore the fact, wilfully ignore the fact, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will meet its obligations. There is no doubt in the minds of sensible men in Canada that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will meet the obligations, because it will have deposited with the government before it commences its construction at all, a guarantee of $5,000,000 in cash or in securities that will remain in the hands of the government until the road is completed up to within $5,000,000 of its total cost. That money will only be released by the government in instalments in order to enable the company to finally build and equip its road. In addition to that, the company puts at least $30,000,000 of its own money into the enterprise. The government guarantees the bonds on the prairie section, but is not responsible for any interest in any shape or manner as regards

that section, so long as the company will meet its obligations. The government guarantees the bonds on the mountain section to the extent of not more than $30,000 per mile, or three-fourths of the cost, and it will pay the interest on that guarantee for seven years.
Now, Sir, let me refer to the part of the road which will be built by the government itself from Moncton to Winnipeg. It is said that that road will be between 1,700 and 1,800 miles in length, and I will take the longest mileage on which to base my calculation. The ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) estimated that it would cost $35,000 per mile to build that section. In criticising the project from his standpoint, it1 was to his interest to put the cost of the road as high as possible, and I think most people in the country will come to the conclusion that he did so. Experienced railway men have said that it will not cost more than $25,000 per mile, but be that as it may, I will take the figures given by the ex-Minister of Railways. Now, 1,800 miles of railroad at $35,000 per mile would amount to $63,000,000. I am sure that !n the opinion of every reasonable man in this country, that will include the interest during the time of construction and everything up to date when the road is finished. The cost of that portion of the Quebec bridge which can be debited to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, according to the estimate of the Finance Minister, will not exceed $2,000,000. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier estimated that the total cost of the Quebec bridge is $5,000,000. but as four or five other railways will use that bridge, that portion which can be debited to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ought certainly not exceed $2,000,000. We have then as the total cost of the railway, and bridge included, $65,000,000. The interest on this amount at three per cent for seven years is $13,650,000. That is the total charge the government will have to meet, because at the end of seven years the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway takes over the road and pays the interest on the cost of construction from that time forward for the balance of the fifty years.
The mountain section is estimated at 480 miles, and supposing it is 500 miles long, then at $30,000 a mile or a total cost of $15,000,000 and the interest on that for seven years would be $3,150,000, or a total cost to us altogether of $16,800,000. That I submit is the largest amount for which the government of this country becomes responsible. It is the outside figure, because at the end of fifty years, when the bonds for the building of this railway will have matured, does any intelligent or reasonable man in Canada suppose that the railway will not then be worth a great* deal more than it cost, and if the government of that day sees fit to operate the railway, will it not be worth more to the government than it has cost ; or if the government of that day will
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.)
operate the railway they will certainly get a rental for it far in excess of three per cent, and possibly twice that amount. The development of the country by that time will have been such that the railway wilt certainly be more valuable than when it was constructed. Now then, would this $16,800,000 be an enormous sum for the people of this country to meet ? Suppose we take it over and divide the population of Canada into it. The population of Canada at present is upwards of 5,500,000, and before we are called upon to pay any large contribution to this railway our population will have reached 6,000,000. That would just amount to $2.80 per head. If the people of this country had to pay $2.80 per head in one year, would it bankrupt them ?


Mr. BUREAU.: Not much.


James Joseph Hughes: I think it was the hon. member for East Grey who said that the burden placed upon the people of this country by this proposed railway would precipitate his constituents into the yawning abyss of financial ruin.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Oh, my.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not make any such) statement.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, the statement of the hon. gentleman was a very strong statement in that direction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said that according to the estimate I made of the obligations incurred by us, it would represent from $100 to $125, standing against each family in the country, which might fairly be regarded as a mortgage on the farm of every farmer as long as the youngest member of the fam-t ily was alive.


James Joseph Hughes: I cannot possibly see how $16,800,000 would represent a mortgage of $125 on each family in the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. member pretend to say that the eastern section can be built for $16,000,000 ?
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.) I do not say that, but I say that that sum will be the interest for seven years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. gentleman aware that we must borrow the money ?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, lam aware of that. Well, now. we are not called upon even to pay this $2.80 per head in one year,-because it will be spread over a period of fourteen years, and we will be asked to pay it in fourteen annual instalments which will amount to just 20 cents a year for each' one of our population. Twenty cents a year per capita the people of this country will have to pay in order to provide a transcontinental railway from Moncton to the, Pacific ocean.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Cheap enough.

Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) Yes, it is cheap enough; it is an excellent bargain. I do not think there is a man in this country who will have to mortgage his farm in order to raise that 20 cents. I do not think there is a farmer in Ontario who will have to do so; I know that there is not one in Prince Edward Island. But shall we have to pay the 20 cents even? No. Before the 14 years will have expired, our population will have at least doubled. Some people think it will have trebled. I believe that kon. gentlemen opposite agree that it will at least have doubled; and consequently our per capita contribution to this railway will be cut in two, and will be down to 10 cents. But during a portion of that time our population will be no more than 6,000,000, so that I suppose it will be fair to strike an average, and say that our contribution during the 14 years will be 15 cents per capita per year. What do we get for that ? We get a transcontinental railway, a railway from ocean to ocean.
But this is not all of the financial aspect of the question. This railway will pass through 1,200 miles of fertile territory in the North-west, throwing open to settlement from 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 acres of land. It will be a conservative estimate to put upon that land the value of $3 an acre. The hon. Minister of the Interior the o+her evening stated that he felt justified in saying that before ten years will have elapsed, the Interior Department will have sold 20,000,000 acres of land to settlers for at least ?3 an acre in consequence of the building of this transcontinental railway. So that the railway will return directly to the treasury of this country from the land sales alone three or four or five times what the people of the country will be called on to pay for the building of it. That money will remain in the treasury or be used for the necessary public works throughout the country, and at the end of the fifty-year period, if the people of the country had to pay the bonds on which the money to build this railroad was borrowed, long-before that period would have elapsed the money that would come from the land sries in the North-west in consequence of the building of the railway, would more than provide for the lifting of those bonds, and the railway would not therefore cost tbe people of this country one Cent. The increased value of the lands through which the railway will pass will more than pay for the railway.
There is another way of looking at tbe matter. Will any man in this House deny that this country will do a largely increased business in consequence of the building of this railway, that it will induce immigration to come to this country, and $100,000,000 of capital? Surely this will give a great impetus to the trade and commerce of the country, and what will be the profits the people will derive from that increase of
trade? I am inclined to think that it will be at least three or four times what we shall be called on to pay. The position appears to me to be something like this. If a farmer or a merchant or a manufacturer, or any man doing business in Canada, were morally certain that by enlarging his plant, increasing his machinery, putting up more buildings, perhaps doing a little judicious advertising, his business would be so much increased that the profit on the increased business would more than pay the interest on the expenditure, would any progressive business man hesitate to make that expenditure ; and that to my mind is the position of this country with regard to the financial aspect of this railway.
It was said that this will parallel the Intercolonial ; but that cry has been dropped, and it is said now that it will duplicate it. As the hon. leader of the opposition has said that he is not opposed to the building of a railway from Quebec to Moncton, the statement that this road will parallel and destroy the Intercolonial will certainly have to be dropped or modified. But are there any other places in Canada where railroads parallel or run close to each other which have been built by the people of this country ? There are certainly many cases, and yet we never heard this cry raised before, that the railroads wiere paralleling or destroying each other. The Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk Pacific from Quebec to Moncton will average sixty miles apart. Bet us compare them with other railroads which run close to each other. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canada Atlantic from Ottawa to Montreal are on the average sixteen miles apart. The Canadian Pacific, when it had only one line from Ottawa to Montreal, was not satisfied with that, but built another line: and there is also river navigation between these two cities. So that there are three lines of railways and the river between Ottawa and Montreal, and I suppose they all find trade. Then the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto are on the average only twenty-five miles apart, less than half the distance between the proposed railway and the Intercolonial. The Grand Trunk and the Canada Atlantic from Montreal to the Georgian bay are on the average sixty miles apart; the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern between Winnipeg and Port Arthur are on the average sixty miles apart; yet, these railways are not said to parallel one another.
It may be said, and it has been said, that the people of Prince Edward Island will get no benefit whatever from the building of this railway; but I have this to say, that the province of Prince Edward Island is an integral part of the Dominion of Canada, and the people of that island, if I understand them, and I think I do, are willing to pay their fair share of whatever is

required to provide the necessary public works throughout the Dominion of Canada for the development of the trade of the country, knowing and believing that their fellow-Canadians in the other provinces will give what is fair and reasonable to enable them at least to overcome the natural disadvantages and difficulties which are incidental to their insular position, and to provide the necessary public works in that province.
There are some things that we greatly require in Prince Edward Island, and I take this opportunity of presenting in a few words some of the needs of that province. At the time of confederation it was stipulated in the terms of union that we would have continuous and efficient steam communication, winter and summer, between Prince Edward Island a"hd the mainland, and an efficient up-to-date telegraphic service. Well, Sir, reasonable efforts have been put forth to provide these requirements in the past; but I must say that these stipulations have not been carried out in their entirety. We are not unreasonable in our demands. What we require now is a third winter steamer. Our trade has grown so fast and I am sure the members from the other provinces will be glad to hear that the development of Prince Edward Island is going on as rapidly as that of the other provinces of the Dominion; so that where a few years ago we required only two steamers to accommodate our trade we now require three. The cost of a third steamer will not be large, and she could be used in the fishery protective service in the summer, and for communication between the island and the mainland in the winter. We have been demanding improved telegraphic communication for several years. Our present telegraphic service is open only twelve hours out of the twenty-four on week days, and is closed every Sunday. In that respect we are a very' exemplary people. And if costs one hundred per cent more to send a telegram to or from the island than it does on the mainland. These are grievances that ought to be removed and removed quickly ; and while we are willing to contribute our fair share to the construction of public works necessary for the development of the other provinces, we ask our brother Canadians in those provinces to contribute sufficiently to overcome these difficulties to which I have referred and which are incidental to our insular position. In addition we require a few more miles of railway accommodation in order to carry on our business, and I would impress on hon. members, what many of them do not seem to know, that the people of Prince Edward Island built and paid for their own railway at the time of confederation. Consequently, when we are contributing to the construction of railways in the other provinces we
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.)
have a claim on them for reasonable railway accommodation in our own.
But will the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific be of any direct advantage to the farmers of Prince Edward Island ? I believe it will. It will certainly develop the coal, iron and steel business of Nova Scotia such as nothing else could do. We know how valuable the markets of Sydney and other towns of Nova Scotia have been to our farmers during the last few years. We know that anything which will build up the towns and cities of Nova . Scotia and New Brunswick and thus provide a market for the products of Prince Edward Island, will be of the greatest advantage to the farmers of that island. The larger markets which will be given to us in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton and New Brunswick, by the construction of this railway, will repay us three or four times at least our contribution towards its construction. These are the chief reasons why this project appeals to my support.
The leader of the opposition last night laid before this House an alternative proposition. He proposed to extend the Intercolonial to Georgian Bay or to purchase the Canada Atlantic Kailway and then build from Georgian Bay to Sudbury. He proposed also to acquire by purchase the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Port William, and to spend large sums on the improvement of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port William to Winnipeg and on improvement of the Canadian Northern from Port William to Winnipeg. He did not tell us, nor has any gentleman opposite told us, what all this would cost; but in my judgment it would cost at least as much as this transcontinental line. To improve the Canadian Pacific Railway, its grades and curves, from North Bay to Port William, would certainly cost a large sum of money. To buy the Canadian Northern Railway to Parry Sound or Geogian Bay would cost a heavy sum. The country to Sudbury is said to be a very difficult one to build through and very expensive. But even when that would be all done, we would have no more railway transportation facilities than we now possess. The facilities might be improved, but they would not be increased. But the hon. gentleman was not satisfied with that. He said lie was in favour of building from Quebec to Winnipeg and from Quebec to Moncton. He was not afraid to spend money. In fact he was willing to promise anything and only invited the people to ask for whatever they wanted. He was going to improve the docks and terminal facilities at Halifax, make Montreal a free port, improve the harbour facilities at Quebec, and in fact all along the lakes. I .have no doubt it would take $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 to carry out all the improvements which the leader of the opposition \dvocat-

ed last night, and as he unfolded his scheme,
I could not help feeling compassion Cor the misery which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) must have suffered when he thought of his constituents and the mortgage that would be put upon them and the farmers of Ontario before half these improvements were carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These improvements would be carried out for half the cost of the government undertaking.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Give us the figures.


James Joseph Hughes: I think my hon. friend will find out that I have not exaggerated. The scheme submitted by the government commends itself to my judgment. This proposed railway will extend from Moncton through the central part of New Brunswick and give railway accommodation and development to that province. It will extend along through the southern portion of Quebec. It will extend from Quebec westerly and northwesterly and through the northern part of the province of Ontario, opening up in that province great mineral wealth and giving access to valuable timber areas and rich agricultural lands. It will give depth to our country as well as length, and we will no longer be a fringe of settlement along the international boundary. It will provide a living band of men and women in that portion of country which is not now inhabited, that is between the east and the west, and extending on on to the Pacific coast. These are desirable things to accomplish and which cannot be accomplished in any other way.
But there is something else which commends this proposition to my approval. If the time should ever come-and it will not come through any fault of ours-when we may have to stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our country, our institufons and our laws, think what a sense of security this continental railway extending from the impregnable fortress of Quebec in the east to a fortified fort on the Pacific ocean, will give us. Our troops could be easily transferred from the west to the east or from the east to the west and placed at any intermediate point where danger might threaten. Should that day ever come,, as there ',a man in Canada who would begrudge this contribution of 15 cents a year for fourteen years for the power and security which such a line of communication would afford ? Mr. Speaker, the people of cities yet unbuilt will rise up to do honour to the men who had the ability to conceive and the courage to carry, through, in spite of the opposition of friend and foe, this great national undertaking, an undertaking whiijli will do much to make of Canada a nation among the nations of the earth.
Mr. ,W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe). I move the adjournment of the debate.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: It it only eleven o'clock, and it seems to me we ought to go on.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Hon. gentlemen on that side of the House, two or three times since this debate commenced, have asked for an early adjournment. We have been running pretty late for some time, and I think the government might consent to the adjournment now. I do not think it would prolong the debate if we adjourned.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) might go on, as has been done by other hon. gentlemen, deliver part of his speech, and finish tomorrow.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when, towards the latter part of 1902, it was announced in the public press of the province of Ontario that certain gentlemen were about to undertake the construction of a transcontinental line, that announcement was hailed with considerable pleasure by people of the Dominion generally. We all had faith in the future greatness of the country and felt that a second transcontinental railway was not only a desirable project in the interests of the Dominion, but one that would probably be a remunerative undertaking to those who projected it. The announcement made at that time was a business proposition. And forthwith the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which really stood as a sponsor for the undertaking, caused to be circulated among the business men. of this country a book called ' Facts concerning the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.' At the same time they caused to be circulated throughout the Dominion a map showing where the projected line of railway was to run. And when one looks back over those six months, it seems impossible to reconcile the proposition now before parliament with the proposition announced by these gentlemen. A few words from this book issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will show what the proposition was which they had in view at that time. I quote from page 2 of this book :
The proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which will extend from Quebec to the Pacific coast by way of North Bay, the present junction of the Grand Trunk Railway, a distance of about 3,025 miles.
So, it is plain from the prospectus that there was no intention on the part of these gentlemen, no thought present to their minds, of building from a point further east than North Bay in the province of Ontario. Further than that, in the maps that were issued by these parties at the time, it was plainly shown that the construction was to

commence at North Bay. The public will naturally wonder why, after the lapse of two or three months such a striking departure has been made from the original scheme. A reference to the ' Canadian Gazette ' of that time-the original notice, I think was given about the 15th of December-shows that it was to be built from North Bay to the Pacific ocean, with branches to Winnipeg and Calgary. There is a little history concerning the change of base by these parties, and I am going to refer to it briefly.
Some year or two ago, there was granted by the parliament of Canada a charter to certain gentlemen of the city of Quebec for what was known as the Trans-Canada railway. That was a railway that was -to run from the city of Quebec westward away to the north of Lake Winnipeg and through to the Pacific coast. After that charter had been issued, the proposition known as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway came up. So, the government were face to face with a difficulty. They had a proposition with the large backing that was behind the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, not only the magnates of the Grand Trunk, but such men, high in the councils of the Liberal party, as Senators Cox and Gibson. The government were alive to the fact that if these two charters were to he gone on with, they would have to face two gigantic railway subsidies. What were they to do ? At once, efforts were made to bring the parties together and head off either one railway or the other. Of course, it would be utterly impossible to do away with Senators Cox and Gibson, owing to the great power they have with this government. A gentleman who is a member of the government from the province of Ontario saw at once the position in which the government would be placed. One subsidy was bad enough, but what was to be done if two railway subsidies had to be paid to two distinct corporations ? The month of December went by. The application of the Grand Trunk Pacific was in, and it was well understood that the granting of a charter would be followed by a demand for a subsidy. A charter had already been granted to the Trans-Canadian people, and, of course they would make application to parliament for a subsidy. One must cast his eye over the situation in the province of Quebec to see the strong position held by the Trans-Canada people. We have all seen what has been going on for the last six or seven years in the city of Montreal. Thanks to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) great works have been going on in the harbour of that city with a view of attracting and handling the trails-portation traffic of this continent.. Now, I would recall to the minds of hon. members the fact that two years ago the members of this House and of the Senate were treated in the most royal manner in the city of Mr. BENNETT.
Quebec by the city council and the board of trade there. On that occasion, at a magnificent banquet that was tendered to us, it was pointed out that the great city of Quebec was being side-tracked. We were told that the Great Northern and Canada Atlantic Railway systems, by an arrangement, had succeeded in attracting a large portion of the grain trade to that port. And it was an open secret that the people of the city were loud in complaints, that the Premier, representing one of the constituencies of the city of Quebec and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) representing the county of Quebec had not been able to prevail upon the government to secure any desirable improvements in the port of Quebec, but that all the improvements were being made in the port of Montreal, and that the whole trade was tending in that direction. Plainly, if things were to continue as they then were, the city of Quebec, would be left in the background, to the great advantage of the city of Montreal. The Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) knew full well that the Trans-Canada charter had been granted and that the Premier and the Minister of Justice would not stand idly by-dare not stand idly by-nor would the other members from the Quebec	district remain quiet,	and seethe Trans-Canada railway charter left without	being supplemented	with asubsidy.	The	Postmaster General sawthe dilemma-two applications for subsidies, one on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific and one on behalf of the Trans-Canada.	And	the Postmaster	General
thought he would come to the front, and so on March 24, at a banquet tendered in Toronto at which the Postmaster General spoke he saw the necessity of breaking the ice in order that the government might at once be placed in a position to bring these two rival companies to an arrangement. Speaking in Toronto on that occasion the Postmaster General who had been discussing at that time that question of transportation generally in the Dominion of Canada said as reported in the Toronto 'Newts':
For example, were a railway to be built direct between Winnipeg and Quebec city, the latter would be within less than 1,300 miles of Winnipeg, as against Portland's over 1,700 miles. Boston's nearly 1,800 miles and New York's 1,900 miles. We have also a corresponding shorter ocean distance to Great Britain.
Further on he said, and this was the point at which the Postmaster General desired to make himself solid with the public, and more particularly with the province of Ontario :
Public opinion to-day appears to be more or less against subsidizing railways. Is there any prospect of capitalists out of their own capital alone building a line over the thousand miles of country to which I have alluded, which for many a year will fail to supply any reasonable return on the capital invested ? Capitalists are

not philanthropists, but expect a return upon their investments. Shall we proceed to subsidize the various railways that are now proposing to extend their lines to Manitoba ? Shall the country extend the Intercolonial Railway, say, from Quebec to the Pacific Ocean, not only investing the capital involved in the work itself, but also operating the line, or shall we simply build a railway highway available under proper regulations, as would be a canal, for the traffic of all railways between Manitoba and, say, the city of Quebec, with its branch connections with intermediate provinces, or shall we fold our arms, shrink from discharging our proper responsibilities, and let the country drift ?
There are those who, forgetting that the progressive Canada of to-day is not the old, unprogressive Canada of half-a-dozen years ago, think her affairs can be managed now as then. There are others who, for party purposes, would paralyse our action by endeavouring to deter us from having the courage to meet the altered conditions of to-day. Neither of these classes, I think, represents true Canada. There is a third, a more broad-minded* progressive, enterprising and patriotic section of the people, an ' Onward Canada ' party in effect, who, recognizing the unparalleled progress our country is making to-day, demand that, instead of deterring the movement by inaction, we should take occasion by the hand, and wisely and masterfully grapple with, and if possible successfully solve, the problems growing out of Canada's great and unprecedented development.
A Serious Problem.
One of the most serious of these problems is the railway question to which I have alluded. The wise solution of this problem as, for example, by direct railway connection between Manitoba and Quebec city, means much for Canada.
Now, Sir, what was plain ? It was plain that the Postmaster General saw the dilemma facing the government, the Trans-Canada Railway Company with its powerful influence which would be exerted in its behalf demanding a subsidy, and the company headed by Senator Cox and Senator Gibson. The Postmaster General at once rushed into the foreground with his idea of putting both of these railways to one side if possible, and at all events if uot putting both, at least putting one of them to one side. Then what happened ? That was the position of matters until parliament met, and when parliament met the Grand Trunk Pacific Company came along with their notice and asked then that a charter should be granted them' in the terms upon which they had originally applied, namely from North Bay and North Bay alone, as the eastern point to the Pacific coast. We all know what happened in the Railway Committee, when the committee met about the 8th of May, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Charles M. Hays were present as representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and then, not to the amazement of lion, gentlemen in this House, because it was pretty well known to what extent matters had gone, the company at once threw up their hands and said : 'We have changed our plans, we are not going
to build a railway to North Bay, but we intend to make our eastern point exactly what the Postmaster General said it would be, namely, the city of Quebec.' What happened then ? There was the dilemma hon. gentlemen had to meet with their party friends, the maritime province men up in arms one and all. We all remember the hon. member for Westmoreland and the hon. member for Cumberland as they each in turn addressed Sir Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays, and what was the result ? Sir Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays both made the positive and distinct statements that the railway would not go beyond Quebec, and the hon. member for Queen's, N.B. asked, ' Why stop at Quebec,' to which Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson answered :	' We have an agreemen with the government for the maritime ports of St. John and Halifax, and I think that answers the question.' The answer there, no doubt, referred to the arrangement that existed between the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. Further on the hon. member for Cumberland asked if they would build to the maritime provinces. Mr. Hays' answer to that was most emphatic:	'We will certainly not build
there.'


Mr. BROCK.: And they will not either.


William Humphrey Bennett: Here was the party confronted with the dilemma that their maritime province members were to go on strike unless the government came down from their perch, and agreed to meet the wishes of their supporters from every part of the Dominion. There cannot be a doubt that as a business proposition the Grand Trunk never intended to build east of North Bay, but were driven into that by their supporters from Quebec, and after their supporters from the province of Quebec had succeeded in driving them to build it to the city of Quebec then, pleased with the prospect of what could be done by driving, the maritime province men followed suit, and the result is that to-day the people of Canada are being saddled with what was very properly termed by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals a political railway, and not a practical railway or a business railway at all.
So much, Sir, for the inception of the road, and the position it has reached to-day. We need not here go into this fact that at about that time, when the Bill was before the committee, the government had not succeeded in dragooning the Ontario ministers into accepting the Moncton proposition. It is a notorious fact that it was only at the point of the pistol that the ministers from Ontario were driven into this arrangement, and I believe to-day that the clause that exists in the contract that parliament can at any time stop the work at this end, was the last peg upon which the ministers from Ontario are hanging their caps to-day, and that there is no intention on the part

of the government ever to build one mile east of Quebec. X say that the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General, when they go into the campaign this fall which was announced by the hon. member for South Wellington to-day, would be held this fall, I say that every one of their ministers will pin his faith to that clause and point out to the province of Ontario that that contract contains a clause that they need not build eastward from Quebec at all, but that parliament will have the right and have the power to stop the construction of the work from that point at any time.
Now this debate was opened by the Prime Minister, and that hon. gentleman made a very lengthy speech, a speech that is being franked not by thousands, but by thousands of tens of thousands, into every province from end to end of the Dominion, and I hope and trust that a great many of them may be sent into East Simcoe. I haven't much to say about that speech, but I shall do it the courtesy of referring to it at great-fer length than his followers have done to-day. We may take the speech and read it under its different heads. A great part of it is devoted to the fact that this is to be an all-Canadian route, and that Canada must have an all-Canadian route. There is not the humblest back bencher on the government side who will rise and repeat his language in that regard, because it has been exploded. Every one knows and every school boy knows that there is a Canadian system of railways irrespective of this one, from end to end of the Dominion, and no single word has been heard and no single word will be heard further in this debate as to the question of an all-Canadian railroad, and as to the filling of that long desired want.
The next point in it was the bonding privileges and to-day we heard two or three gentlemen on that side of the House, and not a single one of them has mentioned the bonding privileges. There is no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, who when he rises in his place, and I am sure no minister who speaks on this question frofn this on, will urge as a reason for the construction of this railway the necessity of preserving ourselves in such a position that there may be no abrogation of the bonding privilege on the part of the United States of America. Now, the fact of the matter is that the government has * been driven from pillar to post on this question. In the first place the influences of Senator Cox were so great that they had to bow to them. In the next place, the influence of Trans-Can-' a da Railway Company were so great that they had to bow to these also, and being met, as they would be met, with requests for two subsidies by these two rival roads, when they found themselves able to deal with only one, the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), and I congratulate the hon. gentleman, that for once he Mr. BENNETT.
has had his way, apparently has driven the government into this scheme for the construction of a part of this railway system, and as a result the Dominion of Canada is in the position in which it finds itself placed to-day. We have heard from the other side of the House some very lengthy speeches,' and all of them have been tinged with one thing and one thing in particular. The ministers have seen fit not to abuse the horn ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and soj they have delegated that work to the backbenchers and each little back-bencher seems to think it incumbent upon himself to say everything he can of an abusive nature of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and, Canals. Abuse is all very well in its wayi but the people of this Dominion want something else than abuse. They want argument, and I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite that abuse an'd vituperation of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals are not] going to raise them in the estimation either in the people of this country or of the mem-t hers of this House. Sir, common gratitude should prompt some of these hon. gentlemen to speak in a proper manner of the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals. Can any) one imagine that the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) three months ago would have risen in his place and told the great big exMinister of Railways and Canals that he was not fit to untie the shoes of the right hon. Premier ? I can only fancy this, that if the hon. member for Hants had said that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would have at once propounded this question : If I am not fit to unloose the latchet of the shoes of the right hon. Prime Minister of this Dominion, in the name of all that is good what menial service should the hon. member for Hants perform for that great man ?
Now, Sir, there has been a great deal said in the public press on this question and more particularly in the independent press of this country. I am going to quote some of the statements that have been published.; Nobody expected to see the ' Globe ' newspaper go up against this proposition. Who could imagine, in the name of all that is good, that the ' Globe ' would say one wrrd disparaging o.f it ? Who could imagine that the ' Globe,' after having seen the Crow's Nest deal through, the greatest iniquity that this government has ever perpetrated in the interests of the ' Globe,' could for a moment rise up and try to beat from the public gaze this great proposition of Senator Cox ? We will take the ' Farmers' Sun,' which is a pretty good paper. The ' Farmers' Sun ' says in a recent issue :
There is no justification for imposing such a burden on the farmers of Ontario and the west. They have grain to sell. They must sell it in Britain. Nothing could be more natural nor more profitable than that they should seek their market by the cheapest route.
And then we find that the government has

been unfortunate in this, that while it has the able assistance of the ' Globe ' newspaper in perpetrating any scheme upon the public, unfortunately it is not always able to control the Montreal ' Witness,' and the ' Witness ' says :
Curiously enough nothing is said about these branch lines in the contract, or has been announced concerning them. Yet these three are all obvious necessities. The one to Fort William would carry more freight than the main line as most of the grain will still cross the lakes by water. That to Montreal would make Portland as tempting a port as it now is to the present Grand Trunk Railway system, there being a constant tendency to take to the water as soon as possible.
Weil, that seems to be different from the government, because most of the members of the government have taken to the woods and the hon. member for Hants, if all reports are true, is to have a judgeship at an early day as a reward for holding a brief in defence of this iniquitous proposition. The great question as affecting this proposition to-day is the question of the railway haul of the vast products of the west. Last fall I had great pleasure in visiting the province of Manitoba and a good portion of the North-west Territories, and any hon. member of this House who may journey to the west to see that great country must be struck with the unlimited possibilities of its resources. One of the needs, and it seems to me the growing need, if one can listen to what is said by the settlers, is more railway accommodation for the country. What particularly strikes one in listening to their complaints, is that they do not complain so much of the absence of railway systems but rather of the fact that there has been a congestion of trade due to the fact that they did not have a sufficient number of cars or sufficient amount of locomotive power. To-day the question in the west, as far ns we can see and as far as all can see. is the question of getting the crop out to the seaboard in the quickest possible way, and also at the least possible rate. In all lines of business and in all walks of life the success of those engaged in similar undertakings should afford a guide and criterion for others, if we look to the western trade of the UnitPd States what is the lesson taught by it ? Go to the north-western states, to Dakota, Minnesota, and all that line of north-western states, go to Illinois, and the states that lie west and south of Chicago, and you will1 find this fact that with all their large railway accommodation in that country the grain is not carried from the west to the east by the all-rail route but it is carried by a mixed system of water and rail, and therefore I say that to-day in Canada it has been demonstrated that the proper way of bringing out the grain from the North-west is to pursue the system which is being pursued by the people of the United States. We have that very system in this country in
carrying grain from the west to the east. I recall to mind, which is in the history of the last parliament, because it was the subject! of a debate in this House, that upon one occasion the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals attempted to carry 300,000 bushels of grain to St. John from the North-west. What was the result ? That grain was brought from points in the north shore of Lake Superior to Parry Sound, it was taken down over the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Great Northern Railway and the Intercolonial Railway to St. John, and the result of the carriage of that grain for that long distance was that there was a loss of $10,000 on one cargo of 300,000 bushels. If it is a fact that on one single cargo, because that amount would only make up the cargo of one of the laege freighters on the great lakes, there was a loss of $10,000, how is it possible to carry grain from the far west to the east over a long grain haul, and in the case to which I have referred it was not 'as long a grain haul as it would be in the ease of the Grand Trunk Pacific, because the grain was put into the cars at Parry Sound ? If this project is ever to go into effect, how is it possible to carry grain over this long haul from the west to St. John or Halifax ? The people of Canada to-day have in St. John and Halifax large grain elevators, and it is a notorious fact that although the Halifax elevator cost this country some hundreds of thousands of dollars not a single bushel of grain has ever been passed through it.
As to the St. John elevator, I do not think it ever held a bushel of grain outside of these 300,000 bushels. In the face of this experience the government tell us that they are going to turn the whole tide of transportation, and carry grain by rail over this immense distance from the prairies along the north shore of Lake Superior, and clear through to the tidewater of the Atlantic. Let me call the attention of the House to this fact. Toledo is only 250 miles from Buffalo, and yet they carried by rail last year about 7,000,000 bushels of grain to Toledo and there transferred it to vessels and took it to Buffalo. That proves beyond all doubt that there can only be a successful grain carrying trade on this continent by water and by rail. From Chicago to New York the distance is 950 miles, taking the average of the different railway systems connecting the two cities, but only a trifling quantity of grain is carried by allrail between these two points and that only during the winter season. Last year's report of the Buffalo Merchants' Exchange shows that Buffalo received the immense quantity of 124,626,434 bushels of grain, and of grain reduced to flour 60,133,080 bushels, representing the total receipts at Buffalo, 184,759,518 bushels for the year. This shows that the people of the United States have made a success of the grain carrying business. I regret to say that in

this quantity of grain sent to Buffalo it embraces not only United States grown wheat, but 10,648,865 bushels of wheat from Fort William, and 542,000 bushels from Port Arthur.
This transportation question is not new' to the government or to this parliament. I myself had the honour of moving two or three resolutions asking that the government should deal -with it in a businesslike way, but I was always met with the answer that we were going to rely on our mixed system of transportation by lake by rail and by canal. We have the opinions of masters of transportation in this country as to how grain should'be carried from the west to the east. Sir Win. Van Home recently stated in the city of Toronto, that the long haul around the great lakes was dreaded because it was unprofitable, and that the bulk of the grain brought by that route was carried in the winter months and used by the millers in Ontario to keep their mills going during the cold season. Let us assume that the output of Manitoba and the North-west last year was 40,000,000 or 45,000,000 bushels of grain, and Sir Win. Van Horne's statement is demonstrated to be correct when we find that only 2,500,000 bushels of that was carried by rail around the shores of Lake Superior. Mr. Robert Meighen, president of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, has given this opinion :
We want low-grade, double-track railways from the Georgian bay ports to Montreal. When this is accomplished you will freight wheat across the lake from Forf William to Georgian bay ports for one cent, and from there to Montreal for three and a half cents, or less, per bushel winter and summer. Do not forget that our canals are closed for six months of the year.
The opinion of those competent judges is that we have in Canada to-day a system for the carriage of grain which if we could only utilize it would bring the most successful results. The lake ports on the Georgian bay have a most decided advantage over Buffalo, from the fact that vessels plying to Midland and Parry Harbour can make three trips in the same time that they make only two trips to Buffalo.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is an immense advantage in the fall of the year. There are vessels plying on the great lakes, and we have seen some of them in Midland, which carry 250,000 bushels of wheat, and assuming that the rate in the fall of the year is two cents per bushel-and I have often seen it higher-a vessel will make $5,000 more in freight because of the additional trip which it can make to a Georgian bay port than if she were plying to Buffalo. And yet we are told by gentlemen opposite that the experience of the United States i.s to be brushed aside and, that the lake route is not to be utilized, because forsooth the


William Humphrey Bennett: Minister of the Interior quoted some figures here which were not substantiated by fact, and which are not figures that would be endorsed by men who know the business. Let me tell the House that the carrying trade which we have established on the Georgian bay is only to-day in its infancy. Last fall an arrangement was spoken of and was about to be put into force between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, which would have resulted in millions and millions of bushels of grain being carried from Midland to Peterborough by the Canadian Pacific Railway and thence east, and carried by the Grand Trunk Railway to Belleville, and (Prom that point to Montreal. That arrangement was a joint user of what is known as the Midland division of the Grand Trunk Railway by these two rival railroads. It has been argued in this House that there could not be a user of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by other companies, and it might be said that there could not be a user of the Midland division by the Canadian Pacific Railway, but the answer to that is that this piece of road is only about 90 miles long, and because of its shortness the difficulties could be overcome.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: How many miles ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Between 90 and 100.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is 100 miles.


