1903-09-02

Mr. BLAIN asked :: When was the last lot of blankets, web cloth and half hose purchased ; and what were the quantities and prices, and from whom were they purchased ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: With regard to this question, may I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) what department he thinks this applies to- the Militia Department ?


Richard Blain: I wish to have the information from all three departments.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What three departments ?


Richard Blain: Militia, Mounted Police and Indian Affairs. I may say that I put a new question on the Paper to take the place of this.
Question dropped.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision for a subsidy, not exceeding $133,333.33 a year, for a steamship service between Canada and France.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on the resolution :
That it is expedient, in connection with the Bill now before this House, respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway, to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the said Bill, entered into on the 28th of July, 1903, between the government and certain persons on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by parliament at the present session thereof, and to authorize the government to do whatever is necessary to give full effect to the said Bill and' agreement.-The Prime Minister.
Hr. MONK.: I think that the best way to get through the subject-matter of this resolution would be to read over the agreement and take it clause by clause. This would concentrate criticism or inquiry, and would facilitate the work of the committee. I think this would be the most expeditious way.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that we should' take this stage and have the discussion upon the second reading and on the committee stage of the Bill. If agreeable to my hon. friend, we will take this motion simply formally to-day, report the resolution and set down the Bill for discussion to-morrow, say, and have the discussion in Committee of the Whole on the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Personally, I have no great objection to that course. But I do not know how far my colleagues on this side of the House are prepared for it. My right hon. friend announced that the business of today would be taking up in examining this agreement, and we have prepared in consequence. If we are going to take up other business, what is it to be ? Perhaps, having prepared in accordance with the Prime Minister's announcement, we may not be ready for the course which he would now propose.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend is prepared to go on with this, we will go on with it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Very well.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think I can meet the suggestion of my hon. friend. Let the resolution be put; then move the second reading of the Bill, and have the discussion upon It.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There will be no limit in that case, I suppose, to the latitude granted to members of the committee to discuss the Bill generally, not only specially the clauses of the Bill ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The whole thing would come up.
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding,!. In committee.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: Resolution reported ; read the first and second times ; agreed to, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on Bill 235.
The PRIME MINISTER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 235) to provide for the construction of a national transcontinental railway.
Motion agreed to ; and Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
The said agreement bearing date the 29th day of July, 1903, a copy of which forms the schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed, and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty and the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and His Majesty and the said Company are hereby authorized and empowered to do whatever is necessary in order to give full effect to the said agreement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Upon this clause I think it would be advantageous for the committee to get some information of a precise nature as to where the line is going to pass. Of course, after the very lengthy discussion that has taken place in regard to the Bill itself and the agreement as a whole, there are certain facts which cannot now be controverted. The line has not been explored, the line has not been localized, it has not been possible to do that, I suppose. It is utterly impossible for us who are called upon to vote upon this important agreement, to say within a certain number of miles where that line is going to pass. We must take the conditions as they are. But what seems to me very important is that, before passing upon this agreement, we should know at any rate within 100 miles, where the line is going to pass. Take the western section coming eastward from the Rocky mountains to Winnipeg. There are two lines there already, one built and the other partially built. Now the object of this portion of the line-and I w-ill confine my remarks for the purpose of order and simplicity to that part only at present-is both to open up the fertile part of the North-west, and, without in any way injuring the existing or projected lines, to invade, if I may use that expression, the most fertile and available part of the wheat producing belt in the North-west. Our interest in- that part of the line consists in the guarantee ; the whole guarantee upon the line from Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains amounts to a very considerable sum, and it seems to me of the utmost importance that we should know -about where that portion of the line is going to pass, under what latitude, how that projected line in which we are so vitally interested financially and otherwise, is going to be situated in reference to the other lines that I have mentioned. We should be able to judge of the position of that line in order to appreciate its usefulness in that part of the country, and in order to do that, when we approach the consideration of the east-

era section, winch the government intends to build, we should be able to compare the situation of the line built by the Grand Trunk Pacific with the line built by the government, and so to form a clear judgment of the advantage of the whole line as a transcontinental route, as a great freight route from west to east. We will then be better able, later on, to consider this whole measure and to appreciate its value in the east as a colonization line. But just at present it seems to me that it is due to the committee that the government should be able, proceeding from west to east, from the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains to Winnipeg, to tell us about where the line is going to be situated. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether it is possible for that line to pass north of the Canadian Northern. I have heard the opinion expressed that it was intended that the line should pass between the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway west of Winnipeg. I think it is due to the committee that the government should tell us approximately at least-It is very unfortunate that the line has not been localized, and we are not in a position to say precisely where it is going to pass-I think we should know approximately at least how it is going to lie in that great western region, and that we should have information upon that point before we take up the important question of the locality of the line north of Lake Superior, its situation in the province of Ontario and its situation in the province of Quebec. I think we should get information just now upon that point.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot but believe that my hon. friend, on reflection, will be forced to admit that the request which he now makes is one which cannot be granted under any circumstances whatever. The Act of incorporation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has been settled by parliament, and the line has been located by Act of parliament as nearly as it is possible to do so before the actual location has been fixed on the ground. Every day we grant charters to companies for building railways, and the only thing that parliament can do under such circumstances is simply to fix certain points between where there should be communication. But it goes without saying, and everybody knows, that between those points the actual surveys may change, and vary what has been at first blush considered to be the probable route. Conditions may be found on the ground which may force the company to deviate from the course at first intended, and may force it to take another one. In the present case I would call the attention of the committee to the precedent of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the contract was made with the Canadian Pacigo through Canada to the Pacific ocean, there was not even any point mentioned on the Pacific ocean which was to be the terminus. The terminus might have been at Port Moody, as it was contemplated at one time, it might have been at Burrard, as it was afterwards determined, it might have been at Bute Inlet, it might have been at Port Simpson, or any other place. In this contract we have, as approximately as we could, located the very point which must fie the terminus. We have also located, as far as that section is concerned, the line the railway must take in saying that it must proceed westward from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, and to touch at certain points on the way, amongst others at Edmonton, then to go as directly as possible to Port Simpson. But it is impossible to say of that whole length that the line must go here or there. My hon. friend says that he has heard rumours to the effect that the line was to pass between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. I must say that I have been surprised at the credulity which our hon. friends opposite have attached to rumours. This is not the only rumour which my hon. friend hears, there are a good many others, and there is no more foundation in the one than in the other.	.
There is no more foundation for the statement that it is the intention of the government to locate the line between the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the line of the Canadian Northern Railway than there is to say that it is their intention that the line shall pass north of the Canadian Northern Railway. For my part I should imagine, looking at the information I have at present on the subject, that it might be more convenient that this line should go north and thus extend as far as possible the area of cultivable lands ; because we know there is ample room for settlement in that northern country, and therefore room for more railway accommodation. But at this present juncture it would not be possible for the government to decide. And I say positively that the government has not come, and cannot come to any conclusion on that subject until we have completed the surveys which must be a preliminary condition to the construction of this road. The first thing which the government must do, and the first thing which the Grand Trunk Railway must do, is to have actual professional surveys made in order to ascertain the best location for the line. I understand that there are engineers who make a specialty of locating lines of railway, men who understand the topography of a given country, and wlio are able to find in that country the best topographical route for the location of a railway. That is a professional acquirement and this professional skill has to be exercised, the surveys have to take place, before it will be possible to say exactly
I would refic Railway syndicate, the only direction which was given them was that they should * where the line will be located.

mind the House of the condition which was enjoined upon this company when it was granted a charter, a condition by which the government will have to abide, and which cannot be discarded. A stipulation was made by this House when the charter was granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway that wherever it locates its line, whether on the south or on the north of the existing railways, it must place it, except at terminal points, at a distance of at least thirty miles from any existing railways or from any railways that have been located. Beyond this I do not think it is possible to give any further information to the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What the right hon. Premier has said only goes to confirm what has been stated more than once during this discussion, that we really have no information and that the mountains of information that my right hon. friend boasted he could place at tlie disposal of this House amount to nothing whatever. I venture to say this, that although I am not as conversant with the situation in the west as with that in the east, if my right hon. friend thinks we are going to pass over the eastern section of the line in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec without having more precise information than that, he will find that his lack of information will militate against expeditiousness in the discussion of this measure. Now what does my right hon. friend say ? His argument, as I understand it, was this :	A private Bill has
been passed authorizing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to construct a line between a certain point and another point; that Bill has been debated in the House and it is not our business to go any further into the question of the location of the line, although this is the first opportunity we, as representatives of the people, have had of asking where the line is going to pass. We are now considering a grant to a great transcontinental road, and our position is quite different from the position which we occupied when this company applied to us for incorporation, and for power to construct this railway. The position is entirely altered, and it becomes our duty now, when we are voting money to a line which purports to be the best possible transcontinental line, to find out where that line is going to pass, so that the argument of my right hon. friend does not seem to apply at all. My right hon. friend says that a similar lack of information existed at the time the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed. The circumstances then were entirely different. We were then building the first line into an unknown country, and at that time, speaking generally, one might say it mattered very little where the line was going to pass so long as it crossed the prairies and connected British Columbia with the rest of the Dominion. Now we have two lines in existence, and the question is:	Where are we going to locate the