William Humphrey Bennett: , It is not quite 100 miles, and if the road were straightened as contemplated, the distance would be decreased by ten miles. But even suppose it is 100 miles, if that arrangement had been carried out immense quantities of grain would have been carried over the line. Any one who passes over that portion of the Grand Trunk will see proof that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway never intend to carry any grain by all-rail to the east, except, of course, the trifling quantity that might be taken out during the winter months. The Grand Trunk Railway are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Midland division to-day, with the object of carrying their grain from Port Arthur or Fort William to Midland and thence to the east. Every one in Midland knows that even after this proposition was launched last fall, the Grand Trunk Railway owned every available foot of water frontage in that town for a distance of over two miles, and it is an open secret that the Grand Trunk Railway intend to send their grain trade to that point. What we want in this Dominion is a first-class outlet for our grain from the west, not by rail throughout, but to the head of the waters of Lake Superior.
The province of Ontario lately had the honour of a visit from Premier Roblin of the province of Manitoba, and what did he say ? I take it that anything coming from that gentleman should carry considerable

weight and authority. Premier Roblin has everything to gain by pointing out fairly and honestly the necessities and requirements of the west; it is not to be expected that he would come down to the province of Ontario and make statements which would be inimical to the interests of the people of Manitoba and the North-west; and the whole tenor of the statements made was that any congestion of trade in the west happened between Winnipeg and the head of the lakes, and that the great and pressing necessity in the west to-day was for more railway equipment and an easier and better passage for grain to the head of the lakes.
It has been urged by the government that very prompt action should be taken on this question. I need not repeat what have been termed the hysterical remarks of the Premier as to the necessity of haste. Why, Sir, what do we see ? We see this government lying dormant, not moving its hand, for six years. What were they doing V Taking up the ends of the canal system which had been left as a legacy by the late government, and from time to time effecting improvements upon them. Beyond that this government has not lifted its hand. It could have gone to the Grand Trunk or to the Canada Atlantic Railway people, and, by perhaps offering a bonus for the carriage of grain when it reached a large amount, they might have diverted a large part of the grain trade now going to Buffalo, both that of Canada and that of the United States. But this government have stood still; they have done practically nothing for the last six years. And now at once we hear these hysterical screeches, without any surveys being made or any reports being had, to the effect that this country must be plunged into an expenditure ranging anywhere from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 for the construction of this railway. And through what part of the country is it to run 1 There has not been laid on the Table of this House the report of a single engineer who has ever gone over that territory. We have heard reports from missionaries and from other gentlemen who have seen parts of that country; but in the prospectus issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company itself the following language is used with reference to this very country :
The unanimous report of all explorers who have travelled over the territory north of the Georgian bay and Lake Superior, is to the effect that it will not in the immediate future furnish business sufficient to support a railway, and it would not, therefore, be a business proposition to build one there, it was used as a link to reach the more fertile lands of Manitoba and the North-west ; the mileage through the unproductive section is estimated as 1,000.
There is the prospectus of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company condemning the very territory that is to be traversed by this railway. In the face of this fact, should not the government, before they plunge
the country into this enormous expenditure, do one of two things-either submit to parliament next session or in a subsequent session a full and complete survey of that country, or, as they are going to the country this fall, after passing this Bill, if they can pass it, go to the country, and we challenge them to do so, on this very question. Speaking for myself I have rather a hard constituency; but I tell the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches that as they are going to the country this fall, it would be more manly and more fair to the people of Canada, before they manacle them and tie them down with this immense debt around their necks, to give them a chance to say whether they will accept it or not of their own free will. But the government know that they would be hazarding too much on that throw of the dice; and therefore they propose to pass the Bill as it is, and then go to their party friends and say to them : What is the use of turning tis out ? The contract is executed, the bonds are signed; if the Conservative party come into power, they cannot upset what has been done. That is the position these hon. gentlemen are in.
With regard to the canal system of this country, on which we have spent an enormous sum of money, why do the government not insist on the people of this country recognizing that the future transportation trade of thie country should be done by the Georgian Bay and the connecting railways to the east ? They have certainly at all times led them to believe that our canal system was to be the solution of the transportation question, not only for the Dominion of Canada, but for a great portion of the western states. Already we have expended some $70,000,000 on that canal system, and I am gratified to be able to say that by the removal of the tolls this year, a greater quantity of grain has gone to the city of Kingston than in any previous year, and that a greater quantity has gone down the St. Lawrence system than ever before, and I think twice as much as went up to this time last year. 'So keen has the competition been that the fact is advertised that grain is being carried from the head of Lake Superior clear through to the port oif Montreal for four cents a bushel. That is cheap transportation. When hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches have been from time to time consulted by the representatives in this House as to what their stand was on the question of transportation, what has been their answer ? I am going to quote from the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) as reported in ' Hansard ' of 1901, at page 1,106. That hon. gentleman said :
It may be three or four or five years before we get into full swing, but there is no doubt, in my mind, that the improvements which are. in contemplation at Port Colborne, properly and efficiently carried out, and in the harbour of Montreal and the route perhaps below, will

make the St. Lawrence superior to any other route.
What have we done since that time 7 We have loaned to the harbour commissioners of Montreal vast sums, which have been expended on that harbour on the strength of the assurance of the government that the canal system would be perfected. On the strength of the expenditure of millions of dollars there, we have gone further. What have we done 7 You, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Archibald Campbell), I believe, are a member of a company which, with laudable energy and commendable enterprise, is seizing the occasion to construct elevators at Port Colborne. I congratulate you upon your energy, and I hope and trust that your best expectations will be realized. What is the calculation at present 7 We are unable to take past Port Colborne boats carrying over 70,000 bushels. We have already expended upwards of $3,000,000 at Port Colborne-for what purpose 7 To construct there a huge harbour, dredge it to a great depth, and construct great docks on which it is intended that capitalists shall build elevators. It is expected that vessels carrying 300,000 bushels of grain can land at the docks and deliver their grain to the elevators, where in turn it will be delivered to smaller boats, which will carry it through the canals and the St. Lawrence river to Montreal or Quebec. But these hon. gentlemen tell the enterprising vesselmen of this country that they are going to place before the public of Canada a transportation scheme that is to put all others into the background. They are going to raise in this country a spirit of disquiet and unrest among men who are proposing to go into the grain carrying business. Further on the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said this :
We will see with Montreal properly equipped that there will he no reason in the world why shippers should not prefer the St. Lawrence to any other route.
Yesterday, in the course of the debate, some hon. gentleman quoted the Minister of Agriculture as having last year, in the debate on the motion of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. McLaren), in reference to transportation, practically made use of the very words of the then Minister of Railways and Canals, and endorsed in its entirety the canal system of Canada. But on the assurance thus given, these hon. gentlemen went through the country and defended the expenditure of these millions at Port Colborne and these hundreds of thousands on the St. Lawrence canal system. Let me read what the Postmaster General said at the city of Hamilton on the 26th of September last:
As you know, the task of providing a sufficient and adequate water route from the gulf of the St. Lawrence to the upper lakes is no easy one, but from the moment of our accession to office until this date, it has been continuously Mr. BENNETT.
prosecuted with all possible speed. When we shall have completed the improvements at Port Colborne next spring, we shall have made that port a safe harbour where grain can be received and shipped to our maritime ports.
Yet this hon. gentleman was forced to come to this parliament and say that all these predictions as to the carrying trade by the St. Lawrence canals and the mixed trade of the upper lakes by rail and water were things of the past.
During the course of this debate we have heard some very wonderful statements as to the cost of this railway. The last gentleman who resumed his seat (Mr. Hughes) said that the cost would be 15 cents per head during fourteen years for every person in the country, and had time only permitted, I have no doubt he would have been able to show that instead of our taxpayers having to pay anything, every one of them would receive a bonus from the construction of this road. We had first the statement of the Prime Minister that the cost would be $13,000,000. That statement nobody has since repeated. Nobody will do the right hon. gentleman the honour of repeating the statement made by him. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) would rather trust himself to the fickle member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) than to the First Minister. But those who have trusted the hon. member for North Norfolk in the past know what a broken reed he is for any one to lean upon.
What is to be the actual cost of the railway? We heard a few days ago the statement of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and I have heard so many conflicting statements in this regard that I thought, in order to be up to the times, I would make an estimate myself. This is the estimate which I propose to submit to my electors when I shall next have the pleasure of meeting them. What will be the actual cost of this railway ? From Winnipeg to Moncton, 1,800 miles, at $40,000 per mile, (he cost will be $72,000,000. The interest during ten years at 3^ per cent will be $25,200,000. The difference between 3 and 3i per cent, which we will have to pay for 40 years, will be $12,640,000. The mountain section will cost for interest on the bonds during ten years, $7,200,000, making a total of $117,040,000. I may say, in passing, that the estimate of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was. in round figures, about $120,000,000. When people contrast this estimate of the ex-minister with the figures of the hon. member for North Norfok, who makes the amount $70,000,000, they will ask why is there so much discrepancy ? And they will further ask : How is it possible that the First Minister came to make the statement that this road was only going to cost the people $13,000,000 7 The argument will be this, that the $13,000,000 will be the interest to be paid on a certain amount; and as the government do not ask

that the Grand Trunk Railway shall pay the interest for a certain number of years, and will make that company a present of a certain amount of interest, the right lion, gentleman estimates that at $13,000,000. And in arriving at this result, he takes good care to make the cost of the road a very trifling amount. But there is something beyond this cost of $117,000,000 to $120,000,-
000.	There is this fact, that there are certain endorsements to be made of the bonds Of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and people in the province of Ontario, particularly in the county of Simcoe, have an idea what tiie promises of the Grand Trunk Railway mean. The Grand Trunk Railway is a debtor to this country of millions unpaid. It is a debtor to the county of Simcoe of an amount which runs into several hundreds of thousands of dollars. That liability is hoary with age, no interest or principal having been paid upon it for the last forty years. Under this arrangement, we are going to guarantee millions, because on the prairie section we guarantee that we shall pay $9,000,000 interest if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway do not pay it. There is something more. Under the terms of this contract we are bound to purchase the Quebec bridge, which means an expenditure of from $4,000,000 to $5,000,000, and we have got to settle with the Trans-Canada people. I know not what that may amount to, but it is only a matter of common honesty and fairness that this government should deal liberally with the Trans-Canada, seeing that they were in the held before the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was ever known. Then there is the question of betterments, which means that during the tenure of this lease the betterments are to be made by the Dominion, and upon these I understand they are to pay interest. Add these together. Had we accepted the original proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway, we would have granted them, in all probability, a subsidy on the line from North Bay to Winnipeg, and then guaranteed their bonds, as the government did the bonds of the Mackenzie and Mann system. This country would pay out in cold cash $i2,800,000 of subsidy, but we know where we stand. What is going to be the result of this scheme, as a business proposition, In other parts of the Dominion? First, we are to go down to the maritime provinces, where we have spent already $70,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway, and we are to parallel that railway, and thus practically reduce it to a position of penury. We are going to put it to one side and make it useless. But there is not a word in this contract which will prevent the Grand Trunk Railway doing what they propose to do and what they are making arrangements at Midland to do, namely, to carry the grain from Midland on to Montreal and from Montreal to Portland. There is nothing in the contract to prevent their doing this. True
there is a clause providing that they shall endeavour, as far as possible, to have grain, routed to a Canadian port, but there .s nothing in the contract to compel them to do it. Worse than that. Does any man in his senses believe that when this Bill passes and the Grand Trunk Railway are entitled to receive aid they will not at that very moment commence the western soctiou ? Why, the rails will be laid, and I hope they will, from Wininpeg on towards Edmonton, and what will be the result ?	1 understand that in modern times rails have been laid at as high a rate aS' seven or eight miles a day, and even, as an bon. gentleman near me suggests, ten miles a day. So, next year we might expect to see a large portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific extended from Winnipeg westward. And when that system is extended it will garner its trade and carry it from the west to Winnipeg. Then it will be forced to do one of three things- take the traffic down under an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to Fort William ; take it down under an arrangement with the Mackenzie and Mann road to Port Arthur, or make an arrangement with an American road and take it to Duluth. Or, either they or the government might build another line from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior. But there is nothing to compel them to abstain from building the road west, and, as the eastern section cannot be completed-nobody pretends it can be completed-within less than five or six years, the Grand Trunk Pacific will be free, if they please, to send the traffic through by way of Portland.
Now, this contract were it not such a serious matter, would be amusing. And in all this serious matter one wonders who has been the little joker in making up this contract. If ever there was contract abounding in silly propositions, this is that contract. We heard the Premier making the announcement with all his dramatic style that no senator or member of the House of Commons of Canada is to have a contract for the construction under this scheme. Whoever expected that any senator or member of this House would have a contract for construction work? Why it would be a violation of the Independence of Parliament Act. But there is nothing in the contract-and it would have been silly to insert it-to say that a senator or member of this House may not be a member of a construction company having a contract on this road. Need I refer to the clause respecting the purchase of supplies in Canada? It is not worth the paper it is written on, not worth the trouble it took to draft it. Then take the question of duties on imports. There is a feature of the contract which will bear heavily on our Canadian manufacturers, because it allows the importation of goods by this company free of duty so far as the government section is concerned.

I listened yesterday to the statement made by the leader of the opposition, and I must say that I believe that his policy will appeal more strongly to the people of the North-west and to the people of Canada generally than will the proposition that the government has laid before us. One great reason why it will command the favour of the people is that it does not plunge this country into such enormous expenditure. Why, Sir, whither are we drifting? To-day we have a public debt, in round numbers, of .$275,000,000. We are going to add to that at one sweep about $125,000,000, making a total debt of $400,000,000, or, as has been calculated, about $125 for every head of a family.
Our position is that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not give an outlet for several years to come for the increased product of the north-western country. Settlers are going in there in large numbers. Last year 100,000 people went in, and we hope and trust that this will not be the limit, but that the number will increase very much. Yet the government must admit, and every man must admit, that this eastern section will not be finished in less than from five to eight years, so that in that time there will only be the two present outlets to the head of the lakes, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. The proposition of the leader of the opposition is to go to the very root of the difficulty. He proposes to expropriate either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian Northern line between Winnipeg and the head of the lakes. Or, if neither of these can be done, let the government take the matter boldly in hand and build a road and thus control the situation between these two points. Let this road be under government ownership, and let it be used in common by all companies that wish to use it. But I believe that every sane man will shudder at the prospect of duplicating the railway system around Lake Superior and will demand that there should be a common user of that road not only by the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific, but by the Mackenzie and Mann system as well. As to the route from Georgian Bay by the Canada Atlantic system, I have to say that that would not be as good a proposition as the acquisition of the Midland division of the Grand Trunk. If this government w7ere to acquire the road from Midland to Peterborough and to the Grand Trunk main line, not only would they put Peterborough in immediate touch with the waters of Georgian Bay and with the main line, but they would put the Canadian Pacific in immediate touch with Georgian Bay, and these two would have a quick route from the waters of Georgian Bay to their main lines running eastward.
One of the strongest reasons for condemning this proposition of the government is that it is brought before us in the dying hours of the session. On so great a ques-Mr. BENNETT.
tion, there should be no decision until the people have been consulted. It is utterly unfair to bind the country, in an important matter of this kind, without giving them a chance to speak. This government has announced to its friends in this House that they must be prepared to go before the people this fall. One of their supporters, inadvertently, no doubt, dropped a hint to-day to-the effect that this fall the members of this House may expect to face the electors. I say, in view of that fact, it would be more honest, it would be more fair, not only to this generation but to generations to come, that before thrusting upon them the heavy responsibilities of the expenditure involved by this scheme, for the government should have the courage of its convictions, if it has convictions, and meet the people face to face. Let them meet their political opponents face to face. Let them throw down the gage of battle, and let that gage be whether the country is or is not to be saddled with this great debt for. all time to come. Speaking as one on this side, I invite the hon. gentlemen to dissolve the House and go to the electors on this question, and, going to-the country on this question, we are prepared to abide by that result.
On motion of Mr. Macpherson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding) the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Thursday.

Thursday, August 20, 1903.
The SPEAKER took the Ghair at Eleven o'clock.




[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOURLEY-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	In what stage is the pension system promised by the Minister of Railways to the employees of the Intercolonial Railway last year, or the present year ?
2.	Has the government the said pension system under consideration, or has it finally adopted such a -system ?
3.	Was a system of pensions or retiring allowances for the employees of the Intercolonial Railway drawn up by the officials at Moncton, and approved by the General Manager and the Minister of Railways, last year or the present year ?
4.	Was such scheme or any scheme of pensions submitted to the government for approval ?
5.	Has such scheme or any scheme been approved by the government ?
6.	Will gn Act be introduced this session to give effect to said system ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The question of the pension

fund for the Intercolonial Railway officials was under consideration of the government in the time of the late Minister of Railways, but no action was taken thereon, and the matter has not since been dealt with.


THE JAPANESE TARIFF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by, Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What classes ot goods and merchandise, the product of the United States, are admitted into Japan on more favourable terms than goods and merchandise of the same classes, the product of Canada ?
2.	Have any steps been taken by the government of Canada, and if so, what steps, to secure for the products of Canada equally favourable
. treatment in the markets of Japan to that now enjoyed by the products of the United States ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Japanese tariff is what is called a double columued tariff ; one tariff being termed the General tariff and the other the Conventional tariff. Under the Conventional tariff lower rates are granted to such countries as have specific treaties with Japan. Canada is not one of these countries and consequently all the privileges of the Conventional tariff go to such countries as have treaties, but do not extend to Canada. The items in the tariff to which this applies are quite numerous, and I can only refer the bon. gentleman to the tariff itself which he can no doubt obtain on inquiry. One of the difficulties in the way of negotiating any treaty with Japan is, what is called, the favoured nation clause. We have had the matter under consideration, and negotiations of a confidential character have passed between the Canadian government and the government of Japan. The conditions require that if any treaty is made it shall contain what is called the favoured nation clause, which would oblige Japan to give to all other countries any privilege which she may grant to us and vice versa. As kon. gentlemen are aware, that creates some complications and interferes with our freedom, and for the present we have not been able to come to an understanding. The matter, however, is still under consideration.


FATAL ACCIDENTS ON CANADIAN RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	How many accidents, involving loss of human life took place on the railways of Canada during the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1903 ?
2.	How many human lives were lost in such
accidents, or as a result of such accidents_?_
3.	Has the government yet appointed any official whose duty it shall be to make a full and exhaustive inquiry and report, on oath, into the circumstances attendant upon, and the causes which may have contributed to all railway accidents which occur in Canada, including the system by which the traffic of the railway is operated ; the speed the trains were moving when the accidents occurred ; the condition of track and rolling stock ; the hours which the
train men, station agents, telegraph operator^ and other officials of the companies were on duty, in connection with the movement of trains to which accidents occurred ; the wages paid employees ; the sufficiency and qualification of the staff employed on the trains, and at the stations, telegraph offices, &c.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	As far as returns have been received, there were twenty-one accidents on railways in Canada involving loss of human life during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903.
2.	Lives lost in such accidents or as a result of such accidents, sixty-three.
3.	No permanent appointment has been made.


THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into Committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the' construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, and the motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto.
Mr.  R. G.@: MACPHERSON (Burrard.) Mr. Speaker. I shall not attempt to follow the argument of my good friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) as I wish to view this question from a standpoint entirely different from his. He spoke for his own province of Ontario ; I shall speak from the standpoint of the province of British Columbia.
I would not have taken part in this debate were it not that the lion the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) made the statement in attempting to justify his action in resigning, that the province of British Columbia were not asking that a new transcontinental line be built and also that there is actually no hurry as far as the west is concerned that a new line be constructed. Either the hon. gentleman has a very short memory, or he could not have taken the Victoria board of trade seriously, when on the 8th day of October last year the following request was made to the hon. gentleman in his official capacity of Minister of Railways in the city of Victoria on the occasion of his visit to British Columbia last fall.
The board desire to place themselves on record as in favour of assistance being given to the C. N. R., so as to provide at as early a date as possible a second transcontinental line across British Columbia. They desire to point out that in view of the very rapid colonization of the prairie region, it necessarily calls for the provision of a new route whereby the grain there produced can readily reach the ocean.
Now, Sir,'there is only one of two deductions lo he drawn from the hon. minister's remarks-either his memory failed him, or he took the Victoria board of trade to be men who were not responsible for their actions, and then paid no heed to what



irresponsible people like the board of trade in one of our principal cities of tlie coast might say. From either deduction the hon. gentleman does r.ot emerge with any great degree of credit to himself. In speaking on this question, I wish to speak entirely from a British Columbia standpoint, and point out to tlie House the great good which lias accrued to British Columbia from the building of tlie Canadian Pacific Railway and building it through, possibly, the poorest part of our province. Striking into our province at the Kicking Horse pass, it finds its way through the Rocky Mountains following the valley of the Columbia river, then passing through Eagle pass it strikes the head waters of the Shuswap lake and strikes the South Thompson river valley, and following down through the valley of the Thompson until it strikes the Fraser at Lytton and from there down to the tidal waters of Bur-rard inlet. It found little to entice the imagination outside the grandeur of tlie mountain scenery And we all know that scenery will not fill the pockets nor will it suffice to stay the appetite. However, I wish to show the House what has been accomplished by the construction of the great Canadian Pacific Railway.
Prior to the advent of this railway, British Columbia was a country isolated from eastern Canada, having nothing in common other than devotion to tlie old flag and yielding homage to the same sovereign. It was a country which, from its isolation, had no natural national aspirations. But its people were men of courage and determination in that small and isolated community, and they recognized the great future of British Columbia if it could only get a railroad carried through connecting the eastern part of Canada with the west. The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway has made what was once the fishing hamlet of New Westminster a large, thriving commercial and populous city. It made a new province for Canada, one of tlie brightest gems in the Crown of confederation. It made tlie men who, while proud to say that they are British Columbians, still prouder to say they are Canadians. It made what was in 1883 a primeval forest into our present great city of Vancouver. It made it possible where 20 years ago stood only the Douglas fir and the British Columbia cedar, that a city of 35,000 people live to-day. Where not one dollar of customs revenue was collected 20 years ago, where the past year tlie sum of $1,388,709 was collected. It made possible, where banks were unknown, where to-day stand six of the leading banking institutions of Canada. Where bank clearances were unknown, to where during the first six months of the present year the clearances amounted to nearly 29 million dollars. It made the great seaport of Vancouver ai d created what last year was the fourth largest port for customs collections Mr. MACPHERSON.
in the Dominion Where ships were unknown practically 20 years ago, to-day in the harbour of Vancouver boats flying almost every maritime flag in tlie world can b * seen loading and unloading. It has made and created a new trade with the Orient. It made and created a new trade with Australia and New Zealand. It has made and created a new trade with the United States. It made and created a new province whose inhabitants are a happy and contented Canadian people. It made possible the development of a section of our mining country, which only goes to prove that we have greater than has been found. It made it possible for us to produce in the last 16 years 31.64(1203 ounces of silver, valued at $18,475,882 ; it made it possible for us to produce 280,200,S45 pounds of lead, valued at $10,447,510; it made it possible for us to produce 92.652.480 pounds of copper, valued at $12,333,200; or a total value of silver, lead and copper of $41,256,603. And prior to thenbuilding of the Canadian Pacific Railway this condition of things was unknown in British Columbia.
Now, Sir, when that which is only a small part of the many wonderful things I could name can be done in the green tree, what can be done in the dry ? If that can be accomplished by the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway through the lean section of our wonderful province, what can be accomplished by the building of another line of railroad through the fat section of our province ?
That the western part of our province- that part to be traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific-is a fat section, and that it is a section which is crying for a railroad, that the people who live there are clamouring for a railroad, that the mineral which is hid in our mountain ledges is awaiting the advent of this new road to enrich the coffers of the Canadian people. I will show and prove, and I think to the satisfaction of every lion, gentleman in the House. I will read to you a few extracts from the annual report of the Minister of Mines for the year ending 1902 ; and for fear that our good friend, the hon. gentleman who represents Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), should say that it is cooked, I will inform him and the House that the Minister of Mines is no less a personage than Edward Gaylor Prior, a Conservative of the Tory school, who was the recognized leader of the Conservative party for British Columbia in this House and a minister of the Crown. On page 45 of that report I find the following with reference to a part of the province which the Grand Trunk Pacific will traverse :
Two principal reasons seem to have deterred capitalists from investing here ; the first being the high price asked by prospectors for their holdings, and the other being the idea, widely prevalent, that the northern coast of British Columbia is locked up with ice and snow during the greater part of the year, with a conse-

quent very short working season. This is a very great mistake. With the exception of a very few days in mid-winter, there is not any portion of the Dominion, or northern and eastern United States, where a longer working season obtains. The snowfall at Port Simpson, which is the most northerly point on the coast of British Columbia, is much less than at Vancouver, the register for last winter, which' was an average one, being 14 inches. Mr. J. H. Rodgers, who spent the winter of 1901-02 at the Bonanza mine, on Observatory inlet, and who had a gang of miners working continuously, informs me that there was only one day from January 1st till July 23rd (the date on which I saw him) on which his men could not work out of doors, and that was on the occasion of a heavy snowstorm in March.
I may say that this is a report of Mr. John Flewin, a gentleman whom I know very well, who has been mining recorder in that part of the country for many years. The following refers to a part of the country which is exactly along the projected line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway :
Miners in the Kitamaat, Kitsilas and Telkwa camps are still hoping for the building of the Kitamaat-Hazel ton Railway, which will give access to the rich mineral belt of the coast and Kitsilas range of mountains, and the extensive agricultural, grazing and hydraulic areas of the Upper Skeena, the Bu'lkley and Omenica. At the present time, however, lack of transportation facilities is an effectual bar to extensive development work.
I know that country myself to a certain extent, and I know the great difficulties the miners are subjected to for want of railway communication. I will go a little further, and will read what is said about the Ptarmigan group of mines in the Kitsilas camp, which is a very rich camp :
The owners of this group, realizing that nothing more can be done to develop these claims without better transportation facilities, only employed a small gang of men during the season. Work was shut down in September, and a shipment of five tons of ore was made to test the property. The owners have applied for Crown grants for this group.
Statutory assessment work has also been performed on the Washington, Northland, Toulon, Bull-Dog, Montezeuma, Eureka,, flatzie, Golden Crown, Ruby, Granite, Golden King, Goldfinch, Golden Eagle, Golden Crown Extension, Strath-cona, Helma and Monte Cristo. I do not anticipate that any extensive development work will be prosecuted on any of these properties, some of which look exceedingly promising until railroad communication with the coast becomes an accomplished fact. The Skeena river is, at best, a very uncertain highway, owing to the sudden rise and fall of the waters ; added to which the freight rates are so high as to effectually deter any one from attempting to take in the supplies and machinery necessary for conducting mining operations on a large scale.
The following refers to the Telkwa river camp :-
In this camp only the usual assessment work has been performed on the Forrest Group, the Big Blue, Surprise and Constance mineral 2891
claims. The same difficulty-want of communication-is experienced here as at Kitsilas.
Perhaps the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) would tell these men that they have no need of a railroad. Well, I can fancy the hon. gentleman going to their camp and telling them so. If he did, I think he would find a more rapid means of transit out of that camp than he is accustomed to. I take it that these men know the value of railroad building to a mining country. Then, we travel further east to the districts of the Cariboo, Omenica, and Cassiar, about which the report says :
As for the transportation facilities for getting in supplies, &c., into the district, they have not materially changed since the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, except that the roads are much improved. Ashcroft is the point of departure from the railway. From here a stage runs twice a week in summer and once a week in winter to Barkerville-285 miles-while from the 150-Mile House stages go once a week to Quesnel Forks and Bullion, sixty miles, and to Harper's Camp, thirty-five miles. The roads are good, the numerous stopping houses are clean, comfortable and reasonable as to price, and the stages as comfortable as stages ever are. The stage company carries both mail and express, running ' specials ' whenever the traffic .iustifies it. The freight rate from Ashcroft to Barkerville is six cents per pound, and to Quesnel from four cents to five cents. These rates, of from $100 to $120 per ton, seem almost prohibitive as to heavy mine machinery, &e., anct often amount to more than the cost of the articles ; yet, while they are high, the rates are not extortionate, as at these figures there is nothing more in it than bare wages for the freighters, so that these amounts will not be materially reduced until a railway of some sort is built into the district.
In the Cariboo country alone, under these adverse conditions, placer gold to the value of $4,108,307 has been produced during the past three years. And when you consider, Mr. Speaker, that these districts are situated three and five hundred miles from other means of transportation, consequently these have to be packed on horses and mules' backs from the seaboard or from Ashcroft on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, you can readily see the immense difficulties surrounding the carrying out of the enterprise. The hon. gentleman says no need for haste. Let us look further afield, and see if we cannot find the Macedonian cry : Come over and help us.
This report, which I am about to read, is from the gold commissioner of the Omi-neca mining division, a gentleman who has been many years in that country and on whose statements we can thoroughly rely. By it you will see that there is no doubt as to the future of the country and the immediate requirement of another transcontinental line :
Now that two transcontinental railways are heading for the Pacific coast, both of which will tap the Omineca district, and one which, if the Pine or Peace river pass is chosen, will pass within a short distance of Manson creek,

which is at. present the centre of mining operations in this vicinity, the Omineca district is bound to spring into prominence, as once the great cost and difficulty of travel and transportation of supplies have been reduced, as they will be by railway communication, the hundred square miles of*country that at present are unknown and unprospected will be thrown open. A vast extent of country lying north of the Omineca river and west of the Findlay is known at the present time to contain gold in paying quantities if supplies could be got into that portion of the district, and it only requires improved means of transportation to convert this locality from an undeveloped wilderness, as the greater portion of it is to-day, into one of the richest and best mining districts in the province. A railway will place Manson, as regards transportation, in the same position as Revelstoke on the Canadian Pacific Railway Is at present. During this past season several parties of prospectors were in the district, hut on account, of shortage of supplies were unable to push their way any distance from Manson. Some, however, were so favourably impressed with what they saw of the country, that they have stored part of their outfit and intend returning next season.	'
As the transportation question is to-day the most important question before the people of Canada, every effort should be put forth to give additional transportation facilities between the great central wheat and cattle country of Canada and the Atlantic seaboard. But, in doing this I am afraid we are liable to lose sight of the fact that Canada has another gateway in the west which deserves consideration. Providence has been very kind to us in placing the great wheat and cattle country in the centre of this vast Dominion, and it is so situated that it is almost equally distant from each coast. In making this statement, I would endeavour to show that in the near future almost half the trade of the North-west Territories of Canada will, of necessity, go to the Pacific coast at Vancouver instead of coming eastward via Montreal or St. John. Vancouver, situated as she is on one of the greatest harbours of the world, is eminently fitted to be the great western gateway of Canada.
At the present time and for the past number of years a very large export grain trade is carried on between the western coast of the United State's and continental points, and at the cities of Tacoma, Portland and San Francisco, numbers of vessels are loaded each year with grain for Europe and Japan. This grain is transported by rail, in many cases, a distance of 900 miles from the coast, and what they are now doing on the western coast of the United States we can equally well do on the western coast of Canada, and in this way relieve the channels of transportation in eastern Canada at times when it is almost impossible to handle the trade.
The best transportation authorities have stated that freight can be carried four and a half miles by water for every one mile by land. On that basis I will endeavour to


Mr. MACPHERSON.: show just how far east from the Pacific coast the dividing line can be. That is the line where the freight rate will divide so that part will go east and part will go west
At the present time the government of the United States have undertaken to build the great Panama canal, which they expect to have completed within eight years. When this canal is completed it will revolutionize the trade, not only to the United States, but to western Canada, and while we are in a position to-day to take advantage of the very long water route around Cape Horn, yet when this immense undertaking is completed, the distance from Liverpool to Vancouver will be reduced about 8.000 miles and the dangers of navigation will lie reduced at least 50 per cent. I have discussed this matter with ship captains, and they all agree that the dangers around Cape Horn are greater than during all the rest of the voyage. Sometimes, they say, it takes them as long as sixty days to make around Cape Horn.
Take a point 960 miles east of Vancouver which shall bring you in the vicinity of Moosejaw, and multiply that by four and a half, to bring it up to a water rate, it will amount to 4,320 miles, and from Vancouver to Liverpool via Panama canal, the distance is 8,520 miles. This gives the total distance from Moosejaw to Liverpool, via Vancouver and the Panama canal, of 12,840 miles. From said point in the North-west Territories to St. John by rail is 2,124 miles, which, when converted into water rate, will amount to 9.558 miles. From St. John to Liverpool, the distance is 2.700 miles, making a total distance of 12.879 miles, at an all water rate. This, I think will show that the time will come in the near future when the dividing line between the east and the west will be decided upon by transportation companies for their own advantage.
At the present time the greatest article for transportation from the Pacific coast to the North-west Territories is lumber. As an indication of what the trade of western Canada will be in the future, I will refer to the lumber trade as it is at present. The government of Canada are doing everything possible to encourage immigration to the North-west Territories. In doing so every effort should be put forth by the government of Canada, so that the people coming into Canada should not suffer by unnecessary hardships. It is stated that 100.000 settlers will settle in the North-west this year, and it is computed that an average* of four people comprise a family. Consequently there will be. at the very least, 25,000 families who will require houses to live in within a year. Each family will require a house say 17 x 21 feet, which, when subdivided, will make two bed rooms 8x9 feet and a kitchen 11 x 16 feet. This house if double boarded which is necessary in a cold climate, will require

5,000 feet of lumber, figuring tbe roof as lumber doubled. In addition to tbe bouse, they will require a small stable suitable for four horses, which will require 3,500 feet of lumber, making in all 8,500 feet for each family. We have estimated that there will be 25,000 families. Consequently they will require in all 212,500,000 feet of lumber. Tbe people now in the country will require for new buildings, railway purposes, elevators and the building of new towns, &c., as much more, making in all the enormous amount of 425,000,000 feet. This will load 53,125 cars at 8,000 feet per car or 5,312 trains of ten cars each, or 144 trains for each and every day in tbe year. And, as nearly all this lumber must come from British Columbia, and mostly from Vancouver for tbe present, you can instantly see that the Canadian Pacific Railway, as now constituted, have a big contract in hand to carry on this enormous business.	.
In dealing with this question of transportation so far, I have only taken up tbe part which refers to Canada and Europe.
I do not intend to omit probably the greater factor which we shall have in the near future in connection with the transportation question, and that is the trade which is increasing day by day between the Pacific coast and the orient, Australia, South Africa and India. This trade is increasing by leaps and bounds. I recollect very well when the first steamboats came into Vancouver with merchandise from the east. Their first trips were a little before my time, but I can remember when the old 4 Abyssinian ' and ' Parthian ' were objects of Interest to us, the first boats on the Pacific carrying merchandise from tbe orient to our ports. The cargoes were very small indeed. But tbe great Canadian Pacific went out for business with the orient, and they got it. And they have now five of the largest steamers of the Pacific carrying merchandise, and that trade is increasing as I say, by leaps and bounds. I would like the House to realize the immense latent possibilities in this trade. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the half has not been told. And when the Grand Trunk Pacific with the knowledge and the capital they have, and having the desire and b)eing under the business necessity of developing traffic- when they take the field a business will be built up as compared with which that of the present will be nothing. I do not wish to be too extravagant in my estimate. But, Mr. Speaker, I can remember, in my short sixteen years of experience on tbe coast the immense development which has already taken place through the advent of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway has done immense things for our country; it has done the things that no other agency could ever be expected to accomplish. It went into the primeval forest and built the city of Vancouver. It has built opera houses, sugar refineries, and smelters. 1
Will any lion, gentleman tell me that I should support a government operated road in the face of the things I have seen and know ? I am as strong a believer in government control as any man in this House; I yield to no man in my desire to maintain intact the rights and interests of all the people. But I believe that under the contract now before us we have all the good features of government ownership and government control, without the incubus of government operation. If we were a people who would stand being policed like the people of Germany-and d do not want to make any reflection on that people, but it cannot be denied that we are more democratic than they are-we could operate state-owned roads. But until we come to understand that we must be governed by one man and rilled with the strong hand, we need never expect to have state-owned and state-operated railways in Canada. The theory of state-operated railroads is a beautiful thing, but it is idle to talk of it in the case of a people who have the sense of independence that inspires the people of this Dominion. I believe in state-governed railroads as this one, but I have got a little off the track-


Mr. GALLIIIER.: You are on a good track anyway.


Robert George Macpherson: I was speaking of the trade that will be developed with China and Japan. It is estimated that there are 450,000,000 people living in those two countries. Up to three years ago they had not adopted western ideas, they had not begun to wear European clothing or eat such food as we eat. But Japan has taken the initiative. Japan, Mr. Speaker, is remarkable for its power of imitating other nations. But, up to this hour, Japan was simply an imitator. Nor do I wish to make any disparaging remarks about the Japanese. I do not like them as they appear in this country, it is quite true. But they are good enough people in Japan as the Chinese are good enough people in China. These people are all right in their place, but they do not make good Canadians. If the Japanese go on as they are now going it will not be many years before they will be able to take their stand with other nations of the world. They are rapidly adopting our ideas. They have begun to eat wheat flour and are putting up roller mills to grind wheat from this continent. They are already importing considerable quantities of American and Canadian flour. They are more anxious now to get the Canadian than the American article, for our good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has been over there and has shown them the excellent bread that can be made from Manitoba No. 1 hard. China is fast becoming Japanized, if you will allow me that expression. The Chinese people see that their Japanese neigh-1 hours are going ahead fast, and they are

following in their footsteps. While China may never use flour universally as a food, while there may be millions of people there who will never use it, owing to the fact that rice is so much cheaper, yet I believe that the better and wealthier classes in China and Japan will use flour. I think I am safe in saying that, within fifteen years-for we must remember that events move more rapidly than they used to do-150,000,000 millions in the orient will be eating flour. It is easy to see what that would mean for Canada. Mr. Hill, possibly one of the best railroad men we have in America says that the market for the North-western part of America is China and Japan, and that the demand there will keep wheat up to its normal price.
In addition to this, the trade between Canada and Australia, and also the trade between Canada and South America are increasing very rapidly. I have endeavoured to suggest that fair opportunities should be afforded for the trade 1 have just mentioned. For, no matter what our sentiments may be as between east and west, the trade of the country will go through its natural channels.
* But, unless you improve and develop these natural channels, the trade of the country will dwindle. For many years the trade of British Columbia went through American ports. It was not until the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway were we able to deal direct with the people in the orient.
We are in Canada peculiarly situated as it is only in Canada that any vast amount of unoccupied arable land exists. Now the great migrations of population have always been for the most part along the parallels of latitude of the north temperate zone. From prehistoric times the population of the far east has widened out in every widening circle of thousands of years. Vast numbers of people have moved towards the setting sun. At last the course of that movement to the western boundary of the old world was reached and then population moved across the ocean and during the nineteenth century Europe sent to the shores of the United States eighteen million souls, attracted altogether I may say by the wonderful free public lands offered by the American people. I take it, and I may diverge a little here that no country can be a great manufacturing country until its arable lands are exhausted. We know what immense strides the American people have made during the last one hundred years on account of the wonderful arable lands of that country. They have reached and have reached some time ago the point of exhaustion pf these lands, but we, in Canada, are in the same position as the people of the United States were seventy-five years ago. The western half of Canada equals in area England, Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and most of European Russia, and the production of the Canadian soil will surpass that of the corres-Mr MACPHERSON.
ponding European area. There are in these sections of Canada fully two millions of acres of land fit for production and there are in the corresponding area of Europe to which I have referred two hundred and fifteen million souls. I have not mentioned in this connection the wonderful productiveness of British Columbia which has such great food resources in her wrnters. Salmon abound in almost incredible numbers, while halibut and cod are even more plentiful. I can tell you that the British Columbia halibut banks equal any in the world and when I say that a boat can go out from the shores of Vancouver and come back in four days with a full cargo of halibut, it is almost beyond belief.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We cannot tell fish stories like that in the east.