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: third ? I do not see what ground our right hon. friend has for saying that we are very credulous when we accept the statement that has been made that this line would pass between the two present existing lines, the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. A glance at a map is sufficient to show that it is very difficult for this line to pass anywhere else. I believe myself, with the limited knowledge I have at my disposal, with the mole hills of information I can command at the present moment, that the proper location for this line would be for it to pass north of the Canadian Northern Railway in order that there should not be too many lines in that district. Is my right hon. friend able to say whether it passes between the two lines or north of the Canadian Northern Railway ? The promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway represented to the Railway Committee, if I remember rightly, that the preliminary surveys of that portion had been made ; we know that last summer the officers of the company were engaged in work in that region. Surely under these circumstances the government should be able to tell us approximately where the line is going to pass. The Canadian Northern Railway is, I believe, intended to go from Winnipeg to Grandview ; and from Grandview to Saskatoon, and thence to Edmonton. The Canadian Pacific Railway starting from Brandon passes through Regina, Medicine Hat and Macleod. There is a vast region lying between these two lines, and I ask if it is intended that this line should pass through that region. Or is it intended that the road should pass directly north in the Saskatchewan district. Surely we are entitled to know that. Is this line going to pass through Dunvegan V These are pertinent questions, and my hon. friends from the west who are more familiar with the country may not require more precise information, but it seems to me that when an hon. member rises in this committee on an important measure of this kind, and seeks to ascertain within three or four hundred miles where a line, greatly aided by the government, is going to pass, a line Intended both to colonize this large district and to serve as a quick transportation route and he is told by the government that they are not able to say within 300 or 400 or 500 miles where that line is going to pass, that the question even seems irrelevant, and that it is after this committee has voted very substantial aid to that part of the transcontinental road, long after all the experts and officials have passed over the ground and determined where the line is going to be located that this information is to be given us-I say, without exaggeration, that it seems to me to be absolutely making fun of the committee. I admit that as things are now it is no use crying over spilt milk ; or going over the ground that has already been traversed time and again. We are

treating with a company whose line is not precisely located, but it seems to me that my right hon. friend ought to be able to give us some information. My right hon. friend will remember with what exuberant language he spoke of the mission which this line was intended to accomplish, viewing it simply from a colonization point of view. How could my right hou. friend rise to those heights, without being able to say approximately the principal points, say within five or six hundred miles apart, which this line was intended to cover. In the province of Quebec they call this the Indian line, because like the Indian of old, to which my right hon. friend has referred, it passes far away from civilization, and that description seems to be verified by the statement of the Prime Minister. Of course, if he says it is impossible to give the committee any information on that point, I will not insist any further.


Mr. McCREARY.: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is a little inconsistent in his remarks this morning. The cry of most of the speakers on the other side has been that they wanted to give immediate relief to the settlers of the west.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


William Forsythe McCreary: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) now says that the government must locate this line north of the Canadian Northern Railway, where there are practically no settlers at the present time. I take the ground that I took before the committee, that we should place no restrictions on any railway company going through the west. In this Bill at present we have the restriction that this road is to run south of Lake Abitibi and north of Lake Nepigon, and if you look at the map you will find that this limits it within a distance of 50 or 100 miles through the northern part of Ontario. Then, when they start out from that to Winnipeg, I do not suppose that they are going to run around in circles. After you get to Winnipeg the Bill says that the line shall run from there to Edmonton, and I submit that it ought to be left to the company and to the locating engineers as to which is the most available route.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think this Bill says that the line is to run from Winnipeg to Edmonton.


William Forsythe McCreary: It is so stated in their charter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is another Bill altogether.


William Forsythe McCreary: I suppose they will have to stick to their charter or get it amended. I pointed out in the committee, that this 30 miles restriction would not work out in practice, and I am of that mind yet. Let me ask, whoever heard of a company taking a contract and signing it before they sent out their engineers ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Forsythe McCreary: Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh too soon. I mean to say that the proper course for the company to pursue would be to make some definite arrangement and then go to the expense of sending out their engineers. Look at what the Canadian Pacific Railway are doing to-day. Although the Canadian Pacific Railway has been in operation for twenty years they are making more changes on their line this year than they have in the last twenty years. They are changing the line from Winnipeg to Rat Portage and from Moosejaw to Swift Current and they are changing it at several places in the mountains. The Canadian Northern Railway now runs from Grandview to Saskatoon, but that is not the route that they at first intended to take. It was to have been built to the Pas on the Saskatchewan on its Hudson bay route, and it was intended to divert the line from a point on that line near the Pas Mission on the Saskatchewan west, via Prince Albert to Edmonton, which was to be its main line. The route to Grandview was never intended at first. There was merely a branch line built from Dauphin to Grandview, and they found by the extension of that branch line through that cut formed by the Duck mountains and the Riding mountains they would get a better main line than via Prince Albert. Ultimately they abandoned the Prince Albert line as the main line, and extended their Grandview branch, but they are nearly 150 miles apart at some points. It is the same way with this line which we are now discussing. I think the Grand Trunk Pacific should be allowed to locate their line where they can find the most traffic, wherever there is the best country, wherever they can get the most direct line, and wherever they can find the best roadbed. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) tells me that this is called the Indian line in the province of Quebec, but that would more appropriately apply to the Canadian Pacific Railway, because the Canadian Pacific Railway follows the old Indian trails almost directly across the prairies and through the mountains. In fact, their whole engineering feats in the mountains exactly follow up the old Cariboo trail located by the Indian. The switch backs that you see as laid out by the engineers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, can be found duplicated in certain places on the old Cariboo trail, notably at a point three or four miles south of the Elcho station on the Kootenay line. It was said by some gentlemen on the other side, that this new road should not be allowed to go near the existing lines of railway. Well, as I understand it. the people of the west are crying out for competing railways, so that they may have competition in freight rates. It is all very well to say that you are going to give us a trunk line, but should we not have competition in freight and passenger rates the same as you have in the east. If I go down to Montreal I can see

out of the car window another train running alongside of me for quite a distance. Are you in the east any better than we in the west, that you should have railways one mile apart, and that we should he compelled to have them 50 miles apart ?


Mr. MACLEAN.: Do you always get competition when the railways are alongside V


William Forsythe McCreary: My experience is that we do. The Canadian Northern Railway gives us competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway as far as their line goes. While I criticised some time ago the action of Premier Roblin in aiding that road to parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway so closely, I see now that he was quite right in one way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes, I have not said a word against him. I have not in this House or out of this House either said anything against that gentleman. He has subsidized this line to the extent of $10,000 or $15,000 a mile and it runs in some places only a mile apart from the Canadian Pacific Railway. The farmers have got the benefit of that, and the rate was cut at one time from 14 cents to 12 cents per hundred pounds and I believe it was cut yesterday to 10 cents per hundred pounds, which means a very material benefit to a large number of farmers in the west. I submit that the Grand Trunk Pacific should be allowed to build its main line or branches so as'to give the same competition to the other farmers of the west who wish to raise grain. It will be a great boon to them. I see no reason why the settlers in the west should not have just the same competition in passenger and freight rates as you have between Ottawa and Montreal or between Ottawa and Toronto.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: The remarks just made by the hon. member (Mr. McCreary) seem to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as to the necessity of information being given to this committee before we can intelligently discuss this Bill. Here is an hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) who has listened to the discussion I presume for the last couple of weeks, who comes from the part of the country particularly interested and who, more than any other man in the House, would be supposed to hare obtained access to these mountains of information, and yet, he actually does'nt know this morning what Bill is before the House. He seemed to have a dream that it was the old Grand Trunk Pacific private Bill, and he did not even know that it is not provided in that Bill that the road should run from Winnipeg to Edmonton. In this present Bill he will find that the location is very open as regards the western division,' and that it merely says that it shall go through the provinces of Manitoba, and British Columbia, and the North-west Territories. The Mr. McCREARY.
government must see that if we are to be asked to vote intelligently on this question us to the aid we should give, that question will depend to a certain extent on the location of the road. If the road is to be of national benefit there must be localities in which it could be more properly constructed than within 30 or 31 miles of the Canadian Northern or of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Surely in a country hundreds of miles in width, nobody would feel more than the right hon. gentleman the folly of insisting that the company should be pinned down to keep within a certain distance of other roads. We have no desire to refuse legitimate assistance to this railway, but before we can say what aid should be given we should know at least within 100 miles of where this road is to be located. The same remark applies, with perhaps even more force, to the eastern end, for we do not even know whether it is to pass to the north or the south of the height of land. It would be unreasonable if we tried to pin the government down to ten miles or even twenty miles, but surely the government ought to be able to say within 100 miles of where this road is to be located.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Touching the observation of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that this is called the Indian line, because it is to go as far as possible from civilization, let me remind him that the last words of criticism we heard from hon. gentlemen opposite yesterday were, that the great fault of the scheme was that the line would not go further away from civilization and that the proper line would go very much farther north and away from civilization than any line that is possible under this contract.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: When I addressed the House on the project which we are now discussing, I expressed the desire that the right hon. gentleman would give us some'information on the very point which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has called attention to. We have already two lines of railway in the west. That was not the case when the Canadian Pacific Railway was initiated. We are face to face with an altogether new condition of affairs. The hon. Minister of the Interior stated to the House that the project that we are invited to approve would give an additional value of $3 or $4 an acre to 20,000,000 acres of land. That was one of his main points. We should be in a position to judge whether that statement was accurate or not. We have subsidized these two lines of railway. The right hon. gentleman has invited us not to give too much faith to rumours. I share bis views on that point. But there are rumours and rumours. There is a rumour to the effect that there might perhaps be some arrangement made by which one of the existing lines would be acquired ;