Robert George Macpherson: Perhaps we cannot tell fish stories. But in the waters of British Columbia there are no suckers.
British Columbia has been for years a prospecting ground for gold and it is known that in this metal that province is wonderfully rich, then there are copper, coal and iron. It is well known that the iron mines, especially in southern British Columbia, are rich and they are placed as if nature had intended them to be for the use of man, for there are rich coal fields close at hand. I have spoken already of the vast wealth of British Columbia in agriculture, fish and minerals, and I should add that our country is particularly rich in its supply of timber, of cedar and Douglas fir. The forests of British Columbia contain over two hundred billions feet of uncut fir and cedar. It has been said that British Columbia seems destined to become the shipyard for the supply of all nations.
Now, I could go on, but I have promised the House that I will not take up its time, i wall only say in conclusion that the man who says we are not, in British Columbia, clamouring for another transcontinental line does not understand the feeling of the people of British Columbia.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I was informed this morning that I would follow the hon. member for Bur-vard (Mr. Macpherson). I have listened closely to the hon. member and as far as I can see, he has made very few points either for or against this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It seems to me that his principal arguments and language have been in favour of Vancouver or Burrard's Inlet, and it seems that the only important thing, according to the gentlemen sitting around him in that section, are suckers. Well, Mr. Mc-Craney, who ought to know all about that country, who has been there a number of years, writes me that it is not suckers but grafters, and that there are so many of them that they are really an injury and a curse to the country. Now, whatever a grafter is, I do not know. It may be a fish for all

I know, but I have to reply and speak, 1 believe, in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. But an amendment has been moved in the House, and I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I wilbbe able to speak on that amendment, which refers to government ownership of railways. It was on this question that the election in West Elgin hinged; if I had not been an advocate of government ownership of railroads and of no bonuses to railroads unless the railroads or whoever got the bonuses were obliged to give back to the government something for the money paid to them, X do not believe that I would be here in this House, and 1 am sure that the sentiment has grown all over this vast country in favour of government ownership, and I notice that one party in this House only a few days ago pledged themselves to, or at least, enunciated their policy as government ownership. I suppose owing to the unique position I occupy in this House, my speech will not commend itself perhaps to any gentleman on this side or on that side of the House, but at tlie same time I wish to say that I do not think it would be right. I do not think it is right, for any man in this House to discuss any question in any way other than on its merits. We have heard vituperation, we have heard some of the vilest language, language such as would not be used in a common village debate, and the desk thumping and the rattling was astonishing to me when any one would make a point which members thought was for or against, them.
I do .not suppose there will be any deskthumping on either side when I have made a point. I do hope there will be no deskthumping. Those who disagree with me have a perfect right to do so, and those who agree with me have a perfect right to do so. but I do not think any gentleman has a right to abuse me because I do not 1 clong to this or that party. We are all supposed to be here to do what is best in the interests of our country, that is what we advocate on the hustings and what we talk to our constituents-country before party. Yet, in nine cases out of ten the party elects the member and expects him to be there too. Now, Sir, I am tool to no one, and I do not expect any one to be a tool to me.
Mr. Speaker. I am sure that this country and this House, too, is getting tired of this debate. We have not had a new idea advanced for the last three or four days, and it is about time that some member started out on a fresh route. Well, we have to confine ourselves to the subject.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: I have no objection to the iion. gentleman saying hear hear,- but I do not want them to thump the desk. Now. Sir, I would not speak on this question, because, as I said before, very little has been said on the question proper, but I wish to put myself on record as being strongly in favour of government ownership. This plan that the government have introduced may be better than my plan, but at the same time, I hold these convictions and I dare to express them.
Now, Sir, we are all aware that railroads are a great blessing wherever they .are planted. We know that if we were to be deprived of railroads we would go back almost into an uncivilized condition. Therefore, we must have them, and the country must be developed. Consequently, where-ever there are no railroads it is the duty of the government to see that they are built, and that the country is opened up. I will not say now whether it is proper for the government to push forward this scheme at this particular time, not knowing anything about those vast regions that we have heard of ; although some gentlemen undertake to tell us how many trees, how many streams, how many mountains there are in that stretch of country 3,000 miles long. I have not seen one person yet that has ever been over tlie line. But we believe that sometime that country will be developed, and that there is room enough in the region to be traversed by this railroad to plant 10,000,000 of people, on a strip 20 miles wide each side of the road. The people of Europe are waiting to go in there, and we are told here that we cannot wait any longer for this road. The people of Europe are waiting for us to bring them out here and plant them on these fertile plains of the Northwest. But whether this is the proper time to build the road in the way proposed, is another question, and I am not now discussing whether the proposition is right or wrong, though those who have introduced it and have thoroughly studied it, ought to know. But speaking of the millions coming out to this country, or waiting to come, why, Sir, if the children of Israel, when the [ Exodus took place, and who had so much difficulty in crossing the Red sea, had known about this glorious heritage that we have on this continent, they would never have settled in Palestine, which is about the poorest land under Heaven, but they would have come out to this country, and we would now have Jews for our neighbours. Why, the people generally don't know what a giorious heritags we have here. If that land is as good as it is reported to be, then we shall want more than one road, and we shall want them built by the government. I do not mean to say that the operation of the road should be carried on by the government, because we do not want to see every man who works on that road a mere government hack, who is put there to vote as the government tells him to vote. I am strongly opposed to that. The exMinister of Railways said that the Intercolonial should not be placed under a commission. I think that every government railway should be operated by a -commission. We do not want to see every man who works for the government obliged to vote

just as the Minister of Railways tells him to.	.
Now, speaking of railroads and their advantages, the first time I had the pleasure of travelling through the North-west, there were no railways built, and to get there I had to go through American territory. 1 struck our boundary at Emerson. Winnipeg was not very large then, it was called old Fort Garry, a little while before, and it would be old Fort Garry yet if the Canadian Pacific- Railway had not been built. So you see the great good that has been done by that railroad in building up the North-west. That country has been called the great lone land, and if we had not had railroads built through it, it would be a great lone land yet, whereas it is now blossoming like the rose, with thousands of miles of railroad running in every direction.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was a very costly affair for Canada when it was built. I do not say that the promoters of that road did not act to the best of their light, according to the best knowledge they had, lint they made a great mistake. We are all apt to make mistakes, but when they recognized a syndicate of men and granted them large bonuses of money, and lands, and railroads already constructed, amounting altogether, I think, to some $145,000,000, they created an enormous corporation, and I think they then made a mistake. They had the courage to secure the building of tlie road by a company, but they should have had courage enough to bond that road, and gone to England and borrowed the money on their own responsibility, and then tlie people would have owned the road. As it was they became responsible for the bonds. Then we would have owned that road ourselves, and every acre of that land, and a great portion of that country would not now be under the control of a corporation. But you have lost that opportunity, and now that another opportunity presents itself equally favourable, I hope the government will not let it pass. You have had one unfortunate experience of that kind, and don't have another. I say that $145,000,000 of money would have built that road, every inch of it ; it did not cost $50,000 a mile ; then you would not have a wealthy syndicate composed of Lord somebodies, and of great noblemen to look up to, but you would have had instead a railroad owned by yourselves. I have great sympathy with the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) who moved that amendment yesterday, and talked so logically and with so much good sense.
I am sure other lion, gentlemen who have spoken on this question will excuse me when I say that it was the best speech yet made in this House since this debate began.
This proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will not pass through my constituency, it will not come within several hundred miles of it. At the same time, the people of my constituency are broad minded, and Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
are willing to help their neighbours to develop this country. They want to see this country something more than a mere fringe along the American border, but I do not think they will complain if this road is built and owned by the people themselves. X do not think they are anxious to see another great syndicate formed, having such vast power in this country. By this tiro-position you are creating an incubus which you propose to place upon your own necks, something that will be a damage to the public interest. Why, Sir, with these two large corporations, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Company, to say nothing of this new Grand Trunk Pacific Company, if they were to unite their forces at the next election they could elect nearly every man they wished. They have influence and power enough in almost every constituency to elect nearly every man who comes to this House, and they will elect such men as will serve their purpose. They are not Grits or Tories, they are looking after their own interests. The other day a member of this House said to me, I am just between the devil and the deep sea, or words to that effect. He said, ' There are a thousand Grand Trunk votes in my constituency, and if I vote against that measure the Grand Trunk Company will use all its influence against me ; and if I do not vote against it, then the farmers will all vote against me.'
It was something like the juror who was sitting on the trial of the seven bishops in the reign of James II. This juror who was a brewer was much concerned and he said : Oh Lord, I am ruined anyhow ; if I give a verdict against the bishops I will never brew any more beer for the people, and if I do not, I will never brew any more beer for tlie king. That poor brewer was in jeopardy, and that is just the way with the members of this House who are under the control of the Canadian Pacific Railway the Grand Trunk Railway and all tlie other railways. Now, Sir, we want to get out from that position. So far as I am concerned I don't care for any of these corporations. I will do my duty. This country is not so old that we cannot retrace our steps and start on the right track. We Started wrong s me years ago ; let us start right now, and we have excellent advice how to do it. The member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) took strong ground against government ownership ; the member for Hants (Mr. Russell) followed him in the same strain, and tlie Minister of Justice supported these two gentlemen. But unfortunately for tlie Minister of Justice lie brought some evidence in which altogether he did not like. He supported his case against government ownership by quotations from Sir John A. Macdonald, lint I do not think he would swear on John A. Macdonald for every thing ; however he used him because it suited his purpose. John A.

Macdonald was bound hand and foot to the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate and could not help himself-it is quite possible that the gentlemen on the treasury benches are in the same fix to-day with other railway corporations. Now, Sir, I do not wish to take up the time of the House.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Go on.


Jabel Robinson: This is about the time that I usually conclude my speech, but if the House is determined to say ' go on ' I will have to be polite. You would think that the member for Westmoreland lived in the western part of Canada and knew nothing about the Intercolonial Railway. He does not seem to know that it cost $70,000,000 and that it is doing excellent service in its own way. He forgets that the [DOT]country through which, it runs is unsettled and that it is almost impossible to make the Intercolonial Railway pay commercially. Why, it was never intended to pay commercially. It was built as a military road, and we all remember that the Trent affair helped to bring about its construction. However, it has connected the colonies and we could not get along without the Intercolonial. It is one of the grandest things in Canada although it does cost something. I would like to see more of it. If the Intercolonial railway does not pay the Dominion in cash, it pays the people of the maritime provinces, and generally speaking it pays us all to have it.
It has been argued by gentlemen on the treasury benches that the government could not operate a railway in the public interest. I am sorry the Postmaster General is not present, because I would like to tell him that he his discharging a public duty very well, and we hear no complaints. Hundreds of thousands of dollars go through his hands and millions of people are reached, and reached pretty accurately through the instrumentality of the post office, if the government can run the post office right, what is the matter with them running the railways right. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) said it would take $50,000 a year to pay a magnate to look after a government railway. Well, Sir, there is no danger of him getting the j b. If it takes $50,000 a year to pay a railway manager, I do not wonder that the shareholders get no dividend. I think $50,000 a year is more than one man can earn. I think there is a mistake in that regard, but the hon. gentleman may know that they get $50,000, I do not. It is admitted that the Postmaster General runs the post office, or at least it is run to the best of the Postmaster General's ability through his deputy. We have other institutions run by the government which I suppose you gentlemen have no experience of and I hope you never will ; I mean the penitentiaries. I understand that the penitentiaries are run well enough. Then there are the asylums and other institutions managed by the government all over the country, and there is no reason why the railroads should not be managed by the government. Of course it will take some time to get into it; some time to get the right men, but we have boys growing up in Canada who will be quite competent to run our railroads and we need not go to the United States or any where else for them. Now, as to the bonding privilege, I felt plea'sed the other day to hear the Prime Minister with all his eloquence expound the idea that we should be. independent of the Americans. But the hon. gentleman has the Intercolonial Railway over which we can bring all the stuff" we want in bond. I do not think we need fear any threats about the bonding privileges. I hate to be threatened ; I am just as sensitive as the Prime Minister as to that, but this threatening does not amount to much, and so long as there are such presidents as Roosevelt there is no danger of any injustice being done to us Canadians. But, Sir, if we should happen to get a crank as president as we had some years ago. then we might perhaps be in jeopardy. I do not know that I need mention his name for you gentlemen are well enough posted to know who I mean. If we are in jeopardy from that cause we cannot get straight to the ocean simply because the land that our forefathers fought for, was given away by a certain Lord Ashburton, and consequently we are hemmed in and cannot get in a straight line to our ocean ports.
I remember reading some time ago of a legislator in the United States who was very anxious to do some great good for Canada. So he cudgelled his brains and got up a resolution to have .the Senate of the United States and the President and the whole machinery put into operation in order to buy Canada from Great Britain and hand it over to the United States. I believe there was one fool enough in the world to attempt to do that. I am not so big a fool as that; I will not go so far; but if out government were to appeal to the American government and tell them that there is a piece of land down there lying near our orchard which once belonged to us, and that we are willing to pay a fair price for it, I think the people living in that part of the state of Maine would be glad to come under the old flag which has waved a thousand years, and which represents more civil and religius liberty than any other flag in the world. I think we might buy that part of the state of Maine, and then we would have a straight road to St John. I think it would be just as rational for us to propose to do that as for the United States legislator to propose that the United States should buy up Canada.
While we have the Intercolonial, there is no difficulty about getting to the sea; but you profile will not wait long enough to get there; you want to hurry to New York or Boston, because it will save you a few hours'

time. I think we ought to patronize our own ports, and carry as much of our produce as possible over the Intercolonial. I got a copy of the Intercolonial Railway tim '-table this morning, and I see that six trains run a day on that railway, and many others could be run. We are told by members of tips House that it Is one of the best roads in America, with the easiest grades, and that although it Is a little longer, it makes as good time to the seaboard as other roads. If that is so, the question of the bonding privilege is settled. We can ship our own products over our own road through our own territory. So that I do not think we have anything to complain of so far as independence of the bonding privilege is concerned. But, as has been well argued here, the Americans themselves ai-e not anxious to abrogate tiie bonding privilege, because they make a profit out of it; and the American people are not willing to give up anything that they make money out of-my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) knows that.
Now, Sir, we had a discussion here the other day On the trwo-cent-a-mile rate. Railways should be compelled to carry passengers for two cents a mile That would be easily accomplished if the government owned the railways. There would not be any begging of the railway magnates to do justice to the people of this country, because the government would then see that the people got justice. The railways to-day are masters of the situation, and their mandate has to be obeyed. I have had opportunities of knowing that. Some years ago the people in my section applied to this House for a charter to build a railroad through the southern counties of Ontario ; they came here year after year, but they met with the direst opposition from the railway companies and the other parties interested. But finally they obtained a charter to build the road, and they built it. The Canada Southern owned it for a time, but finally leased it, I am told, to the Michigan Central for 999 years. So we are sure whose hands we are in during our time. There are managers and superintendents of railroads who are very courteous and try to accommodate the people, and to oblige them; but at other times they are not just so obliging. Some members of this House wept scalding tears and showed a great deal of sympathy for the ex-Mlnister of Railways and Canals because he left the cabinet. Well, Sir, I did not weep any tears, simply because I found that that hon. gentleman, while he was the Minister of Railways and Canals, was the guardian angel of the railways; and whenever the farmers of this country asked for justice from the railways, that lion, gentleman stood by them as if he owned them, and he was master of the situation. So I did not shed any tears. A town in my constituency, a growing and thriving place called Dutton, near the cen-


Jabel Robinson: tre of the thriving township of Dunwich, has but one railroad crossing in the town. The people of that place appealed to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to have another road built some sixty rods from the first one, so that the farmers might ship their cattle, draw their grain to the mill, and do other business. They sent maps and plans and letters, showing the necessity for the change. There are two railway tracks there parallel and close to each other, and when I tell you that very often a train goes thundering along one track at the rate of a mile a minute while cars are standing on the other, you will realize why the people there wanted another crossing. Their request was so reasonable that I thought no Committee of the Privy Council would refuse to grant it.
I appeared before the Committee of the Privy Council and appealed to them on the subject, but my appeal had no effect whatever. The present crossing is a very dangerous one, a number of people having been killed there. The government sent their engineer, and the railway company sent its engineer, to make an examination, and I went and met them. The councils of the township and town both petitioned for another crossing; but they did not get it, and have not got it yet.
The other day I brought up the question of protecting farmers and drovers in connection with the shipment of cattle, and stated that some of tne wealthiest and best men in our part of the country had been killed; and when I asked the late Minister of Railways and Canals if he could not put something in the Railway Commission Bill to protect the farmers, he just laughed at me. Well, I think the men who pay a heavy price for shipping their cattle on the railroad ought to be protected against negligence or carelessness. But the minister ignored my request altogether. If we had government ownership, do you not think something would be done to remedy the grievances of these peopl; ? Only last session I asked the Minister of Railways and Canals to compel the railway companies to make the farm gates in such a way that a small boy could go down through the farm and bring the cattle' across from the other side of the track. He said he could not do it now because a great many of them, instead of swinging on hinges, were rolling along on slides and often in snow three or four feet deep, so that the children could not open them. I asked him to provide that railway companies would have to make these gates swing on hinges. And the large member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) came to his rescue, and of course our request was not granted. We know that in everything the farmers have applied for, they have been snubbed. We know how long the cattle-guard question was discussed in this House, session after session, and how long the farmers

have been trying to have the railway companies obliged to pay them for their injured and killed cattle. But the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would never yield an inch until forced to do so by members of his own party. Even on the question of drainage across railway tracks, he set a determined front against the railways being obliged to contribute to the expense, but I am pleased to see that in the new act this obligation is imposed on the railway companies, and the ex-minister was the only one who voted against the amendment to this effect. I am therefore not going to shed any tears because the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals is out of the cabinet.
I had no intention of making these references to the ex-minister, but it becomes my duty to do so as advocating the government ownership of railways.
I am strongly in favour of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), but I am afraid that the people are not far enough advanced to adopt it. You cannot get the people advanced in a very short time. The hon. member for Winnipeg is many years ahead of his time; and in that respect perhaps he resembles the bon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), who has been advocating the same thing for years, and whose voice no doubt will be heard on this Bill before the debate is closed.
I wish to make an appeal to this House on behalf of the farmers. We have been here since the middle of March and have had to neglect our harvest. It seems to me that this House ought to meet in January.
I moved last year an amendment to a resolution, and by my amendment I asked that the House should meet in the middle of January, but it was laughed out of court. But just as soon as we have a majority of farmers in this House, we will meet the first week in January and will quit for harvest. If the farmers were represented here in proportion to their wealth and numbers, they would run this House to suit the greatest industry in this country, the agricultural interest, but they unfortunately allow the wire-pullers to run this country. No doubt some of the men here are earnest, hard workers, regular in attendance, and anxious to get business done, but there are a great many others who would give Rudyard Kipling plenty of opportunity for the exercise of his satire. We know what Kipling wrote about the English dudes, who neglect their business, squander their opportunities and waste their time. He said that they were ' flannelled fools at the wicket and muddled oafs at the goal.' If he were to see how half the members of this House fill in their time-one hour in the chamber and then dawdling around the lobbies, he would hit them off pretty sarcastically. I say this in all kindness, because I do not wish to hurt anybody's feelings, but we should do something to get on with business and go out
and help the country. Our farmers are paying $2 per day for harvest hands, and half the members of this House are able-bodied men who would be williug to take a job in the harvest field. They would' be better employed in that work than dawdling around here, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will use your influence to have the work of the session forwarded and to induce the government to take up the policy of government ownership of railways as soon as possible.


Mr.  H. .T. LOGAN@Cumberland: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for West Elgin, who has just spoken, upon the arguments he used in favour of government ownership of railways. He arrives at the_ conclusion that because the government can run penitentiaries and lunatic asylums it can run railways. That seems to have been one of the leading arguments in support of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee).
Before going into the details of the proposition before the House, I desire to offer my sincere congratulations to the government for having grappled with this railway problem in a strong and fearless manner-in such a way as not only to do justice to the west and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but also to the maritime provinces which have been crying out so long for better communication with the rest of the Dominion. Some people are surprised that the maritime provinces should have put up the fight they have in order to have this railway built into those provinces. But if those people lived in the provinces down by the sea, if they knew the difficulties under which we have laboured since we came into confederation, they would find no cause to wonder that our constant endeavours have been to bring ourselves in as close communication as possible with the central provinces. Such a policy appeals to our hearty support because we recognize the position in which we have been placed by confederation. It is to be regretted that we could not have this railway problem discussed without bringing in extraneous matter, but the hon. gentleman, who has left the cabinet and who held the portfolio of Railways and Canals during seven years, took upon himself to bring into the discussion matters which had nothing whatever to do \vith the problem before the country : and while I have been, and I am still, a personal friend of the hon. gentleman, I must say that I do not think it was to his credit, when he discussed this question, which should be discussed on a high plane, to have brought in the name of Senator Cox. What has Senator Cox to do with the railway problem ? As a matter of fact, he only consented to become an associate wdth the' Grand Trunk Railway in this matter

after lie had been urged most strongly by them to do so. And suppose he is associated with the Grand Trunk Railway, what have we got to say against him ? Is there anything in that association of which wie should be ashamed. ? You would think, by the way he is talked about in this country by the opposition, that he is a jailbird and only fit for one of the penitentiaries referred to by the hon. member for Elgin, The facts are that Senator Cox has risen from the humblest station to a foremost place among the leading men of the Dominion of Canada. To-day he is the president of one of tlie largest life insurance companies, one of the largest fire insurance companies and one o,f the largest banks in the Dominion. He is honoured by all who know him best ; and we know that it is an advantage to every business undertaking, however great, to have his name associated with it. This criticism of Senator Cox is only an attempt on the part of the opponents of this project to draw a red herring across the trail. My friend the ex-Minister of Railways and the hon. members oil the other side of the House have contended that there was no need for this road. The hon. ex-minister said that it was never mooted until just before it was brought under the consideration of the House, and he further said that he saw no reason now for the construction of the proposed national line. He cried out in a dramatic way :	Where is the crisis the
Premier speaks of ? And lie accused the government of being seized'with hysteria. I will prove out of the ex-minister's own mouth that the construction of this railway is an immediate and imperative necessity. We have had quoted here the hon. gentleman's speech in British Columbia. Let me read a despatch from Montreal after the Minister of Railways had returned from the west. This despatch appears in the Manitoba ' Free Press ' of November 3rd, 1902. This shows what the hon. gentleman thought at that time, for this is an account of an interview with him. He said :
There is ample room for at least four more railways right through to the Pacific. The thing that impressed me on my trip through the North-west most of all was the need for more railways. I went over portions of the Canadian Pacific, Northern Pacific, Canadian Northern, and Great Northern, and found that while they had advanced very rapidly they had been unable to keep up with the remarkable progress of the country.
And further on be said :
Not only should the west have at least four more railways, but I am further convinced that it must have them, or the cause of immigration which has bee^i so -active will receive a severe setting back. The out-lying districts are already filling up very rapidly, and unless transportation facilities are afforded the settlers, they will quickly become discontented aud advise others not to come into the country. . . As a result of my visit


Mr. LOGAN.: This was the railway administrator of this country who was speaking.
-I hope to show parliament the necessity for a government railway

That is bis peculiar kind of railway, of course, but nevertheless a railway

-through the west, for their cannot any longer be any doubt that the future of the Dominion lies greatly in the districts beyond the great lakes.


William Rees Brock: Did the ex-minister say that all those four railways were to go from Moncton ?


Hance James Logan: When I read the language of the ex-Minister of Railways saying that there is room for at least four more railways

	.


William Rees Brock: All from Moncton ?


Hance James Logan: All transcontinental railways. I take it that the maritime provinces are as much a part of Canada as the province of Ontario. And the sooner my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) from the city of Toronto, which always wants everything it can get, realizes that the province of Nova Scotia is as much a part of the Dominion of Canada as the great city of Toronto, the sooner he will reach a very important truth. The ex-Minister of Railways, in the city of Montreal- not at a Vancouver banquet, where he might he affected by a spirit of exaltation, to use the expression which he has used witli regard to the government, but when he came back, and in the quiet of the eastern part of Canada-expressed himself as I have quoted. Then he proceeded to his own province of New Brunswick. At the town of Campbeilton he was tendered a banquet on the 1st December, 1902. He is reported in the St. John ' Telegraph '-which should report him correctly, as it belongs to liim-to have spoken as follows, in reply to the toast of ' The Land we Live in. ' :
He believed there was not a Canadian who had not within the last six or ten years learned a broader and higher conception of his country and its possibilities, and in following up this idea, the minister referred to his recent trip across the continent from Sydney to Victoria. Although the several provinces through which he had passed gave evidence of abounding prosperity, it was in the great and fertile west that the marvellous promise of Canada's future was conspicuous.	[DOT]
This trip had led him while at the coast, to tell of what his idea of what that country might become, and what its railway requirements would be. He had on that occasion spoken of the time near at hand when four transcontinental lines would find a profitable business and it was in the nature of a vindication of that view

Listen to this-this is where he takes credit for the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. You will see that he is the father of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, according to his own language :

-that six weeks later the Grand Trunk Railway had announced its purpose to construct a line from Ontario to the coast. If the present rate of immigration was maintained, the time might also come, when,-as some one competent to .form a judgment has said, a railway every thirty miles in both directions would not be more than enough to handle the vast volume of traffic that would be offering. Mr. Blair then spoke of his desire to have the Intercolonial extended to the Georgian Bay to Toronto, to various parts of Ontario and later, if the ground was not then altogether occupied, across the continent.
It will be seen that the idea in his mind at that time was that the Grand Trunk Pacific would be built across the continent to the Pacific ocean, and that some time later, If it were required, the Intercolonial also might be gradually extended across to the Pacific :
This statement of the minister's personal wishes was received with great cheering, as were also his patriotic reference to the future of the Dominion.
Some time afterwards the hon. gentleman was in the city of St. John, taking part in the election for the local legislature. 1-Ie was not then loved by the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, as he is to-day. He was asked by a Conservative paper in St. John the reasons for his being there and taking part in a provincial election. He said, as reported in the St. John ' Telegraph ' :
I am here because I believe it is in the interests oi the Candian people as it is in the intersts of the people of St. John and this province, that they should not at this juncture, at the height of our glorious prosperity and with promising results in view, strike a blow or do an injury to the government which obtains at Ottawa at the present time.
I trust the ex-minister will read these words of his own and will apply them to himself at the present time. And" what did he say with reference to railways ? Speaking on February 19th, 1903, he said, as reported by the St. John ' Telegraph ' :
There is an immense western country behind the business of this port

The port of St. John

-and the people of Canada had become convinced that their products should find an outlet through Canadian ports.
And later on he said :
The productions of the west, were increasing at a rate which warranted the belief that in the course of a few years 200,000,000 bushels of grain would be available for export and that half that quantity at least would find an outlet through the ports of St. John, Halifax and possibly Sydney.
Here we have the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals saying that the time was near at hand when, with proper facilities for connecting the east with the west, 100,000,000 bushels of grain would find their outlet through St. John, Halifax and, possibly, Sydney. In the speech he delivered at Vancouver on the 9th October, 1902, he said that the second transcontinental railway could not come fast enough for him. And he said further :
Nothing would prove so fruitful of magni-cent realization to the people of this great west, than to run the railway right through to the Pacific coast and operate it upon, I will not say merely economical rates, but upon rates sufficient to pay working expenses, without dividend for the government or any one else.
That is his scheme-to build a railway to the coast without dividend either to the government or any one else.
That has been my dream. I dream that still, and I believe that it would be of no disadvantage even from a financial standpoint, to the people of this Dominion, either east or west ; I believe we would not feel the burden. I believe we would not know we had a road resting
upon our shoulders	I can say with
confidence that you have the sympathetic consideration of the government of the day. It would be, I think the proudest act which the government could achieve to lay down a broad, enlightened, progressive and imposing policy covering the grounds which I have pointed out to you.
There is where he laid down the policy, in the first place, of a second transcontinental road, declaring that it could not come fast enough for him. We see that he has also said that we needed four transcontinental railways, and that the transcontinental railway should be built and operated by the government. I happened to pick up the Halifax ' Herald,' and read an editorial upon this proposition of the ex-Minister of Railways. What does it say ? Of course, the ' Herald ' talks differently now. But at that time it thus paid its compliments to the Minister of Railways :
Now. what would the country gain in return for this vast annual financial loss.
Under government ownership and operation.
Nothing whatever, so far as can be judged from the ' operating ' of the Intercolonial. That road is ' operating ' at an annual loss to the Dominion treasury of about $2,500,000

Instead of the $1,5000,000 estimated by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) :
-yet the part of the country specially served by it enjoys1 no better rates, and better service is afforded elsewhere by company roads that are' making money and paying dividends. The same thing on a larger scale is all that could be looked for under Mr. Blair's ' dream.' It would afford the Minister of Railways a larger field for his ' peculiar methods ' of management ; but the country has already had more than enough of Mr. Blair's ' peculiar methods ' of * operating ' railways.
Sir, this is the language of the Halifax ' Herald ' of last fall, after the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals had expressed his view in favour of the government owning a railway across the continent. But at the present time the newspapers of the op-

position are singing this gentleman's praises. He has not got these ' peculiar methods ' apparently at the present time. When that lion, gentleman spoke in this House and denounced the government, and endeavoured to hold the Premier of this country up to scorn-endeavoured, I say, because the man does not live who is big enough to hold the Premier of this country up to scorn-but he endeavoured to do so, and for doing so the opposition cheered him loudly, and when he sat down they came over and gave him the right hand of fellowship, and welcomed him into their hearts, and into their ranks too, I presume. Only a short time ago we heard the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) charging the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals with having a 'toll gate' in the Windsor hotel, in the city of Montreal, but these same gentlemen gave him the right hand of fellowship the other night. They cried out, ' hear, hear,' when the hon. member for Compton charged him with having a toll gate in the Windsor hotel, though I did not believe a word of it, and we do not believe it to-day. But these very gentlemen apparently believed it, because they cheered the statement. They have painted him in the blackest colours, they have called him a boodler, and yet he is not so black, he is not so putrified, but they are quite willing to take him to their arms.' Sir, the people of this country are not blind, they are able to appreciate the value of opinions so diametrically opposed to each other, expressed by the same men. We all know how their opinions have changed within the last six months with reference to the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte), whom only a few months ago they covered with approbrious epithets, and spoke of him as that ' traitor Tarte.' Let us consider what the proposition of building a transcontinental railway to be owned and operated by the government, means to this country. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals lately has stated that he has no quarrel with the building of the road from Quebec to Winnipeg, and thence to Port Simpson, but he does quarrel with the building of the road from Quebec to Moncton. Let us take the Intercolonial as a basis for argument for or against government ownership. The Intercolonial Railway has cost on capital account, over $70,000,000, or nearly $50,000 per mile. The deficits since 1S76, after deducting surpluses, amounted to $5,281,000, or an average deficit of $200,000 per year. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from Quebec to Winnipeg, according to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would be 1,400 miles long, and he thinks it will cost $49,000,000. The prairie section is 1,100 or 1,200 miles long, and a fair estimate of the cost of that section, to make it a first class railway, is $20,000 per mile. Call the length 1,000 miles, and you have $20,000,000 as the cost of the prairie section. The mountain section is Mr. LOGAN.
about 600 miles long. The hon. member for South Lanark, speaking the other day in this debate, said that the cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior exceeded $60,000 per mile. I do not suppose that the cost of this railroad through the mountain section will be any less than that sum. Therefore that 600 miles of the mountain section would cost $36,000,000. Adding the cost of the three Sections together we have a total for the main line of $105,000,000. Now, this road cannot be operated merely as a main line without branches. There would have to be a branch into Montreal, one to North Bay, one to Port Arthur, with branches to Brandon, Regina, Prince Albert. Calgary and other points. If any one will figure out the distances of these different branches he will find that they exceed 1,000 miles. Put down the combined length at 1.000 miles, and let us estimate the average cost of their construction at $25,000 a mile, because many of tnese branches will have to pass through a difficult country for railway construction- 1,000 miles of branch lines at $25,000 a mile, make a total of $25,000,000. Add that to the $105,000,000 and you have $130,000,000 for roadbed alone. Rolling stock and terminals for such a transcontinental railway to be operated by the government would without doubt amount to as much as $30,000,000. IVe cannot judge as to the cost of the elevators that would be necessary, we cannot judge as to the cost of the hotels that would be necessary, or the cost of parks, Ac., or the cost of terminal facilities at Port Simpson. Therefore we will not put down anything for elevators, hotels, parks or anything of that sort, but we will simply estimate the cost of roadbed and rolling stock at $160,000,000. Suppose we borrowed that money at 3 per cent. The exMinister of Railways and Canals said we might have some difficulty in borrowing money at that rate, but I suppose we can borrow at 3 per cent, in which case we will have an annual interest account of $4,800,000. Now if the deficit on that road bear the same ratio to length as those on the 1,500 miles of the Intercolonial, we would have a deficit every year of $560,000. Therefore the total loss to the country in operating that government road, taking the Intercolonial as an example, would be $5,360,000 per year, or $1 for every man, woman and child in the whole Dominion.
But that is not all. It is necessary, in the operation of railways, to make good connections with them. But we would meet the antagonism of the great Grand Trunk system in Ontario, there would be the antagonism of the Canadian Pacific Railway system in Ontario, Quebec, and the west, and naturally we would have the antagonism of the Canadian Northern in the western country. Then when we had built our line from Quebec to Port Simpson it would be necessary for transcontinental trade, to have

lines of steamers running from Quebec to Liverpool on this side, and from Port Simpson to China and Japan on the Pacific. So we have now, not estimating the cost of these steamship lines, and without considering the question of elevators or the other things I have mentioned, an annual cost to the people of this country for this transcontinental road, of $5,300,000. Now, Sir, the hon. member for South Lanark does not agree with my proposition that the deficits on the Intercolonial are only $200,000 per year. In a speech which he delivered in this House in the present debate he stated,
If I mistake not, the deficit on the Intercolonial, if charged to revenue instead of being charged to capital account, would amount to $1,500,000 per year. If that is the case, if, 1,500 miles of railway occasion a deficit of $1,500,000 a year, then 3,200 miles of railway would occasion a deficit of $3,200,000. Add to that amount the interest account, and you have a loss to this country in operating this transcontinental road by the government, of $8,000,000 a year.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Hance James Logan: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose I made a calculation of the cost to this country per annum of a government owned line of railway from Quebec to Port Simpson, and the operation of that railroad by the government. In the items which I gave of the expenditure was one for interest upon the cap:tal invested. The reason that I made that calculation was that that was the proposition that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals made in Vancouver, where he said that his ideal railway was a railway across the continent owned by the government upon which, as he said, there would never be any dividends paid, but which would simply, be operated to the end that it would if possible or as nearly as possible pay the working expenses. Now I also showed that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, at Campbellton, N.B.. claimed credit of having given the Grand Trunk Railway people the cue upon the railway proposition. Now, Sir, admitting that there was need of a railway across the continent, a second transcontinental, not four transcontinental railways, admitting that there was need of one transcontinental railway across the continent, there were two or three ways in which this railroad could be built. One of them would have been to adopt the policy of our friends opposite when they constructed the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dwell at any length upon the contract made by the late government for the construction of tbe Canadian Pacific Railway. I am not here to-day to quarrel in reference to that subject, but I may be permitted to as shortly as possible [DOT]state what were the conditions, the arrangements made by the late Conservative government for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway which was not a 'transcontinental railway, but only a railway from the centre of Canada to the Pacific coast. The government of that day gave to the promoters of that railway completed railway to the value of $30,000,000, they gave cash subsidy to the value of $25,000,000, they gave to the company 25,000,000 acres of selected lands in Manitoba and the Northwest. Of course, it is difficult to estimate the exact value of those lands, but when asking for a loan from the government in 1884, 1 Mr. Stephen, now Lord Mount Stephen, said the lands which up to that time had been sold, had produced on an average $2.36 per acre. In 1892 Sir Wm, Van Horne said that the average selling price up to that time had been $4.05 per acre. Assuming the value of that land to be $3 per acre, we have a value of land of $75,000,000, or a total value given to this company of $135,000,000 in money and land. But besides this great assistance to this railway, they were given other important concessions. They were given, for instance, the privilege of importing their rails and other supplies for that railway free of duty. They were given exemption from taxation for twenty years from the time of the sale of the land, they were given a monopoly of the traffic of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The government was not to assist any other railway building south of their railway towards the United States border. And lastly, there was in their contract no regulation of freight rates until 10 per cent should be paid upon the whole stock of the company, whether that stock was watered or whether it was not.
Now, Sir, the ' Weekly Sun ' has been referred to here, the organ of the farmers of Ontario, so-called, I read from the ' Weekly Sun,' of Toronto a short time ago the following :
The Canadian Pacific Railway has just declared a half-yearly dividend upon its ordinary stock at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. Its ordinary stock amounts to $65,000,000 and the half-yearly dividend just paid upon it is $1,300,000. Yet of this $65,000,000 stock only $8,500,000 at the outside went into the road. The remainder went into the pockets of the promoters and stockholders. The dividend just paid is equal to more than 301 per cent upon the money that went, into the enterprise. Yet we are told that we must not attempt to regulate freight rates until the dividend amounts to 10 per cent upon the $65,000,000 stock, or in other words, until the road pays 150 per cent, annually upon the capital which was actually expended upon it.
So much then for the experience of this country in building a railroad by land grant and cash subsidy. The government of the present day, realizing that another transcontinental railway was necessary, concluded to assist in building such a railway. They concluded to build that railway from

Quebec to Port Simpson. They had much reason for building from Quebec to Port Simpson, because they would open up a new northern empire of Canada. They had the advice of men who have traversed that country from end to end, they had the advice of Sir Sandford Fleming, who, in an interview published last autumn, stated that he was himself in favour of building from Quebec to .Winnipeg. I quote from Sir Sandford Fleming :
I am inclined to think Mr. Blair is on the right track in proposing to extend the Intercolonial to the Pacific. It seems to me, however, that it would be a mistake to try to form a new transcontinental line in a haphazard way by connecting various fragments of railway which have been located without any general plans. The effect would be to lengthen the whole line and unduly lower its engineering character, and almost certainly >give it features which would be for ever regarded as blemishing to a great transcontinental line. To realize Mr. Blair's conception of a new national railway, it should in my judgment begin at the' Quebec bridge now building, where it would form a direct connection with the Intercolonial, and it should extend from Quebec by the most direct route to Port Simpson on the Pacific. From what I know of the general character of the greater part of the intervening distance, I believe a line with splendid engineering features could with ordinary care be secured.
That was bis advice in reference to the engineering features. They are being justified every day. Only a few days ago the first report came in from the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and they report that from Winnipeg to the north of Lake Nepigon, on this route, they have found they can easily place a road with grades that are low enough for the most up-to-date railway in the country. Now, Sir, I am not going to attempt to-day to describe the country between Quebec and Winnipeg. That has been ably dealt with and it seems to me exhaustively dealt with by the hon. Minister of ti(e Interior. It has been shown by him that we have there a vast acreage of fertile land. He has read from the report of Dr. Bell upon that proposition, but he did not read all of Dr. Bell's report, and I will only encroach upon the time of this House for one moment while I refer to another report made by Dr. Bell of the geological survey of Canada upon the climate and the character of the country in this northern domain. In his report, which is dated Ottawa, 7th March, 1887, Dr. Bell says :
The summer and winter temperatures resemble those of the county of Rimouski.
Why the hon. leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec, the member for .Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), referred to this the other day as a sub-Arctic region. Well, if it is a sub-Arctic region, the county of Rimouski must be quite as much a subArctic region.


Hance James Logan: The summers not so hot nor the winters not so cold as at Winnipeg.
The average snowfall is about three feet or a little more, still not quite so great as about the city of Quebec. Potatoes and all other kinds of root crops have been found to do remarkably, well. Hay also grows luxuriantly. Barley would, I think, be a sure crop every year, and rye could also be grown with, advantage. Barley is sold every year at Moose Factory and Rupert's House, and It has ripened well every year that I have visited these parts. However, these places are much further north than the region I have indicated, and what is worse for them, they are near the sea, which is said to have an unfavourable influence in the autumn. Mr. John McIntyre (now at Fort William) says he has ripened wheat at Missinaibi and New Brunswick House within the above area. I have had experiments made at New Brunswick House and at Norfolk, on the .Abitibi river, with a great variety of field and garden seeds, and the results have proved that this region is capable of growing anything which can be raised, say in the county of Rimouski. I regard the region as well-suited for stock-raising and dairy farming, and it is not unlikely to prove fit for grain also. The soil at Moose Factory is heavy and cold, still vegetables, &c., grow successfully here. Among the kinds may be mentioned potatoes, beans, peas, turnips, beets, carrots, cabbage, onions, &c., &c. As showing the absence of summer frost at Moose Factory in 1887, I mention at page 27c of my report for that year, that, on our return to Moose Factory, from the north, in the end of September, we found that there had been no frost there all summer, and the most tender plants, such as beans, balsams, melons, cucumbers, tobacco, the castor oil bean, &c., growing in the open air, were still quite green and flourishing. That summer was, however, probably a finer one than usual.
Minerals are to be found in this region; nearly all the metals are to be looked for in the Huronian formation, a belt of which is believed to run all the way from near Lake Abitibi to the south of Lake Mistassini, and this would be crossed by any railway from Quebec to James Bay. Iron and gypsum are abundant in the north-west of Moose Factory.
It would be wearisome to the House if I continued to read the reports of explorers and missionaries and of the officers of the Geological Department. Suffice it to say that they all point to the conclusion that this northern country through which the proposed line shall run is a country rich in agriculture, rich in timber! and rich in minerals. Why last year the Hudson Bay Company sent in $30,000 worth of the most modern flour machinery to Fort Vermillion on the Peace river, and although that settlement is more than 200 miles north of the proposed route.


Mr. BELL.: To what point was that machinery sent ?


Hance James Logan: To Fort Vermillion on the Peace river.


John William Bell: That is not further north.


Hance James Logan: Yes, and it is even north of the Trans-Canada which my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) endorsed in the city of Quebec.

Now, Sir, the government have submitted this proposition to build a transcontinental line. The government had before them the experience of managing the Intercolonial Hailway and they had before them the experience of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in the light of this experience they have submitted the proposition which is now before the House and which we are asked to endorse. That proposition is as follows :
The government pays interest for seven years and guarantees the interest for a further period of forty-three years at three per cent on bonds of mountain section up to three-quarters of the cost but the total amount not to exceed $30,000 per mile. The old Grand Trunk Railway guarantees the balance of cost for construction; the government will take a first mortgage on the road and on the rolling stock. The old Grand Trunk Railway with its $150,000,000 of assets in order not to suffer loss must protect the government. It has been shown by actuarial calculation that the total amount of money for the payment by the government of seven years interest could be provided by the present sum of $2,334,575.90.
On the prairie section the government guarantees interest at three per cent for fifty years on three-quarters of the cost of the road, the total amount not to exceed $13,000 per mile. The eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton is to be built and owned by the government as the neck of the great western bottle. This is to be a common highway for all railways, the government reserving right of way for the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific to be given a lease of this line for a period of fifty years and to pay the government three per cent upon its total outlay after seven years. The government therefore borrows the money, pays interest for seven years, and after that interest will be paid by the Grand Trunk Pacific for a period of forty-three years, when the road improved and developed as it must be will revert to the government. The amount required to pay the total interest for the seven years is computed by actuarial calculation to be $8,853,504.
The total amount, therefore, required at the present time to pay all the interest as above for seven years on the mountain section as well as on the eastern section amounts to $11,188,079.90. The company is to provide $20,000,000 of rolling stock, $5,000.000 of which is to belong to the eastern section, and the government takes a mortgage upon this rolling stock of the eastern division as well as that of the western. It is almost beyond doubt that that prairie section will not cost the government of Canada one single red cent. In reference to the eastern section it is not the case of a man buying a right of way, but the government having the fee simple reserves the right of way over the property that it leases to 290
the Grand Trunk Pacific. Of course, Mr. Speaker, when we say that the total cost of the road to us is to be $11,188,079.90, we do not deny that the 'government have to provide the money for building the eastern section, but at the same time we do know it to be a fact that we simply pay the interest upon that money and the interest upon the bonds of the western section for seven years, and after that we have not one dollar of interest to pay for a period of forty-three years. There are no exemptions from taxation as was the case with the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. There is no exemption from customs duties on the import of rails or other supplies as was the case in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. There is no exemption from taxation for a period of twenty years; there is no impediment to traffic in Manitoba and the North-west, and there is no restriction that freight rates shall not be regulated by the government until the road earns ten per cent on the whole cost. There is nothing whatever of that kind in this proposition. Prom Port Simpson to Winnipeg the government will have control of the rates .on that road, and from Winnipeg to Moncton it will own the road and therefore control it, and having; reserved the right for the, Intercolonial Railway to run over that line, it really means an extension of the Intercolonial Railway from the maritime provinces clear through to the city of Winnipeg. It is worth mentioning that the officers of the Ontario government have reported that the country through which this railway runs in that province contains 10.000,000 acres of good agricultural land. It has been proven by the officers of the Quebec government that in northern Quebec there are many million acres of excellent land which can be cultivated in years to come.
This proposition of the government. Mr. Speaker, doubles the size of Canada; it gives us a new empire to the north ; it gives hope and it gives encouragement to the people in Canada. It gives new life to our great west; it gives quick communication between the west and the east.
What have we got as an alternative proposition from the leader of the opposition ? Let me first point out that a picnic was held last week in Toronto, and it was heralded far and near that the picnic was to be in honour of the leader of the opposition. He was the trump card to be played, but he did not go. He wrote a letter to say that he had to speak on Thursday, and the matter was so important that he could not leave the House of Commons. He was labouring with the question on Thursday, and brought forth nothing; Friday came, with no better result; Saturday and Sunday followed, when he may have reflected and prayed over his proposition; Monday came, and nothing was done. He was listening for some echo from the back benches to tell him what to do. He heard the speech of my hon. friend from


Hance James Logan: Port Arthur to Winnipeg. Then, the hon. gentleman is ready to assist almost every railway in the country. In fact, it seems to me that he has been groping in the dark, and finally he says, Give me any old thing that I can put before the country as a proposition. He is very much like the Hebrew gentleman who went in a store where he saw a notice, ' If you do not see what you want, ask for it.' He went home and put up a notice in his own store, which r. ad : 'If you do not know what you want, ask for it.' That is about the position of the hon. leader of the opposition- if you do not know what railway you want to assist, simply ask for it, and you will have your wish granted. He proposes to assist'the Grand Trunk to build from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and from there, coming back to his first love, he proposes to build a line from Edmonton to Port Simpson, with equal running rights to all railways. Here we have the same proposition that has been condemned by the hon. gentleman's own railway experts. We do not gather from the hon. gentleman's remarks in what way he proposes to benefit the Intercolonial Railway by this long, crazy, patchwork policy for a railway from Montreal to the Pacific coast. He stated that Wolvin & Co. are carrying grain from Port William to Quebec at 3J cents a bushel, and that it has been carried as low as 3 cents a bushel. Does he think he can carry wheat by this hop. skip and jump railway of his from Port William to Montreal at 3 cents a bushel ?
Another part of the hon. gentleman's proposal is to run a railway from Jacques Cartier Junction to Coteau, and for that purpose we would have to build a bridge over the Ottawa river. I have the estimate of a railway man that the cost of that road and the bridge would be at least $1,000,000. To purchase the Canada Atlantic would require $17,000,000. It has been stated before a committee of this House that that was the original cost of this railway, and we would not be likely to get it below cost. To build a road from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, say at $25,000 a mile, would cost $3,000,000.	' To expropriate the Canadian
Pacific Railway from North Bay to Port Arthur, a distance of 634 miles, estimated at $60,000 per mile, which is the amount the hon. member for South Lanark says that road cost the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which would amount in round numbers to $38,000,000. That road, if it is to be used by four or five different railways. would have to be double-tracked, and its grades and curves would have to be improved. It is admitted by the Canadian Pacific Railway officials that that portion of their road running east from Poi't Arthur to North Bay is not a grain load-is not in a condition to handle that kind of traffic. You would also have to provide rolling stock for it These im-

provements, I estimate, would cost $19,000,-00U. These various items make a total of $78,000,000, which would have to he spent to carry out that portion of the hon. gentleman's scheme from Jacques Cartier, on the island of Montreal, to the city of Winnipeg, and the country would own only part of the road at that. Then, the hon. gentleman proposes to assist the Grand Trunk to build a line from Winnipeg to Edmonton. I cannot make any estimate of what that assistance would cost, because I do not know what kind of assistance he would give. Probably if he acted on the experience of his supporters in days gone by. it would be a cash subsidy. Then he proposes to build a line through the mountains from Edmonton to the coast, a distance of (500 miles at least. This would cost probably more than the north shore line of the Canadian Pacific Railway around Lake Superior, because in building that! road, the company had easy communication by water to bring in supplies, whereas there would be no such advantage in building a line through the Rocky mountains. But put it at the same amount, $60,000 a mile, which would mean a further cost of $3(5,000,000. Then, we would have to provide terminals at Port Simpson and other places, rolling stock, branch lines in different directions, and a Pacific steamship line.
I have no data on which I can estimate the cost of these. But even without these, taking only the cost of getting to Winnipeg and then to Edmonton, and thence to the coast, the total, according to the data we have before us will be $114,003,000. The hon. gentleman afterwards said he proposed to build a line from Levis to Moncton at the expense of the government. Such a line, according to the estimates of the ex-Minister of Railways, will cost $15,000,000. Then the hon. gentleman proposed to build a colonization road from Winnipeg to Quebec ; and in fact, before he got through, he endorsed the line which the present government proposes to build. Such a line will cost, according to the lowest calculation, $49,000,000. The hon. gentleman would have to provide that road with rolling stock and he also would have to provide rolling stock for the road from Montreal to Port Arthur, which he proposes to buy, and I think a low estimate of the rolling stock he would have to get for that line would be $25,000,000. That would make a total of $203,000,000, which the hon. gentleman's plan would cost this country, and what would we get in exchange ? A patchwork railway system. The hon. gentleman's policy is one of despair, a policy of the setting sun, as opposed to the policy of hope and the rising sun enunciated by this government. From Montreal to the coast the hon. gentleman does not propose to add one acre of cultivated land to the area now opened by railways, except from Edmonton through the Rockies to the coast. By this proposal we would have this immense sum 290i
of $114,000,000 paid out without having one acre of land opened up for cultivation. And if he went on to build the line from Winnipeg to Quebec, we would have the total expenditure increased to the sum of $203,000,000. Suppose he should buy the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg ; these two propositions would cost him $17,000,000 for the Canada Atlantic Railway, and $38,000,000 for the Canadian Pacific Railway, or $55,000,000 for them both. And will that scheme add any more railways to Canada ? No, Sir. Is he going to pay out that money to the workingmen, the artisans, the wholesale men and the manufacturers of Canada ? No, but to the magnates of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and a millionaire who lives in Ottawa and owns the Canada Atlantic Railway. But our joroposition means more money for the manufacturer, the wholesale man, the workingman and the artisan.
We have in the Bill a clause which provides, in the most stringent way, that all supplies shall be purchased in the Dominion. What does, that mean V It means even more prosperity during the next seven or eight years added to the great prosperity we have at present.
The bitterest attacks of the opposition have been made on the line from Quebec to Moncton. I take my share of responsibility for that line. I tried to put up as good a case as I could in the Railway Committee in favour of this transcontinental road being built to a maritime winter port. In the maritime provinces we have been long enough seeing the products of Canada pass down into American territory and to American ' ports, while the grass almost grew in the streets of our cities, and the universal demand of our people was that no assistance should be given any other transcontinental road which would not be built into the maritime provinces, so as to utilize our Canadian maritime ports. That is not a new idea. The Intercolonial Railway does not serve that purpose. I do not want to take up the time of the House in going into the matter of the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, but I may refer to a motion made in this House by the late lamented Alexander Mackenzie, on May 17th, 1869. In this motion he condemned the proposed Baie des Chaleurs route, and advocated a route connecting Riviere du Loup with the valley of the St. John. He admitted that this meant a loss of the imperial guarantee, but he asked would it not be better for Canada to raise less than one half of the amount on its own debentures and secure the construction of the shorter and cheaper and more commercially valuable road. He believed the true policy was to havb sought the most direct route to the nearest seaport. Sir Charles Tapper said :
At the Quebec conference it was agreed by an overwhelming majority that the imperial au-

thorities should decide the question of route. Therefore, it was too late in the day to raise the question. The imperial government had decided to have no other route and hence according to the agreement of the governments of the provinces no other route should be accepted by our government.
Besides setting forth the fact that the imperial government had decided the route, Sir Charles Tupper proceeded to argue iu favour of building by the northern route, on the ground of intercontinental communication. He said :
The capitalists of England were- spending their money lavishly in the attempt to shorten the distance between the two continents. He argued that by the Intercolonial two days could be saved in reaching England ; and he believed the day was not far distant when the line would become the great highway between the two continents. This view of the question raised it to one of immense national importance. St. John's, Newfoundland was only 1,640 miles from Queenstown, and by building a railway across Newfoundland 250 miles-a perfectly practical scheme-the port of Shippegan, in New Brunswick,

That was the great winter pert then, -which possessed a capital harbour for seven months in the year, would be brought into direct communication with England, and the great cities of the west would be brought nearer to Liverpool by 266 miles than by the route by way of Halifax. But without building a mile of railway in Newfoundland, Shippegan was nearer to Liverpool by way of Belle Isle by 127 miles than Halifax.
I shall not quote any further. I simply point this out to show to what length they ha'd to go to justify the building of this road by the long and circuitous route of the north shore, instead of by the shortest route across New Brunswick. The strongest argument of Sir Charles Tupper was that the imperial government had decided on the route, and. therefore, the House had no right to change that decision. In the course of that debate, Mr. Ryan, a distinguished New Brunswieker, said that in 1S64, Mr. Fleming had made a .survey of the central route, and that it was reported to be quite practical.
I have here a speech delivered in the House of Commons by the Hon. Mr. Fisher, also a New Brunswick man, who knew that country as well as any man of that time. I shall not quote his speech at length, but will read this statement from it, and contrast it with that made by the ex-Minister of Railways. To hear the ex-minister, one would imagine that there was a Sahara desert in that part of New Brunswick. Here is what Mr. Fisher said in 1867 :
From Green river to the mouth of the Nash-waak, there is a parallelogram of about thirty-five miles by one hundred and fifty, containing from two to three millions of acres of land of the first quality, the very garden of New Brunswick. Fleming says, judging from the portion cleared on the lower part of the Keswick valley, the soil must be of superior quality. This part of the province is settling rapidly.
Why ? Because they expected to get railway communication. But the railway com-Mr. LOGAN.
munieation did not come, for the road was built by the northern shore. And the people who live there have left that country. But the garden of New Brunswick still remains, and we propose to build through the garden of New Brunswick by this line from Winnipeg to Moncton. But, Sir, I do not need to quote authorities of long ago, I do not need to quote engineers. I can quote the man who to-day is looked upon by hon. members opposite-within the last few days -as the highest authority on earth, the exMinister of Railways. Upon one occasion, discussing the Intercolonial estimates, that hon. gentleman said :
There is no question that the Intercolonial was not located with reference to business or commercial considerations. I have remarked before, and I remark now, that there was one particular in which political considerations did fatally injure the Intercolonial Railway. That injury was done, not merely once, but for the entire life of the railway. The location of the Intercolonial was most unhappy from the point of view of achieving financial results, and was due entirely to those considerations of state- imperial, if you will-war considerations, large and potent considerations, which were thought to over-balance altogether business considerations. As everybody knows, the location is very unfavourable, not only because of the enormous distances between important points and between the termini of the railway, but because of the inferior character, from a productive business point of view, of a large portion of the country which it traverses. A large portion of the railway does not yield returns at all commensurate with the cost of its operation. That important portion between St. John and Halifax is, I -think, paying quite a handsome return over its cost and the expenses of operation; but the rest of the railway is not, and that is due to the enormous distances over which the traffic has to be hauled, to the small amount of local traffic which comes to the road, and to another consideration of a very potent character, which is, that at almost every important point on the road, at all events, from Halifax nearly to Montreal, it has to face water competition.
I could multiply quotations by the boutin reference to the impracticability of using the Intercolonial for through-traffic. But the opposition have admitted that the ex-Minister of Railways speaks with supreme authority, so I do not think I need to quote further to convince them that the Intercolonial, as at present constituted, is long and circuitous, and, though its grades may be good, it is not the road for transcontinental traffic.
Now, it has been asked in this House, who is calling for this road to the maritime provinces ? Who wants it? I will endeavour to show who wants the road. In 1884 it was considered so important to get shorter connection with the maritime provinces that a resolution was brought down in this House to grant a large sum-the resolution was afterwards amended so as to grant $250,000 a year-to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a road from Montreal down to the maritime provinces. This was built, mark

you, to connect Montreal with the ports of the maritime provinces, Halifax and St. John being especially mentioned. Sir Charles Tupper spoke on the subject of the Intercolonial at that time. He was Minister of Railways, and an energetic administrator of his department. He took pride in the Intercolonial, no doubt, and endeavoured to make it a success. But this is what he said, speaking in this House in 1884 :
Although every effort has been made to render the operation of the Intercolonial Railway as successful as possible, although more has been accomplished in the development of the country, in the development of the trade and business of the country through the agency of the Intercolonial Railway than any person on either side of this House a few years ago supposed to be possible, still we have found we were too heavily handicapped by the distance, and that we could not, reluctantly as we are driven to the conclusion, we have been driven to the conclusion, by the force of circumstances and by the practical results, that it is impossible for the ports of St. John and Halifax to compete with the nearer ports of Portland and Boston, in the United States. Under these circumstances, the attention of the government has been drawn, as I have said on one or two occasions before in this House, to the best means by which we might secure a realization of that which we all desire, the Atlantic terminus being in Canadian territory, as well as the Pacific terminus, and thus be placed in a position to fairly compete for the great transcontinental trade and traffic that we all know must flow over that line. . .
And so on, in a long speech, in which he advocated the building of a shorter line, and admitted that the Intercolonial, much as he regretted it, could not compete with the roads leading to the United States ports. He said also :
I have only to read these figures to the House, I think, in order to show that the government, in asking for this aid, in extending practically the terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway, involving, as it will, the transport of the traffic of both the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, down to our own coasts and our own ports in the maritime provinces, are asking aid, which will, without any question, assure the completion of that. I have already stated that it is proposed that this shall not only be the shortest line to Montreal, but the shortest line to Quebec.
As I say, this resolution was brought in by the Sir John Macdonald government to give a large amount of money per year to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a road to the maritime provinces. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has already alluded to the remarks of Sir Hector Bangevin on that occasion, when that gentleman said :
Well. I am sure the hon. gentleman will be pleased to hear the declaration which the government makes through me, that in the arrangements to be made with the company to build the railway, to take advantage of this vote of money, of $250,000 during twenty years, the government will take care to secure the completion of the railway, not only to Mattawamkeag, but also to Salisbury, and if that is not secured, there will he no subsidy given. We must act in good faith ; the faith of parliament is pledged, and we must take care that that money is employed as parliament wishes.
I could quote other speeches of that lciud. But that one citation from a speech of Hon. Edward Blake suffices :
We are now called upon to recognize that, at any rate, as far as the arts of peace are concerned, the Intercolonial has not answered its purpose. I do not say it has been useless; far from it. I am quite free to admit that it has developed the traffic far greater than I, for my part, expected it would ; I am free to admit that it has done more good than I expected it would, and I rejoice to know it ; but I say that we are now recognizing, in the most formal manner, that it has failed to accomplish its real, its main purpose, which was, not to protect us in case of war, but to benefit us during a time of peace and give us real and as close a connection with one another as geography allowed.
Well, Sir, that resolution passed. We did not hear anything then about paralleling the Intercolonial And the road was built from Montreal to St. John. But it was not built to connect with the city of Halifax or the other ports in the maritime provinces. And what happened ? In 1889, Sir John A. Macdonald introduced a resolution into this House, and I wish to call particular attention to it, as I shall show that some hon. gentlemen who have spoken very strongly against the building of the road by the government and handing it over under lease to the Grand Trunk, voted for this proposition. Sir John A. Macdonald moved ;
That it is expedient that a railway should be constructed as a government work, between the point of junction on the New Brunswick Railway-
At that time acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway

-at or near Harvey, in the province of New Brunswick, and a point of junction with the Intercolonial, at or near Salisbury, in said province or somewhere between Salisbury and Moncton, and that the sum of five hundred thousand dollars be granted towards the construction of said railway.


Sir   J@: Macdonald made a speech on the subject of this Salisbury resolution. He said :
This railway is a link in the short line from Montreal to Halifax. .	.	. The government
feel that they have pledged themselves to parliament and to the country through which this road passes, that the road should be built.
Sir John claimed that the distance from Harvey to Salisbury would be shortened by 27 miles. The Canadian Pacific Railway officials stated that it would be shortened only 14 or 16 miles. Others claimed S or 10 miles. The new line was to be 113 miles long, crossing the St. John river at Fredericton. Sir John said he had an offer from the Fredericton Bridge Company to build the road at $16,000 a mile. If that was a

fair estimate of tlie cost, we can build this new line from Levis to Moncton for $6,400,000. Sir John Macdonald said the government would build the road and supply the bridge at Fredericton. And what were they going to do with it after it was built ? They were not only paralleling the Intercolonial from St. John to Moncton, but they were competing with that line around the north shore. In spite of this, they were going to lease the road to the Canadian Pacific Railway. And for what rental ? For 3 per cent on the total cost ? No ; they were going to give it to them free of charge for a term of twenty years. In the agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway it was provided, in reference to any rate concession granted by the Intercolonial Railway to any railway in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway :
Then the lessees of Canadian Pacific Railway shall be notified thereof and shall be granted corresponding concessions and further it provided the lessees shall have the right to maintain freight and passenger agents at such points on the Intercolonial Railway as they may elect and to sell tickets and make through rates for passengers and freight either way over the lines of the Intercolonial Railway east of Moncton to and from points on their lines of railway.
Mr. Speaker, that was the resolution which was moved by Sir John A. Macdonald. It was pointed out at that time- and let me call the attention of the opposition to the fact-that there was not any survey made, not an engineer had visited the proposed route. That was pointed out to Sir John A. Macdonald, and he was asked whether they were going to build it by contract or by day's labour, and be answered that they would not bind themselves to either plan, but the government would build it just as they thought best. Well, this aroused the ire of the hon. member for St. John city. It seems to be not an uncommon thing in this House for the members for St. John city to have their ire aroused. But at that time it aroused the ire of Mr. Weldon, who then occupied the same seat in this House as is occupied at the present time by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). Mr. Weldon moved this amendment:
That the said resolution be not now agreed to, but it he resolved, that no action should be taken by this House, authorizing the construction by the government of Canada of another line of railway between Harvey and Salisbury or Moncton, until a proper survey of the proposed line, and reliable estimate of its probable cost are laid before parliament and until time has established that the existing line of railway between the points named is not sufficient to meet the demands of passenger and freight traffic.
That, Sir, was the amendment of Mr. Weldon, the member for St. John. He merely asked that surveys should he made, that an inquiry should be made, that time should be taken. But at that time also it was said that time would not wait. So this amend-Mr. LOGAN.
ment was voted down, and among the members of the Liberal-Conservative party who stocd up in this chamber and voted in favour of the government building this ?oad to compete with the other government road and with the Canadian racific Railway, among the members who voted for a Bill by which the government were to build a road and hand it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway bolus bolus, were the hon. member for South Lanark, the hon. member for East Grey and the hon. member for Leeds ; and last, but not least, the hon. member for Queen's and Sunbury (Mr. Wilmot).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the linn, gentleman if that road has ever been built ?


Hance James Logan: Even if the road was not built, it was provided for in this parliament, and the hon. gentleman voted that it should be constructed, and he cannot now hide himself behind the fact that the Senate threw the Bill out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Should not the fact that it has never been built be a salutary lesson to-day to bon. gentlemen that there was some substantial reason for it ?


Hance James Logan: I am not here to contend that this Harvey-Salisbury branch should ho built, but I am pointing out to the bon. gentleman that he wanted to build it as a government road and hand it over to a company, without a dollar's interest or rental, and lie was willing to do that without a survey having been made, and when the government did not know anything whatever about the route.


Mr. WILMOT.: What was the date of that vote ?
Mi'. LOGAN. That vote was in the year 1SS9. Now, Sir, there was another amendment, and that too was voted down. Sir Richard Cartwright moved another amendment which you would think would have been endorsed by almost every lion, gentleman in this House. W7liat was it ? He pointed out the fact that there was already a road known as the Temiscouata road from Riviere du Loup to Edmund-ston, and it was proposed to build a road from Bdmundston to Moncton. They were already talking about this Edmund-ston-Moncton road because it would give the shortened distances as we have them to-day. In his amendment he simply asked that this road from Edmundston to Moncton should have running rights over this proposed government road that was to be built by the government from Harvey to Salisbury. You could not imagine that anybody would have the supreme audacity to get up in this House and vote against such a proposition as that. He simply asked that this road should have running rights, and he pointed out the fact that the short line railway ran through the state of Maine, and it might sometime be necessary, in case of trouble with the United States, to run down

from Edmundston to Moncton ; lie was even then thinking about this bonding privilege. So he moved that amendment, and you would scarcely imagine that anybody would vote against it. Let me first read ins amendment :
That this report be not now received, but that it be declared, that inasmuch as the Temiscou-ata Railway has already been constructed entirely through Canadian territory, from Rivibre du Loup to Edmundston, on the River St. John, and inasmuch as the distance from Montreal t.o Moncton is thereby capable of being greatly reduced, and cannot, in any event be more than a few miles in excess of the distance by the so-called Short Line Railway, across the state of Maine, and whereas it is now proposed to construct a line from Harvey to Salisbury, entirely at the public expense, it is expedient that the said Temiscouata Railway should be granted full running powers over the said line from Harvey to Salisbury.
That was voted down by, among others, the hon. member for South Lanark, the hon. member for East Grey, and the hon. member for Queen's and Sunbury.
Now, what is the next proposition we come to ? I find that in that same year, 1SS9, the New Brunswick legislature was in session, and there was some doubt expressed in that legislature as to whether this Harvey-Salisbury branch would be built to connect Harvey with Moncton. They doubted the sincerity of some of our friends opposite, and so a Bill was introduced into the New Brunswick legislature hy a number of gentlemen, most of whom resided in Fredericton. Mr. Wilson introduced the Bill. He spoke of the importance of the short line railway, and of the necessity of its being built across the province according to the promise made to the people of the province by the Dominion government. There being some doubt as to the Dominion government building the short line, incorporation powers were sought by R. C. Skinner, A. D. Richard, F. P. Thompson, who is now one of our most respected senators, and Louis G. de Bertram, of New York, for that purpose. The Dominion government failing to build the road, the company wanted to be oil deck, as it were, to construct it. Now, that was the proposition for a company in New Brunswick to build this connecting link, and the members for St. John naturally opposed it. I am not blaming the members for St. John for having opposed it, because no doubt it meant tlie taking away of a large amount of traffic from the city of St. John. I find in the discussion of that Bill that the then member for York in the local legislature is reported in the New Brunswick 'Hansard' of 1889. page 116, as follows:
It is said that the building of this short line will interfere with the trade in St. John. He thought that the hon. members who had taken that view did not represent the best sentiment of St. John. He did not think the people of St. John were warring in energy, pluck and enterprise. That being so, they had nothing to
fear by the competition of Halifax so far as the short line railway was concerned.
Those were the words of the then member for York, in the province of New Brunswick. and to-day of the city of St. John, in the Dominion House of Commons, the hon. Andrew G. Blair. But further, at page 118, Mr. Biair is reported as saying :
The speeches of the opponents of this Bill sought to create the idea that the building of the short line would injure St. John and not benefit York or Westmoreland. No evidence had been adduced to prove this. If St. John with its great natural advantages, cannot hold its own against Halifax, 200 miles away, then he would say that the energy which has distinguished St. John in the past has departed. He did not think St. John was less enterprising than formerly, and he would have to conclude that those who had spoken against the Bill did not voice the best sentiments of the people of St. John.
I commend the words of the hon. member for York (Hon. Mr. Blair) spoken in 18S9 to the hon. member for St. John city (Hon. Mr. Blair) spoken in 1903.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what follows. The next phase in the history is that we find a delegation left Halifax, a very important delegation, in May, 1890. They came to Ottawa, they interviewed Sir John Macdonald and presented to him this memorandum :
We have been instructed by the Board of Trade of Halifax to proceed to Ottawa and represent the views of that corporation to your government, respecting the application of the Maritime and St. Lawrence Railway Company.
The Maritime and St. Lawrence Railway Company mark you was an adjunct of the Grand Trunk Railway, and was to operate from Edmundston to Moncton. Towards the end of the memorandum they submitted the following in reference to a line from a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Salisbury and stated as follows :
That it was the declared policy of the government of Canada in 1884 to subsidize and cause to be constructed a line of railway connecting, by the shortest and most practicable routes the ports of Montreal, St. John and Halifax.
That to effectuate that policy $250,000 for twenty years was voted by parliament, and of this sum $187,000 actually expended in constructing a line of railw'ay hy the shortest and most practicable route between Montreal and St. John.
Now, they conclude this memorandum as follows, and I want you to pay particular attention to this, Mr. Speaker:
The difficulties which prevented parliament favouring the construction of the Harvey-Salisbury line

What do they mean by difficulties ? They meant the pressure of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
.

have led ns to consider favourably the proposition of the construction of a line between Edmundston and Moncton as a substitute.

The lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals is the man who never heard the idea suggested that there should be a line from Edmundston to Moncton. He said it was madness. I am now reading the solemn declaration of the Halifax deputation representing the Halifax Board of Trade and the city council in May, 1890, in which they say they had favourably considered the" proposition of the construction of a line from Edmundston to Moncton as a substitute.
We understand that application has been made to parliament for a cash subsidy to aid in the construction of this line, and that if granted the Grand Trunk Railway Company will operate the same in conjunction with its own line and the International Railway, as part of a through short line between Montreal and Halifax, and that when the said through line is completed the distance between Halifax and Montreal will not exceed 710 miles.
They asked that the government of that day should make an appropriation for' the construction of this line by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. So much for that, Mr. Speaker, now we find that in 1891, the Grand Trunk Railway had an understanding with the then government that they were to lie paid $10,000 a mile for the building of this very line from Edmundston to Moncton. In the meantime the survey of Mr. Davey had been made which showed the practicability and the feasibility of this route, but pressure from the same source was again brought to bear and this project was nipped in the bud.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I interrupt the hon. gentleman for a moment ? It seems to me that all these efforts at building a road which failed would rather suggest the impracticability of the scheme. Now, if he could give us any information that would justify the belief that it is a practicable scheme and could be built without unreasonable expense it seems to me it would be more to the purpose.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Why did you vote for It ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am only drawing Ihe attention of the hon. member (Mr. Logan) to this with the desire to get out the information If he has it.


Hance James Logan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is not satisfied with the vote that he gave many years ago, I cannot help him at the present time. But, Mr. Speaker, I am now endeavouring to prove that the demand for this road from Levis to Moncton has been almost a unanimous demand from the maritime provinces and I propose, Sir, to show that this demand had its storm centre within the confines of the city of St. John, represented by the'hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals.
The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said the other day :
It is a curious question as to the origin of this idea. We never heard of it until the ses-Mr. LOGAN.
sion was half over. The proposition is absolutely unjustifiable. Who wants it ? I have yet to hear the first man in the province of New Brunswick asking that this road shall be constructed. They have never asked for it, and I would decline the gift with thanks.
The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) surely has not been asleep. His mind is the mind of an active man. I am going to read from the report of Mr. Jarvis, the president of the St. John Board of Trade, at the annual meeting of the board held on December 1st, 1902. In his address, the president said :
He hoped they would agree with him that if the aid was given it should be only and strictly on the condition that the proposed Grank Trunk Line was in some sense an allCanadian route and that the Grand Trunk carried their line from Montreal to Edmundston and thence over Canadian territory until it tapped the Intercolonial Railway between St. John and Moncton ; and further that the Grand Trunk Railway in establishing its terminus at St. John, provided its own terminal facilities as well.
I am sorry the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) is not present, because I find that this matter was discussed in the Truro Board of Trade at a meeting and the board passed a resolution as follows :
Resolved, that thjs joint meeting of the Board of Trade and citizens of Truro, having considered the question of another transcontinental railway, on Canadian territory, is of the opinion that the same is immediately necessary on account of the immense and rapidly increasing productions of the North-west, which the existing railways are entirely inadequate to transport.
Sir, I have quoted from the Moncton Board of Trade. I have quoted from the Board of Trade of the city of St. John,
I have quoted from the Board of Trade of Truro. I could go on further and quote from the resolution of the county council of the county of St. John, from the resolution of the county council of Queen's and Sunbury in reference to the transcontinental line being built into the maritime provinces, but I am going higher and I will quote from the resolution passed by the highest authority in New Brunswick. If the legislature of New Brunswick does not speak for the province of New Brunswick, who can speak for the province. I find that in the New Brunswick legislature on the 8th of May last, it was moved by Mr. Robertson, who is a prominent supporter of the government-


Mr. EMMERSON.: He is member for the city of St. John.


Hance James Logan: Yes, he is member for the city of St. John, and that resolution was seconded by Mr. Hazen. the leader of the opposition, and carried unanimously. It is as follows :
Moved by Mr. Robertson and seconded by Mr. Hazen, and carried unanimously :

Whereas, The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is now making application to the federal parliament for the granting of a charter enabling the said company to build and operate a railroad extending from the Pacific seaboard across Canada to the Atlantic coast, and in said application the city of Quebec is named as the eastern terminus of said railroad in summer and no mention is made as to where the eastern terminus of said railroad is to be during the winter season ;
And, whereas, in the opinion of this House, not only the interests of the eastern provinces, but the Dominion as a whole, imperatively demand that the said road should be an all-Canadian route, both in summer and winter, and it is highly proper that all necessary conditions should be attached to the granting of such charter, so as to secure beyond question the carrying out of this national idea ;
Therefore, resolved, that the legislature assembled do strongly urge upon the federal administration that in any charter so to be granted to the said Grand Trunk Railway Company, It be specifically expressed that the winter port of such transcontinental railroad line, be in the maritime provinces of Canada, and that said railroad be an all-Canadian route from ocean to ocean, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded by His Honour the Speaker of the House, to His Excellency the Governor General through the Secretary of State for Canada.
Sir, that is something more than a whisper; that is a voice as loud as Niagara calling on the Minister of Railways and Canals to see that this road shall be an all-Canadian road and shall go through the maritime provinces. The people of St. John became so agitated at this time that the Board of Trade met and sent the following telegram to the Minister of Railways and Canals :	[DOT]


Hon.  A. G.@: Blair, Ottawa.
Grave apprehension is felt here as to Grand Trunk plans regarding maritime provinces. Strong feeling that if Dominion assistance of any kind to transcontinental road is given, stipulation that railway find a terminus in maritime provinces, and further, that all freight originating in Canada, or received along the line, should be shipped through maritime terminus, shall be an absolute condition. Can you assure us that in case of assistance being given the Grand Trunk will build through maritime provinces and ship freight thence ?
(Sgd)	W. M. JARVIS, Pres.
Now, Sir, in order to show that the minister received this telegram it is only fair that X should read his reply, which was as follows :
W. M. Jarvis, St. John. N.B.
I believe that in case government gives financial assistance the Grand Trunk Pacific will be obliged to enter into a satisfactory traffic agreement, binding itself to hand over at Quebec its ocean winter traffic to Intercolonial or build a line through to a maritime port. Have been doing everything possible to bring this about.
(Sgd)	A. G. BLAIR.
Now, Sir, I have quoted from the St. John city council, and from the New Brunswick legislature, and the St. John Board of Trade,
and I will now quote from the newspapers of St. John. Here is an extract from the St. John ' Sun ' of May 20th, 1903 :
On May 19th, the council of the board of trade, met to consider further action with reference to the extension of the Grand Trunk Pacific through the maritime provinces, and a telegram was sent to Mr. Blair, stating that the signers did not believe that any arrangement could be made between the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk which should prevent the latter from shipping practically every ton of export freight via Portland. The telegram concluded by saying ' We urge in the strongest terms that no government assistance be granted to any transcontinental railway that does not undertake to build their line through to some maritime province port.' This telegram was signed by : Walter W. White, mayor ; W. M. Jarvis, president, board of trade ; D. J. McLachlin, W. H. Thorne, T. H. Esterbrooks, W. S. Fisher, Jas. Manchester, Wm. Thompson & Co., Robt. B. Emmerson, A. W. Adams, T. B. Robinson, Troop & Son, Jas. F. Robertson, Jos. Allison, W. H. Barnaby, T. MacVeitty & Sons, T. H. Somerville, W. Frank Hathaway & Co., John Sealy, Thos. Gorman, C. M. Bostwick & Co., Merritt Bros. Co., Limited, per G. W. Merritt, manager, Geo. Robertson, M.P.P. and MacCauley Bros. & Co.
Mr. McLachlin is one of the most prominent liberals in the city of St. John. Mr. Thorne is, I think, the president of the Conservative association, Mr. Hathaway was a candidate at the last local elections; and the signers of this document are all leading business men of the city of St. John; and yet Mr. Blair says that he never heard the first man in the province of New Brunswick asking that this road should be constructed. I read from the St. John * Telegraph ' a telegraphic despatch from Ottawa dated May 28th last, which reads as follows :
In reference to clause 13 for extension of the line to Moncton, Mr. Blair said that he had not the slightest objection to the extension to Moncton, but that would not have the purpose of shipping the products of the west by this road to the seaboard. Halifax was adapted for passenger service, but it was 200 miles distant. It would hold the passenger service, but provision should be made to take the production of the west to the nearest seaport in the maritime provinces.
According to this despatch, Mr. Blair stated in the committee that he did not object to the connection, but that there should be provision made to reach St. John so that there should be a nearer Canadian port to which to bring that traffic from the west. At a later date in the Railway Committee when the hon. member for Sunbury and Queen's (Mr. Wilmot) moved that the city of St. John be substituted for the city of Moncton as the Atlantic terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the hon. Mr. Blair voted at that time in favour of the terminus of the railway being at St. John. Now, I come to. the St. John ' Sun.' a leading Conservative paper. In an editorial on May 8th, it says :

we going to compel the maritime people to travel over a road 35 per cent longer than another simply because it happens to have been built in the wrong place some thirty-five years ago ? From Moncton to St. John, the distance is 90 miles. From Moncton to Montreal via the Canadian Pacific Railway the distance is 512 miles, and by the Grand Trunk Railway and Intercolonial Railway, 537 miles. So that the only difference between via the Intercolonial Railway and Grand Trunk Railway to Montreal and via the Intercolonial Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway to Montreal is 25 miles. I know that these figures are wearisome, and I shall not quote any more, but I only want to show that we are building a line which will bring a maritime province winter port 205 miles nearer western Canada, over Canadian territory, than any road we have at present.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, was somewhat bothered over this Quebec to Moncton proposition. I suspect that that was the cause of his delay in addressing this House. He was between the devil and the deep sea, and the deep sea, I may say, is at Halifax. Finally he concluded that if a road is to be built at all from Levis to Moncton, it should be built by the government, and owned and operated by the government as part of the Intercolonial Railway. Before this proposition was submitted by the leader of the opposition, the building of any line at all from Quebec to Monc-tori had been condemned, in all the moods and tenses, by all the hon. gentlemen opposite, more particularly by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart). The hon member for South Lanark said :
We have accumulated deficits on the Intercolonial Railway during a number of years at the rate of $1,500,000, if what should be charged for revenue were charged to revenue and not to capital account. Now you want to make it so that the people will have to pay increased deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. A madder scheme never entered into the mind of man. It is a useless destruction of property already owned by the government.
Now. however, this hon. gentleman has to eat humble pie and follow his leader who wants us to build a road to Moncton as a government road, and operate it as part of the Intercolonial Railway. By the proposition before the House, the government propose to build the line to Moncton and lease it to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, who will pay 3 per cent on the cost of its construction, and who will bring over it the transcontinental freight of the country-freight from all the northern part of Quebec and Ontario, not to speak of the products of the west. This scheme the hon. member for Lanark described as a mad one. But if it be an insane project, what will he have to say of the project of his leader ?