and there is a rumour that that line may he paralleled to a certain extent, in which case in the minds of certain people, there would be no hope for it to live. Everybody speaks of these rumours, and it is only fair, I think, that we should have some statement. But leaving that state of the case aside, let me remind the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, and parliament, of what the hon. Minister of the Interior stated, and stated truly. tie reminded us that to the south of the Canadian frontier there are American railways looking for the trade of the west, and he told us that unless we took great care our Canadian trade might go in that direction. The hon. Minister of the Interior invited us to give our attention to that point. Kindly look at the map of the Great Northern Railway, the Chicago, Burlington and Quin-cey Railway and the Northern Pacific Railway, which are just at our doors. Under these circumstances, is it not necessary for Us to insist that we should know where the location of the future line is to be? I invite my right hon. friend and his colleagues to look at this map, which I lay on the Table. These systems of American railways are competing against us; and are looking for the future trade. Let me place on the Table another map, which is of great importance, and which shows how necessary it is that we should be careful in such matters. The Canadian Northern Railway was located in the way we know. It runs partly through the state of Minnesota. Well', on the map of Mr. Hill's system of American railways, our rivals, there is shown a prospective line from the American frontier at Rainy lake to the American system of railways. It seems to me that we cannot be indifferent in a matter of this kind. I invite the attention of parliament, especially the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, to the great importance of telling the country, approximately, if they can, where the line that we ai-e subsidizing is going to be located.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), I think it was, spoke of the location of the Canadian Northern line. The original intention, as everybody knows, was to carry the Canadian Northern line to the Pas Mission. It was insisted upon by the Manitoba government that it should run there, and the assistance given to it was on that distinct condition. As the road developed, it transpired that it would be very advisable that that road should open up the territories towards Prince Albert, and the hon. member is correct in saying that the intention was that it should proceed on to Edmonton. It was found that, located as it was, it would be more or less of a winding road- that it would have to deviate either to the north or south from Prince Albert, and come into Edmonton either from a north-easterly or a south-easterly direction. Therefore, it was decided to have the main line located
as it is now; and it runs in almost an air line from Dauphin, south of the Duck mountains, across Saskatchewan, and on to Edmonton. There is no doubt that the people of this country would like to see this new line located so as to open up new territories to the north, instead of going through a country which, when the roads now under construction are completed, will be already well served. I am satisfied that the country would hesitate about giving a guarantee of bonds to two railways running over practically the same area and for the very same purpose. The Canadian Northern has a guarantee of $13,000 a mile, and if this road is to run over the same country, it is not necessary to guarantee its bonds. I remember distinctly that it was stated in this House that the Canadian Northern must give running rights to other roads. Why not let the Grand Trunk, then, use the Canadian Northern line as far as Edmonton, and as far as the government guarantee extends, until the needs of the country requires another transcontinental line beyond that point ? My hon. friend from St. Mary's division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), has pointed out another very important feature of til's Bill. From the outset, I have never believed, and I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who is cognizant of the facts of thS case believes for one second, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Company have any other object in view than to run via St. Paul and Minneapolis. Why should they ? The Grand Trunk Railway is in Chicago to-day, and it is in Minneapolis to-day. It may as well be understood that the Grand Trunk Railway Company controls and practically owns the Wisconsin Central Railway, which has its branches in Milwaukee and to Manitowoc on the west side of Lake Michigan, forty or fifty miles further north. The Grand Trunk Railway on the eastern side of Lake Michigan has a railway into Grand Rapids and to another port a few miles further north, the old Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee system : and as the main line runs on to Duluth, all they have to do, once this Bill passes the committee, in order to have the best possible transcontinental line from the Atlantic to the Pacific that can possibly be selected, is to make an arrangement with J. J. Hill's company, and I am assured that they already have an understanding. Mr. Hill has two lines very nearly up to the Canadian border, along the Red river valley. These two lines connect with the wheat belt of the west and have branches into Duluth. He has a third line from the north into Duluth. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway do not wish to build, all they have to do is to make running arrangements with Mr. Hill, which he would gladly give, because he has these two other lines up the Red river valley within a stone's throw of each other.

and they run into Duluth and Minneapolis. The railway time from Toronto via Chicago to-day, according to the limited trains, compared with the Canadian Pacific Railway limited trains to Winnipeg, is forty-three minutes in favour of the Chicago route, so that you will readily understand that there are no great difficulties standing in the way of a route to the Canadian prairies via Chicago. And why should they not have it ? In giving the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway absolute ownership of the route west of Winnipeg, the government are carrying out the very thing they say they want to avoid. They makeitalmostobligatory on the Grand Trunk Railway to connect the Chicago and Minneapolis end with the Winnipeg end. Why should the Grand Trunk Railway carry coal thousands of miles away up in the northern region when they have their own route via Chicago ? Any other railway company, any independent company, controlled by agreement with the government, would be better than the Grand Trunk Railway to control this transcontinental road. I cannot see how any one can think that a man like Mr. Hays would haul his freight over a government road, in which he has no interest, when all he wants is a connecting link of 471 miles to bring his line to Minneapolis and a short branch therefrom to Duluth. 'The Grand Trunk Railway have the Central Vermont running down to New London and New York. It directly connects with Boston and Portland and Quebec and Montreal on the east. They go from Toronto through a fertile freight-producing country all the way via Chicago. They cross Michigan into Chicago and then draw from St. Louis and tap all the western states. They go into Minneapolis and have a branch to Milwaukee. Then they go to Winnipeg and onward through a broad fertile belt, then they pass through the Peace river pass on to the Pacific ocean. The Santa Fee road *is upwards of 3,500 miles from New York via Chicago to San Francisco. Via the Union Pacific it is 150 or 200 miles shorter, and we are told that a couple of hundred miles in a long haul amounts to nothing. From New York to Port Simpson by this new line via Chicago is only about one hundred miles more. The height at Sherman, on the Union Pacific is 8,200 feet. The height of the Peace river pass, through which the Grand Trunk Railway will go, is 2,800 feet. Look at the climb from hour to hour, gradually up the hill, and will any one say that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will not gain 400 miles in time ? I have great faith in the patriotism of the Prime Minister and his desire to build up Canada, and I would impress upon him this aspect of the case, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has not the slightest intention of using one foot of the line to the east of Winnipeg.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are now considering clause 2 of the Bill.
M. HUGHES (Victoria).


Samuel Hughes: No, we are considering the preamble.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend thinks that the discussion on the resolution is not ended. The hon. member for St. Mary's division has drawn the attention of the government to the railway conditions existing in connection with Manitoba and the North-west, and he points out the danger ahead of us. In that respect he merely echoes what the Minister of the Interior said regarding trade being driven down towards the south. It *was not necessary for my hon. friend to draw attention to that, because it was to meet the conditions he indicated that this Bill has been introduced. Let us go back to what is really important. If we are ever going to dispose of the matter we ought to realize that certain features of this contract were discussed in the general discussion and we have now come to the consideration of the different clauses of the Bill and the agreement. And if we would restrict ourselves to those clauses we might come to a conclusion some time before Christmas.


Samuel Hughes: Clause two is virtually the preamble.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But in the fact it is not.


Mr. SPROULE.: Clause two allows us to refer to any portion of the contract.


Samuel Hughes: The minister is entirely in error. In form clause two is not the preamble, but in fact it is.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The question raised by the acting leader of the opposition was with respect to the location. That particular part of the agreement which has reference to the location is now the subject of the discussion. What is the condition with respect to that ? A contract has been entered into with certain gentlemen who profess to act for a corporation which is to receive a charter. This section of the contract is conditioned upon their receiving a charter. Therefore, the charter is to be read the agreement in order to understand the position. Parliament is to give a charter to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railwmy authorizing it to deal with the matter now in hand, to construct a line west from a point at or near the city of Quebec to a point at or near either Gravenhurst or North Bay, in the province of Ontario, thence in a north-westerly and westerly direction passing to the north of Lake Nepi-gon, to a point in or near the city of Winnipeg; thence westerly or north-westerly, passing through or near Battleford, Edmonton and Dunvegan, or by any such other feasible route as is hereafter located, but following in a general direction that herein indicated, and by way of either the Peace river pass or the Pine river pass, or such other pass in the Rocky mountains as is found most convenient and practicable, to

Port Simpson or Bute Inlet. That is what parliament has authorized this company to do. Now, if it were not for the agreement which has been entered into between the government and this company, the company would become subject to the general terms of the Railway Act. By the general terms of the Railway Act, these terminal points having been laid down in the general charter, they would be obliged to submit their plans and specifications for approval to the Minister of Railways. And, of course, they could not build a mile of railway until these plans and specifications had been approved. In addition to the general law applicable to this matter, we have this particular contract, a contract which is the law of the parties, and which controls the government as well as this railway company. By the contract we provide that the road has to be built from Moncton in the east to the waters of the Pacific ocean in the west, to be located all the way on Canadian territory. With respect to the western end, it is provided, in paragraph 2 of the contract:
The Western Division shall comprise the portion of the said railway between the said city of Winnipeg, or some point on the said Eastern Division, and the Pacific Ocean, extending westerly through the province of Manitoba, the North-west Territories and the province of British Columbia.
So, so far as the contract is concerned, the only limitation is that the road is to run from Winnipeg to some point in British Columbia, in the general direction indicated there. What is the position with respect to the government, and what is the responsibility of the government ? It is that the line cannot be located to the extent of one acre unless with the approval of the government ; and, in addition, if any aid is to be given to this company, the location of the line must be subject to the approval of the government, as my hon. friend will see if he refers to clause 9, which provides :
The Western Division shall be constructed by and at the cost of the company according to plans and specifications to be approved by the government.
The line is to be located subject to the approval of the government, and the location plans have to be approved by the government. If their charter authorizes them to construct westerly and north-westerly, touching at the points indicated by the charter, it is open to the government to say that the company shall not touch these points if they are to get aid from the government, because the condition is that the government is absolute master of the location, once the line leaves Winnipeg. The only points are Winnipeg on the east and a point on the Pacific ocean in the west. In the intervening distance, the government is master of the situation.