Hance James Logan: The ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) said that there would be no local business for the road in connection with any other road. I may say that our proposition is to make this road part of a transcontinental line, and to give running powers over it to the Intercolonial Railway. I would like to know what more benefit the leader of the opposition could get from a road which would be operated by the government ? We propose to build the road as a part of a transcontinental scheme. We propose to bring more business to the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton to be carried by the Intercolonial from Moncton to Halifax. But the scheme submitted by the leader of the opposition would bring in no transcontinental traffic and would have no connection anywhere.
What have we to-day ? We have a transcontinental railway provided for. In the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway it is provided that all freight originating upon any part of this line in Canada or its branches, shall be carried to Canadian ports, unless otherwise routed. What does that mean ? The reply was made that the Grand Trunk Railway would give better rates to Portland, and that people would route their freight that way. But the government forced the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to enter into an agreement not only to carry the unrouted freight, but all freight to Canadian ports at the same price as to American parts. Have we no Canadianism in this country ? Are the farmers of the North-west devoid of patriotism ? Have the people no national feeling ? Is it to be supposed that when they can ship their goods as cheaply by Canadian as by American ports, they will send them to the latter ? I refuse to believe that there is any such lack of national spirit in this country. But the contract calls for more than that. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the Grand Trunk Railway will arrange with a steamship line to carry freight cheaper from .Portland to Liverpool than from a Canadian port. But here again they are met by a clause which says that not only shall the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway carry Canadian produce to Canadian ports as cheaply as to American ports, but to the point of destination as cheaply. So that there will be no reason whatever for a Canadian whose soul is as big as a bean to send his products to Liverpool by an American rather than by a Canadian port.
We come to the question, what does this road mean to the Intercolonial Railway ? The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) says it means dismantling the Intercolonial Railway. But before passing to that, let me refer once more to tlie proposition of the leader of the opposition to build this road from Levis to Moncton to be operated as a government road. Let us see what this would mean according to the figures we have before up. Let us take the

Intercolonial as an example. The cost of construction of this road was $70,000,000. Interest at three per cent would be $2,100,000 a year. The average yearly deficit since the opening of the road has been $200,000. The cost of the new line according to the estimates of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would be $15,000,000, the yearly interest at three per cent on which would be $450,000. If the deficit on the new line were in the same proportion- and even supposing it did not take traffic from the Intercolonial-there would be a yearly deficit of $53,333. Or, adding the deficit and interest of the two roads the old Intercolonial and the new road, you find a yearly cost to the people of $2,803,333. In addition to this, there will be new rolling stock required. But, according to my bon. friend from South Lanark, the true deficit on the Intercolonial is $1,500,000 a year. The Halifax ' Herald ' says it is $2,500,000. Let us take the less extreme statement of the hon. member for South Lanark. How, then, will it work out ? You have the old road costing $70,000,000, with interest at three per cent, say $2,100,000. You have a deficit of $1,500,000. The new line will cost $15,000,000 and the deficit on it at the same rate will be $400,000, while the interest will amount to $450,000. So, you have a total yearly charge upon the country, on the basis of the figures of the hon. member for South Lanark of $4.450,000 for the operation of the Intercolonial in the maritime provinces. And what do we get for it V We get scarcely a pound of through-freight down to the seaboard at St. John or Halifax. Why, Mr. Speaker, the people of western Canada do not realize the condition of affairs in regard to the Intercolonial. Go to Halifax and you see there an immense elevator almost touching high heaven, a standing example of the condition of affairs with reference to the through-freight of the Intercolonial. The same thing applies to St. John. These elevators are examples of the folly of prepai'ing for through-traffic unless we actually have a through-traffic road from the west. Our opponents may say that the Halifax elevator was built by the present government. So it was, but it was only built to supply the place of one built by the previous government, which happened to be burnt down. Now we do not want elevators as playthings, but as a part of our equipment in handling through-traffic by our own ports. Mr. Hays has stated, and he should be in a position to know, that there would be traffic enough to supply half a dozen harbours. Suppose Mr. Hays is correct what does bis forecast mean 7 It means increased traffic over the Intercolonial from Moncton to Halifax and from Norton to St. John. It means that the line from Norton to St. John will have to be double tracked and that the line from Moncton to Halifax will have to be double tracked. I have no doubt at all it will come
to this, unless, in order to avoid double tracking and severe grade, you run the line to the south of the Cobequid mountains passing near Parrsboro and thence by Five Islands, Economy and Truro. I have no doubt also that in order to shorten the line between Moncton and New Glasgow and to reach the harbours of Whitehaven, Country Harbour, Louisbourg and Sydney, there will have to be built a new line from Moncton to New Glasgow along the north shore of Westmoreland, Cumberland, Colchester and Pictou counties. This road will shorten the distance between Moncton and New Glasgow by at least thirty-nine miles.
It means that we must have lines of steamers to handle the traffic. The Grand Trunk has specifically agreed to supply lines of steamers at the maritime province ports. It means, and must mean eventually, the establishment of the fast line. It means the establishment of a great through-traffic carried by the Grand Trunk Pacific to the ports of St. John and Halifax. The exMinister of Railways and Canals has stated that this project will ruin the Intercolonial Railway. I can hardly think he was serious. I have here a statement prepared by the Intercolonial Railway officials which gives me the total amount of the earnings for last year. The total earnings for local and through traffic was $6,056,171.97. Of this, the total amount of local traffic was $4,327,626.88. Where is there a single pound of iocal freight that will be taken by the Grand Trunk Pacific ? They cannot get any of the local traffic from the Intercolonial between Montreal and Quebec. Nor can they get any from along the St. Lawrence and the north shore of New Brunswick. They cannot take the trade now brought to the Intercolonial by iocal roads such as the Atlantic and Lake Superior, the Bue-toueke and other lines, because they will not connect with the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Intercolonial will not lose to the Grand Trunk Pacific a single pound of local traffic in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. As to the through-traffic, 1 have not as full a statement as I had hoped to have. The memorandum giving particulars has not reached me up to this time. But I would take the statement I have before me, which has been prepared by the Railway Department This, mark you, relates wholly to through-traffic and does not affect the $4,000,000 and odd of local traffic which the Intercolonial now has and which will not be interfered with. The traffic originating in Montreal and vicinity amounts to $560,000. I have no data to show where that trade goes. No doubt, a large amount of it is dropped along the Intercolonial Railway between L6vis and Moncton, while some goes into the province of Nova Scotia. Let us assume that one-third of this will be secured by the Grand Trunk Pacific. The traffic from Nova Scotia and New Bi'unswick to Montreal and vicinity

amounts to $304,975.20. X have no data to show where this originates. If it originates along the north shore of New Brunswick it will continue to go over the Intercolonial Kailway-the Grand Trunk Pacific cannot touch it. But suppose that the Grand Trunk Pacific can capture one-third of this traffic originating in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The traffic from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to Levis and Quebec and vicinity amounts to the paltry sum of $50,320.39. The traffic to points in Ontario and the west via Montreal amounts to $671,740.67. The freight traffic from Ontario and the west via Montreal amounts to $071,740.07; via Ste. Rosalie, $29,307.08; and via St. John, $79,938.07. The Grand Trunk Pacific would not capture the trade which at present is handed over by the Canadian Pacific Railway at Ste. Rosalie and St. John. Let me point out to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that when he took over the Drummond County Railway he entered into a hard and fast agreement with the Grand Trunk that every pound of freight coming from the west destined to Intercolonial points would have to tje handed over to the Intercolonial for a period of ninety-nine years. There is an item of freight traffic from Ontario and western points via Montreal of $671,000, and that must come via the Canadian Pacific Railway or Grand Trunk to Montreal. Of course, the Canadian Pacific Railway is not going *to hand over any part of its trade to the Intercolonial; but the Grand Trunk mast hand over all of its portion of this traffic to the Intercolonial under the agreement-and the exMinister of Railways and Canals stated that he would stake his political future on the statement that that agreement was hard and fast. Therefore, we need not consider that, for, so far as that trade is concerned, it is bound to go over the Intercolonial under that agreement. Let us admit we lose a part of the traffic originating in Montreal. I do not admit it as a matter of fact, but let us admit it for the sake of argument. Admit in the same way that we lose part of the traffic to points in Ontario and the west. With all this the Intercolonial would be deprived of only between $400,000 and $500,000 of freight business, and this out of a total traffic of over $6,000,000. And yet the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says that the effect of the building of this line, which, at the worst, will take this insignificant part of the trade, will be to dismantle and destroy the Intercolonial Railway. Why, the Intercolonial will make more money carrying Grand Trunk Pacific freight between Moncton and Halifax in one month than it will lose on through-traffic in a year by the building of this new road. If the Grand Trunk bring to Moncton what they have promised to do. they will fill the road between Moncton and Halifax. Consider the effect upon Moncton.
What does it mean ? My hon. friend the Mr. LOGAN.
ex-Minister of Railways refers to the city of Moncton as going to revert back to a small village. But this means that it will become a great city in the near future, a central point for a number of railways in the maritime provinces. It means more than that, it means that every man in Moncton, in every railway workshop, every brakeman, every railway engineer, or conductor, every dispatcher and operator and other railway employee, will have more chances for promotion. will have more chances for getting increased salaries, because there will be more work to do and more pay for doing it by means of more competition between railways. Moncton being a divisional point, the Grand Trunk Pacific will have their repair shops there for their rolling stock, they will have their divisional offices in that city. But what will it mean to Moncton if the policy of the leader of the opposition is adopted, to extend the Intercolonial to Georgian bay 7 How long does he suppose that Moncton would retain the general railway offices and workshops ? How long would it remain the headquarters of the government railways of Canada ? Under such conditions of affairs, not one year would pass before Moncton would suffer a severe set-back, these offices would be removed to a more central point, perhaps Montreal or Ottawa, and then would come the dismantling of the city of Moncton, and the people of that whole section would have cause to regret that such a policy had been adopted.
Now, these are some of the local advantages that would come to the city of Moncton if we built this road. I said a few moments ago that if the policy of the leader of the opposition were adopted it would mean more money to railway magnates and railway companies. Now, it has been stated that there will be spent in this country, in five years by the government, between Moncton and Winnipeg and by the Grand Trunk Pacific, between Winnipeg and the coast, between $100,000,000 and $200,000.000. What does that mean ? Sir, if there is one industry in this country struggling for existence, it is the iron industry. I am not going to discuss the question of the iron industry, but I will say this, that if all the iron concerns in Canada were to work night and day from this time until the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific, they could not supply the rails and iron and structural steel required for the construction of the road. According to the terms of this contract, all their supplies must be secured in the Dominion of Canada. It means that more money will be paid Canadian workmen and Canadian artisans ; it means a great demand for supplies of all kinds of the products of the farm and the . forest : it means a great demand for lumber, a great demand for ties, a great demand for hay. for grain, for beef, for pork : a great demand for engines and boilers : a great demand for building material ; an immense

demand for woollens, for building stone, for cement, for boots and shoes ; a great demand for rolling stock ; a great demand for ears, passenger and freight ; a great demand for car wheels. Why, Sir, I have not the slightest doubt that within a very short time the car works in the town in which I live will be quadrupled in size to build the cars that will be required for the Grand Trunk Pacific. At the present time the Grand Trunk Company are not able, in its own shops, to produce the rolling stock required on their old line, and how could they produce the rolling stock required on this additional line which with branches will be over 4.000 miles in length ?
It means a great demand for an article of supreme importance to us in Nova Scotia, because it gives us our provincial revenue- it means a great demand for coal. In this northern country between Quebec and Winnipeg, while almost everything else is to be found that is for the advantage of man, there does not seem to have been discovered yet any good coal. There has been found some good lignite, but no good bituminous or anthracite coal. To-day in Nova Scotia we are not able to send our coal west of Montreal, we are not able to send our coal into the province of Ontario ; those places get their coal from Pennsylvania. Manitoba also gets its coal from Pennsylvania. But by the construction of this road from Moncton to the city of Quebec we will decrease the distance for coal carriage over 100 miles to that point. When we come to the northern country further away from the Pennsylvania coal fields, I believe as much as I believe that I am living that within a short time we will be supplying, not only the city of Quebec with Nova Scotia coal, but also that whole northern country, clear away to the city of Winnipeg, in competition with the Pennsylvania coal mines. What does that mean? It means that in the operation of this road alone from Moncton to Winnipeg there will be required nearly 1,000,000 tons of coal per year ; more coal than is produced to-day in the whole county of Cumberland will be used upon this road alone for locomotives. This road is particularly important to the county of Cumberland, which I represent, because that county will be the best able to supply the Moncton and Quebec division all the year round with coal. We can compete for Quebec with the mines of Cape Breton and Pictou, anl we can compete for the trade as far west as Winnipeg. It means another thing, so far as coal is concerned, and that is an immense quantity of bunker coal for St. John, Halifax and other ports to supply the steamers employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific. It means better wages for men on the Intercolonial, and a greater demand for labour all round.
Now. Mr. Speaker, I have to complete the remarks that I did not intend to make so long. But somehow none of us seem to be able to make short speeches upon this proposition before the House. I have had some experience as whip on the government side of the House in arranging for the speeches, and I have not yet been able to find any one who did not exceed the time he said he was going to speak by at least 100 per cent. I think I am following the example which has been set for me by those lion, gentlemen. I have only one thing more to say, and that is in reference to the bonding privilege, the necessity for which we are endeavouring to avoid. We do not want in this country any privileges from the United States, we want always to be able to stand on our own ground. Some of our friends opposite have been trying to make merry with the contention that we should have an all-Canadian route, in order to get rid of the need of this bonding privilege, the abrogation of which the Americans have been holding over our heads for so long. We are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we are on very good terms with our American friends to the south of us, and that there is no danger of their withdrawing the bonding privilege. I do not deny that we are on friendly terms, but if we are going to remain a part of the British empire, we must take certain eventualities into account. We must expect that whenever the British empire gets into trouble in any part of the world the very first people who will hurrah for her enemies will be the people of the United States. We have found that in the Boer war, we have found it in every war in which Britain has been engaged. We need go back no further than the Venezuelan affair and the Fenian raid. They are in that state of mind that it only needs a match to set them aflame. I have the greatest possible respect for the American people and American statesmen, but there is a feeling in that country which is antiBritish. We are on good terms with them, but we do not know how long we can continue to be on good terms. As the Prime Minister said, the best way to remain on good terms with our neighbours to the south is to become independent of them. They refer to us continually as the spoiled child of the empire. They refuse to deliberate with us on a fair and reasonable basis. Take the present Alaska Boundary Commission. The proposition was made to them to appoint an arbitration commission so constituted that a majority of the commission should make a final decision. And that the majority report should be final. Did they agree to it ? No. Because they imagine that with an equal number of arbitrators in the tribunal there would not be a majority report and nothing would be done and they would eventually secure the territory in the north-west of this country that they are endeavouring to obtain. What are the facts to-day, Mr. Speaker, we have been imagining all along that we owned the country north from Hudson's Bay clear to the north pole.

But, now we have the astounding statement made by American newspapers that they have a right over parts ot' this country and propose to maintain it. We have today a party going to these northern climes -what fcr ? To assert the right of the British empire against the United States if they endeavour to encroach on our lands. We must be independent of the United States. Let us not be in the position that we fear all the,time that something is going to happen that will interfere with the prosperity of this country. I belive the policy of Canada for the future to be that we should not only have Canadian ports for Canadian traffic but that we should have a preference not in tariff alone but a preference in ports as well. Two or three years ago, I put on the Order Paper of this House a resolution to the effect that the British preference should only apply to goods coming into Canada by Canadian ports.


David Henderson: You never moved it.


Hance James Logan: I put it on the Order Paper and I will tell you why it was not moved. It was not moved because pressure was brought to bear on me, not by the government, but by certain parties who feared the bonding privilege would be removed if we granted a preference to Canadian ports. Every day American newspapers printed articles saying that if such a policy were adopted the bonding privilege would be taken away from us. lam not in a position to convey to the House the representations made to me at that time from official quarters, not of this country. X think I could produce evidence to prove to the House that the time has come that we should not have to ask the United States if we can give a preference to Canadian ports.
I believe when this road is built, and we have an all-Canadian route to Canadian Xiorts that that will be the time when we should adopt my resolution, and that the principle of that resolution will form a part of the policy of the Dominion of Canada. Let us have a British preference and let us have also a preference for Canadian ports, let us endeavour to build up our Canadian ports, to build up our Canadian trade and to develop Canadian territory.
You tell me the United States do not think anything of this bonding privilege and that it does not amount to anything. Let me read to you a paper, the New York * Scottish American,' a paper that is reliable and well known to many members of this House. Referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, it says :
First and foremost, such a railway-one from the Atlantic to the Pacific entirely on Canadian soil-would make Canada absolutely independent of the United States, so far, at least, as regards those bonding privileges upon which this country and its people generally calculate so very much. In this sense the proposed railway may be said to be indispensable to the proper maintenance of Canadian manhood. The Mr, LOGAN.
threat of removing these bonding privileges has been held by this country over Canada to obtain any desired concession. Even advocates for annexation are fain to handle it. Mr. Andrew Carnegie said, in effect, the other day, that Canada had better become annexed to the United States or the latter would remove the bonding privileges now enjoyed by the former ; and in saying this he was only voicing the sentiments of the people here generally.
Mark these words :
Once she had this proposed transcontinental railway Canada could afford to tell the United States to remove its bond privileges whenever it pleased, as she no longer needed them.
Now, Sir, in conclusion let me say that I am in favour of building this road for the reasons I have endeavoured to lay before this House. Sir, I represent a constituency which gave to Canada the man who was big enough to lift the curtain and look into the future of the Canadian west and to be the foremost mind in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway which has done so much to develop that part of Canada. I am here to-day to say I admire Sir Charles Tupper for the part he took at that time in the building of that road. It is only just and fair and manly on my part if I believe that, to express my thoughts. The people of Cumberland, I believe, are behind me when I say that they favour at the present time as they favoured in the past the opening up of the west ; that they favour at the present time the opening up also of the great north land of this country to assist in making Canada a mighty nation. To-day we are described as a mere fringe along the United States border. We want thickness in this country. In a few years, Sir, we will have west of Lake Superior, probably ten millions of people and ten millions of people on the east of Lake Superior, but for a thousand miles between you have a mere ragged backbone of country without population. Let us while we are developing the west, while we are bringing people into the western country, at the same time fill up the middle of this country, let us have this country so developed that it shall have breadtli from the Atlantic clear through to the Pacific.
I, Sir, am heartily in favour of the proposition which is before this country at the present time. I believe, that when this government does go to the country whether it be this year or next year or the year after they can appeal with confidence to the people when they say to them that they propose first to become independent of the United States of America, secondly, to convey Canadian goods to Canadian ports over a Canadian railway and thirdly, to build up tbe northern part of this great country, to put the people in that land which is to-day waiting for development, waiting for population, to add to this country, which is to-day so dear to us, a new empire to the north that will be as large as tbe whole of the New England states of

America. I know we can appeal with confidence to the people on this ground. We will go to the country, when we do go, witli the words inscribed on our banner ' Laurier, progress and victory.' Our opponents will go to the country with the words inscribed on their banner 1 Borden, blue ruin and Gamey.'
Now, Sir, let me conclude with the words ot a distinguished Nova Scotian. The words of the late principal of Queen's University, Rev. G. M. Grant, who, having travelled from Cape Breton to the Pacific ocean, wrote :
In all this vast expanse ot 4,000 miles there is everything that man can desire and the prospect of a mighty future. If we do not build a nation out of such material it is our own fault and our sins will find us out.
Let us, Sir, devote our attention to the upbuilding of Canada, and let us above all things, endeavour to roll back the Canadian map to the northward.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, there are some very material points in this contract and agreement under discussion which it would not be proper for me to refer to. If I discussed them, quite naturally and properly, I might be accused of discussing them from a partial point of view and I propose therefore treating of the general policy of this proposition and to pass that over with a very few remarks. There are other points which it will be my duty to reply to. The Prime Minister in his speech entered into a glowing description of the wonderous, the future that this road would open up, and he emphasized its simplicity and its cheapness, aud gave us dismal prophesies as to what would happen if we did not build the road. He talked long on the bonding privilege, but he seemed to forget that this question has been before the country for years, although it had only struck him at this late date that the bonding privilege was a serious menace to our prosperity and to our nationhood. The right hon. gentleman appaient-ly was not aware that we had the Intercolonial Railway which gives us connection all through Canadian territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific ; and the most advantage he could claim for the new scheme, over existing railways, is, that it would shorten the distance some 140 miles, although we have good authority for saying that the distance will be shortened only 40 or 50 miles, Speaking as to the Intercolonial Railway the right hon. gentleman said :
A good many who oppose this scheme pretend that there is no need whatever of extending that railway from Quebec to Moncton because, between Quebec and Moncton, there is already the Intercolonial Railway. Sir, the answer which we have to make to this objection is plain, obvious, categorical, peremptory and paramount ; the answer is that the Intercolonial never was intended, and never was conceived, and never was built for transcontinental traffic.
The Intercolonial was first conceived as a military road. It was built and located for political reasons, not from any commercial considerations.
This is a very strong statement from the Prime Minister, but a short time afterwards he made this statement in reference to this same scheme :
Most of our critics look upon this scheme as a commercial venture to be judged by the only rule of profit and loss.
You will remark that the Prime Minister's first idea was that the Intercolonial Railway was merely a national necessity and not a commercial road, and he claimed distinction for his new scheme because the Intercolonial Railway was built on sentimental lines. However, the hon. gentleman seems to have forgotten that in his flights of oratory, because shortly after he made-tkat statement, he said :
Most of our critics look upon this scheme simply as a commercial venture to be judged by the only rule of 'profit and loss. We look upon it as a work of a national character necessitated by the status of Canada in the year 1903, fust as the Intercolonial Railway was necessitated by the status of Canada at the opening of confederation.
Here he claims that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is not a road built: for commercial purposes, but that it is a road built for national and sentimental purposes, just as was the Intercolonial Railway. Now, Sir, permit me to point out that whoever drew the Order in Council appointing the transportation commission knew what was required in this country. The programme laid down in these documents is a wise programme, and if it had been followed it would have been of great benefit to the parliament of Canada and to the country in judging how the transportation problem was to be solved. But the Finance Minister in his speech stated that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme had been discussed by the ministry and practically approved of six months before it was submitted to parliament. If that be so, then the scheme was accepted prior to the transportation commission being submitted to the House, and consequently the appointment of a transportation commission must have been meant simply and solely to mislead the House, for what was the use of that commission, if the government had already adopted a transportation scheme of its own ? The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in defending this project said that if we could have a road 21 feet grade, if we could have a road on which we could run 50 cars of 30 tons ; if we could have engines hauling on 90 pound rails, then we could carry grain to the seaboard at a cheap rate. Well, there are a lot of very big ' ifs ' in that. The hon. gentleman reminded me when I was listening to his speech, of the saying we had in childhood :



If ' ifs ' and ' ands ' were pots and pans
' There would be no work for tinkers' hands.
And, Sir, the word ' tinkers ' in this connection would seem very appropriate in its application to those who devised this railroad scheme.
The Minister of the Interior in his speech used with much show a map which to my mind was absolutely condemnatory of the proposals he made. That map showed long lines running north and south at wide distances apart, and each of these north and south lines was intended to represent the route of an exploring party. Each of these lines showed in the vicinity of a river or a stream giving access from the height of land down, towards Hudson's bay, but the minister gave not one solitary piece of evidence that the east and west lines had been surveyed, and the natural inference would be that north and south surveys had been made upon which to construct an east and west line. That is a queer mode of proceeding in the matter of surveying for a railroad. Now, Sir, we all approve of the Grand Trunk Railway Company getting into the western prairies, rivalling the existing roads, and developing that territory, with its great resources and its great energy. Letters and interviews have been quoted by hon. gentlemen opposite in an attempt to show that members on this side of the House approved of the Grand Trunk Railway getting into the west. But these gentlemen opposite forgot to point out that all these endorsations were of the Grand Trunk Railway scheme before it took its present shape. They were endorsations of the idea that the Grand Trunk Railway should get access to the west, and I do not think that any one on this side of the House suggested that this access should be obtained in any other way than by a continuation of a line from Gravenhurst or North Bay. I would endorse that proposition, and I have no hesitation in saying that I would like to see the Grand Trunk Railway in the west. But though hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of indulging in quotations to show approval of the Grand Trunk Railway getting to the west, they have not been able to produce any evidence to show that public opinion is in favour of the scheme which is now submitted. I was much struck with an article by ' Don ' in ' Saturday Night,' who is a strong supporter of the government and who winds a very able article by saying:
' Preserving cans are numerous in all households, and we could keep the scheme for another year and not be injured.' He winds up with these words :	' Altogether there
seems to be too much haste, too much enthusiasm, too little knowledge.' To my mind. Mr. Speaker, that most graphically and briefly describes the position we are in, and that is from an editorial written by one of the strongest supporters of the government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Now, the contract before us is practically a secret bargain made by the government with the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the building of this road. We had all the farce of the discussion on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill gone through in the Railway Committee when all the time there was an understanding with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as to what the government were to do. In the olden days, the Liberal policy, as I recollect it, was to build railways in the west slowly-to concentrate population, instead of scattering it over large areas, so that school buildings and everything else could be easily provided. The present scheme, as outlined, runs altogether counter to that idea. I propose in my remarks chiefly to criticise the contract which has been made, and not the scheme as submitted. I notice that very few words have been used by members on the government side in defence of the contract or in support of the scheme in principle or in its details. Clause 8 provides that ' the construction of the eastern division shall be commenced as soon as the government has made the surveys and plans.' Clause 9 provides that * the western division shall be constructed by and at the cost of the company.' Clause 10 provides that ' the work of locating and constructing the said western division shall be commenced forthwith.' The western division will therefore naturally be completed some years before the eastern division-probably before the surveys of the eastern division are completed. The Grand Trunk Company will then be obliged to transfer all the business which it collects on the prairies to its connections running through the United States, and on _ to Portland. That is self-evident from this contract. If you divert the trade for several years in large volume through such a channel as that, I tell you, from a railway and business point of view, that it is going to be a very hard matter to divert that trade afterwards to other channels where the cost of carrying it will be greater. Clause 11 provides that the company shall lay out, construct and equip the western division according to the Grand Trunk standard. The Prime Minister made a great deal of that point; but the Grand Trunk standard is not that of to-day. It will take fifteen years to bring up the best road you can build to the Grand Trunk standard of to-day. Therefore, that clause is absolutely worthless ; it means nothing. Clause 12 provides that the company shall deposit with the government $5,000,000. That is simply an advance payment, which will be returned to the company as they build the road. With regard to the meaning of clause 15, as to whether the $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock is to be purchased or leased, for my part, as I read' the contract, I believe it means that it shall be purchased ; but when I hear hon. ministers and lawyers on the other side take one view, and

when legal gentlemen on this side say that i there is a doubt about that, and that the clause might be read either way, that is evidence that the contract has been drawn loosely, and without proper supervision by the government; and when such an Important clause as that is loosely drawn, we may be sure that other clauses, if carefully scanned, will also be found to be loosely drawn.
Clause 17 has been drawn by an expert.
I would almost imagine that the hon. Minister of Finance, and the remaining free trade members in the House had put their heads together and had drafted a clause which they thought would at all events leave a sting behind it, in case their favourite policy of free trade should be swept away a little later on. I -want to bring that clause to the attention of every member of this House, because it is a more serious clause, as, effecting the interests of this country, than anything else in the contract. That clause reads :
No addition shall be made to the cost of construction or to the capital of construction account in respect of customs duties in cases where there is direct importation of material or supplies by the government.
This is a case of a government building a railroad. This road is to cost at the least estimate $80,000,000. The whole of the materials used in the construction of the road shall come into this country at all times free of duty. That represents one point. The Intercolonial Railway, on its completion, cost $21,500,000 ; that was about 1876. Twenty-six years after that, the additions to capital account had brought the cost up to $71,000,000, or $72,000,000, or nearly three and a half times the original cost. We may, I think, safely assume that there will be a similar increase in the cost of construction of this rend. This is to be a road owned by the government, on which the government are to spend all the money that may be necessary for relaying the road, and all additional expenditures on capital account for fifty years. Therefore, for fifty years all the supplies that come into Canada in connection with this road will come in free of duty. If we take twenty-five years only of this lease, and say that the capital account will be increased three and a half times during that time, we shall have a capital account at the end of twenty-five years of $280,000,000. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) drew a glowing picture of what this great railway building was going to do for the merchants, manufacturers and people of this country. Let me tell you what it will do for the merchants and manufacturers. I have jotted down a few of the ordinary supplies that are necessary for the building of a railway, and for its continuous betterment. Apparently the section to be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is not to be exempt from the duties on the materials and supplies used in its construction, showing 291}
i very clearly what the intention is. so far as the government road is concerned. I may say here that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, as I recollect it, they were to bring in free of duty for the Original construction of the road the steel rails and fastenings and certain supplies, but we made no steel rails in this country in those days, and that was a reasonable proposition. But under this contract, we bring in steel rails and everything to be used in the construction of the railway free; yet, the hon. member for Cumberland says that if this contract be carried out the rolling mills of this country will be so full of orders that they will treble their capacity. Let me tell him that if this contract is carried out, there will not be a steel rail rolled in Canada for fifty years. The hon. Minister of Finance laughs.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must apologize, but I cannot treat the hon. gentleman seriously.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then, the hon. minister does not understand what the clause means. If the English language means anything, the clause means what I am saying. I am not simply giving my own opinion, but have submitted it to able lawyers


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let us have the names.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have no objection. I shall not weary the House with reading extracts from newspapers and quotations from old speeches. The Prime Minister look up eleven columns of ' Hansard ' with quotations from the New York ' Sun ' and other journals. Surely he bad sufficient faith in his scheme to introduce if off his own bat and not off quotations from the New York ' Sun.' According to this contract, the government, if they construct this road themselves, or through contractors, or under the supervision of commissioners, are to bring in everything free of duty. Among these things are tents, camp equipment, provisions, flour, pork, tools, scrapers, ploughs, steam ploughs for unloading, picks, shovels, spades, sledges, axes, saws, hammers, nails, spikes, crowbars, rails, semaphores, signal lamps, electric supplies, telephone supplies, wheelbarrows, carts, wagons, harness, all kinds of rubber goods, bedding, clothing, in fact, everything used in the construction of a railway or in keeping up its supplies during fifty years. It is not simply the quantities that the contractor brings in for the railway, but this will enable him to bring in double or treble that quantity at a lower rate of duty, and thus swamp our manufacturers. I contend that no one could read that clause and put any other interpretation upon it. But as that clause is only applicable to government work, the Finance Minister may say that the government will let this by contract, and in that

case the contractor will bring In the supplies and charge the duties upon them. I contend that the clause has been put there for the very purpose of preventing anything of the kind being done. The Grand Trunk Railway Company are supposed to pay 3 per cent interest-they do not bind themselves, but they are supposed to pay it -on the capital that may be expended on this railway, and they naturally will claim that the capital cannot include any duties paid. This clause can only be treated in that way. I can only believe it was put in by the Finance Minister as a sort of dying kick to show his belief in free trade. It would have this effect, further, that if at any time during the fifty years the Canadian government should alter its fiscal policy and increase the duties-as I hope it will before a year or two are passed-we would have no power to alter this contract and charge duties on these goods.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are supposed to lease the eastern division, and to put up security on that division in the shape of rolling stock. If my contention is right, they put $20,000,000 rolling stock on the whole road, of which $5,000,000 is to be on the eastern section. The $20,000,000 is covered by a mortgage to secure the government guarantee on the western section, and on the $5,000,000 the government have a second mortgage as their sole security for the operation of the eastern division by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Every railway man knows that when rolling stock has been in use one year its depreciation in value, as a second hand article, is 20 per cent, and after four-years it is 40 per cent. If well renewed after that, for many years it may be worth 40 per cent of the first cost. In four years' time this $5,000,000 of rolling stock will be worth at the outside $3,000,000. Upon that the government have already a first mortgage in connection with the security for the western branch, and they have a second mortgage of $5,000,000 on rolling stock worth $3,000,000, as security for operating the eastern branch. That is to say, they have a second mortgage for $5,000,000 applicable to the eastern branch, secured upon rolling stock which is worth only $3,000,000. That struck me as being so extraordinary that I submitted it to one of the ablest lawyers I know, and asked him to give me a written opinion as to the security, which the government will have for operating the eastern section, either by the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He writes me as follows :
I have considered the Act relating to the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway to ascertain what ' security ' the government will have that the company (to use the language of section 41 of the agreement) * at all times during the terms of the said lease- shall continuously and efficiently operate both divisions of the railway ' to the satisfaction of Mr. OSLER.
the government. In my opinion, the only ' security,' apart from the mere promise of the company, is the second charge on five million of equipment bonds of the eastern division, authorized to he created by clause 22 of the agreement, and by subsection (c) of clause 35, made a security for the rental and operation of the eastern division. The other parts of the' Act or agreement having any bearing upon the subject are section 2 of the Act ratifying the agreement and binding the government and, company to do what is necessary to give full effect to it.
By clause 6 of the agreement, the company agrees to take a lease of and maintain and operate the eastern division upon the terms thereinafter set out. By clause 20, the company are to take a lease of the eastern division for fifty years, the first seven years subject to payment of working expenditure, as defined, and forty-three years paying a sum equal to 3 per cent on cost of construction, calculated and mentioned-with a right of renewal ; section 21. By clause 23, the lease is to contain necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing maintenance and operation of the division, and by clause 24 proper and usual provisions as to certain running powers and haulage rights.
By clause 25 the lease is also to contain such other covenants and provisions deemed necessary by the government, including proper indemnity to the government to secure the proper carrying out of the agreement. The aboveclauses 23 and 25 are about as vague as possible. Assume that these clauses will justify stringent provisions in the lease looking to the resumption of possession by the government of the eastern division, it can hardly be said that any such provision would be a * security ' in any sense of the term unless the lease contains a provision authorizing the government on default also to enter into possession of the western division and subject to the rights of the bondholders, to operate and, after continuous default, to dispose of the line as a whole. Such a provision, it seems to me, would require authorization by the Act which it does not at' present contain. Without it the government would be left to operate the eastern division alone with such rights as to damages as it would have against the heavily bonded western division. It may he contended that the company can be compelled specifically to perform the contract, but the courts have as a rule declined to enforce performance of a contract to operate a railway. I think, therefore, with the exception of the second charge on the equipment bonds of the eastern division, there is nothing that can be called a security for the operation of the eastern division.
By clause 20 the company are to take a lease of the eastern division for fifty years, the first seven years subject to payment of *working expenditure as defined and forty-three years paying a sum equal to three per cent on cost of construction, calculated as mentioned, with a right of renewal ; section 21. By clause 23 the lease is to contain necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing maintenance and operation of the division, and by clause 24 proper and usual provisions as to certain running powers and haulage rights.
By clause 25 the lease is also to contain such other covenants and provisions claimed necessary by the government, including proper indemnity to the government to secure the pro-

per carrying out of the agreement. The above clauses 23 and 25 are about as vague as possible. Assume that these clauses will justify stringent provisions in the lease looking to the resumption of possession by the government of the eastern division, it can hardly be said that any such provision would be a * security ' in any sense of the term unless the lease contains a provision authorizing the government on default also to enter into possession of the western division and subject to the rights of the bondholders to operate and after continuous default to dispose of the line as a whole. Such a provision it seems to me would require authorization by the Act which it does not at present contain. Without it the government would be left to operate the eastern division alone with such rights as to damages as it would have against the heavily bonded western division. It may be contended that the company can be compelled specifically to perform the contract, but the courts have as a rule declined to enforce performance of a contract to operate a railway. I think therefore with the exception of the second charge on the equipment bonds of the eastern division there is nothing that can be called security for the operation of the eastern division.


Mr. WADE.: May X ask tlie lion, gentleman the name of the writer ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I will hand it over to the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Give it to us in public.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is Mr. J. F. Smith, of Toronto, one of the ablest lawyers in this province. I think he stands high enough to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He does not appear to have a very positive opinion.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is a pretty strong and square opinion. While on that point, I must say that no one reading that contract, bringing to bear upon it any knowledge of railway affairs and some little common sense, can come to any other conclusion than that there is absolutely no security for the government, and no way of compelling the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate the road if they don't like to do it. Now what will happen ? The proper security suggested there is the security of the western division, but because these two roads are split in two the security of the eastern division becomes valueless. Now, Sir, I tell hon. gentlemen opposite, if they do not know it, why it is that the two contracts are separated. and why the eastern division is kept separate from the western division : It was simply because the Grand Trunk Com-panv' forbade their general manager absolutely to sign any such contract. He could not commit himself, and his board of directors would not have kept him one week as general manager if he had recommended the signing of such a contract. The Minister of Trade and Commerce could not have been there. I do not think he could have had much to do with it. Now as to the haulage clause and running rights, there is this
to be said about it: We will suppose that the Canadian Northern asks for running rights. They send out a trainload of stock or grain over that road, for Moncton. After they start out from Winnipeg they come to a steep grade where they have to drop off some of their cars, because on all roads there are certain grades so heavy that you have to drop off some of the cars and let them wait for the nest train to pick them up. It takes a train about 264 hours to make the round trip from Winnipeg to Moncton. When the cars of the Canadian Northern get to Moncton and are emptied, they have absolutely no return freight, because all the return freight is handed directly over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway through the government road. Therefore, these cars have to be returned empty, at a minimum cost of ov-er $1,000 for actual haulage of 40 empty cars. Now can any one imagine business being done by any road under those conditions ? It is simply absurd. The annual rental will be charged, a portion of the actual money the Grand Trunk have to pay, the cost of maintenance, the cost of fuel, which is very large in that northern section- all that has been borne by the cars returning empty. They would get no return freight, and as a natural consequence, shippers would send no grain that way, and no cattle.
Now it may be said that the Grand Trunk are not getting a bonus for this road. The Grand Trunk are getting on the western division a bonus in the shape of a guarantee which will enable them to get their money at 3 per cent. Suppose there were a condition of things which enabled them to get their money at li per cent less than they could borrow it in the market on their own credit. Assuming that the Grand Trunk western division has $40,000,000 spent upon it at the end of 50 years, the sinking fund of 1 per cent would be a bonus to the Grand Trunk Railway of $62,000,000, or 50 per cent more than the cost of their road, enabling them to set aside a bonus of 1 tier cent, and to redeem their bonds, and give them 50 per cent over at the end of the period. Both the Finance Minister and the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) said that the member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) was against railway bonuses. Now I do not need to use very strong language, but I can say that I have not changed my opinion as to railway bonuses. I find in the Liberal platform of 1806 the following language respecting the bonusing of railways :
The policy of bonusing railways by cash and land grants from the Dominion government has become a fruitful source of jobbery, speculation and corruption. Under its operation favourites of the government have become enriched. Appropriations have been made for the sole purpose of purchasing the support of constituencies. and vast sums of public money have been voted without regard to the public interest, while millions of acres of land that should have

been held in trust by the government for the future homes of the hardy and deserving settlers, have been handed over without consideration or justification, to charter-hawkers, whose intervention actually retards the construction of the land whose franchises they control, for the purpose of extorting money from the ultimate builders of the roads. The policy of granting these subsidies has repeatedly been condemned in parliament by the Liberal party, and this resolution is in harmony with the attitude of the Liberal party upon this question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is the hon. gentleman reading from ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: From the Liberal platform adopted in Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He may be reading from some document which was used, but I can assure him that the Liberal platform does not contain the words he has read.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a letter written by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Patrons, drawing attention to the fact that the platform of the Patrons is exactly the platform of the Reform party.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I find at the bottom : ' See resolutions 3 and 6, Liberal platform.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If, as stated by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), this is a quotation from a speech by a member of parliament, it should be given as a quotation from a speech, and not as an extract from the Liberal platform.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It does not alter the facts, but I apologize if I have brought it before the House in the wrong manner. The quotation given me has the memorandum, ' See resolutions 3 and 6, Liberal platform.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But it is not that.
Mr. OolER, It is not now, I quite agree. The platform of the Liberal party now is so far from this that I do not wonder at hon. gentlemen repudiating it, and even forgetting that such a platform had even been approved by them. I can hardly understand that the Minister of Finance, the Minister' of Trade and Commerce, and the other ministers, could ever read this now without feeling that they must have been entirely changed, and wondering at the state of mind which must have been theirs when they put before their followers such a programme as this. I have not very much to add, but rather more than I can finish before six o'clock, so I will ask leave to stop here.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I am not so used to public speaking that I can without Mr. OSLER.
disadvantage break off before I have finished and then resume. I think I can, without any ill-feeling, ascribe to my friends who preceded me, the fact that I had to break off before I had finished my remarks. I will rather go back a little from where I was at six o'clock, because I wish to emphasize very strongly the point I took that the contract which the government has made is one that will entail serious and abiding loss to the manufacturing community of Canada. It strikes a blow, and a blow, below the belt, at the national policy and at the principle of protection, which is the platform and principle of the Conservative party, and which has been, in an underhand manner, adopted by the present government. Now, let me read some portions of this contract, as to the meaning of which the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs seem to be quite uninformed. Section 5 of the contract says :
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 it

That is, the government

-shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients and favourable curves.
And section 7 says :
In order to insure, for the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to, and approved of, by the company before the commencement of the work, and that the said work shall be done according to the specifications and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the government, and the chief engineer of the company, and in the event of difference as to the specifications, or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the questions in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manne*' provided in paragraph four of this agreement.	'
Now, this is a declaration setting forth absolutely that the government undertake to build the eastern division of this railway. This division is to cost, at the least estimate that I have heard, $80,000,000. My own belief, and in this I am within the figures given by some, is that it will cost at least $120,000,000. The contract goes on further to say that the government from time to time during this contract of fifty years shall pay, and add to the capital cost of this eastern division, whatever sums may be expended on it beyond the original cost.
I have quoted you the case of the Intercolonial, which is also a government work. But I may say that the figures shown by the Intercolonial reports are not very exceptional. No railway on this continent is carried on as a paying road of which it is not true that, after being taken over from

the contractor who built it by the company that was to own and run it, it has been necessary, within ten or twelve years, to expend upon the road, on capital account, from 50 to 100 per cent of the original cost. I learn from Sir Sandford Fleming's history of the Intercolonial, published in 1876, page 234, that up to that time the total expenditure on the Intercolonial was $21,659,136.79. This included surveys, branch lines and rolling stock. I have not the figures here, but I think 1 am safe in saying that the expenditure on the Intercolonial on capital account now amounts to about $71,000,000. So, no hon. gentleman will contradict me if I say that from 1876 to 1902, a period of twenty-six years, the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial has increased from about $21,500,000 to $71,000,000, or between three and a quarter and three and a half times the original expenditure on capital account.
Now, I am perfectly safe from a business point of view, if I base my figures upon $S0,000.000 of original cost of this section of the government railway, in saying that within 25 years the cost of that railway will be $280,000,000. Now, that is the amount of capital that would be expended on this railway under ordinary conditions, not under conditions of government supervision, but under ordinary railway conditions, and when we arrive at 26 years to be quite right we will still have 24 years of a government liability to pay for all the money that is expended on capital account on that railway. If you take it that at the end of twenty-six years the capital of that railway is $280,000,000, and I am quite sure I am within the mark, I will not take the same relative proportion but I will double that for the twenty-five years. Now if the visions of those who have promoted this scheme are attained at all, these amounts I say are far within the mark as to the amount of capital that will be required to be expended on that road before fifty years have expired, when the government will have the right to take it over. If at the end of twenty-five years we have had an expenditure of $280,000,000 or a doubling of the debt of Canada, then at the end of the fifty years we will have an expenditure of $560,000,000. and if the Grand Trunk Pacific Company carry out their agreement of operating this road, which I am very happy to say I do not believe they will do, we will have an expenditure of $560,000,000 upon this road, the Grand Trunk Pacific paying to the country three per cent of the cost.


William Rees Brock: The minister will have to get his actuary to work again.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This is a rule of thumb matter and does not require an actuary. Now then following that out I will read again the clause in which I have no doubt the Minister of Finance or the other members of the government, if I was wrong in assuming that the Finance Minister is the originator of this clause, was trying to leave a particular branch of free trade in Canada for fifty years as the record of his principles. If I am wrong in assuming that he drafted this clause, I am quite sure he did not know the meaning of the clause when he and other members of council passed it. Now, the government have agreed to build this road as a government road ; they have agreed with the Grand Trunk Pacific and through them in a roundabout way with the Grand Trunk Railway that the Grand Trunk Pacific are to pay three per cent on the net cost of that railway and no more. Now, then, the clause that follows, and this is the final clause I think iii connection with the government building the railway, because this clause is left out of the clause concerning the Grand Trunk Pacific building the western division. This clause (clause 17) provides that no addition shall be made to the cost of construction or to the capital construction account in respect of customs duties levied where there is direct importation of material or supplies by the government. Now, a bargain between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific is the same as a bargain between any two men ; each one will hold the other as far as possible to the bargain. The government have agreed with the Grand Trunk Pacific that they shall build this road and that so far as imports by the government in connection with the road are concerned there shall be no customs duties levied. Suppose the government take this technical point and say we are not going to import these things, there is no court in the land that will not say to the government that is the meaning of your clause, you have the power to import without duty, therefore you must import without duty. I do not think a man, the least familiar with business, can contradict or can disagree with the assertion I make that that would he the interpretation of that clause. Now, then, if it was affecting only the original construction of this road it might be said to be a matter that was only temporary, but this includes all the expenditure to be made by the government during the fifty years of this lease and of this contract. We will assume, because there is nothing in the contract apparently defining how it is to be built, we will assume that this road is built under a commission appointed by the government, that is by the government itself. The government perhaps may let out certain contracts, the contractors before they make the contract or the Grand Trunk Pacific before it consents to that contract will say the contract must contain a clause that if the contractor brings in materials they shall be free of duty. No other meaning can attach to that clause ; it covers the great bulk of the rough manufacturing industries that are now in existence in Canada. It covers steel rails. The minister will say that steel rails now come into Canada free of duty, but I

hope that when wiser and better fiscal ideas rule in this House instead of having that abortion of bounties we will have a correct and a proper system of protection where the individual manufacturer is protected on all the articles that he makes. We will, I think, without looking forward with too great hope, within a very short time-I think myself within a shorter time than my friends opposite will agree with me-find that those who have the sound fiscal policy of this country at heart and believe in protection will rule, and they will bring in a protective tariff. If this clause passes all the materials necessary for this railway in future will come in free and no law that can be passed will alter it, and all the supplies will come in free. Now, I read to-day a few of these supplies and this list will be extended indefinitely. It extends to all the rougher manufactures of Canada. I am not lawyer enough, I am not a lawyer at all, to say, that in connection with this very bounty that the government has established, if that clause was submitted to a court the government would not have to refund to the contractors a proportion of the bounty they give on steel rails if without the bounty they could buy steel rails elsewhere. It strikes me that is probably a very reasonable thing, but I am not able to say whether that is so or not. However, I assume that under that clause we will have admitted into Canada all the materials required for the construction of the railway, and all the supplies, all the pork and the beef and the blankets, and the rubbers and the boots, and it may be the clothing of the navvies who work on that road if they work under a government contract, because What is an easier matter than to put in a contract with a body of men that they shall be paid so much and shall be provided with their clothing and supplies which will be cheaper if they are imported free of duty. It would not affect all the supplies brought in for this railway, but the Minister of Customs is business man enough to know that if I have a contract for supplying $50,000 worth of materials, which I can get in free of duty, and another contract for $50,000 on which I have to pay duty, I can very easily compete with the local manufacturer and crush him out. That must be the effect of this contract if it is carried out. I think I have made myself as clear as possible on that point.
I want to repeat the statement I made in connection with the direct bonus which the government gives to this railway. I assume that the portion built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will cost $40,000,000 which the government guarantee at three per cent, and that will save to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway one and a half per cent per year for fifty years. A sinking fund of one per cent a year for fifty years at that amount would realize at the end of that ime $62,446,000, or more than Mr. OSLER.
enough to pay the whole bonded debt of the company, and with the practical result that the government hand over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway the western section of the road free of cost. I am well within the mark when I say that the benefit to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway of the government guarantee is at least one and a half per cent per annum, because I can state as a positive fact that no railway on this continent has yet borrowed a sum of money like that at a less rate of interest than 44 per cent per annum. I say that no railway on this continent can now borrow the sum of money that is required for the construction of the western section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway at a rate as low as 44 per cent per annum. The New York Central, probably the railway with the best credit on this continent, has lately borrowed money at 5 per cent per annum paying one per cent commission for the loan. Now, if I take 44 per cent as the interest the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would have to pay for the money if it were not guaranteed by this government, then at the eud of the fifty years' term-which is a quite legitimate calculation because they can use that as a sinking fund to pay off their debt-the bonus you give them would amount to $93,000,000. And yet this government says that the whole cost to this country is only $13,000,000. I would like to suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should take this scheme as it is in its entirety, with all its contracts weak as they are, and ask the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company from whom this money is to come that is put in under second mortgage for the construction of the western section, and suggest to them that he will give them a bonus of $20,000,000 in cash if they will carry out the scheme which the government now proposes on all its lines, and I will be bound the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway directors and shareholders will turn it down without five minutes' discussion.
I do not like to see a misstatement made in this House and endorsed by a man of the position and the reputation of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), who I am sure will be the last man to countenance a statement which is outrageously wrong. The hon. gentleman quoted from the 1 Weekly Sun.' It has struck me during this debate that the greater part of the arguments made by the government and its supporters are arguments from the newspaper press of the country. It is not so very long ago that we heard the Prime Minister state in this House that he absolutely paid no attention to letters or articles in newspapers, and yet he himself in his speech took up nine columns of ' Hansard ' quoting from the New York ' Sun ' and yellow journals. I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. member for Cumberland did not quote from the ' Weekly Sun '

in perfect good faith, but he certainly quoted a misstatement. It is a farmer's paper and has often very good things in it, but it often shoots oil things which exist only in the imagination. This is what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) quoted from the ' Weekly Sun
The Candian Pacific Railway has just declared a dividend at the rate of six per cent per annum upon the original issue of $65,000,000 common stock. Of the proceeds of this stock not more than $8,500,000, according to Mr. Blake, ever went into the construction of the road. The remainder went to swell the profits of the shareholders. The dividend that has just been paid amounts to nearly fifty per cent of the actual cash expended by the shareholders on the construction of the railway.
That is an absolutely false statement. The original $25,000,000 of Canadian Pacific Railway stock was bought and paid for under an agreement with the government, and of course you cannot blame individuals for making the best bargain they could, although they did not make a good bargain in that case as it happened. They paid 25 cents a share or $6,250,000 for the original $25,000,000 of stock. All the other stock that was issued from that date to this has been issued on the market at the fullest market price. I am speaking from memory now as I had no time to verify the actual figures, but there was one case where a syndicate took $20,000,000 of stock at 55 cents or 60 cents on the dollar, and when the time arrived for the payment of that stock under their agreement, the stock was worth 10 per cent or 20 per cent less than the amount they agreed to pay. They had to pay for that, however, and that money went into the company's hand, and every other dollar of Canadian Pacific Railway stock issued after the original $25,000,000 loan was issued at the fullest market rate. The last $20,000,000 which was issued under the authority of this parliament was sold to the shareholders and produced par, and that money has been expended during the last year and a half on the road. Of the original $65,000,000 I think I am quite safe in saying that over $50,000,000 was put into the road in cash by the shareholders ; not the original men who took it, but the shareholders in England, Germany, America, Canada, and all over the world. I know that the member for Cumberland will be glad that I have given this explanation, although I have a great dislike to referring to anything connected with any company I am interested in. The hon. gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made a very strong appeal in favour of this contract because of the great benefit that would accrue to the manufacturers of this country by reason of the money that will be expended. I say that if this contract is carried out in dts present shape it will be the greatest blow that the manufacturers of Canada ever have experienced, not excepting the abolition of the reciprocity treaty.
The bonding privilege question has been so often referred to that perhaps it is almost superfluous to refer to it again. But I have an idea on that subject which I believe is a sound one. It is something which I would not like to see carried out; I should very much regret jf the occasion should arise to necessitate it. If under any unfortunate circumstances causing friction between the two countries, the bonding privilege should he done away with, it would do more to make Canada a nation than all that the Prime Minister of this country has done since he came into power. What we have lacked and what this government has lacked more than anything else, has been the ability to grapple properly with the transportation question. Where are we weak and where are we strong in dealing with that question 1 We are proposing to spend $120,000,000 to shorten the route from Quebec and Levis to our sea ports, 120 miles according to some, forty miles according to others. In constructing that line we do not improve our position with reference to the bonding privilege one iota. We have now an all-Canadian route by a government road. All Canadian products to be shipped through Canadian ports can go over the Intercolonial Railway, if it is provided with sufficient rolling stock. What we want is to improve our waterways and lake ports, instead of building duplicate railways. These are very well in their place, but they are not the first needs to be considered. To make Canada free and independent we must make our ports as good as any on the continent. Building a hundred railways across the continent will not improve the St. Lawrence route, the harbours of St. John and Halifax or the Georgian bay and Lake Superior harbours. Go into the Department of Marine and Fisheries, -where 1 suppose you can see a marine map of the upper lakes and the Georgian bay ; look at that, and then be ashamed of the position we occupy and the little we have done to improve our ports. We shall see on the map three or four stars representing lighthouses on the Canadian shores from Port Arthur to Sault Ste. Marie, and from the Sault to the Georgian bay ; you can count them on your fingers. Look on the other side, and you will see lighthouses so thick that you can hardly count them. We have not a life-saving crew on our northern waters, and no attempt is made to put one there. No attempt is made to develop our natural channels for international trade. Make Fort William, Port Arthur, Midland and all the ports on the Georgian bay so perfect that the larger vessels can enter them, load and unload and tranship their cargoes at a minimum cost; and then improve the grades of your railways and double track them if youTike. But, after all, the key of the situation is the St. Lawrence route. Make the channel so safe, and the ports of Montreal and Quebec so good, that our ships can safely use

them. What has happened since we came to this House this year ? Vessel after vessel has gone ashore, partly because we have not proper lighting, partly because we have not sufficient foghorns, and partly because we have not a proper pilotage system, for all of which the government is responsible, and all of which can only be remedied by the action of the government. Let us first provide what we know will bring immediate returns, and then will be time enough to spend money for developing the interior and far off portions of the country. I agree thoroughly with my leader in saying that the Conservative party are not and have never been afraid of spending money, so long as it is spent properly. The people who have been afraid of spending money up to the time they came into power, are our friends on the other side of the House. They spend it now, but they do not spend it properly.
With regard to this contract, I do not like to speak harshly; I do not like to impute motives; but if I were to judge it by the weakness I see in it, though not being a lawyer and not understanding its intricacies, 1 would say that it was drawn by the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Let me make a suggestion to my hon. friends on the other side of the House, that if ever they have another contract to make-and I hope they will not for many years-let them remember that the first principle of business between two contracting parties is that the party doing the favour should draw up the contract, and that the only modifications made in it should be those suggested by the other side. This contract has tlie appearance of having been drawn up by the solicitor of the men who were receiving the favour. It may have been supervised by the government and the government officials, and point after point may have come up and been conceded; but the main points in favour of the contractors are still embodied in it. I am quite sure that this is the basis on which this contract was drawn. It was the basis on which the contract for the Yukon railway was drawn; it was the basis on which the contract for the Treadgold concession was drawn; it was the basis on which the contract for the bottle nosed ships was drawn; and it is the basis on which the contract for this enormous expenditure has been drawn.
The Minister of Finance objected to the statement I made quite innocently, as to the principles and platform of the Reform party. Now, I find the platform of the Liberal party set out by Mr. Davin in ' Hansard ' of 1899, at page 9,338 :
The policy of bonusing railways by cash and land grants from the Dominion government has become a fruitful source of jobbery, peculation and corruption. Under its operation favourites of the government have been enriched. Appropriations have been made for the sole purpose Mr. OSLER.
of purchasing the support of constituencies, and vast sums of money have been voted without regard to the public interest, while millions of acres of land that should have been held in trust by the government for the future homes of hardy and deserving settlers, have been handed over without consideration or justification to charter-hawkers, whose intervention actually retards the construction of the lines whose franchises they control, for the purpose of extorting money from the ultimate builders of the roads. The pplicy of granting these subsidies has repeatedly been condemned in parliament by the Liberal party.
Since I came into the House, and since I have had the pleasure of setting on this side of the House, the present government have granted money bonuses which to my personal knowledge were only granted for the purpose of purchasing constituencies.	I
could refer to many of them.
So far as I know, the quotation which my hon. friend found in the Winnipeg ' Tribune ' of a few days ago, taken from a statement made in 1896. at the time of the general elections, never received any official confirmation on this side.
It then goes on :
Principles, Policy and Platform of the Liberal Party.
Copies of this pamphlet can be had by Liberal candidates from Alexander Smith, secretary Ontario Liberal Association, 34 Victoria street, Toronto.
I notice that the machine has been moved to Ottawa from Toronto, and consequently this gentleman is now very much in evidence.
This pamphlet is intended as an aid to young men and others who wish to work on behalf of liberalism and good principles.
That ought to have been in heavy faced letters.
No one can suppose that in so limited a space more than a small fraction of the shortcomings and misdeeds of the Conservative party can be alluded to. While some attention is paid to the system that has prevailed at Ottawa for the past fifteen years and more, the chief place Is given to a short sketch of the principles, policy and platform of the Liberal party. There are also hints for organization, a few remarks upon the Patron platform, and a very brief sketch of Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, the Dominion Liberal leader. In compiling this little document, parliamentary reports and debates of the session of 1894 have been resorted to, but where later authoritative facts could be obtained they have been used. This point should not be forgotten, so that when later, blue-books and parliamentary reports are produced there may be no misunderstanding.
These statements are put forward so that if the Blue-books come out afterwards and contradict them, the Blue-books are not to be taken as correct.
This pamphlet is not for general distribution. It is for speakers, committeemen and other workers on behalf of the cause of Liberalism and good government. Copies of the platform, however, for general distribution can be had upon application to
ALEXANDER SMITH, Secretary Ontario Liberal Association.
34 Victoria street, Toronto.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Whose speech ?
Hr. OSLER,	This a pamphlet from
which I am quoting. It goes on to say


Mahlon K. Cowan: What are you quoting from ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: From a better man ten thousand times than the one who sits opposite me now.


Mahlon K. Cowan: If that be the case, he should not be ashamed to give his name.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the hon. gentleman want to get into trouble ? The pamphlet goes on to say


Fletcher Bath Wade: But whose speech ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: This is a report of the Liberal Association.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But whose speech ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is a speech by one who was a better man than the hon. gentleman who interrupted me-Nicholas Flood Davin.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Peanut politics.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That pamphlet is signed by Alexander Smith, who is now to be seen every day in confab with members of the government and the Liberal party, and I have no doubt that he is concocting another pamphlet on the same lines to distribute to their following.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) twitted me upon my opposition to government railway bonuses. I am not ashamed to say that as a rule I am opposed to these bonuses, but there are circumstances and conditions in which they may be properly given. In the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, where it may be necessary to open up colonization roads into the public domain, in those sections where the country is not settled, and where there are timber or agricultural lands which will warrant the expenditure, it is good policy to aid the building of railways into such districts. Such a policy gives the government both an indirect and direct return. Many years ago, long before I was in politics, I was struck by the stupidity of the Ontario government in giving bonuses where they were not needed-in giving bonuses to aid the duplicating of railways -and I have studied up this question of government aid to railways. The hon. member for Hants gave many authorities, among others the United States, for the granting of bonuses. It is quite true that in the early years of the American republic, the state governments did grant bonuses, but not to the extent suggested by the hon. member. Over a year ago, I obtained the following report from one of the leading railway lawyers of the United States, with regard to the position of the various states of the union in this matter of railway bonuses. This report is headed ' State and Municipal Aid to Railways in the United States ;
Powers of Legislatures and Municipalities.' It states as follows :
In considering the subject of state and municipal aid to railways in the United States, tho following legal principles adopted by the courts with reference to the powers of legislature and municipal corporations should be borne in mind: (1) That the legislature has full power over the municipalities, and may, unless the constitution prohibits, authorize municipal corporations to aid railways by issues of bonds and otherwise. (2) That the municipal corporations have no inherent right to issue bonds or grant aid to railways. Such power must come from the legislature.
Perhaps it may weary you a little, but it will be interesting for future reference if I give a few more extracts from this report :
In the state of Maine, the constitution of 1S20, article 22, was amended in 1877. By this amendment the credit of the state shall not be directly or indirectly loaned. Municipal corporations are not prohibited from aiding railway companies, but no debt or liability can be incurred which, with previous debts, shall exceed five per centum of the last regular valuation of the municipal corporation.
New Hampshire-Constitution of 1874, part 2 article 5, amended 1879. Neither this state nor any subdivision can aid any private association or corporation.
Vermont-Constitution of 1793. No constitutional prohibitions.
Massachusetts-Constitution of 1780. There are no constitutional limitations for debt for state, county or city purposes. Aid to railways may be given by either.
Connecticut-Constitution of 1818, article 25, amendment adopted 1877. No county, city, town borough or other municipality shall ever subscribe to the capital stock of any railway corporation, or purchase its bonds, or make donations to, or loan its credit, directly or indirectly, in aid of any such corporation.
Rhode Island-Constitution of 1842. No prohibition against such aid, but restrictions.
Now mark. In nineteen cases out of twenty, the original constitution of each state authorized it to grant aid, and almost in every ease the amendment to the constitution prohibits the granting of aid absolutely.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Have you the mileage of the different states and their population at the time they ceased to bonus railways ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, but I shall give the hon. gentleman what he wants. In New York and New Jersey, the amended constitution prohibits aid to railway companies. In Pennsylvania, by the limitations to the constitution, neither the state nor a subdivision can aid a railway. In Maryland, municipalities are not prohibited from aiding a railway, but counties can give or loan their aid only when authorized by an Act of the general assembly, which shall be published for two months before the next election for members of the house of delegates. The state cannot, directly or indirectly, aid a private corporation. In Delaware there is no limitation. In the Virginias, the state

cannot assist a railway. In North Carolina, the municipalities may aid a railway, with the consent of the taxpayer. In South Carolina, state aid requires the consent of the people. In Florida, the state is prohibited from granting aid to railway companies and the legislature from authorizing any county, city, borough, township or incorporated district to become a stockholder in. or aid or loan its credit to any company or individual. In Georgia there is the same prohibition as in Florida. In Alabama neither the state nor any of its subdivisions can help a railway. In Mississippi the state is prohibited from aiding by pledge or loan, any person, association or corporation, or to become a stockholder in an association or corporation. The legislature is prohibited from authorizing municipalities to loan money or to grant aid to railways.
In Tennessee, the municipalities may aid railways, provided the proposition is submitted to the voters and receives a three-fourtlis majority. In Kentucky, the credit of the state can never be given to aid railways. The next state on the list is Illinois, and this is the state which the bon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) quoted as having been so greatly benefited through railways. It was my little knowledge and interest in the state of Illinois which caused me to take an interest in the question of municipal and state aid to railways. Large grants were made to various railways in the state of Illinois, not only by the state, but by the towns, cities and townships. Bonds were issued to the extent of millions of dollars, and these bonds were, to a very large extent, brought to Canada and sold. The late Mr. E. H. King, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, who had great knowledge of the west, bought $500,000 of Illinois county bonds to pay him 14 per cent, although at that time our bonds in Ontario were selling to pay 6 per cent. The scandal connected with railway bonuses in Illinois caused them, in 1870, the earliest time when it could be done, to amend their constitution, and they provided that neither the state, nor the county, city, town or township, or other municipality, could issue bonds to pay for the stock of a railway or other private corporation, or in any way aid such corporation. This provision did not appear in the previous constitution of 1848. The constitution was amended in this respect because of the absolute demoralization caused by this public bonusing. of railways.
Indiana.-Counties are prohibited from subscribing to the stock of railways or issuing bonds to assist them.
Ohio.-The state is prohibited from aiding railways, nor can the legislature authorize municipal corporations to do so.
Michigan.-The credit of the state cannot be granted to or in aid of any person or corporation.
Wisconsin.-The credit of the state shall not be given to any corporation or railway.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Arkansas.-The state or any sub-division of the state is prohibited from lending its credit for any purpose whatever.
California.-Prohibits the bonusing of railways.
Colorado.-Prohibits the state or any division of the state from bonusing the railways. Under a prior constitution of 1870, state aid could be given.
Idaho.-This state was created in 1889, and had no previous experience to guide it. But from the experience and knowledge of others, in its constitution, it prohibits the state from lending its credit to or bonusing or becoming a stockholder in any corporation.
Kansas.-The state shall not be a party to carrying on any work of internal improvement.
, Louisiana.-Prohibits the state from loaning its credit.
Minnesota.-Prohibits the giving of the credit of the state for any internal improvements.
Missouri.-The state is prohibited from loaning its credit.
Montana.-The constitution was adopted in 1889, and it prohibits the granting of aid to railways.
Nebraska.-This state was constituted in 1875. The constitution provides that no municipality shall make donations to any railway, unless authorized by the electors, and under certain restrictions as to amount.
Nevada.-There is no limitation.
North Dakota.-This is a comparatively new state, and when its constitution was granted it was not in anything like the condition of prosperity of our western provinces to-day, Manitoba, Alberta and the others. Its constitution prohibits the granting of aid to railways.
South Dakota.-This is not nearly so valuable a state as our Manitoba. Its legislature has never authorized aid to railroads.
Texas.-The constitution contains sweeping provisions against granting any municipal aid.
The Territories.-Are prohibited from aiding railways by Act of Congress.
Now, I call attention to these facts which, I think, are interesting and ought to be very useful. If the states to the south of us, with all their long experience, have come to the conclusion that it is a vicious thing for the state to aid in the construction of railways, we may be pretty sure that there is good reason in favour of that conclusion. That good reason was this :	During the
time of the early settlement of the western states, when the state government and municipalities granted bonuses to railways, Ihere existed such a state of corruption as lo absolutely demoralize the electors, insomuch that they have hardly got over it to this day. The results of that corruption were so serious that, in every case, after 1865, that is, after the close of the war- the great wave of railway building swept

over the United States from 1862 to 1868- almost every state amended its constitution, and almost the first clause put in was a clause prohibiting aid to railways. I do not go so far as that. But I have said that, on general principles, state aid to railways was wrong. I do not believe there is a single dollar of aid needed for the building of railways in the prairie portions of Manitoba and the North-west. The railway companies there will build as fast, or even faster, than the requirements of the people demand. This has been the case all over the western states. I believe that if you do not grant a dollar of aid to the Grand Trunk they will build into the Northwest faster, and be there sooner than if you do grant the aid.
But the Prime Minister, all through his speech rang the changes on the idea of a crisis. Now, we have not yet had any outside explanation as to what this crisis is.
I can only think that probably the crisis is the near approach of a general election and the discovery, on looking into the treasury of the various machines required for running an election, of balances which will not satisfy all demands. Is this government scheme, this magnificent expenditure of money, to be the government's way of meeting this crisis ?


Mr.  C. B. HEAD@South Brant: The shortness of the time that I have allotted to myself to address the House will preclude me from devoting as much attention as I would like to the remarks of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier), and I hope he will not consider me discourteous if I do not attempt to refute all the arguments he has presented. He, like other hon. gentlemen on that side, insistently demand to know the meaning of the word ' crisis,' and demand to be told why there should be any call for speed in the carrying out of the project now before us. It is for the very purpose of preventing that diversion of trade into American channels that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) himself has warned us against to-night. He said that long before the government could complete the eastern section the western section would be completed by the Grand Trunk, and. for want of through connection by the eastern section, the trade would be diverted through American channels to American ports-and once caused to run through those channels it would be very difficult to bring it back again to our own side. It is to prevent that crisis and that diversion of trade that the government is now proposing to build a railway through Canadian territory whose terminals shall be Canadian ports. Our hon. friend found fault with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Bogan) reading a list of letters from boards of trade, congratulating the government upon their attempt to build this railway, and he said they were endorsations of the Grand Trunk
scheme to build from North Bay to Winnipeg and into the prairie section. In that he has made a great mistake. These endorsations covered the construction ,of this very road that the government intend to build to prevent that diversion of Canadian trade through a foreign country and to foreign ports.
Now our friend tells us in the early part of his address that he is not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, but I hope I am a better lawyer than he is, and I believe I am quite as able to interpret a clause in this agreement. I differ entirely with him in his efforts to condemn the character of this agreement. If there is anything I felt pleasure in it was the masterly skill with which this agreement was drawn up. so that a layman could understand it without the intervention of lawyers. When it is necessary to get lawyers in the House to interpret anything that may be a matter of dispute, no two of them appear to agree; therefore, it is absolutely necessary that these agreements should be couched in such language that an ordinary layman can understand what they mean. Now this clause 17, that is such a direct blow to the manufacturing establishments of this country, that is such a. menace to the national policy which our good friend has so much at heart, I read in an entirely different sense from what he does. But he does not go quite far enough back. If he went to clause 16, in the Bill, which explains the motive of these particular clauses, he will find it says that the eastern section shall be built under the supervision of commissioners, and that it shall be let by public tender, and given to the lowest tenderer who can assure the commissioners that he is qualified to carry on that work. Therefore, this work will be carried on by public contractors, who will buy their goods in the cheapest markets in the world, I have not the slightest doubt, but will give Canada, as Canadians, very likely the preference, all things being equal. I take it that this clause was put in there to protect the Grand Trunk Pacific from being compelled to pay an unduly large amount for the use of this road. They say that should it be necessary for the government to import goods that go into this railway, the amount of duty that would ordinarily be collected from a contractor shall not be added to the cost price of this railway and thereby increase the annual rent to the company. That is all I see that this means. It is no blow at the manufacturing interests, it is no menace to the national policy, it is a wise provision put in, I presume, at the instance of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. The whole explanation of clause 16 is given by the Minister of Finance in his speech, it says that this eastern or government section shall be built under the supervision of commissioners, shall be let by public contract, and given to the lowest tenderer.

But our friend shows the excess of his imagination when he alludes to the liberality with which the government is treating the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in actually subsidizing them, or conferring a benefit on them, to the amount of $93,000,000 for building the western section of this road. He gets at it in this way, that by the guarantee of the government they are able to borrow money at 3 per cent which in other circumstances they would have to pay 4 per cent for, and, therefore, the government is giving them an extra 1 per cent which will amount at the end of 50 years to $50,000,000. He says that the government is giving them $50,000,000, while In reality the government is not giving them a single cent. Now that is an evident proposition, to every intelligent man in this House ; and I am surprised that a gentleman who is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who has a reputation as a financier, if not as a critic of railway construction, should deliberately, in the face of as intelligent a lot of gentlemen as I see surrounding me, make such an absurd statement as that we are going to give the Grand Trunk Pacific Company $50,000,000 when we are not giving them one single cent.


William Rees Brock: We are saving them $50,000,000.


Mr. HEYD.: We are saving them $50,000,000 if you choose to put it the way my horn friend does. But that is quite a different thing to giving it to them, is it not'!


William Rees Brock: It is just the same thing actually.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But is it the same thing to us ?


William Rees Brock: Yes, we take the risk.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But we do not lose the $50,000,000, and we cannot give them that $50,000,000, because we do not give them 50 cents. But our friend excels himself when he goes on further to explain this contract. Now this contract, if anything, is one of the things that he should have left alone. He might roam in the realms of imagination, he might make prophesies as to the future, but when he comes down to plain black and white, and the thing is there so that each one can see it for himself, it is so easy to refute such a statement that 1 am surprised our friend made it. He says we are going to construct a railway that will cost, from Moncton to Winnipeg, $80,000,000. That is the least sum that he has heard any one estimate as the probable cost. He could not have heard the Finance Minister, he could not have heard others speak from this side of the House. But assuming that he deliberately closed his ears, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear ; it may be that he heard no one estimate the cost of this railway at less than $80,000,000. But assuming he got no more accurate information than that, was he justified in Mr. HEYD.
telling us that this $80,000,000, before the 50 years will have expired, will reach the magnificent sum of $560,000,000 ? Because he said a railway when first constructed does not represent what that railway will actually cost, that It requires continuous improvement, and that improvement will go on for 50 years. I presume that is true, but that is all provided for in this contract that he intended to explain, because it says that when this road is handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific, from that time they must keep up its maintenance, they must make constant changes, and when that 50 years shall have elapsed, they shall turn it over to the government in a first-class condition, in harmony with the condition of railways, not now, but what they may be 50 years from now. And, therefore, that statement that a railway that was going to cost according to his estimate $80,000,000 now will represent a loss to the government of $500,000,000 is absurd because the very conditions that are to bring this about, according to the hon. gentleman, are all provided for in this agreement and after we once turn it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific and they accept it, from that time not a dollar can be added to it without the consent of the government, and when we do insist upon substituting say an iron bridge for a wooden bridge, it must be added to the capital and on that capital the Grand Trunk Pacific must pay interest.
1 could devote more time to answering certain objections that have been advanced, but I think it is hardly necessary. We on this side have arrived at that stage when we do not take the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) seriously, especially when he goes into the domain of prophepy. We have had experience before of what he is capable of saying on certain occasions, especially when it is a matter of politics. We remember that only five years ago we had an important discussion in this House as to the advisability of giving 3,750,000 acres of gold lands to the Mackenzie and Mann syndicate. Now, our hon. friend made a speech then magnifying all the dangers to the government and minimizing all the advantages that might accrue. Well, now five years have gone by, and we have an opportunity to-night of ascertaining whether he was then a true prophet or a false prophet, a prophet of Baal. Now, let us see what he had to say five years ago :
The man who has not the cash to pay, always pays more. I make the statement here and I defy contradiction, that if I went to London to-day with the contract which has been offered to these gentlemen, of the pick of 3,750,000 acres of the best mineral lands in the Yukon region, I could sell that land to-morrow for more money than the 25,000,000 acres of land granted to the Canadion Pacific Railway.
He made that statement in all seriousness in this House. He was applauded to the echo by his friends who sat around him. That 25,000,000 acres of land will certainly *

bring $75,000,000, and five years after that prophecy was made we have still got that
3,750,000	acres of rich gold land, and it is not worth 3,550 cents. I do not think our hon. friend would venture to say to-night that that land was worth $75,000,000, and five years from now, if his speech of tonight is referred to on some important question that may present itself for solution, he will be found just as far wide of the mark as we And him to-night with respect to a prophecy or a statement he made five years ago.
But, Sir, an important task presents itself to my mind. I shall try as briefly as possible to find out just exactly what we liave got in this government scheme and just exactly what there is in the other proposition advanced by the leader of the opposition, which was so vociferously applauded by his followers the other night, and to which to-day they appear to still hold so firmly. I do not intend to prove, Mr. Speaker, that we need another railway. That has been made abundantly manifest by the various speakers who have preceded me. We have the statement of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals himself, we have a letter addressed to the leader of the government only four weeks ago, in which he states :
I have no hesitation in stating that I am as much in favour of the construction of another transcontinental line as any other member of this parliament.
That is his very latest utterance on this question. Sir, the feeling that we ought to have another transcontinental line is not confined to a few people. There is a general feeling that we should construct another transcontinental line, and so much evidence has already been presented to substantiate that that it will not be necessary for me to do more than simply allude to the action of the Railway Committee itself. There were in the committee about 175 representatives of, all parts of this country. The Grand Trunk scheme, as I understood it, originally was to go from North Bay out into the west; that at the request of members of the Railway Committee was extended to Quebec, and there was not a dissenting voice; that was extended to Moncton, and there were very few dissenting voices. An attempt was made to extend it to St. John, and that the late Minister of Railways and Canals supported. At that time he was a strong believer in the necesssity of a transcontinental railway. He says himself in the letter which he presented to the House that there were three alternative propositions which presented themselves. He used these words in the letter which was dated July 13th, and read in the House on July 16th:
Let me state our position on the main question : My decided preference is for a government owned and government operated railway across the continent.
That is his position, but he says:
In this view I am practically alone, and therefore I admit at once that this proposition must be laid aside.
Did the hon. gentleman know what he was talking about on the 16th of July when he said ;
In this view I am practically alone.
He had the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee). He had one or two supporters of government owned and operated railways on this side of the House, but so far as the hon. gentleman knew he was alone in the government, he was alone on that side of the House, he was alone on this side of the House. Not one voice was raised in the Railway Committee in favour of a government owned and government operated railway, and it is only now, when some political capital may be created out of it by our hon. friends on the other side, that some few of them are beginning to adopt it.
Now, I only allude to that to show where the hon. gentleman stood with respect to government owned, government constructed and government operated railways, that he stood practically alone. An amendment has been moved in this House to the resolution that is before it by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) affirming the principle of government owned, constructed and operated railways. It may develop a stronger sentiment in its support than any of us were previously aware of. It might influence some gentlemen on the other side of the House to support it who a week ago did not know that they were supporters of government owned and government operated railways. We have heard of sudden conversions. I do not object to a sudden conversion if it is the result of conviction, but I do object to these sudden conversions that are not the result of a process of reasoning where conscience enters and dictates the course that a man should follow.