Mr. INGRAM.: Are we to understand by that that the government cannot possibly be in a position to go elsewhere than the
location of this line apart from the terminal points ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The terminal points are fixed by the contract, but in the intervening districts the government is absolute master of the situation. The company must come to the government and submit plans for construction, must submit the location of the line. Then the government have the right to say, 'We accept that location,' or else-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We would like to have something to say.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) please answer my question ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, well, I am discussing this matter-I am not going to be worried by outside issues which have nothing to do with the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I may be wrong, but that is the position I am going to take. The government will be bound, so far as the terminals are concerned. But, so far as the intervening part of the route is concerned, the government has to approve of the plans and specifications, and if the location of the line does not meet with their approval they are under no obligation-


Mr. COCHRANE.: And parliament must go it blind, and leave it all to the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With respect to the location, that is the position we must take-we must assume that responsibility. >So far as the country is concerned, they must trust us, as has invariably been the case 'in connection with all subsidized roads. In every case where parliament has subsidized a road, the terminals are fixed, but the location for the intervening distance is made subject to the approval of the government. I think I speak for the government, when I say that, between the two points named, the government must be responsible for the location of the line.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me there is a great deal more in this Bill than the hon. gentleman has spoken of. This Bill is to provide for the construction of a national transcontinental railway. But it is also an agreement between the Crown and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for the construction of that transcontinental road. For the purpose of enabling the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to build this road they have a charter, which is before us and which has practically passed this House. And in that charter they have laid down what they regard as a route which has been assented to by the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Oh, yes. What does it say in the charter-
1042'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will permit me to make my point clear-if this company would undertake to build this road under that charter without aid from the government, then, I say, they have a perfect right, under the charter, to locate their roads in accordance with the terms of the charter. But if they come and ask us for aid, they are bound by the terms of the contract under which they stipulate, to receive that aid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that. But will the minister deny that the government, in assenting to this charter, have assented to the principle of this Bill ? And what is the principle of this Bill, as contained in the clause that lays down the location ? It provides that, before the construction of the prairie section, that is from Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains, the location shall be subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council. But what follows ? A declaration that regard must be had to the principle that the location of the line shall, as far as practicable, be so made that such main line of railway shall be constructed at a distance generally not less than thirty miles from other main lines of railway, fs not that exactly what we contend ? Will the government tell us whether they are going to carry out that section ? They have assented to it by allowing this Bill to pass. Yet to-day the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that this is entirely wrong, and should not be in the Bill. Is the government taking that position to-day ? If they are, they are in conflict with the interest of the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. The great fight upon this Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was upon the -question whether we would charter another road, in view of the probability that the government would merely subsidize that line to run in close proximity to the other lines, and so take away trade from these roads while not serving the localities in which new lines are needed. The government, through their friends, induced the committee to pass this Bill with this provision, and now they will not tell us whether they will honour it or not. It is true that we have the safeguard that the company cannot construct a foot of the line until the government approve the location. But when the government is considering whether they will or will not approve of it, will they keep in memory the principle inserted in the Bill and assented to by the Railway Committee, assented to afterwards by' this House, and practically by parliament ? Will they remember it and have regard to it ? We want to be satisfied on that point, because it would go a long way towards satisfying us that there would not be a gross injustice done, not only to the lines already constructed. but to the country at large, and particularly this portion of the west where railway facilities are not now provided, but Mr. SPROULE.
where the need of them is being every day more keenly felt.
Now, I want to say another word with regard to our right to deal with this matter. The hon. gentleman said that we must read the charter into the agreement. In my opinion, it is just the reverse-we must read the agreement into the charter. The charter gives power to do certain things. Clause 2 lias regard to an agreement made With the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Because that clause refers to the agreement bearing date the 27tli day of July, we have a right to consider every clause of that agreement, we are not confined to any one. Now, what does clause 4 of the agreement say :
The said western division is further, for convenient reference, considered as being divided into two sections, one extending from the eastern terminus thereof westerly to the eastern limit of the Rocky mountains.
Practically following the same line as the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. But the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill says it shall not go nearer than thirty miles to either of the railways in existence to-day. But this does not say that. Then :
-herein designated as the prairie section.
What refers to the eastern section? The government constructs the eastern section and the Grand Trunk Pacific constructs the western section. With regard to the eastern section it shall be commenced, when?
So soon as the government has made surveys and plans and determined upon the location thereof.
The government cannot commence the construction of the eastern section until this is done. But on the western section the work of locating and constructing shall be ' commenced forthwith.' Then if the western section is to be commenced forthwith, the eastern section has to be held back for two or three years until these surveys are made and completed. Are we cot then within our rights and is it not our duty to ask the government to satisfy us what shall be the approximate location of the western section which they are to commence forthwith? Is it to be a competing line in close proximity to the lines that are already operating in that country and that are giving fair satisfaction to the people, or is it to open up other sections where the people have no railway facilities ? Are they to have regard to the provision which was put in and assented to by the Minister of Railways and Canals on behalf of the government. that the line must keep at least 30 miles away from existing lines, or are they to allow that line to be constructed within ten mil s. it may be, of existing lines ? We have a right to get that information in view of the fact that the work of locating and constructing the western section shall commence forthwith. Before we ratify that agreement, I say that this

committee has a right to be informed as to whether the government are going to alter that provision which was put in the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill obliging them to keep at least 30 miles from the other roads, or whether they may build the line alongside of the other roads and become, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says, their competitor. Now, we do not understand that it was to be their competitor : we understood that the Grand Trunk Pacific was to keep at least 30 miles from the other roads, in order not to interfere with the trade being done by the other roads and thereby depreciate their value. I say we require the information on this point. With regard to the eastern section, we do not require the information so urgently because that is not to be commenced until after the surveys are made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Can any part be commenced until after it is surveyed ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It says the work of locating and constructing shall be commenced forthwith.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does that mean before surveys ?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It means that you must commence to locate and construct forthwith. What does 'forthwith' mean?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What [DOT] does 'locating' mean?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is meant by ' forthwith ' in this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It means immediately after location. First, you must have location, ' forthwith ' means after the location.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The meaning of the word [DOT] forthwith ' is immediate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. after location.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Within reasonable time. They shall commence to locate and construct both forthwith. In view of the fact that they must commence constructing forthwith, we want to know where that line will be placed. We have a right to know whether they will keep 30 miles away from the two existing lines that are now serving a section of that country, or whether they may build alongside of them.


William Findlay Maclean: Let me give the committee a reason why we should have the fullest information in regard to the location of the line. If there is any reason for the action of the government it lies in their desire to solve the greit transportation problem which is before the country. In connection with that problem, we have here an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and in connection with that agreement
there is a large subvention for the purpose of solving the transportation problem, and of affording some relief in that direction, called for by the people of the North-west. Now, to-day the confession is made by the government that there is no exact location of the line. Here is a proposition before the House to build a railway, and there are no surveys made. Now, does it not follow, or is it not likely to follow, that when surveys are made in the country specified, a suitable route may not be found ? And yet we are called upon to give a large subvention out of the people's money when it may turn out that we have not solved the transportation problem at all. Therefore, the first thing we must have, in order to solve this problem from a national point of view, is the possession of accurate information based on an examination of the country. Now, can the government go to the country and say that they have here a proposition that is based on an examination of the transportation problem that is based upon examination of the country' and ask the people to endorse that proposition ? They have not got any such information, they have not got a proposition upon which they can go to the country and make any such claim. Therefore,
I say' we ought to have this .information, and the government should have delayed action until such time as they had that information, until such time as they were prepared to go to the country and say : Here at least is a solution of the transportation problem as it affects Canada. But what we have is the Canadian Pacific Railway, constructed largely at the expense of the people and now owned by a private corporation; we next have the Canadian Northern system, a transcontinental system, built largely by the people and owned by a private corporation; and now we are to have a third system .in the same direction, largely-subsidized by the people and given over to a private corporation. Yet, in the face of these three great transcontinental roads, we have, not yet obtained a solution of the transportation problem. That is the question the people will vote upon. I say that parliament is not. in a position to-day to endorse the scheme that is before us. What we are willing to endorse is a scheme that will settle the transportation problem. Can the Prime Minister tell the country to-day that the construction of his road, which is given such a large subvention, is a solution of til1 transportation problem? The chances are that it will not be a solution, because the solution of that problem means the transportation of almost all the wheat and other produce of the North-west to the east, and the movement of the products of Ihe east into the west. To do that you require the best possible line of railway, and that railway must be worked in conjunction with our water-ways. All this requires a study of the question, it requires the fullest in-

formation, not only after such investigation and information can a scheme be formulated that can be called a solution of the question.


William Forsythe McCreary: Why does not the hon. gentleman allow the company to put their engineers out and find that route instead of confining the company to certain points that they must follow.


William Findlay Maclean: My answer is that before we vote the people's money on a scheme that is impracticable or a scheme that has not been worked out we should wait until we have the information necessary to solve the problem.


The PRIME MINISTER.: How shall we obtain that information unless we vote the people's money ?


William Findlay Maclean: It is the duty of the government to collect that information. It is the duty of the government to carry out their programme in appointing a commission to investigate the transportation problem. The solution of that problem is to immediately make the Grand Trunk Railway a competitor with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the west. That is what the people of this country want, that is what I would like to see, and I think the Grand Trunk Railway is the proper instrument with which to solve that problem. But you ought to make the Grand Trunk Railway begin at Port Arthur and the government in their negotiations with these different corporations and syndicates should have compelled a consolidation between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. That should have been the beginning of the settlement and I cannot for the life of me understand why that has not been done. Negotiations in that direction have, I understand, been carried on but that solution has not been effected. The government might have attained the same object by some arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Something should have been done, and done immediately, to put the Grand Trunk Railway into Winnipeg from Port Arthur.


William Forsythe McCreary: That shows the ignorance of the hon. gentleman with regard-


William Findlay Maclean: Thank you.


William Forsythe McCreary: With regard to the line between Port Arthur and Winnipeg. The Canadian Pacific Railway line has to run south from Savanne station to reach Port Arthur and then to get up to Nepigon at the north end of Lake Superior the line has to go 08 miles due north. I claim that the Grand Trunk Pacific do not have to go to Port Arthur at all, they can run north through a fairly well settled country on the Winnipeg river and then run due' east in the direction of Lake Nepigon. From there they can run a line down to Nepigon Mr. MACLEAN.
harbour and have a shorter route than the Canadian Pacific Railway line and have a better harbour.