William Rees Brock: You should not rub it in to the member for North Norfolk so hard ; be easy with him.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The late Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said that when the government scheme was first pro-poandea there was a sigh of relief among the supporters of the government. I am willing to confess that he exactly represented the state of my mind. I did heave a sigh of relief that his views did not predominate, and that the government did not commit themselves to construct and operate this railway from Quebec to the coast. There are others who entertain the views that I entertain. A resolution has been moved in the Senate by a Conservative Senator who has the confidence and respect of our friends opposite, and while I do not endorse the whole of his resolution there are certain clauses in it that are absolutely true, and this is one of them :

Resolved that governments do not operate railways as economically and with the same necessary close business attention as private companies ; that the country has had an object lesson before it in the partial failure of the Intercolonial Railway ; that this House should object in the most unqualified manner to railways being constructed and operated by the government.
I endorse these statements, and I breathed a sigh of relief when I found that these sentiments hadi prevailed with the government, and that the late Minister of Railways and Canals was alone in the possession of his sentiments. As an ideal sentiment, government ownership and operation is all right in itself, but 1 do not think the Canadian people have arrived at that stage of development where we can safely trust the management of so large a corporation into the hands of either the political parties in this country. I remember that for eighteen years every Liberal in Canada believed that our Conservative friends were running the Intercolonial Railway as a political machine, and we have applauded the Minister ot' Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) here when he alluded to the time when the old Intercolonial Railway issued their bundles of ' passes ' not to advance the pecuniary welfare of the railway so much as the political interest of their party. And for the last seven years we have heard our friends on the other side crriticising the management of the Intercolonial Railway ; charging it with falsifying the books and putting down to capital account sums of money that should be properly charged to working expenses. They have charged us with running the whole organization as a political machine ; and that belief is as widespread in this country as are Conservative principles. Let us extend the operations and the opportunities for running a railway of that kind as a political machine, and what would be the result ? How would our Conservative friends regard it if we the Liberal party were to run an organization of that kind ? They cnuld find no words strong enough in the English language to condemn it. But, Sir, when the Conservative party have arrived at that stage, that such men as Sir John A. Macdonald, John Abbott, Sir Charles Tupper are revered no more, and even the present leader of the opposition is incapable to be the bright and particular star at Conservative picnics ; when they shout great is the new Diana of the Conservative party ; when the leader of the opposition steps aside and allows one of his lieutenants to explain, that the lion. Mr. Borden is absent to-day because he is making the effort of his life down in Ottawa (and I don't think we ever saw him that day in the House ;) when in the meantime our friend from Manitoulin is exalted in his place, and the Conservative party bow down and worship him-a man who does not posses the confidence of the judges at least; a man who has been accused of peculating


Charles Bernhard Heyd: documents from a bank, and a man who admits that he was inaccurate in his statements-when the Conservative party can worship that kind of an ideal, they are not in that mental condition to give us credit for the proper management of a large railway like this.
There lias been no criticism of the government scheme so effective as that made by the late Minister of Railways and Canals. There is no man on the other side of the House who is so well qualified to do it; who has so great a personal object in doing it and who, owing to the position in which he has placed himself, has so much to gain by doing it. Therefore we can assume that everything that can be said against this road has been said by him. He was obliged to confine himself somewhere within the limits of truth, because he had stiil some reputation for veracity to lose, and he would not and did not make such wild statements as have since been made by speakers on the other side of the House, who were not railway men, who were not financial men and who absolutely knew nothing about this business.
Now, what has our friend the late Minister of Railways and Canals called this scheme? He called it a hybrid scheme. He said :
At best it is but a hybrid scheme compromising to antagonistic principles. It will be difficult to explain why the government should build and own the lean section of this railway and provide the company with credit to enable them to build and operate the fat section.
Our friends on the other side enthusiastically applauded that. I want you Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind the word [DOT] hybrid,' because we have had a counter scheme presented by the leader of the opposition. This word ' hybrid ' was most enthusiastically cheered by our friends opposite, but we will be able to show by and by that this scheme that they are now enthusiastically applauding should not be entitled even to the appellation of ' hybrid ', but, that we might properly call it a mongrel scheme and be within the limits of the truth.
In what sense is this railway lean and fat ? The ex-minister told us that we are going to own the lean section and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway the fat section. If the government was going to operate and own the lean section, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway own and operate the western section, it might be a true definition. But, just as soon as this railway is leased, it becomes the absolute property of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for fifty years-as much their property as though they had built it and owned it; and it ceases then to be either lean or fat, and becomes one proposition for at least fifty years. And who will say that when the fifty years shall have elapsed the western section shall be the fat section and the eastern section the lean ? May the conditions not be reversed ? In any event,

we are not In a position to brand either portion as fat or as lean.
Now, 1 would like to get down in 'Hansard' what I think this railway will cost. I am not in a position to give any expert opinion. I am simply going to quote the opinion of a man whom I have looked up to with respect for the past seven years; a man who has never during that time deceived us in what he stated would take place with respect to financial matters; a man who has had the opportunity of being advised by the financiers of the government and also by the Railway Department of the government. I am quite satisfied to take the opinion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) on this question in preference to that of any other man in this House. He has a reputation to lose. He does not speak without the knowledge and the wisdom that are associated with his office. For seven years we have tried him, and when he has prophesied surplus after , surplus, they have come with unvarying regularity, and always a little larger than he prophesied. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have a right to assume that the same caution which has characterized his utterances in the last seven years still characterize what be says to-day. If he errs at all he errs on the safe side. We have seen with what liberality he has been prepared to increase his figures to make it absolutely certain that he was right; because he cannot afford live or six years from now to be confronted with statements showing him to be incapable of discharging the duties of the position he holds, and to be made such a spectacle of as some people would be were we to quote their speeches made five years ago. .
What does the Finance Minister say that this railway will cost ? He says the portion from Moncton to Quebec, 400 miles, will cost $10,000,000; the portion from Quebec to Winnipeg, 1,475 miles, $41,300,000; interest during construction, $3,390,000; or, a total of $54,090,000, which will be due in about fifty-five years from now. As bonds will be issued upon which we will pay three per cent-and after seven years the Grand Trunk Pacific Company agrees to pay that interest-that is the capital that we put into this scheme-not $80,000,000, as our friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) said; not $500,000,000, as he afterwards said it would grow into; and, if he had been speaking yet, it would have been by this time $15,000,000,-000-because these things grow. The Finance Minister tells us that during those seven years the interest on the Moncton-Quebec section will amount to $2,334,000; ou the bridge capitalized, to $324,000; and on the eastern section, to $8,853,000; or a total of $11,512,000 of a direct subsidy, as I would call it, to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. That disposes of that question.


Mr. WILSON.: Very cheap.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is what the Finance Minister said, and I would rather believe him than the hon. gentleman who interrupts me. If I wanted some advice as to how to buy merchandise, I would certainly take the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Wilson's) opinion : I would think he had a training in that direction; but on this subject he knows no more than I do, and I am willing to take the Finance Minister as my guide.
According to the hon. minister, the government guarantee on the prairie or fat section amounts to $16,900,000 and on the mountain section, to $14,400,000. These together amount to $31,300,000, which, together with $54,690,000, the cost of the eastern section, gives a total of government bonds and those of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, amounting to $85,990,000. Now, if my hon. friend has never heard before that the eastern section of this railway will cost not less than $80,000,000, he can go home and say he has heard it to-night, because I have certainly made it plain.
Are we safe in our investment on that western section ? That is the next question. We are guaranteeing the bonds of the company on what ? On the mountain section, which at $40,000 a mile will cost $19,200,000, and on the prairie section, which at $18,000 a mile will cost $23,400,000; interest during the period of construction, amounting to $2,400,000; and equipment, amounting to $20,000,000; or $65,000,000 .of Grand Trunk Pacific money, which is in that road, upon which we have a mortgage of $31,300,000, leaving us a surplus security of $33,700,000. That is what the contract says, and we are dealing with the contract. We are not dealing with an imaginary contract, .into which men can read whatever they like; but we are dealing with the-actual contract which we interpret according to our understanding of the English language and the intent of the parties to the contract. We do not need to worry over-that end of the undertaking, that is sure, We have no anxiety about it. That is the fat end, and in addition to the fatness of' the security we have a margin of $33,700,000.
That is not the only estimate that we have. That is the estimate of the Finance Minister, who is responsible, in consequence of the position he holds, to tell us what he believes to be the facts, and he is surrounded by those who are qualified to give him information that would justify his statement. But we have had another valuation of that road, that is, by the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). Did he make that valuation while he was Minister of Railways and Canals, and while a certain amount of responsibility rested upon him ? Not at all. But he said something after he had ceased being Minister of Railways and Canals, and while he was still friendly to the present government, which will justify us in believ-



ing that he did not think at that time the road would cost more money.
On the 10th of July, speaking in this House, he quoted from his letter addressed to the leader of the government-not the first, but the second letter-and after he had plenty of time to consider the matter. In that letter he deliberately expressed himself as follows :
As I have said, I am in favour of the whole line being built and owned by the government, but having abandoned any expectation in that regard, I am equally in favour of the whole line being a company line. I am prepared

I want you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to this particular clause :
I am prepared, since Council has determined, to go forward with this undertaking at once,-
No need to investigate or to make surveys, no need to fritter away two or three years, he was ready to go on at once. He proceeded to say :
I am prepared, since Council has determined to go forward with this undertaking at once, to co-operate with my colleagues in guaranteeing the bonds over the whole line to an extent not exceeding three-fourths of the cost of constructing the railway.
He there deliberately wrote to the First Minister, and read the letter in this House, that he was prepared to support a policy of guaranteeing the bonds of this railway from Quebec to the coast to the extent of three-fourths of its actual cost, and that at a time when, according to his later opinion, we knew nothing about those regions except that it was an absolute wilderness. I do not think he could have thought so then. He only learnt that afterwards, because had he believed it then, he was certainly betraying the interests of this country in offering to guarantee the bonds of the company which was to build a railway through an unknown wilderness. Was he sincere? Did he believe then that we had sufficient information to justify the construction of this road ? He must have, or it would have been dishonest on his part to advise his colleagues to guarantee the bonds to the extent of three-quarters of the cost of the construction of that railway. He evidently did not think then that this scheme was going to cost as much money as he afterwards found it convenient to say it would. At what did he estimate its cost later when he was interested in increasing the difficulties which the government would have to surmount ? He said that the road would cost $121,000,000. and as I have shown, he had previously been prepared to approve of the policy of the government guaranteeing the bonds of this railway to the extent of three-fourths of its cost. Well, three-fourths of $120,000,000 is $90,000,000, which is a greater amount than the government guarantee by their present scheme, so that the government are not doing very badly in connection with this matter. The guarantee which the bon. gentleman was prepared to support


Charles Bernhard Heyd: amounted to $90,000,000, whereas that given by the government does not exceed $84,000,000. But, says the hon. ex-minister;-
The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is being aided to a most generous extent. It cannot build its road without very liberal assistance. In giving aid the government might very properly impose terms looking to some financial advantage to the country in the future, and therefore I would insert that a share of the earnings-I would not say one-half, but I would not think it ought to be less than a third of the net earnings, or that portion of the net earnings which would not be required for the improvement or betterment of the road.
Aud he proceeds to say :
My decided preference is for a government owned and government operated railway across the continent, and my chief reason for favouring it is, that it will have an equalizing and regulating influence upon ail other railways throughout the western territories.
So that he puts himself on record as being willing to guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from Quebec to .the coast to the tune of $90,000,000, and then to put his hand into the treasury of the company to the extent of one-third of their net earnings, making this country a partner in the enterprise, interested in the amount of dividends paid by that company, interested in keeping up high rates in order that we may have high dividends, and, by that very method, frustrating the chief object for which he is a supporter of the policy of government ownership of railways. Is his position as good a one as that adopted by the government ? He wants his pound of flesh. We are not so grasping. All we ask is the right, when the earnings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will justify it, to insist on a reduction of rates. We will reduce the freight rates instead of taking one-third of the company's earnings. That one-third of the earnings we intend shall remain in the pockets of the farmers in the west and the manufacturers in the east, and in that way we shall regulate the freights on other railway systems. When the rates of freights on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are lowered, the Canadian Northern Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and other competing railways will have to follow suit. We are looking to the regulating and lowering of freights and not to dividends and high rates.
Our hon. friends opposite say that this railway will cost $121,000,000. The Minister of Finance says it will cost $84,000,000, and a subsidy of $12,000,000. There is only about $20,000,000 difference, but anybody who goes beyond the estimate of the ex-Minister or Railways can hardly fail to be charged with using reckless language. On the other hand, I do not think we should go below the estimate of the Minister of Finance, for although his estimate of the length of the road from Quebec to Winnipeg is 75 miles longer than that of the ex-Minister of Railways, his estimate of the cost is only

$20,000,000 less, which shows with what care he has spoken.
We hare heard many speeches made in this Hotrse decrying the country through which this road is to be built, and 1 can quite realize the position in which the manager of the road will find himself when he stands before the directors and stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway and explains to them the reasons why they should go into this scheme. They will say to him : We have been reading the speeches of leading members of the opposition at Ottawa, and they say that this railway will pass through a barren wilderness, an unexplored country, a land of muskegs, that the scheme is a wild, mad one, and yet you come here and ask us to endorse it. It may be a safe scheme for the government of Canada, as they come first, but where do we come in ? We are behind the government. They will have a railway costing $54,000,000 and $5,000,000 of equipment, and the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the eastern section. They will have $3,300,000 surplus as security for the western section. We will be obliged to' run that road fifty years and assume all that responsibility and loss. It is all right for the government of Canada, but what about the stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway V We have read the speeches of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the other leaders of the opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, what do you suppose Mr. Hays will say in reply ? He will, no doubt, say in effect:	You are paying me
$50,000 a year for running the Grand Trunk Railway. I have been with you some years, and have raised it out of the mire into the position of a first-class railway. My opinions are backed up by all the officials under me. We pledge our reputation as railway men, who thoroughly understand the situation of affairs, that this is a good scheme for you to put your money into, and these men who are condemning the scheme are not familiar with railway matters and besides have a political interest in decrying it. Listen to the man to whom you are paying $50,000 a year, and do not listen to lawyers and farmers and merchants and politicians, who can not tell an air-brake from a steam engine. I suppose he would be justified in referring to some speeches made by these hon. gentlemen. He might take, for instance, our friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). He might say : Why, he is a very honourable man. He is. There is no doubt about his honour or about his profound wisdom. But when it comes to a matter of politics, wisdom leaves him and he becomes absolutely blind. Mr. Hays might say to his stockholders : I will read you some of the utterances of this hon. gentleman. He has condemned this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, but on what ground? The language he usfed to-dav he has used 2924
before. Let us go back five years. By referring to page 1665 of the ' Hansard ' of 1898 you will see that this hon. gentleman advised the government to abandon the Mackenzie & Mann scheme in the Yukon, and five thousand miners would go in and locate


An hon. MEMBER.: Five hundred thousand.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes. But I was almost afraid to mention that. Five hundred thousand miners would go in and locate. Two years would be the very moderate estimate of the time required for this according to the hon. gentleman. Only two years, and in that time 500,000 miners would come in and locate. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is Mr. Hays reading the speech of the hon. member for East Grey to his stockholders who want to know what kind of mem these are. The hon. gentleman went on :
Now, 500,000 miners, at $10 apiece-what they want for a free miner's license-would be $5,000,000 for the right to go there and begin prospecting. This same amount would have had to be paid the following year. In order to take up this amount of land each miner must locate eight claims, making four million claims. At $15 each for locating claims, this would be $60,000,000. If they continue to work these claims the second year, they would pay $60,000,000 more. If they took an average of $100 of gold out of each claim-and that is moderate when you consider that men have claims that they can sell for $2,000,000, the royalty as compared to what Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann would pay, would amount to $9,000,000. This makes a total of $139,000,000. -from 500,000 miners, I would like to ask the Finance Minister if he has got that money ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the surplus is not quite so large as that.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I would ask the Minister of the Interior where those 500,000 miners are ? They are still in the imagination of these gentlemen. But other hon. gentlemen who spoke concerning whom Mr. Hays might be asked. There was the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He told us that the railroad would suffice to carry in the 60,000 or 75,000 people-incoming miners, I suppose-but the question was whether there would be boats enough to carry them. Then he quotes from am interview with a Mr. Bellew, whom he endorses as a practical miner, who says that the
3,750,000	acres of land given to this syndicate would make 750,000 claims, which, at $25,000 each would make $18,000,000,000. This is deliberately stated to the House as given on the authority of a practical miner. What will the stockholders of the Grand Trunk say when the opinion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) with regard to the Bill now before us is read to them ? But this estimate is a little too much even for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk). He confesses that this is a high estimate, but

says that So an acre is a low estimate. This .same gentleman in condemning this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme only three or four days ago, stated that the 25,000,000 of acres of land given to the Canadian Pacific Railway by the Canadian government years ago, were not worth anything, because there was no railway to develop them. But the land to be given to Mackenzie & Mann, which was away up in the Arctic regions, was worth $5 an acre though there was no railway. What do you suppose Mr. Hays would say when he was asked about that ? But that is not all. He might quote Mr. McDougal, who told us that the value of this concession of 3.750,000 acres at .$30 an acre was $112,500,000, added to which there would be the licenses and royalties of $37,000,000, or the total of $149,500,000. There is worse than that, but because of the friendly feeling I have for these gentlemen, 1 am ashamed to read their speeches. But there is one I will read. There was one sensible man in the party, a man who told the truth, though he is one whom we do not usually regard as one of the leaders of the party. I refer to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin). He said :
What happened once may happen again, with that snowshoe road that you are talking about building-I do not care whether a Liberal government or a Conservatve government is building it. I may call it a snowshoe road and nothing else. It is of no use to any one only to those who want to swindle the government. They put before the House that they will build a road, but who will operate that road ? They cannot do it. Remember, I am going to give you truth, right and left ; I have got the medicine right here. Very well, they are going to build a road. After that road is built, what will they do with it ? They will just say, ' To hell with the road ! '


Mr. MORIN.: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) paid for acting as a monkey tonight ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Why, I say the hon. gentleman (Mr. Morin) made the only sensible speech that was made on that side. He told the absolute truth. He manifested more wisdom than all the gentlemen who valued this concession up in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The hon. gentleman was called to order.
I will withdraw it at once and apologize. What will they do with that road ? Why, they will give a man five cents to take it off their hands.	.
I think I am paying the hon. gentleman (Mr. Morin) a compliment.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not thank you for it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: If I quote his words exactly, I do not know why he should find fault. He is responsible for what he said, not I. I think these .hon. gentlemen whose utterances went so wide of the mark have more cause to complain than has the only man who told the truth among the whole party.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Now, hon. gentlemen opposite have found a mare's nest in the contract. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) spoke of it. In some mysterious way, the Grand Trunk Railway is to get possession of $25,000,000 worth of that common stock. We are told that they may buy it cheap. Of course, in some mysterious way, these hon. gentlemen do not seem to know how the Grand Trunk is going to be in this deal. That is quite easy to me. And it was just at this stage that our friend the late Minister of Railways and Canals showed his animus by alluding to the Grand Trunk as 1 the red-headed boy.' Without ' the red-headed boy,' this road cannot be built. We are dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific, but that company has not the means to build this road. They could not issue a dollar's worth of bonds and realize in the market unless somebody was to guarantee those bonds. And so the Grand Trunk, the yellow-headed boy, comes into this deal. The Grand Trunk Pacific guarantee that the Grand Trunk Railway shall take $25,000,000 of the stock. What for ? I take it that that will put them in a position to raise the money to build the western section of the railway. But the Grand Trunk will require to guarantee $20,000,000 of preference stock which will be sold to put the equipment on the road. I see in this quite plain, businesslike transaction. They become the custodians of this common stock and guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific, giving that company hard cash. How much money will they have in this road ? Mrith their share of building the western section and with the equipment, they will have over $31,000,000 in the road.
They have got to provide terminals, shops, hotels, ships, loss of bonds, if sold at a loss. They have got to provide to run their road for six or seven years before it becomes productive. I do not see that the $25,000,000 security they have to give will more than compensate them for guaranteeing at least $33,000,000 of bonds of this Grand Trunk Pacific, and no one else will do it. Behind that they have got to pay interest at three per cent. Now he says this is a bad scheme. Our friends on the other side, who are absolutely irresponsible, who do not apparently understand the agreement itself, have not the slightest idea of the actual cost, or if they have, they have got beyond the range of ordinary reason. We have them on the one side, and on the other side we have Mr. Hays, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wainwright, Mr. Bell and the men that manage the Grand Trunk Railway in this country, telling their stockholders that this is a good scheme, and if it is a good scheme for the stockholders it cannot be a bad scheme for the people of Canada.
But, if you do not like this scheme, the leader of the opposition is prepared to give you a substitute. When he gave that substitute scheme he was vociferously applaud-

ed by our friends opposite. Let us analyze that scheme, and the same moderate figures that the Minister of Finance used in valuing the Grand Trunk Pacific will apply to this scheme. What have we got ? The leader of the opposition did not move it as a resolution, he did not like to commit his supporters to the quality of the scheme. They could talk without limit and no particular harm would be done, but if it was crystallized in the form of a resolution and they had to vote yea or nay they would have to proclaim themselves as something that X do not like to characterize a man that I have the least respect for, therefore I shall keep it to myself. He says : We will extend the Intercolonial to the coast, and begin by extending it from Montreal to Goteau a distance of 38 miles. Then he will unite with a little road down there, the Jacques Cartier, I think the road is called, some 38 miles of road, to meet the Intercolonial. Now to give a value to that 38 miles is a very difficult job. But as we know, a large portion of it will run right through the city of Montreal, if they built it, it cannot cost less than $2,000,000. He says we will expropriate the Canada Atlantic Railway from Coteau to Depot Harbour. He tells us that the Canada Atlantic Railway paid five per cent interest last year upon its capital stock. Now, looking into the railway book, we find that the actual cost of the Canada Atlantic Railway was a little over $20,000,000, that includes a branch that runs into the states. I presume if the government wanted that portion of the road from Coteau to Parry Sound they would have to pay just as much for it as if they took the whole outfit, for without that part the road there would be no good. Now, is that worth $20,000,000 ? for that is the actual amount of money that has gone into it. I think we can safely leave it there, because there were nearly $600,000 of a net profit last year. It is a good road, and will constantly increase in value. We will throw in the Canada Atlantic Railway transit line of boats, because they will have to be acquired, and that will help to make up the $20,000,000.
Now, we will take a little summer trip through the lakes in boats belonging to the government, and when we get to Fort William we find 431 miles of railway to Winnipeg in bad condition, with bad grades, with" bad curves, not one, but two such railways. Now our friend proposes to modernize both these railways, to lower the grades, to straighten out the curves, and make them first class railways. But how much will that cost through that rocky region V Is $30,000 a mile for bettering those two roads running through that rocky region a high figure ? If it is not, you will pay for them $12,930,000. Then we have got to give the Grand Trunk and all other rival roads running rights over it. We are told by our friends opposite that it is impossible for one company to own a road and allow
a rival company to run over it. On this particular section the title is going to remain with them, but all other roads are to have running rights. You say that is impossible, but you applaud the leader of the opposition when he says it can be done. What are we to believe ? When are you sincere and when are you fooling ? That is what we want to know. Well, when you get west to Winnipeg you find that one of these roads unfortunately runs through American territory, and you are actually going to expend more of our money in improving a road that does not all lie in Canada. We come now to the hybrid part of the scheme, we are owning a road from Montreal to Parry Sound, from Fort William to Winnipeg, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern come in. When we get to Winnipeg we are going to guarantee the bonds, I presume, of the Grand Trunk Railway who are going to build from Winnipeg to Edmonton, 690 miles1 at $13,000 a mile, making $11,700,000. When you get to Edmonton you are going to adopt another system. The Canadian Northern being in the field first, they are going to build a road from Edmonton to the coast, and if they cannot agree to let the Grand Trunk Pacific have running rights over it, the same old scheme that is impracticable to the Minister of Railways and Canals becomes quite practicable now when some irresponsible persons propose it. If they do not agree we will build it ourselves, and that will cost us the magnificent sum of $19,800,000. Over the prairie section to the coast, 480 miles at $40,000 a mile, represent $19,200.000, and from Edmonton to where the Grand Trunk section begins, 300 miles at $18,000 a mile, representing $15,400,000. Up to this time we spend $69,000,000, and we have not enlarged the spout. We are piling up the money, we are buying old roads, but we are not opening out a foot of fresh territory, because we can go to Edmonton by two railways already, and they tell us the road from Edmonton to the coast is not needed.
But if you do not take a summer journey, you find the lake frozen, and you have to deflect your road, and you are going to get over the difficulty, the leader of the opposition says, by expropriating the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to North Bay. 634 miles. Now what is that railway worth ? That railway has arrived at that condition that it is worth twice as much as it was when it was built. Our friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier), who is a railway man. says that it increases in value, and at the end of ten years will cost double what it did when we built it. owing to improvements. This has cost $70,000 a mile, and if his statement is true, it will cost us $140,000 a mile. I will take the moderate estimate of $50,000 a mile. I suppose it could not be replaced for a good deal more. That is $31.-
700.000	more. But they will not need the road to North Bay, and they are buying an

extra mileage in order that the Grand Trunk may connect at that point. But from Sudbury to North Bay there is 81 miles of road that we do not need even for our own purposes. Now from Sudbury to Scotia, that is the point where the Grand Trunk Railway running from Toronto to North Bay crosses the Canada Atlantic Railway on its way to Depot Harbour-from Sudbury to Scotia^ we have a distance of 120 miles. That is ail to be'a new road, and to cost $30,000 a mile. We have there $3,600,000. Up to the time, we have spent $104,000,000 and still have not enlarged the spout. Still, we have not enlarged the spout, we have a new road from Winnipeg to Edmonton and from Edmonton to the coast and a cut-off from Sudbury to Scotia but we have $104,000,000 put into the scheme and what is the result The distance from Winnipeg to Fort AVilliam is 431 miles, from Fort William to Sudbury 553, from Sudbury to Scotia 120 miles, from Scotia to Montreal 330 miles, from Montreal to Quebec 162 miles or a total of 1,596 miles, being 196 miles longer than the road objected to by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals between Quebe.c and Winnipeg and to carry it on to St. John over the old Intercolonial Railway will be 2,174 miles, while our proposed road that will have really opened up 1,800 miles of new territory from Moncton through Quebec and through Ontario will only be 1,889 miles long, and if you run by the cut-off at Chipman 1.802 miles long or 372 miles shorter than the scheme which is now propounded by the leader of the opposition.
Do you suppose that can be justified by the people ? They talk about the fat side and the lean side, but we have not got through, because the hon. gentleman having accomplished all this, says we will make surveys and at once, as soon as it is determined that it is feasible, build the Quebec section, we will start from Quebec, and we will spend $44,0000,000 on that. Up to that time we have $168,000,000 stuck into it, and if we leave out the Quebec end, $124,000,000, and have not enlarged the- spout. Our friends will have a government owned railway there, a government operated railway there; they have got a hybrid scheme owned by one railway and operated by another, and you can hardly tell what nomenclature to apply to their scheme. They call this a hybrid scheme. I will let some one else invent a name for their scheme. He says : What is the use of 100,000 farmers building
100.000	barns ? Let us build elevators so that instead of building barns, they can put their grain into elevators. Well, the owners of 100.000 barns raising 1,000 bushels of wheat each will give 100,000,000 bushels of wheat, and they are going to store their wheat in elevators. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that an elevator for 1.000.000 bushels of wheat will cost $1,000,000, so that we have $20,000,- * Mr. HETD.
000 more there for elevators, but he has not yet finished, because he is going to have the government guarantee all the warehouse receipts to the farmers, but they do not need any such guarantee, any man with a warehouse receipt for 1,000 bushels of grain can deposit it in the bank and get ail the money he wants. But we are going also to provide terminals all along the Georgian Bay, we are going to make free the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Halifax, or any other ports that anybody chooses to bring along. We will make them all free. Where have we got at the end of all this ? Two or three hundred million dollars dropped at the Quebec end, and he is spending on this scheme millions more than we have, and has not enlarged the spout, and what lias he got on his hands? We talk about the lean and the fat. He has no tenant, he has no lease, he has the whole government responsibility, he lias no guarantee that the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk Railway will take advantage of the road or will pay interest on the investment. It is an absolutely blind venture, and he has built a railway from Montreal to go through a lean section at $2,000,000, he has bought the Canada Atlantic Railway for $20,000,000, that is fat; he has bought or subsidized the road from Fort William to Winnipeg, $13,000,000; he has built from Edmonton to the coast, $24,600,000, and he has bought from Fort William to North Bay, $31,700,000, and from Sudbury to Scotia, $3,600,000, and he has got $95,000,000 spent there. $20,000,000- is fat. the Canada AtlanticRailway, and $75,000,000 is lean, and it is not only lean, it is tough. Those are the actual conditions of his scheme as compared with ours.
Now, which would any reasonable man endorse? I have not exaggerated the cost of a single foot of that railway, the actual values that I put there harmonize with those given by the Finance Minister, not the exaggerated figures of our friends on the other side.
If our scheme goes through, and it will go through, because there is no legitimate argument that can be used against us, we are-absolutely safe in building the railway now from Quebec to Winnipeg, the risks of which will be taken by the Grand Trunk Railway for fifty years, and when it lias been made valuable it will come back to us. We control the situation after that and we control it until then. We can prevent rival roads going through there for fifty years, and for fifty years afterwards, and this very railway that may now be lean and may be run at a loss, which may be compensated for by the profit on the more productive sections of the railway in the west, may fifty years from now be one of Canada's most productive assets, and if the whole thing is a failure and the Grand Trunk Railway fails, we have got the government road that some of these gentlemen want, with

.$30100,000 of Grand Trunk Railway money in it. But the most important point is : Can we afford to go into this scheme ? We must not look at it from the standpoint of the present, hut from the standpoint of fifty years from now. Hare we any reason to suppose we will not be in a position to meet the obligations maturing then? Fifty-four millions, 64 millions, 74 millions, what is an increase of $70,000,000 to the debt of Canada fifty years from now when we compare it with the marvellous growth that has taken place during the past few years. 1 do not need to go back far ? Are we justified in going back and judging from the past what the future is likely to be? I will not assume the role of a prophet, but I will quote a few facts, and each can apply them for himself.
Take British Columbia that we have heard extolled so enthusiastically to-day. Twenty years ago it had a population of 36,000, now it has a population of 17S,000, not distant from us, separated from us by uninhabited wildernesses, but by a magnificent country, traversed with railways in every direction.
Take Manitoba, when it entered confederation thirty years ago, with its 2,000 whites and 10,000 half-breeds, and compare it with the Manitoba of to-day, with a population of 350,000, producing last year 100,000,000 bushels of grain. Take Fort Garry, into which years ago 117 immigrants plodded their weary way from Port Arthur. Today that distance is spanned by two magnificent railway systems, and Fort Garry is almost unknown, except as an historic relic. In its stead we have the magnificent city of Winnipeg, writh its population of 60,000. The North-west territory, which 20 years ago was but the home of the buffalo and the wild Indian, last year produced 25,000,000 bushels of wheat and is populated by 300,000 people. We have these two provinces, with their cultivated area of 3,500,000 acres producing 125,000,000 bushels of wheat, and what will it be when the other 200,000,000 acres becomes cultivated by a hardy and thrifty peojile ?
But we need not go so far as that to look for progress. There is a later day when our progress became marked, a day that has impressed itself on the mind of every member in this House. Bet us take the last eight years only and let us see what progress has been made. Take our population, take our railway development, take the progress of the trade of our country just for eight years, and see what is the result. Eight years ago the import trade of Canada was $105,000,000; last year $224,000,000; the increase, $119,000,000 or 113 per cent. Eight years ago the exports of the products of Canada amounted to $109,000,000; last year to $214,000,000; an increase of $105,000,000 or 97 per cent. Eight years ago the total trade of Canada was $215,000,000; last year it was $439,000,000; an increase of $224,000,000 or 104 per cent. Eight years ago
our revenue was $36,000,000; last year it was $66,000,000; an increase of 90 per cent. Eight years the railway earnings were $50,000,000; last year they were $83,000,000; an increase of 60 per cent. Eight years ago exports, the products of the mines, amounted to $8,000,000; last year they amounted to $34,000,000; an increase of $26,000,000 or 325 per cent. Eight years ago our export of manufactures was $9,000,000; last year it was $20,000,000; an increase of $11,000,000 or 120 per cent. Eight years the bank assets were $316,000,000 ; last year they were $581,000,000; an increase of $255,000,000 or an increase of 80 per cent.
But the only thing that has not maintained a proportionate increase has been the national debt of the country, which^during this marked period of prosperity, after we have spent $55,000,000 on capital account and subsidjizjimg rajilwiaiys, has Only Increased from $258,000,000 to $265,000,000. And yet, with these facts before us and with such a future in store for us as we can easily foresee, are we afraid of spending $50,000,000 in fifty years from now ? What will happen when these 16,000,000 acres of good clay soil are being tilled in New Ontario; what will happen when the magnificent land In northern Quebec is opened up by that railway which shall be studded with towns and villages from one end to the other ? Will we be afraid of adding $50,000,000 to our national debt, which if we quietly cease subsidizing railways for four years we can pay off out of our surplus without adding a dollar to our indebtedness ? I am not afraid of this scheme. Looked at from every standpoint I see in it a scheme that will redound to the welfare of this country and to the glory of this government. There is nothing in it that does not commend itself to me. We have heard our friends opposite say that the clause in the agreement which diverts trade to our Canadian ports is not worth the paper it is written on. Well, it might not be if it were only a statute, but this road which is intended to divert the trade from the west through our own territory to our own ports; this road is actually shorter from Winnipeg to St. John than any other railway that runs over this continent, and there will be no reason for the Grand Trunk Railway not to carry out its bargain. It is bound by the statute to do it, it is bound commercially to do it, it is bound geographically to do it; the Grand Trunk Railway cannot help itself unless it is willing to develop American ports at its own loss, and to carry its freight a longer distance than on its own road to Quebec and thence to St. John.
I look forward with hope and I look forward with confidence to the accomplishment of this project propounded by the government. I look forward with more hope and more confidence to it than our friends on the other side entertain, for this scheme to

whicli their leader has pledged himself and which will never be endorsed by the people of Canada.