William Findlay Maclean: I have listened to the hon. gentleman and now I will come back to my subject. In 1896, 1897 and 1898, when the construction of the Canadian Northern Railway-or, as it was then called, the Rainy River Railway-was before this House, I urged upon the government, above all things, if they subsidized that road to use it as an instrument for the introduction of the Grand Trunk Pacific into the Canadian North-west. The House laughed at me largely at that time. I saw then that the real solution of the transportation problem as far as Canada is concerned wras the introduction of the Grand Trunk Railway into the west and at that time I urged the government to make provision that the Rainy river route should be exclusively in Canadian territory and to obtain such control over that line that when the Grand Trunk was ready to enter into the west they, could go over it. I entered into communication with Mr. Hays at the time and pointed out to him what I thought would be a good line of policy for lifs company to adopt in connection with this plan. He grasped the point but said that at that time other things were pressing on his attention. I urged these points in the House and outside of the House, and to-day the government are bringing forward a scheme . which is in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway, but which is not the best possible scheme, which is in fact almost the worst possible scheme, that could be made in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway. Again I come back to this that the Grand Trunk Railway should get into the west from Port Arthur. From Port Arthur it could connect with its Ontario system by boat and finally it could build around the lake if that should be found necessary. But the object to be attained then, as it is now, was to get the Grand Trunk Railway into the west, to make it an immediale competitor with the Oanadiau Pacific Railway, and, having done .that, yon might bring on the transcontinental line and the extension of the Grand Trunk Railway to the west and through the country there as proposed. But that extension would have to be based on information and that information is not forthcoming. Whei-e the government proposal will fail is that we have here the third subsidized proposition, a proposition carried out with great public grants given to a private corporation and yet a proposition which does not solve the transportation problem and we will see a fourth proposition in a very short time to really solve it. We have been told that the road is a solution of the problem and yet the government cannot state where the road is to run. Topography is everything in railroad questions, surveys are every-

thing. There is no way of hauling grain cheaply unless you avoid nearly all grades and nearly all curves and to avoid these you must know where your road is to run. Where does this road that we are subsidizing run ? How are we to get the best transcontinental gradients and the greatest freedom from curves ? That information is not contained in this Bill or in any statement made by any of the ministers in this House and we are told to-day that we are not to get it, that we are to trust to the ministers to decide the route. We have taken their word on trust for a long time and they have not solved the problem which they have been at now from 1896 until this day. They are asking the people of Canada to vote an immense sum of money and j'et there is no solution of the problem. It is only another road-and of course it may be a good thing to have this Indian trail, this Indian road as it has been called. The line from Winnipeg to Quebec may be a good thing for the city of Quebec, as it will give that city a back door entrance, so to speak, across the continent. That can be justified on its merits perhaps and it may be a good thing to build a back country road iu the province of Ontario, but you cau do all that and do it with the people's money and yet be able to come back and say : We want more of the people's money for a transcontinental road. Now you have not solved the problem ; you have not given the people the necessary information and yet the pretension is made in this House and in the country that we are solving the transportation problem. It cannot be solved in the way the government are proposing and we cannot solve it until we have the information. When is that information to be forthcoming ? Why this haste ? I can understand an argument for haste if something was to be done ; if you were going to give some kind of immediate relief to the west then I could justify haste, but there is no reason given in this case, in fact there is every reason why we, should delay, why we should wait for the information. Let the government send 'out their own corps of engineers, let them apppoint their commission to study this question, to look the country over and see where the best road to the North-west can be located. In the meantime put the Grand Trunk Railway in there by means of some arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway. Put the Canadian Northern Railway all in Canadian territory and make the Grand Trunk Railway an active competitor of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is what the people of the west would like to see : the Grand Trunk Railway in their country. I am afraid the government are putting the Grand Trunk Railway in there, putting it in possession of the country, giving it money sufficient to build a western, road and then that the Grand Trunk Railway will do the unpat-327
riotic thing and run its traffic via Chicago. How can you prevent them doing so ? Not one dollar of the people's money, in view of the experience we have had in the past, should be given to a private corporation, because you cannot compel a private corporation to be patriotic. The doctrine has been laid down here that you cannot enforce patriotism on them, but with a road owned by the people you can secure the carrying of Canadian produce by Canadian routes. The Grand Trunk Railway will be no more patriotic in this case than it has been in the past, although it has been largely subsidized by the people of this country, although it has got millions and millions of the people's money just as the Canadian Pacific Railway has. Yet time after time both of these corporations have told the people of this country that patriotism was not an essential part of their agreement with the country. They have built up American ports, they will run over American roads, they will use American coal and American labour to transport the products of the Canadian west through their own country and you cannot prevent this being done under an agreement of this kind. Therefore I say that we are not even getting for our money a patriotic railroad ; we are getting a road that will send its products around by Chicago.


William Forsythe McCreary: All-rail.


William Findlay Maclean: No, it will not be all red ; there will be some stars and stripes in it. We ought to have information in regard to this scheme. We ought to have some more information with regard to the company with which we are actually dealing. Certain stories have been circulated and statements have been made by the exMinister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) as to Senator Cox. I am speaking very carefully and taking the full responsibility for what I say, but, where is Senator Cox in this agreement, and if he is in it, why is not that assurance made ? There are to be large flotations in connection with this scheme, and I direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to that. Some papers friendly to the government have made the statement, that Senator Cox is to have a great deal to do with the flotation of the bonds in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


An hon. MEMBER.: What paper.


William Findlay Maclean: The Toronto ' Star ' made that statement the other night. The public of this country want some information, not only in connection with the location of the line, but they would like to have information also as to the relation of Senator Cox to this company, if he has relation to it. We want an assurance with regard to the location of the line, and we want some explanation of the statements made in regard to the Senator's connection



with this road. His name was in the original Bill, but it has disappeared. There were negotiations carried on in London between the Prime Minister and somebody else.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.
. Mr. MACLEAN. At least the statement was made that negotiations were carried on, and the inference was that these negotiations were with a very prominent member of the Senate, and the name of a very prominent member of the Senate was in one of the documents, but it has since disappeared.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I wish to emphasize that these rumours which the hon. gentleman refers to are absolutely without the slightest foundation in any shape or form.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, it is something to have an assurance of that kind, but why was the Senator's name withdrawn from the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has not been withdrawn. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) does not know anything about what is going on. You have been away.


William Findlay Maclean: Here is a Bill introduced and the first name in it is Senator Cox, and when you make your contract that name is dropped.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You are talking about the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I am talking about the whole transaction from first to last. Why does the Senator disappear ? Is he in it yet ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: He is in it yet ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


William Barton Northrup: Why conceal him ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no concealment at all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) is confusing the contract with the Bill. His name is in the Bill.


Edward Cochrane: But it says they are both to be read together.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) has not read either of them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is because they must be read together that if my hon. friend -will read the first clause of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill as passed by this House and reported by the


William Findlay Maclean: Senate, he will find that the Hon. Geo. A. Cox is one of the incorporators. Inform yourselves before you discuss this thing.


William Findlay Maclean: There is no doubt that the impression prevails in the country that this is Senator Cox's proposition. The way was prepared for it by the Toronto ' Globe,' owned and controlled by Senator Cox, and which is more Senator Cox's paper than it is the organ of this government. For months, for years now, the country has been in a way prepared for some great transcontinental scheme which Senator Cox was supposed to be the father of. His name is bandied about; negotiations take place between a certain man and certain members of the government in connection with the transportation problem, and these negotiations are not even known to the Minister of Railways. The government papers assert that Senator Cox is to have largely to do with floating the financial engagements in connection with this scheme, and yet there is no statement made to this House except the statement made to-day by the Prime Minister that all these things are foundationless. Now, in some way, this is Senator Cox's scheme, and yet we don't see him in it. No explanation is made of that. In view of the statement which I have quoted here to-day about the Senator going to handle these Grand Trunk bonds, the Finance Minister should make some statement to the House. Is it to be left entirely to the Grand Trunk, and to whomsoever they care to deal with as to the flotation of these bonds and what they will produce ? Why could not the Finance Minister float these bonds himself, and save any commission in connection with it ? There are enough commissions in connection with these bonds to make the man who has to do with them the best possible friend that the government could have. That would help them to carry the country and they can carry the country with friends of that kind, and they can carry the country with a railway proposition of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, a proposition of this kind, which appeals to provinces. It is a fine proposition when you take it down to the maritime provinces.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hear, hear. That is why the opposition is voting against it.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a fine proposition for catching votes when you take it to the province of Quebec, and say that you are going to give them a big railway. You will tell the people of Ontario, if you had not the gerrymander, that you are going to open up the clay belt. It suits to catch the provinces, all right, but it is not suited to solve the transportation problem, although you are spending the people's money to do that.

It is a good election proposition, and you are making good friends with men who will help you to make it a good election proposition, but you are not solving the transportation problem, and you are not giving the people what they wish to have and what they ought to have. You can go on with it and you can make a profession that you are in a way adopting the principle of government ownership, but you are doing nothing of the kind. You are spending more of the people's money; you are getting more railway ; you are opening up the country in an extravagant way. But, Mr. Chairman, I repeat it as forcibly as I can, that you are asking the people to vote money for a transcontinental railway without having surveys, and without giving the people the information upon which a proposition of that kind ought to be based. There is no information before us ; there is no location of the road ; there is no report of experts; this is merely a proposition to spend the people's money, to go it blind, and you say that if it is not a success you will bring along another proposition later on. That is not solving the transportation problem ; that is not what the people expect. The scheme may be cut out, as it apparently is cut out, to get your support, because you are developing provinces, but it cannot be justified as a scheme for solving the transportation problem.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We should thank my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) for the acknowledgement that he has made that this scheme, to use his own words, is going to catch the provinces. Well, if you catch the provinces and catch enough of them you get the whole Dominion. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) commenced by saying that this is a good scheme for the maritime provinces, and he is right, and we will remember the hon. gentleman's statement when we are told down there that it is a bad scheme, and we will remember those who are opposing this good scheme for the maritime provinces. Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) says that it is a good scheme for the province of Quebec, and that it is going to catch Quebec all right. He says further, that we may catch Ontario through the gerrymander, but what he fears is that we may catch Ontario by undoing the gerrymander of former years, and we have a strong impression that we will catch Ontario. And when we proceed west, we have a strong hope that we shall catch Manitoba and the territories and British Columbia too. West of the great lakes the people are practically unanimous for this scheme. Even the Tory government of British Columbia which holds office for a few days until the will of the people gets a chance to sweep them out of power, as Tory governments generally have been swept out of power in
this Dominion


An hon. MEMBER.: What about Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe that the only living Tory premier in Canada is opposing this scheme. But let me point out that many other premiers are supporting It, while hon. gentlemen opposite are opposing it. If my hon. friend thinks he can prove his argument by this one rare specimen of provincial government, which he has on the Conservative side, all we can say is that we admit the exception, but the Premier of Manitoba is not the only pebble on the beach. So it is a good thing for the maritime provinces and a good thing for Quebec. We are going to catch Ontario, the whole of the province of British Columbia is practically in favour of it, and the Tory agents in the territories are writing letters in favour of it. So that practically from ocean to ocean the people are supporting this scheme.


Samuel Hughes: The children cry for it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the children cry for it, and they are going to get it. I say that the hon. member for East York, who is very zealous in these matters, but possibly sometimes a little indiscreet, has acknowledged the whole thing now ; he has acknowledged that this scheme is supported by the public opinion of Canada. He uses the expression that we are going to catch the provinces.


Mr. BENNETT.: For a while.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, quite so. We do not expect to stay here until the end of the fifty years' term for Which we are dealing with this matter. We are not monopolists. This is a scheme in the public interest, and this government does not want a monopoly of office. We shall be quite willing to hold office for ten or fifteen years longer, and then give way to the new race of men who will come up in the opposition and will be capable of dealing with large and important questions. The hon. member for East York is a newspaper man, and whatever may be said by others about placing confidence in rumours circulated in the press, he should know better. There are people who assume, when they read something in a newspaper, that it is true. My hon. friend, if he reads his own paper, has reason to assume the opposite.


William Findlay Maclean: What about your own paper ? Are you judging me by yourself ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend asks what about my paper. I have lmd nothing to do with a paper for twenty years.


William Findlay Maclean: Were you found out V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I left I the newspaper business, and since I

left it and the hon. gentleman came into it, its reputation does not seem to have improved. However, no one knows better than my hon. friend the readiness with which newspaper correspondents imagine things and set rumours afloat ; and he knows that it would be utterly preposterous to take account in this House of the idle and silly rumours which the opposition newspapers print. Nobody knows that better than the hon. gentleman himself. He has referred to some rumours in reference to Senator Cox. He has referred to something stated in a newspaper, but I notice that my hon. friend did not quote or read it. However, I do not attach much importance to that. I take the substance of what he said. I understand that he referred to the relations of Senator Cox with this company. He said that the name of Senator Cox had been dropped out of the Bill. Well, he discovered that that was a mistake. The name has not been dropped [DOT] out of the Bill. Senator Cox appears, so far as we know, to have precisely the same relation to this contract that he had in the beginning. His name, with those of a number of other gentlemen, was placed in the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, and it is still there. What Senator Cox's relations with that company may be we know nothing and care nothing. These gentlemen, as members of a corporation, stand precisely on the same footing as others who may be members of a corporation, and we know no more than the hon. gentleman himself, as to whether Senator Cox is to remain in the company or go out of it. That is his own and the company's business, and we have nothing to do with it. By my hon. friend went further. He said that there must be large flotations of money by the government in connection with this great "transaction, and that there were rumours in the Toronto ' Star,' a paper favourable to the government, that in connection with these large flotations of government loans, Senator Cox was to have his share of the profits or was to have something to do with them. Am I correct ? I have stated it correctly, as the hon. gentleman stated it. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that there is not and never has been a shadow of foundation for anything of the kind ; that Senator Cox has never been in any way associated with any question touching the action of the government in connection with the flotation of loans in this matter ; and that the large sums of money which it may be necessary to raise to carry out this enterprise, so far as the government is concerned, will be raised in the ordinary way, by the Minister of Finance, in the great money markets of the world, or through the banks of Canada. by open, public tender and contract with the man who is prepared to supply the money on the most favourable terms.


Edward Cochrane: I must confess that I am a little surprised at the Finance Minister. This question arose, as I understand it, by the hon. leader of the opposition asking for information as to where this railroad is going to be located. Now, what information have we got from the minister ? The Minister of Justice told us that they were aware that the American railroads were approaching the territory of Manitoba, and that the government were going to see that they did not accomplish the object they have in view ; but I did not understand him to say what he was going to do to prevent the traffic of Manitoba and the North-west drifting down into the United States. All he told us was that the government had the power in their hands to prevent it, and that they were going to do so. We must vote it blind, and let the government, after the surveys are made, say where the location of this line is to be. Then, we have the Finance Minister jumping on his feet and making a backwoods stump speech. I was much surprised to hear the Finance Minister of Canada make such a speech in this House on this important question. To my mind it is beneath the dignity of the Finance Minister of Canada. With all respect to the right hon. leader of this House, I think the opposition are entitled to information before we vote this large sum of money. I recollect very well, when I had the honour of sitting on the government side of the House with the present gentlemen in that the right hon. leader of the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to object very strongly to placing too much power in the hands of the government, to be exercised beyond the control of the House. They contended-and I felt that there was some truth in their position-that the House should have something to say in reference to the location of railway lines and the expenditure of public money. But they have gone back on that proposition just as they have gone back on all the propositions that they ever submitted to this House and the country. Now they tell us that we must vote it blind, that we must have faith in them, seeing that the trade of the North-west does not go to the United States. I see my right hon. friend smiling.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend says I have gone back on my former principles. I think my hon. friend has gone back also.


Edward Cochrane: No, I am going forward, but you have gone back on everything you told this House when in opposition. I challenge you to name one principle that you advocated in opposition that you have carried out, and I challenge the electors of East Northumberland to say that 1 have ever gone back on one pledge I ever


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: made to the electors. Although I have a good deal of confidence in the hon. Minister of Justice, I have not enough confidence in the men he is surrounded by to trust a great franchise to them.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


Samuel Hughes: This morning I took the liberty of drawing the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that in my opinion the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has no intention whatever of utilizing the line north of Lake Superior. And as supporting that view, I would ask permission to quote from the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' its report of a meeting held in the city of Minneapolis. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) was on a visit to the western and north-western states and was tendered a banquet by the citizens of Minneapolis. At that banquet, Mr. J. J. Hill, President of the Great Northern Railway presided, and in the course of his remarks said :
The spirit largely predominated too, that the man they were honouring was willing to meet them half way in any business proposition they were in a position to make. That feeling of the gathering was put into words by President J. J. Hill, of the Great Northern Railway, who delivered the address of welcome. Many excellent vocal numbers were given by the Orpheus quartette.
In his address Mi. Hill said :
If we had any cause to find fault, it would be well for us to cultivate their good graces, but fortunately there is no necessity for doing so. One of the strongest ties, that bind us is our mutual trade relations, and the fact that we use the same great natural highway, the St. Lawrence river.
In this connection I might say that the people ojf Minneapolis; evidently do not regard the abrogation of the bonding privilege as any menace to the people of Canada, but rather to the people of the western states.
If this channel would be improved it could carry the commerce of the northern States and Canada. It would carry the great bulk of our products if it were properly improved. One of the greatest considerations in favour of reciprocal relations between Canada and our own country is that we understand each other. In order to trade successfully with customers we must look for one where we can collect the debt. We may be always certain of our pay when dealing with our northern neighbours, for we know that their laws will be enforced. This question of getting our pay is what distinguishes our trade relations with Canada from those with countries where we cannot collect our claims.
. . . The exports of Great Britain are five times our per capita, and even Canada with her six million people, exports twice as much per capita as we do. If we merely exchange our products among ourselves we are not richer as a nation, but if we put our goods in foreign markets, the value of our exports represents profit.
The fact that the United States exported some odd millions to Canada more than Canada did to the United States represents the profit which the Americans made out of us according to Mr. Hill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He has just told you that we export more than they do.


Samuel Hughes: Per capita. But he did not tell us that the manufacturing industries in the great commercial centres of the United States, built up under their national policy, consumed the major portion and it is only their surplus that they export to Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Canada exports more per capita.


Samuel Hughes: Because we have not sufficient consumers at home. Our object is to export less and consume more at home, but Mr. Hill is looking for a new market to which they can export the surplus products of the United States, which represents their profit. He goes on to say :
If we do not change our attitude we will have to have a fence to keep our people in.
All this shows that the people of Minnesota are anxious to capture the trade of our Canadian North-west. Then I find this very striking sentence in the speech of the Minister of the Interior :
The essential thing about a people is virtue, and having that they will be able to carry out their ends and designs without any difficulty.
. . . The effort to form a reciprocity treaty a few years ago when the commission met in Washington failed, in my judgement, because there was lacking a determination and spirit for mutual concessions and compromises. If you will look up the definition of the word ' reciprocity ' you will find that it does not apply to such a state of feeling. Whether another attempt to formulate a treaty will meet with better success depends largely upon the people of the United States. I will say that Canada will make no treaty under the terms of which she will not get as much as she gives. It appears to me that the sentiment in favour of the formation of a reciprocity treaty is growing in the United States, but as yet a small proportion of the country has expressed its opinion. The government must act, however, upon the desires of the majority of the people.
He went on to show how the American people must influence their state legislatures and congress to bring that about. Upwards of four hundred of the leading business men of Minneapolis and St. Paul were at that meeting. On that same day, the 12th of January, 1903, I find a map in the ' Winnipeg Free Press ' headed ' the roa d the pro- ' vince lost,' and I find that the ' Free Press,' Mr. Sifton's paper, found fault with the government of Mr. Roblin for having refused a charter to a railway company to cross the American boundary line from the state of Minnesota at four different points. About

the same time, we find a renewal of the application to cross at four points from Minnesota and Dakota into the province of Manitoba, and three of these lines would extend westward into the territories. There can be no doubt that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme is associated with the identical proposition emanating from Minneapolis and St. Paul, and it is very strange indeed that, following so soon after this meeting, we find this application to the legislature of Manitoba for these lines to cross the border at four different points from Dakota and Minnesota and then cross the wheat fields and tap Saskatchewan and Assiniboia at three points, and on to Edmonton. Senator Cox had previously had communication with these gentlemen and devised with them this great plan to open up the prairies of the North-west. What I claim is that the members of this House and the people of this country are entitled to know what data the government have. Have they any data to give this House in relation to the plans arranged by this Grand Trunk Pacific Company with Mr. J. J. Hill and the Wisconsin Central or any other American road, and their plans with relation to entering the harbour of Duluth ?


William Forsythe McCreary: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) a question ? Are we to understand from the tenor of his remarks that Mr. Goblin's government last session granted a charter to American lines to touch the four places mentioned by him and subsidized that line to the extent of $3,570,000. And does he mean to say that this was done at the instance of the Minister of the Interior, and that the Minister of the Interior has such influence with the Roblin government as to cause it thus to assist the Grand Trunk ? Practically that is what he said.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) was up rather late last night, like the rest of us. I hope he got home in a satisfactory condition. But, certainly, to use the common expression, be is talking through his hat now. I have said that this article was headed 1 The Road the Province Lost,' that shows that the Manitoba government did not subsidize


William Forsythe McCreary: They did.