Mr. G. W. GANONG (Charlotte).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) has well followed the Minister of Finance, who seems to have been his mentor, for the hon. member quoted almost the identical figures which the Finance Minister gave to the House the other night, glorying that the country ought spend all the money we had made. The member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) is not at all afraid to expend money; he is cheerfully willing to add $125,000,000 to the debt of the country. There are a few things in his speech to which I would like to call attention, and one is tha# the hon. gentleman had better go home and sleep over the proposition with immediate returns of the leader of the opposition. If he does, he will learn that the proposition of the leader of the opposition is a live proposition, while the proposition of the government is a dead one and will be for years to come. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) talked about a crisis. I wonder if he knew what he was talking about. He did not explain where the crisis had come in between the 27th of May and the time this contract was signed. And notwithstanding that we have heard many things from hon. gentlemen opposite, not one indication has come from them as to why this contract was signed, or why this crisis had been so suddenly discovered. I also wash to call the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. gentleman threw in the face of Manitoba an insult that he should be ashamed of. He made a charge against the character of the Prime Minister of that province who is just fresh from the people with a majority that nearly swept every Liberal out of his seat. That is refutation enough of the hon. gentleman's statement as to the character of the Hon. Mr. Roblin. We heard considerable from the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) this afternoon, and do you know that I expected him to shed tears, because the pathos in his voice was somewhat alarming when he began to tell us of the sufferings of the people of the maritime provinces because they could not get to the west. The hon. gentleman (Mi-. Logan) and other members opposite, have quoted Sir Sandford Fleming whom they are very anxious to quote as an authority but whom they never quote when he tells them that this line will only lessen the distance eighty miles to the city of Montreal. If this road is ever built, I will guarantee that the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) will never travel over it, but that he will still travel over the Canadian Pacific Railway if he wants to get to Montreal.
He intimated that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways had insulted Senator Cox. There was but one mention made of Mr. Cox in the speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Mr. HEYD.
Railways, but scarcely an hon. gentleman on that side of the House has risen since without talking Cox. It is quite evident that Mr. Cox needs defence, or they would not mention his name. The hon. gentleman ended with a grand peroration in which be complimented Sir Charles Tupper as one of the greatest statesmen of Canada, as one to whom was due the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and then he drew himself up and said, I, as member for Cumberland, proposed this in the Railway Committee- behold a greater than Sir Charles Tupper. Then he had a suggestion or two with regard to the bonding privilege. The government apparently, has been fairly alarmed recently. They have been seven years without any fear ; but, according to the hon. member for Cumberland, we are liable to wake up to-mori-ow morning and find the bonding privilege done away with. The hon. gentleman quoted from the ' Scottish American.' I will not repeat the quotation ; but I would advise him to have the correspondent of the ' Scottish American ' come over and learn a little more of Canada. If he does, he will learn that we have two railways by which we can be independent of the United States, if they should cancel the bonding privilege to-morrow morning.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you are aware that for a number of years the question of improved transportation has been before this House and the country. It has been brought up here from time to time, and has been discussed by hon. members on both sides of the House-discussed more perhaps as it affected their particular constituencies Ilian from a broad national standpoint. It has been constantly brought to the attention of this government, perhaps with more persistency by the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) than by any other hon. gentleman. It has been the persistency of that hon. gentleman on this question as well as on the question of adequate protection that has probably forced the government to take even the action that they have taken at this late date. The press of the country has also been discussing the problem of transportation, from one point of view and another, until the government should have seen that it was necessary to take up the matter in some practical form. There has been not only this feeling in the country in regard to the transportation business, but there has been a very widespread feeling in regard to the way in which the people's money has been expended in years past without any adequate return in the form of a national scheme of transportation. We have expended money in a good many directions-some on harbours along the Georgian Bay and the great lakes, some in dredging the St. Lawrence, and in other ways trying to make that great waterway what it should be, and some for terminal facilities in other parts of the country. But these expenses have not been made with

any view to a general system of transportation. They have been made, some times wisely perhaps, but more frequently in the interest of some member who is a friend of the government, for the sake of saving his constituency to him at the next election. In addition to these expenditures, we have recently abolished the tolls on the canals. This in itself has been quite an additional burden on the tax-payers of the country, who, besides paying to keep the canals in proper condition, have now also to pay for their maintenance, which was very largely paid for in former times out of the tolls collected. So that the tax-payers have now practically to pay the amount of the tolls which have been abolished. But we have had no complaint from the people on account of this additional expenditure, because they believed that it was along the line that they wished to see adopted. They believed that it was along a line that would eventually lead to some national transportation scheme. I say that the present government, with the possible exception of the late Minister of Public Works, took very little interest in this matter. They seemed to lack the initiative in this, as they do in a great many other matters. They seemed simply to drift continually, without any prospect of change. But when this House was called to meet this year, we fancied that under the pressure of the late Minister of Public Works, there might possibly be some change ; for in the speech from the Throne, delivered on March 12, 1903, after reciting certain things that seemed to be necessary, they put these words into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
They had at last awakened to the fact that the country was looking to them to do something. Then, we had a return which perhaps supplemented this announcement. The first sounded something like business, and the second a little more so, and I am going to read a few extracts from this. By the way. I note that this report was made by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). It will be interesting to know where that hon. gentleman is. He has not put in an appearance since the present resolution has been before the House. It may be, as has been suggested, that he is on strike, or possibly he may be away loading his gun to shoot at the 'dictation of his leader. This report says :
The minister submits that it may be assumed that grain and other products will naturally seek their markets by the cheapest routes, and therefore the method of attaining the object desired should be to make the Canadian routes cheaper and more convenient than competing routes.
It will be very desirable for hon. gentlemen who are backing up the present scheme to demonstrate to this House and the country how this alt-rftil route can be made a cheaper route, and it will be especially desirable to make that appear to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton).
The Minister further states that the questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to be sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the ivorld.
Further on he says :
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can be reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made regarding the conditions of general shipment and the possibilities of improvement in the conditions surrounding these shipments.
Further on the hon. minister says :
In making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but if necessary new surveys should be made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by our competitors should be carefully studied and reported upon.
The minister apprehends that in these circumstances it devolves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, and it is thought that the most efficient method of conducting such an inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts who may be appointed and authorized under the provisions of chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
The right hon. gentleman then recommends three gentlemen, Sir William Van Horne, Mr. John Bertram and Mr. Harold Kennedy, as suitable to be appointed. He then proceeds to say :
I further recommend that such commission be authorized to employ such scientific and professional assistance as its members may decide.
You will readily see that It was not professional railway exploiters, but gentlemen who had some knowledge of the railway business that the government had then in view. I may say that after this policy was announced in the speech from the Throne, and repeated in this report, there seemed to be throughout the country a spirit of thanksgiving that the gpvernment had at last awakened to a sense of their duty, and I am confident that every hon. gentleman in this House will agree with me when I say that had the government carried out that . pledge to the people, made in these two do-

cuments, even had the route selected by the commission not satisfied particular localities, there is sufficient spirit of loyalty in this country to have induced the people as a whole to look on it with favour. I believe that the spirit of loyalty which has bound these different provinces and races into a great nation would have led every county and province to rise above any feeling of local jealousy and combine in giving every aid to the accomplishment of whatever proposal the commission would have suggested as the best solution of the transportation problem.
But, although in the speech from the Throne, the immediate appointment of this commission was promised, as the session progressed the government did not seem at all anxious to implement that promise. When asked repeatedly why they did not put it into effect, they gave all sorts of evasive reasons ; and finally, instead of the thorough and comprehensive inquiry which the! taxpayers were promised, we had this scheme-not a hybrid but a triple scheme-sprung upon us. They are dangling before the electorate' three baited hooks, with which they hope to catch the popular vote in the near future. The three baited hooks are hung out for the three divisions of this country-one to catch the west, another to catch Ontario and Quebec, and a third to catch the maritime provinces. If these lion, gentlemen were sincere, why did they not carry out their pledge to the people ? If they were not sincere, they acted a most disloyal part in putting that falsehood into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General ; and the hon. ministers who prepared the address and this report advising the immediate appointment of a commission should hide their heads with shame. What does this report say ? The situation was so grave, there was a crisis demanding the appointment of a commission. The questions to be considered- were what ? They were complicated, and Involved a thorough and comprehensive inquiry. By whom ? By railway exploiters ? Oh, no ; by competent and experienced specialists, to be assisted by scientific and professional experts. What does that mean? If it means anything, is it not an absolute acknowledgment by the government that they had not the ability to cope with the conditions, that they were in complete ignorance ? Nothing can be plainer than that acknowledgement. We know nothing, they say in fact, about railroading, and we ask that a commission be appointed which will know something. How comes it now that they, who were so helpless, who had to call upon a commission, to decide for them, suddenly became possessed of all the information necessary to launch a huge and expensive project on the country ? We have the evidence of the hon. member for North Norfolk OIr. Charlton), given before he was loaded up to fire at the order of the First Mr. GANONG.
Minister, that the government were not competent to deal with this question of transportation. He said :
With regard to this matter of transportation we are not in a condition to-day, even if we decided to improve the Ottawa valley route, to decide what are the proper conditions upon which to proceed. For this reason, I think the appointment of a commission to take the whole question into consideration is, in the highest degree, not only desirable but necessary.
That hon. gentleman knew his own ignorance, as the government has recognized theirs ; and at that time, the 26th of May last, he was willing to put the whole matter into the hands of a reputable and competent commission. Further on he says :
We cannot do it here in an expert and scientific manner. We must rely on the services of men of the character of those who are to be appointed on the commission.
No hurry then.
Let us wait until we have the decision of these men as to the proper course to pursue.
Why, if that hon. gentleman would say what was in his mind and conscience when he made that statement, he would oppose [DOT]this outrageous scheme that is being put before the country. Up to the time I have referred to, the government had absolutely conceded that they were unable to cope with the question. But, Sir, a magician came along-one whom they had seen perform aforetime ; one who could turn opportunity into ducats. And behold, this government, that knew absolutely nothing, took on at once the attributes of gods. They saw all things different. Yes, they could even discern election funds in sight. Such is the effect of coming into contact with a great magician. What did they do ? They settled the question and settled it right quickly and, in their opinion, settled it for all time. Was it by experienced experts with scientific and professional knowledge ? No, Sir, it was settled by financial and political exploiters-and the House knows it and the country recognizes it. too. Why, the report to which I have referred recommended the appointment of Sir Wm. Van Horne and other gentlemen as commissioners. It would be interesting to know whether the First Minister told these three gentlemen that they must be prepared to follow him. Possibly that is the reason they refused, being men of honour. And gentlemen who have sat in this House and spoken in favour of delay in this matter should be ashamed of themselves of being forced under the party whip to swallow what the First Minister says and shoot as he directs. There seems to be a very'wide difference between these hon. gentlemen who knew nothing about railroading on the 27th of May, and those who do know something about railroading. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) knew nothing about it. by their own report, but immediately this ' matter

came up they claim to know everything but the very gentlemen whom they endeavoured to get to serve on their commission, comes out and makes a statement, I refer to Sir William Van Horne. Let me read a little extract, so that the House and the country may compare the statement made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior with Sir Wm. Van Horne's statement, the statement of the man who probably is the best authority on railroading in America. Referring to the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, he said :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other all-Canadian route will never voluntarily carry a carload of wheat by the all-railway route around the great lakes to an eastern Canadian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it will never pay any road to do so.
You will remember the elaborate argument of the Minister of the Interior about the carriage of this grain to St. John for about 10 cents a bushel.
Nor will the transportation problems in the west ever he solved by the construction of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.
And further on he says :
The long haul around the great lakes was dreaded, because it was unprofitable, and the bulk of the grain brought by that route was carried during the winter months, and used by the millers of Ontario to keep their mills in operation during the cold season. There was altogether too much talk of an all-Canadian route by people who were entirely ignorant of the situation.
He knew whom he was talking about; he was talking about the government, men who, on the 27th of May, acknowledged that they knew nothing about this question. Now, Sir, that there was need, and is need yet, of a commission, can be shown in a hundred different ways, outside of the question of the government proclamation, outside of their report, which is still fresh in the minds of the people, and even outside of what the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said. I will give you just one authority, and I think it is one which will carry weight. I notice in ' The Northwestern Miller ' a statement that shows that we need this problem of transportation to be taken up in a logical way. That journal states that of the grain exported by way of New York last year, 21 per cent was Canadian grain ; of the grain exported from Boston last year 40 per cent was Canadian grain ; and of the grain exported from Portland last year no less than 65 per cent was Canadian grain. I do not think we need much more evidence of the necessity of a commission that will look carefully into this question, instead of a commission to sign a contract to make some of their political friends rich.
Now, will the scheme now proposed meet the requirements of the situation ? I do not believe it will do so in the least. I believe it will only increase the difficulties. The road west of Winnipeg will be completed at least from five to seven years before the eastern section. Assuming that it is possible to carry grain around the north shore of Lake Superior-which I am not prepared to admit as a matter of fact- at least this Grand Trunk Pacific, so-called, really the Grand Trunk, cannot do it. They will take grain from the heart of that country, probably double the amount that they have been able to handle in the past, and they virtually come here and say in so many words : Last year we carried 65 per cent of the grain exports from Portland out of your country, We carried 40 per cent of the grain exports by Boston out of your country, we carried 21 per cent of the grain exports by New York out of your country. Give us this road and we will more than double it. And they will do it. Are they going to carry that grain down and dump it at the head of the lakes ? Common sense tells us that they will not. It is plain that every bushel of grain they carry for the next six or seven years at least is bound to go by American channels. I notice that very few hon. gentlemen meet the argument of the hon. leader of the opposition that when the grain goes to the elevators of Port Arthur and Fort William it is out of the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific and must be routed as the Grand Trunk sayS. Then, of course, they will route it to the port where they have their elevators and other facilities, especially to Portland. There is another question as to this route. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, I believe made a very strong point when he said that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was simply another corporate name for the Grand Trunk. As that hon. gentleman suggested, let the agents of the Grand Trunk go through the west, and they can corall every bushel! of wheat and' ship it out as they please. They can utilize the Grand Trunk Pacific if they choose and the government have no redress against the Grand Trunk. But there is another phase of the question that any business man I care not who he is will understand as a shipper, more particularly those who have had business in country districts and smaller towns. You are virtually at the mercy of the agent of the railway at that station. There is no shipper but must want small favours from these local agents. The local agents have an object in getting grain shipped in a certain direction, and unless the shipper caters to that disposition of the local agent, he will be deprived of a good deal of accommodation that would be of benefit to him. I know it myself in my experience with two or three roads. There is not a man in the country who ships goods but knows that it is an object for him to keep in touch with the local agent on the railway. That is known to any gentleman who is in business. If these
93.35

gentlemen on the treasury benches do not know anything, a gentleman who is in business knows that it is a course that cannot be over-estimated so far as routing of grain is concerned.
Now, I will not call this, as I said, a hybrid proposition. I will use the words of the Minister of Finance, who, you will remember, described the road as a system of plunges, three plunges he said. Just read his speech and you will find what he said. There were three plunges, and they were all in the dark, they were plunges of hon. gentlemen who knew nothing about railway building, so what else could they be but plunges in the dark ? I think it is an admirable description of the whole scheme, a triple scheme. Well, I think, perhaps, plunge No. 1 was the western plunge. The financial and political experts of the Grand Trunk came to these gentlemen and, with a few passes, they were simply hypnotized. The result was that the scheme was completed, notwithstanding the report of May 27, that these gentlemen stated they knew nothing about railroading in any manner. Well. Mr. Hays, I imagine, in that interview told them:	Now you know nothing at
all yourselves, let us tell you what to do. But you want to remember a number of things. Remember that we have a figurehead, we have a friend of yours, Mr. Cox, at the head of this affair. Keep your eye on the figurehead, because you will need big figures in the impending elections if you run them on this scheme. Let us build the road for you, we will do the job in good shape. Of course, we cannot do it under our own name of the Grand Trunk, but we will give it to you under a new name, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we will keep all the powers within ourselves. Now, Sir, I think this was plunge No. 1, and perhaps the redheaded boy that was referred to some time since. But if it was, it was a redheaded boy to suit the electors of the western division, something for them to catch on in the form of a baited hook.
But the magicians had opened up new ideas. These gentlemen had begun to dream for themselves. Here was an adopted boy for the west. But now they began to want a boy of their own, and there came to the Minister of Justice, away from those Laur-entian hills, a cry, fairly a wail, for a child that they could call their own. What was the result ? These political and financial experts evolved a brilliant conception, a boy for the middle section. The birth was a little premature, it is true, but then that made no difference. It is true he was launched into a cold world, among a very unsympathetic electorate, as they will find when they come to face it, but they had a boy of their own-not one to be proud of but one promising election funds. Oh. no. They knew that the boy was too much like its progenitors to be any good, and so they said to the company : We will tell you what


Gilbert White Ganong: we will do, we will let you have him 50 years for his keep. Now that was plunge No. 2 by these gentlemen who know nothing of railway building, a baited hook for the electors of Ontario and Quebec.
But, Sir, there was more to follow. There was another gentleman to be reckoned with. If reports be true, he had kicked, he had often threatened to do as the ex-Minister of Railways did. He had to be satisfied or he would not shoot straight. He was the gentleman who had to furnish the fiioney to pay the bills to support these other two boys, the adopted one and the beloved of the Miniser of Justice. Well, Sir, he had not been idle. You will remember he told you that he had an actuary at work, and he told us that he could not only support this adopted child and the other boy that was born so rapidly to suit circumstances political, for the middle section, but he had money enough left to support another child, and why should he not have a child of his own ? Sir, this birth was a record breaker. The other took two or three weeks to conceive, but this was conceived over night, and launched upon the electors, and this was the dearly beloved boy of the Minister of Finance. This boy, of course, represents that section of the road from Quebec to a seaport, down to the city of Moncton, a little town 20 or 30 miles from the Bay of Fundy, on the banks of a muddy river. That is the location of the eastern terminus of this so-called great transcontinental national highway. This, Sir, constitutes plunge No. 3, the boy of the Minister of Finance. The hook baited to catch the electors of the maritime provinces.
Well, there are some things that are rather laughable, you know, because even when children are born there are relatives who do not like them. We had ample evidence of this in the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), when we were in the Railway Committee. After these two children were brought into the cold world, he got up and denounced them vociferously, he tried to scare them to death, demanding a government railway for that western country. Well, it is surprising that he should have taken this position. Why did he take it ? Why, these other two railways had had godfathers, Cox and Hays were the godfathers, guaranteeing good behaviour for both these other boys. The member for Westmoreland had a godfather, a godfather whom he had always obeyed, whom he had always followed, in the person of the exMinister of Railways. He was simply carrying out the same plan when he spoke in the Railway Committee and told us that ever since he entered the New Brunswick legislature he had been a supporter of the Minister of Railways, he was working at the dictation of the Minister of Railways all that time. Well, Sir, times have changed. The member for Westmoreland now dreams dreams and sees visions. He

sees himself travelling in a private palace car from Moncton through the wilds of New Brunswick, away up to the west through that plunge in the wilderness described so vividly by the Minister of Finance. Why do you find him in this position, broken away from bis godfather, broken away from the hon. gentleman who made him, broken away from the gentleman who even elected him to this House without any question? -and it was rather a strange thing indeed to see some lion, gentlemen in this House when the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was charging the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) with having thrown up his position virtually because he could not get an opportunity of getting the pickings-it was certainly rather surprising to see two hon. gentlemen in this House who had depended on the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals for their political existence for years-the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Hon. Mr. Costi-gan) and the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), pounding their desks with all their might, rejoicing that their godfather had gone astray and was leaving the ministry because he could not get his hands on some of the filthy lucre that was to be had. Such is the gratitude of hon. gentlemen after their godfather has kept them straight so long. Now we have the bon. member for Westmoreland. Any one who heard him the other day knows that he is very anxious not to kill these children, but to act as dry nurse for both of them, but if the hon. gentleman makes as many mistakes as he did in that last speech in this House, it is very far away from him. I am afraid he will have to take to some other business than that of nursing. If any one can judge of these children at all by the speeches that have been made in the House, if you can judge by the speeches of the hon. Minister of the Interior, by the hon. Minister of Finance, by the hon. member for North Norfolk, there is a difference in them. There is one beloved more than the other. The Benjamin is the eastern road, because they have to defend him the most. Two-thirds of the words of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House in defence of this scheme have been in defence of the eastern road from the city of Quebec to the county town of Moncton.
The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was the only hon. gentleman in the ministry who could claim any knowledge of railway business. Not one of them has had any practical experience, though he had had some experience during seven years, but he was the one member who refused to follow these waifs in any form whatever. He believed that they were the waifs of political and financial intriguers, and he believed the country would not support him in putting at the mercy of such gentlemen the whole of the resources of this country. Some of them were surprised that he should
oppose this with all his power. They were surprised that it was possible that a man could he conscientious enough and have a sufficiently high sense of honour and loyalty to his country to break away from his party, in other words, that he could not swallow whatever the First Minister had prepared for him, and without consultation, too.
Now, I do not propose to deal with the position of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He has made a defence of his own, and lie is amply able to defend himself, and if any hon. gentlemen think he is not, they will probably find out to their cost that he is. as a good many of us have in the past. There is another question in regard to the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that I would like to mention, and one that has not been disputed. That is that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was not only asked to support this scheme, but that he was asked to stultify himself, he was asked to take his seat in the House and allow the First Minister to apologize to the House and to the electors for the outrageous scheme, and to be quiet and submit to it. The matter was suggested to him in Council, he relieved the First Minister of it in his speech, but he did not relieve the other members of the Council, the other ministers, from having suggested it to him. It would be interesting to have some of them deny it, but we will not hear it from them. Now, after the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals so thoroughly exposed the rottenness of fhe scheme, they were paralyzed, they were very anxious indeed to rush the matter through the House. They thought they could depend on more than the majority that they have behind them. They had depended on Providence being kind to them and sending the usual hot weather in July and August, so that with three sittings a day and one on Saturday they would be able to force the matter through, but Providence has been more kind to the country than to the ministry, and the country will appreciate the fact that there has been ample time to discuss this question, and to allow the people to get at the enormity of this scheme before it is forced upon them, as the government no doubt intend to force it soon. It is not surprising that the ministers were paralyzed. Why should they not be? The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, the only man who knew anything about railroads, had made a defence and an incontrovertible defence. They confessed themselves that they knew nothing about it. How could they say anything ? They had not one particle of information. At that time they were self-confessed know-nothings, and what did they do? They had to adopt a makeshift, and they took the lightning change artist of the troupe, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and put him up to defend the question. They had no authenticated statements to

place before tbe House to offset the absolute facts that were produced by the hon. ex-M inis ter of Railways and Canals. They had merely statements made as the hon. member for North Norfolk made them, ' in my judgment ' and ' in my opinion,' without any backing of any character that could bear scrutiny before the electors of this country.
I would not like to misrepresent the hon. member for North Norfolk, I am sure, but we know what position he is in to-day by his speech, August 12, on these resolutions. We know he is supporting this scheme, yet it was only on the 26th of May that, after proving that Canadian roads could not compete with the roads of the United States, he made this remark, as will be. found on the pages of * Hansard ':
Now there are conditions which render it, in_ my opinion, impossible at present to compete' with that route.
-referring to a United States routes

It is useless to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all rail route to Quebec or to Halifax at prices such as those I quoted with regard to the American lines.
But that is not all of his speech on this resolution. If you will read his speech you find that he proves to his own satisfaction, and apparently to the satisfaction of the hon. gentlemen who cheered him, ' you can now- do the very thing that on the 26th of May he claimed was an utter impossibility.' He also said on the 26th of May :
Let us wait until we have a decision on this motion as to the proper course to pursue.
I think I have given ample reasons for suggesting that the hon. gentleman is at least liable to change his mind. I will now read some extracts from his later speech of August 12th, and you will see that the railway this hon. gentleman is going to build is a marvellous line. He said :
We have undertaken this construction none
too soon	The government I repeat
are not acting with undue haste. or proceeding with an ill-matured scheme. They are not entering upon an enterprise which they are not warranted in entering upon, but on the contrary they are entering upon a scheme which is called for and called for now	Consequently delay in providing these facilities is inadvisable, and I dismiss the assertion as to the action of the government in proceeding with this railway being premature, as totally without foundation and as betraying a lamentable ignorance of the conditions that exist and the probable wants of the near future.
He had forgotten that it was the ministers themselves who had displayed this lamentable ignorance, and had acknowledged it before the House and before the country.
I certainly do commend some of the suggestions of the Minister of Finance to the public, because if there was anything ever put forward in school-boy fashion, it was that speech of the Minister of Finance. He has demonstrated to this country that it is Mr. GANONG.	.
time he went to school again. If there is anything in the world in which the Minister of Finance is proficient, It is in graceful curves, and he could give pointers to the famous skater Rubenstein in that direction. I sometimes think the Minister of Finance must he rubber-cushioned, or he would strike a corner once in awhile and injure himself. It makes no difference whether he is defending protection to the great iron industry under the name of a bounty, assisting it, he says ; or whether he is figuring out of his own creation a defence of this outrageous railway scheme, he is equally at home. There must be some essentials in a transcontinental railway scheme before the public will support it. One essential is that you must have for its terminals on the Pacific and the Atlantic safe harbours of large capacity and of easy access, for, unless the harbours possess these characteristics, you cannot use them because of high rates' of insurance. Any gentleman who has shipped goods will recognize that one great trouble with us in the past has been that our Canadian trade has been hampered on account of high insurance rates. Now, what harbours have we in connection with this scheme ? I am willing to accept the statement that in Port Simpson we have a harbour callable of all the development that is necessary for a great transcontinental line. But what have we as a terminal in the east ? We have a little town on the banks of the Petit-codiac river ; a harbour in which a steamboat of any size was never seen, and never will be seen ; a harbour to which no steam vessel could' possibly go, and if she could, the high rate of insurance would prevent trade. Then it is necessary to have a good route of large capacity. It is useless to build a railroad over which you cannot haul any goods. On that point the member for North Norfolk said tnis, and if he has changed his mind since I apologize to him. The hon. gentleman said :
If you ask a railroad man anything about the capacity of a road and whether its capacity for business is measured by the length of the line he will tell you that it is not ; hut that it is measured by the length of the line and by the steepness of the grades.
It is not only necessary to have a good road, but you want a route of good capacity.
I am willing to admit that the Pine River pass is perhaps the best pass in the Rockies.
I am willing to admit also that possibly from the Pine River pass to Winnipeg it is a very good route, but after you leave Winnipeg coming east it is the merest conjecture ; we are absolutely in the dark. However, there is a little information which can be obtained. If you look at the Moose river, through which discharges Lake Abitibi, you will see seven large branches, every one of which has got to be crossed by this railway at right angles. You can Imagine something of the grades and curves on a road that will have to cross these rivers. There

lias been some talk about the Canadian Pacific Railway as it goes around Lake Superior, but you will find that its grades present nothing like the difficulties that there will be in getting down' to the valley of a liver and crawling up on the other side, and [DOT]doing that seven times in 100 miles, as in this instance and these are but a few of the -many rivers to cross. I have it on the authority of a good railway man that instead of this road being 1,400 miles long, that when you count in the curves it will have rto take, it will be not less than 1,800 miles.
I come further east now to that other section of the road, which is the pet of the Minister of Finance. The highest elevation :in the much maligned Intercolonial Railway .is 744 feet above sea-level. On the Ternis-couta road the highest elevation is 1,350 feet, and over this summit the Temiscouata engine can only haul seven cars at a time. Did any of you gentlemen examine the profile of the new road in the Railway Committee room ? If you did, you will find that its highest elevation is 1,424 feet. This road, which the member for North Norfolk says Is to be as good as any railroad on the com tinent. will have to climb an elevation of 1,424 feet, and yet the Temiscouata Railway is condemned as being impracticable, where the grade is only 1,350 feet, and the highest grade on the Intercolonial Railway is only 744, or about half the highest grade on the new line. I think a two thousand ton load over that elevation, as suggested by the hon. member for North Norfolk, will be a pretty steep haul for any engine. If they get a 200 ton load over it, they will be very fortunate. From Edmundston on the west side of the river, the country is irregular. The railway will have to cross rivers at right angles. It will have to go virtually to the level of "the St. John river, and then over heights of land 1,200 feet high ; and I need not tell railway experts-even the ministry, who knows nothing about it, should be able to judge-what that means. In New Brunswick it will have to cross several streams, large branches of the river St. John, at right angles. It will have to cross the Green river, the Quisibis. the Seegras, the Grand, the Little and the Salmon-ail at right angles and come down the west side of the river St. John. The hon. gentlemen opposite who talk about this route do not know anything about it. It was rather laughable to hear the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) say that he had travelled all over it when he had charge of the public works of New Brunswick. If he did, it was as a fisherman and hunter, and not in any other capacity, because there are no roads through it. Then we come to quite an obstruction, the Tobique river and the Tobique highlands. Did the men who built the Canadian Pacific Railway take it over the the Tobique highlands ? No. Before they reached there they crossed the river St.
John and went up the west side of that river and crossed it again at Grand Falls, rather man attempt to cross that mountainous district. Some of the professional and scientific experts slide over these elevations as if they were toboggan slides, and there will be a good many elevations in that country that will answer better for toboggan slides than for 2,000 ton trains. In saying this I am not decrying the province of New Brunswick. I have as high an opinion of that province as any other, man. I was born in it, and I am a true Canadian too. But I speak as I do because when we are spending the people's money, I want the people to get value for it. I do not believe spending millions of dollars just to satisfy a few supporters of the government. The Minister of Finance tells the truth-sometimes at any rate ; and he told us the truth when he said this was not a commercial road, but a political road. We knew that before. If it were a commercial road, tlie government would take it down the west side of the river St. John to the town of St. Andrews. Every survey shows that that is the proper route to take if you want a transcontinental line by the shortest route from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is fifty miles shorter than any other route you can take, and will bring the railway terminus seventy or eighty miles nearer to the Atlantic ocean. The town of St. Andrews has a magnificent harbour, one that cannot be beaten in the world : and the harbour of Letang is as good and equally accessible. But these are not the considerations which the hon. gentlemen had in mind in fixing the route of this railway. The consideration was, how many men can we bring back here as a result of this expenditure ? Why, Sir, if a commission had been appointed, there is no question where the route would have gone. It might have been a little discouragement to the hon. member for Westmoreland, but there is no doubt that it would have been better for those hon. gentlemen who wished to ship grain from the west. They should be ready to advocate the shortest practicable route, and the only transcontinental route that can be built with any hope of success.
I came down the river as far as Tobique, and I want to go a little further. From Tobique to Chipman the hon. member for Westmoreland says the route will be all thoroughly timbered land. If the hon. gentleman was ever through that country- I do not believe he has ever been, evtsnj for fishing or hunting-he knows that in that section the line will be lost among what are called the Bald Mountains, so called' becausle they are absolutely nude of trees ; and yet the hon. gentleman stands up in this House and says that he has been through that country and knows it. Well, there is only one thing that can equal that statement, and that is thte hon. gentleman's sympathy with the poor people of the Gas-

pereau Valley. He will be writing a second ' Evangeline ' to rival Longfellow's description of the incidents of Gaspereau Valley, Nova Scotia. If there were any timber there, any one who looks at a proper map of New Brunswick knows that this railway will n'ever carry a stick of it. New Brunswick is too well watered, and everybody knows that water routes will beat rail routes every time, especially when the rivters down which the timber is driven are as short as they are in New Brunswick. So that the talk of this railway opening up that country to settlement is all bosh, because it is not a country adapted for settlement. There is a section of country in New Brunswick that might Die properly opened up, but this railway is not going through that section ; the Minister of Finance would probably not have been satisfied with the route. The hon. member for Westmoreland playied a very important part in this House not long since. He was trying to rival the great comedian, Joseph Jefferson. After there had been considerable talk in regard to tlfie two routes, and he had received considerable punching from my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler), he awoke from his dream. He said he had been dreaming about it, and that instead of the road going direct to Moncton, he would take it to Chipman, so as to accommodate St. John ; but he did not suggest that until my hon. friend from King's had pounded him, and pounded him well, in regard to the matter. Well, the proposition to take the line to Chipman may be a good one. Chipman does not need this railway, but there are some that may need it. The friends of the hon. member for Westmoreland have some interest in a railway that is there, and the presumption is that that railway will be loaded on to the Grand Trunk Pacific or the government railroad, 'lhat is the special interest which the hon. member for Westmoreland probably has in carrying the road on to Chipman. He needs the support in New Brunswick, of an hon. gentleman who, I understand1, is most interested in that particular line of railway and the company which is to extend it to the city of Fredericton. He gives us as a reason for this route that the magnificent mineral resources throughout that portion of New Brunswick, which will be developed by means of the construction of this line. Well, the poor fellows who have expended their money in exploring these mineral resources are still out of pocket. I hope that in the future some mineral resources may be found that will pay for their development. Among other things, he spoke of the magnificent coal area that will be developed, but he must know that we have magnificent water routes in that province, and that every chaldron of coal is carried down the river St. John from the head of Grand lake. From Chipman to Moncton is no doubt a fair country through which Mr. GANONG.
to build a railway, but it has no suitable port for ocean steamers and no suitable harbour for the terminus of a transcontinental railway.
We have heard -some question of competing lines, but it is evident that hon. gentlemen who speak of the advantages of competition are unable to see the difference between the building of competing lines by different corporations and tbe building by the government of a line to compete with one it already owns. What object can there be in building a line to compete with one which has cost the country some $70,000,000 V It is this competition by a new government road against the Intercolonial Railway to which we object.
The Minister of the Interior made an argument regarding the shipment of grain, which I need not combat. If I were living in Manitoba or the Territories, I would have his speech sent to every elector in those sections, to show on what little foundation the Minister of the Interior can base a wide conclusion. He takes an exceptional circumstance in connection with the Canada Atlantic Railway, he takes the lowest rate ever charged by that railway and a lower rate than can possibly be charged by any railway company, according to railway experts, and on that rate-made in very exceptional circumstances-he bases his contention that it will be possible to carry grain along the north shore of Lake Superior. If an hon. gentleman occupying the position of a Minister of the Crown cannot bring any better argument to support a policy which will involve an expenditure of millions of dollars, he ought not attempt to defend it at all. And the best condemnation of that policy would be to send abroad his speech without any attempt to controvert it. That argument would be sufficient to convince any elector that the hon. gentleman was talking of something he knew nothing about, and which, on the 27th of May last he admitted that he knew nothing about. I am not prepared to say that no grain will be carried along that route. It may be possible that some little grain may be carried over it, but only under very exceptional circumstances. On the Atlantic seaboard, we sometimes find that a vessel will bring out salt as ballast, but because a vessel, in default of being able to get paying cargo, will carry salt as ballast, that cannot be taken as any basis on which to calculate freight rates. The same thing occurs in the matter of Portland cement. Western cement has few sales down in the maritime provinces, because the Portland cement is brought there in the ships as ballast. Still if we were to follow the ex-ampie of the Minister of the Interior, we would figure out that a vessel, which loads cement or salt as ballast, could carry other cargo at the same rate.
As to the cost of this railway, we have an estimate made by the Finance Minister

and also one made by tlie ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, but the difference between tbe two is tliat tbe one was made by a gentleman who was simply figuring on something he had heard about, whereas the other was made by a gentleman who was figuring on something he knows about. We had the government admitting on the 27th of May, in this report of the committee of the Privy Council, that they knew nothing and would have to appoint railway experts to obtain information. On the 27tli of May their pin feathers of information had not started, but to-day they are birds of plumage; ready to be plucked ; and at the expense of the country, they will be plucked. When challenged across the floor of the House, there was not a minister who could come within ten million dollars of the cost of this proposed railway. The reason is evident. Men who know nothing can tell nothing. Had they appointed a commission, they would have been able to find out something. It is not against this railway that we are particularly objecting, but it is against the attempt to commit this country to something concerning which the government know nothing and concerning [DOT] which they have admitted they know nothing.
The Minister of Finance gave out the text, which every one of his followers, even the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) has taken up. He started out with the statement that we have a surplus. When he made that statement, I felt sorry for the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). Only a few years ago that hon. gentleman declared it was a crime, a most outrageous thing, to have a surplus; and to hear his desk mate announce that he had a surplus of over $13,000,000 must have been gaul and vinegar to the hon. gentleman. I expected to see the hair of his head rise in horror; but even when the hon. Minister of Finance repeated we have a surplus and we shall have a greater surplus, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce remained apparently undisturbed in his lethargy. I expected to see him rise in his indignation and heap maledictions on his desk mate


An hon. MEMBER.: If he did he would lose his job.


Gilbert White Ganong: Of course he would. He was told by the First Minister that he must shoot in a certain direction or he would lose the office which he now fills and which he firmly said never should have been created. But this surplus evidently worried the Minister of Finance a good deal, and he concluded that one way to get rid of it was to give some of it away. He started in by saying that they could build all this road from Winnipeg to the west-that is they could adopt this redheaded boy, and it would only take $2,334,575 of the surplus. Then he looked around, he saw that they could have their own two boys representing 293
the road from Winnipeg to Quebec and Quebec to Moncton, and that they both could be supported by the country for $11,066,882. He found out about that time-it was a rather peculiar thing-that these boys should have been twins. And he had to afford relief to his political friends even at the expense of the poor taxpayer. He said : It will cost us $324,246 to make these Siamese Twins by taking over the Quebec bridge wrich belongs to our friends. And still we shall have a surplus, because the total will be only $13,725,703.


An hon. MEMBER.: Two cents.


Gilbert White Ganong: We should not forget that. How did the hon. gentleman get his figures ? He has an actuary. I never had an actuary in my line. If I had had one in my business thirty years ago, I suppose I could have been as rich as some of the Coxes and others. Why should we go any further ? Why not give the gentleman $13,725,703-and two cents-and let them build the road, own it and run it ? It would save the country great expense and trouble of managing it. I would suggest that we pay them even double that amount to build and own and run the line, and the country would be the gainer by it as compared with this contract. There is something wonderful about this actuarial business. It is fine to learn through an actuary that it will cost us just $13,725,703 -and two cents-to carry out this contract. We cannot be too glad that the Minister of Finance has an actuary. ' The Grand Trunk Pacific ought to have an actuary too; it is a good thing to have. Let me snow how this actuarial business works out. I have a clipping here from ' Hansard ' of the 13th of May last. The Minister of Finance answered a question put by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot). The hon. member for Bellechasse has changed his opinion somewhat. He had a little scheme of his own which has been taken out of his hands and now he is ready to shoot as the Prime Minister directs. The Minister of Finance said :
At the time of confederation the Grand Trunk Railway owed the province of Canada, according to the accounts of that province, $25,607,393.53, and this amount was taken by the Dominion as an asset, and still remains in the balance sheet of the Dominion at that amount, no payment having been made by the railway in respect thereof.
' Still remains ' as an asset. And every man knows that it is of no value. Why not wipe it out ? Suppose the Minister of Finance were to put his actuary on this problem, let us see iiow it would work out. On the 1st July, 1867, this amount stood at $25,607,393.53. ' Assume that this stood at interest of 5 per cent up to 1877, at 41 per cent from 1877 to 1887 ; at 4 per cent from 1887 to 1897 ; and at 3J per cent from 1897 to the present time and that the interest



was compounded half yearly, these being about the terms on which the government borrowed the money, how much do you suppose this would amount to ? It would amount to about $118,000,000. Why, this oppulent concern, this wonderfully strong company that is coming here to do us so much good, stands indebted to this country $118,000,000-every dollar of it owed as justly as a dollar was ever owed by one man to another. Suppose that the government had owed the Grand Trunk $25,607,393.53 on 1st July, 1867, what would have been the result to-day ? Why, the actuary would have got in his work and he would have come and said :	You owe us $118,-
000,000. And we are accepting the guarantee of this concern that already owes us this vast amount. This shows the business capacity of this business government, this combination of all the talents from the different provinces. Why, the Minister of Finance can build railways-it is no trouble to him, if his friends will pay this bill. He can build, according to his own figuring, eight transcontinental railways, and still have a surplus, if he will only collect what the Grand Trunk owes us. This indebtedness of theirs may be one of the reasons why they do not wish to acquire any more property, lest Canadians might know enough to ask them to pay their debts. I expect to see a boom in the actuarial business after this. Remember, this reasoning is not mine ; it is the reasoning of the Minister of Finance, the hon. gentleman who controls the moneys of this country, as he has done for the last six or seven years. It is the reasoning of a full-fledged, competent, experienced, scientific and pro-fesional railway expert-since the contract was signed, but one who did not know a thing about it until that time. This argument, first voiced b'y the Minister of Finance, has been repeated, as I said, parrot-fashion, by the rest of the gentlemen on his side who have spoken. But we have one gentleman who did even better than that. He does not propose to be outclassed even by the Minister of Finance. I refer to the hon. gentleman from King's (Mr. Hughes) who worked it all out that it would only cost us twenty cents a head to build this road from the mud-banks of the Petitcodiac to Port Simpson. Will hon. gentlemen on that side, who are presumed to have at least a modicum of common sense, accept such a statement as that ? Will they have the assurance to go before an intelligent electorate and attempt to cram such stuff down their throats ? I hope they will, for they will get their just deserts if they do. Since the Minister of Finance has blossomed out in the actuarial business I cannot but think of the change in him. ' A few years ago, you know, he favoured the factory of the cross-roads and the backwoods. Those were the days of his simplicity. Now, he finds


Gilbert White Ganong: uo difficulty In granting a protective bounty to assist, as he says, a great iron industry that will cover half a township. So have his ideas grown. These are hopeful signs. I hope, should Providence treat this country so unkind as to allow the hon. gentleman to continue in his present position, that he will blossom out in a new direction. If he will get in his actuarial work and give us a statement of the losses to labour and capital by his own mistakes on tariff questions, he will show where money has been lost with which we might have built two transcontinental railroads had we so desired. It is to be sincerely hoped that the government will recede from these plunges that they have made. They have followed the Conservatives in a good many good things. I hope they will continue to follow the policy of the Conservative party on the question of transportation as laid down by the leader of the opposition. If they do, they will show some signs of a higher patriotism than that which fills the pockets of political friends.
Now, Sir, it cannot be said that we on this side of the House are against a judicious scheme of improving transportation facilities. All we have demanded in any instance is proper consideration of any scheme, instead of a plunge in the dark as mentioned by the Minister of Finance. We believe that the plan proposed by the leader of the opposition is a truly national one. It conserves the public interest in that it saves the great expenditure which is proposed by this other scheme without proper investigation. It saves the people's money, it gives the people a control of transportation rates that they can never hope to obtain under the scheme proposed by the government. It gives the great west what it requires more economically and more efficiently than the policy proposed by the government, namely, a scheme by which western grain may be carried through Canadian channels, ' and that cannot be done for five or seven years according to their scheme. The policy of the leader of the opposition makes it possible to carry this produce over a government railway to the harbours of eastern Canada. It becomes a patriotic scheme, as it will be a people's road, built by the people's money, and controlled by the people rather than a contribution of $125,000,000 to build up a distinctly foreign corporation over which the government can have no possible control.	*
On motion of Mr. Marcil (Bonaventlire) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Muloek), House adjourned at 12.05., Friday.


Friday, August 21. 1903.