Samuel Hughes: Nothing of the kind.


William Forsythe McCreary: They bonused them this session, and the hon. gentleman said so a moment ago.


Samuel Hughes: The Manitoba government declined to pass the charter, last year knowing that it was not in the interest of the country.


William Forsythe McCreary: Well, I leave it to the other hon. members for Manitoba.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: Having pledged the credit of the province of Manitoba to develop the province and to provide the farmers with the facilities for getting their products to market quickly and readily, it is not likely that they are going to tax the people of that province to build up Duluth and other American centres.


William Forsythe McCreary: I would ask the hon. gentleman to consult his friends from Marquette (Mr. Roche), Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) and Provencher (Mr. LaRiviere) whether they passed that charter or not.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) to say that they subsidized this road ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes, to the extent of $3,570,000, passed on the very last day of the session; and it is on record.


Samuel Hughes: Not one dollar was voted by the legislature of Manitoba for this road or any similar road. But I think the country is entitled to some statement as to this line. I am not opposing a line by the states. It is a profitable line for the Grand Trunk to take. When they came forward and said they were going to build a line north of the lakes, everybody knew there was deception in it somewhere, and that it was only intended to tickle the fancy of those whose motive is to pose as Canadian patriots. I would like to know why this line from Winnipeg to the west will be the absolute property of the Grand Trunk instead of the property of the government? Why are they not compelled to own the line east of Winnipeg and the government line west Of Winnipeg ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have answered these questions again and again during the debate. The question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) is not new, but has been answered many times.


Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister, I take it, understands that the, Grand Trunk intends running their main traffic to the sea-board through American channels.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is not the question the hon. gentleman asked. His question was why the Grand Trunk were allowed to build the line west of Winnipeg instead of the government. I told him that the answer to that question had been given again and again during the debate.


Mr. HUGHES (iVctoria).: I never heard it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman did not hear it, I am sorry for his understanding.


Samuel Hughes: I heard an excuse or two, but no reason.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Another question he has asked me, I thought he did not insist upon, but I see that he wants infor-

mation. He asks wliat is the arrangement between the Grand Trunk and Mr. j. J. Hill for carrying the whole system into the North-west. I do not know that there is any such arrangement; I never heard of it, and I do not believe it.


Mr. CHARLTON.: The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) makes the assertion that the Grand. Trunk Company, by acquiring the Wisconsin Central and reaching Minneapolis, show a design to carry its traffic from the North-west through American channels. I think the inference drawn by the hon. gentleman is entirely unwarranted. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the transcontinental line we now have, the Canadian Pacific Railway, has a railway to Minneapolis, and also controls a railway line from Mineapolis to our North-west, joining the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Moosejaw. For reasons quite satisfactory to themselves, that company desired this American connection. At the time the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired the road from Sauit Ste. Marie to Minneapolis and from Sauit Ste. Marie to Duluth, the Grand Trunk, under the management of the board in England, failed to secure one of these lines, as it ought to have done. Since that time, the Grand Trunk has been labouring under a serious disadvantage with regard to traffic originating at Minneapolis and at other Minnesota and North-west points. The Grand Trunk Company has now', and for many years has had, a line from Port Huron to Chicago. It competes for western trade over that line. It carries a large amount of western freight to Montreal, while a large amount it diverts from the channels it would naturally follow to New' York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, and sends a large amount of this American trade to Portland that does not go to Montreal. Now, by acquiring the Wisconsin Central and securing the line to Minneapolis, the Grand Trunk Company simply places itself in the same position that the Canadian Pacific Railway occupied and has occupied for years, in a position where it can compete at Minneapolis and Minnesota for business going to the New England states, of which trade the Canadian Pacific Railway, at the present moment, to a large extent, has the monopoly. So far as drawing trade from the Canadian North-west by that route to the sea is concerned, the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position to take trade by that route to-day, having the connections I have stated. in the future, it is highly probable that there will be a large amount of wheat purchased in the North-west for milling and consumption in the United States and the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position to furnish facilities for transaction of that trade. If the Grand Trunk chooses to push this line beyond Minneapolis and into the North-west, it takes a step to
place .itself in the position similar to the one occupied by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Samuel Hughes: How would the Canadian Pacific Railway bring trade to Minneapolis ?


John Charlton: From Moosejaw; from a very rich wheat-growing region. Or it can bring this grain from Winnipeg by the line to Pembina. It has two lines by which it can reach Minneapolis from the Northwest. It is perfectly absurd to make the assertion here that the Grand Trunk Company, in seeking to place itself in the same position as is occupied by the Canadian Pacific Railway, is laying a plan to divert trade from our own seaports to American ports. There is no probability whatever that the Grand Trunk Company will carry grain by way of Minneapolis and Chicago all-rail to the sea-board.


Mr. BARKER.: How does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) suggest they will haul it until the eastern section is built ?


John Charlton: The probability is that they will have connection with Lake Superior or some port upon that lake, and they will deliver wheat there for transmission to the sea-board by that route. But so far as the all-rail route is concerned, when the line is built from Quebec to Winnipeg on the route laid down at present, no other line from the North-west to the sea-board is in it at all.


Samuel Barker: How does the hon. gentleman propose that the Grand Trunk shall get to Port Arthur ?


John Charlton: I shall advise the Grand Trunk to keep away from Port Arthur, I shall advise the managers of the Grand Trunk to run a line from their main line, from their transcontinental line which passes north of Lake Nepigon, to Nepigon bay. where they will have a better harbour, where they will be nearer the foot of Lake Superior, and which they can reach by better grades and by a better road than the route to Port Arthur. It is not necessary to go to Port Arthur, it is not advisable to go to Port Arthur, in connection with this scheme for building a road from Quebec to Winnipeg.


Samuel Hughes: How would a line to Duluth do ?


John Charlton: That is the line that my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, is attached to. It may possibly be that the Grand Trunk, in the meantime, before the line is constructed from Quebec to Winnipeg, a branch line from that main line to Nepigon bay-it may be that the Grand Trunk will be obliged to avail itself of other modes of egress, it may possibly have to seek egress at Port Arthur, It may possibly have to reach Duluth. But when this scheme is completed, when the line is

built from Quebec to Winnipeg and extended on to the Pacific ocean, then the natural result -will be that the Grand Trunk will have a branch to Nepigon bay, and will be independent of all other lines, and can lay its wheat down either at Quebec or at a port upon Lake Superior, at Nepigon, to greater advantage and cheaper than any other line engaged in the transportation of the products of the Canadian North-west can do it.


Samuel Hughes: By what authority does the hon. gentleman suggest the Nepigon bay line ? Has he any authority from Senator Cox and the Grand Trunk ?


John Charlton: I have not. I assume that the Grand Trunk Company will have a connection with Lake Superior from the main line. I am justified in making this assumption, because such has been stated to be the case. I assume that the Grand Trunk Company will seek the best harbour and by the shortest branch line that they can command, and that will be from the main line west of Lake Nepigon to Nepigon harbour upon Lake Superior ?


William James Roche: Does not the hon. gentleman know that they have already taken powers in their charter to build a branch to Port Arthur, and not to Nepigon ?


John Charlton: Well, it does not matter what they have, taken powers to do, and if they should choose to build a line to Port Arthur, a line which will be longer than one to Nepigon and which will not serve their purpose as well, they nevertheless are reaching Lake Superior. It will be for them to decide what they will do. I The charter, I understand, has been amend-1 ed in the Senate and provision has been made I that they shall go to Nepigon bay, an obvious course to pursue. Now, Sir, with regard to the contention that was raised when we first commenced the discussion of clause 2 by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, that we should have definite information a? to the location of this line, that we were not justified in proceeding to make a contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, that the people of the country ought not to justify the action the government are taking until everything was known about this line, until the line was surveyed and located, and we knew exactly what the character of the country was, knew the exact points it would touch in the route between Quebec and Port Simpson or Bute Inlet well, I think this contention is an absurd one. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was chartered, Callender was named as one of the termini and the Pacific ocean as the other. Nothing was known as to the intermediate route of that road. The fact is that the surveys that were made by the Mackenzie government called for a route along the Saskatchewan river and


John Charlton: through the Yellow Head pass, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company took an entirely different route from Winnipeg west, one through the Kicking Horse pass, by the Columbia river and over the Rogers' pass in the Selkirk range, and north-west of the Columbia down to Revelstoke, through the mountains and down the Thompson canyon, and never touched the line that was surveyed and was designed to be pursued from Winnipeg west, until they had crossed the prairies and crossed the mountains and reached the junction of the Thompson river and the Fraser river in British Columbia. With regard to the Canadian Northern Railway, we have granted aid to that line without knowing exactly where it was to be located, granted that aid in advance of the location of the line.


Samuel Hughes: When ?


John Charlton: I prefer to finish my remarks now.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. member tell us what aid was granted to that line in advance of the surveys ? Nothing of the kind was done. The surveys were registered in the Department of Railways and Canals for that road long before that charter passed this House.
Mr. MeOREARY. They got a land grant and a subsidy to go to Hudson's bay, but there has never been a survey made of the road so far as I know.


Samuel Hughes: That Is the Hudson's bay road.


William Forsythe McCreary: It is the Canadian Northern.


Samuel Hughes: It is nothiug of the kind.


Mr. GALLIHER.: What difference does the name make anyway ?


John Charlton: Now, with regard to the contention that these surveys ought to have been made, that we ought'not to proceed to make these preliminary arrangements until we knew exactly where this line was going, what the course would be, and everything in connection with the line, with the information that will be furnished by a thorough and exhaustive survey-well,
I say that course has not been pursued hitherto with regard to transcontinental lines. I say furthermore that that course was unnecessary. Here are certain salient points that stand out in this case. In the first place, we have an enormous region in the North-west which is rapidly settling, thousands of settlers are pouring into that country. There is reason to believe, before five years have elapsed, the productions of that country will have more than doubled. We know that that country is sadly in need of railway communication, of means of getting its productions to market. We know that

these cannot be furnished immediately, that it is a work of time. We know furthermore that the loss, even of a year, in making the preparations -which are essentially necessary, would prove to be a most serious matter before this road was ready for business. Now, the government were confronted with these conditions, with the imperative necessity of providing transportation facilities for a region of enormous extent and of untold resources and capabilities, a region that we know will settle up with great rapidity. Confronted with these conditions the question for the government to decide was this :	Can we proceed to
make arrangements for giving to that country an outlet by rail, and can we proceed to make these arrangements now and do it safely ? Well, here was a proposition, first of all, to build a road upon Canadian soil. That is one point laid down which would confine the government in the location of this road within certain limits. They were to build the road from ocean to ocean on, Canadian soil. Does any hon. gentleman object to that ? Then our most natural, our only actual sea-port to start from on the Atlantic coast, was Quebec. Now, the question that arose was this, if we start from Quebec where shall we aim for ?, Shall we go north of Lake Winnipeg by the Trans-Canada project ? What shall we aim at as the point of concentration for the business of the North-west where all that business is poured into one common receptacle ? Shall we aim for Winnipeg ? I think we wisely decided to aim for Winnipeg. Well, here were two points fixed. Then Winnipeg being midway between the eastern terminus and the Pacific ocean


Samuel Hughes: Where is the eastern terminus placed ?


John Charlton: At Quebec.


Samuel Hughes: Where did you say ?
Mr. CiHARLTON. At Quebec. Then, Mr. Chairman, the next question was : What can we probably do in the matter of the location of the route between Quebec and Winnipeg ? We are told by our hon. friends opposite that the information we have of that country is of the most hazy, indefinite and unreliable character. I deny it. We have information with regard to this country of a tolerably definite and reliable character. We actually had one railway line run north of Lake Nepigon, from the head of Montreal river, substantially upon the line that this road will follow. We had an instrumental survey, practically, of the western half of the division from Quebec to Winnipeg. Then we have had explorations of the whole of that region. It cannot perhaps be said that every square mile has been visited, but explorations of sufficient minuteness have been made to give us reliable information as to the
general character of the country and to give a general idea as to the character of the line on which this road will be located, and from these we know that we can secure a highly favourable line. I predict that we can secure a line from Quebec to Winnipeg -possibly with the exception of the Lauren-tian range- with grades not exceeding four-tenths per cent to the mile, and I believe that within a few months will have information which will confirm that prediction.


Mr. KEMP.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman what reports that have been laid on the Table will show that ?


John Charlton: My hon. friend wants to know what reports show that. This road will pass through the great alluvial region south of James bay. It passes through a level country with slight elevations, a country favourable for railway construction, and I hazard the observation that there will be no difficulty in getting grades throughout that whole section of less than one half per cent.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is a pure speculation.


John Charlton: It is not pure speculation, because we know the general character of the country from the height of land towards James bay. It is generally level in character, there is a vast amount of agricultural land in it, and we know that at Moose Factory, on the James bay, the mean summer temperature is one degree higher than at Winnipeg. We know also that there is a vast region there likely to be quite as productive as the valley of Lake St. John. The government had all of that information; they knew where they wanted to start this road and the points between which they wanted it to run. They knew the general character of the country, and they had an opportunity to make such a contract for the construction of this road as might not, be possible a year hence. They had an opportunity-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) laughs. They had an opportunity to make arrangements for the construction of this road, and I think they showed great wisdom in at once seizing that opportunity. By it they will get a line of railway from Moncton to Bute Inlet or Port Simpson for an actual expenditure of money of not more than ip 15,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: Yes, while the Canadian Pacific Railway cost this countrytaking land at its value to-day-$135,000,000 for the construction of 1,904 miles. That is deducting the line between Callender and Port Moody, the 645 miles which the govern-

ment constructed and handed over to the company.
This being the case, knowing the character of tile country, knowing the necessity of having a further outlet for the products of the west, knowing we could get a route of a favourable character-how favourable we do not know, nor do we know the exact percentage of good land-the government were wise in making this contract. We wanted that road primarily not for the local business that would originate along the line, but for the carrying of the grain and the multiform productions of the west to market, and by this contract we get a road that will serve that purpose.
Does any one doubt that from Winnipeg west a suitable route can be got to Bute Inlet or Port Simpson by way of the Peace river valley ?


Samuel Barker: Before the hon. gentleman leaves the eastern section might I ask him a question ? He has told us that an instrumental survey of one half the route of the eastern section has been made. May I ask him if he knows why that survey has not been laid on the Table of the House ?


John Charlton: I may tell my hon. friend that some years ago unfortunately a fire took place in Ottawa.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: Yes, and the notes of this survey and all the information of a detailed character in connection with it were burned. For that reason we have none of this information available except the abstract report of Sir Sandford Fleming.


Samuel Barker: How does the hon. gentleman then know anything about what the report contained ?


John Charlton: I say we have the abstract report of Sir Sandford Fleming. Years ago a line was partially surveyed from Montreal to Winnipeg running north of Lake Nepigon, and it was found that a road could be constructed there with grades not exceeding 50 feet in the mile, and there were very few of these. It was also found that the rivers would not require bridging of over 300 feet in length. We have access to that information, but we have not the details.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman says there will be grades of 50 feet to the mile ; that is double the grade which he asks for in this new line.


John Charlton: I do not say it is not possible to reduce a 50-foot grade to 25 feet by digging 25 feet. At that time, 25 years ago it was thought that a 50-foot grade was a very good one, but if with a road going through a favourable country a survey gives you grades of 50 feet per mile, I would say that to-day the same com-


John Charlton: pany, by spending some money, could reduce that grade to four-tenths per cent, or 21 feet per mile.


Samuel Barker: By spending money enough you could.


John Charlton: Exactly ; it is a question of money, and it is a desirable expenditure of money, because it increases the capacity of the road and it makes the road an earner of money, able to compete with other roads where without the expenditure of that money it might not serve that purpose at all.
I repeat then, that we had a general knowledge of this country sufficient to justify the government in making this arrangement if other circumstances seemed to warrant their doing so. The other circumstances were the opportunity to make a highly advantageous agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, an arrangement which if times were to change I do not believe we could make twelve months hence, an arrangement surprisingly favourable to the country and to the government, which, when carried to completion, will settle the transportation problem.
We are haggling here over these matters in a manner that I think a few months hence some hon. members engaged in this discussion will regret. I suppose that it is a legitimate thing to make party capital out of a government scheme, but it strikes me the opposition are adopting unfair tactics which I do not believe are to their advantage or to the advantage of the country.


Edward Cochrane: The opposition will take care of themselves.


John Charlton: Of course they will, they have put their foot in it now up to the knee; they have opposed a project which the country will endorse ; they have taken just the kind of care of themselves that we like to see them take.
I may summarize by saying that I think the government were justified In deciding to enter into this arrangement and making this contract which was so advantageous that they could not afford to let it pass. They have gained a year by proceeding with the inception of a scheme designed to give transportation facilities to the Northwest, and by the time this road is completed the wisdom of their course will be made manifest by the crying necessity that will exist in the west for improved transportation facilities.


Albert Edward Kemp: Might I ask the hon. gentleman for how much less per mile he expects this Grand Trunk Pacific Road will be able to carry grain to the eastern sea-board than the existing roads ?


John Charlton: I have some information on that point which I have elaborated, and will give more fully later on, but I may say now that I expect the Grand Trunk Pacific will carry wheat from Win-

nipeg to Quebec for 3 cents a bushel less than it is carried to-day by part rail and part water, by rail to Port Arthur, and thence by water to Montreal. I will prove that this is the case in due time. This road is going to solve the transportation problem and carry wheat from the Northwest Territories to the sea-board cheaper than it can be carried by any other line. Railway men have for two or three years past asserted that water transportation could not compete with railways having grades of four-tenths per cent, or 21 feet to the mile. Then it seemed to me that this assertion was absurd, but I believe, after full investigation of the data, that it is well founded, and I shall show in due time why I believe so.


Mr. BOYD.: As the hon. gentleman has taken a prominent part in this debate, will he state, on his reputation as a member of this House, that such a road as he speaks of can be built for $25,500 per mile through the country he has been describing ?


John Charlton: Which country is that?


Nathaniel Boyd: North of Lake Superior.


John Charlton: 1 never have asserted it could be built for that.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is your guess ?


John Charlton: The estimate made by me for the construction of the road is very much higher-the guessing has been done on the other side.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) speaks of the opposition haggling over this matter, and he says we might be sorry later on for what we may say. There is no danger, however, that the opposition will be as inconsistent in their haggling as is the hon. gentleman. I draw his attention to the fact that during the discussion on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill,
I remember him rising up in the committee and using this language-:
I don't believe in saddling 500 or 600 miles on the Grand Trunk Pacific to make a connection at Moncton to compete with the government railway thus making our own property valueless.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Who said that V


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name. Name.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why, that was said by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who was put up in this House to defend the government scheme.


Mr. CLARKE.: Surely you are mistaken.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, and I would advise the government, that any time they have an atrociously inconsistent proposition to offer to this House, they should call on the member for North Norfolk to bolster it up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I must interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram). I suppose I am bound
to accept the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram), but much as I admire him, I cannot believe that the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk made that statement. I must refuse to believe it until I hear from the lips of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) whether he has been correctly reported.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not very often address this House, and I do not wish to be interrupted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Give him a chance to deny it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly, let him deny it if he can. But he cannot deny it, because on June 3rd, the member for North Norfolk used these very words in the committee and I took down his own words.


John Charlton: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) will refer me to the page in ' Hansard ' we will have an authoritative statement as to whether it was said or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Barton Northrup: There is no ' Hansard ' in the Railway Committee.


John Charlton: I suppose there is only one animal that never modifies its opinions, and that the jackass.


William Humphrey Bennett: ' Modifies ' is a good word.


John Charlton: Where a man is investigating a subject and investigates it carefully, he may secure facts and data that will prove to him that lie possibly sometime before that entertained erroneous opinions. I notice a very singular tendency on the part of friends on the opposite side of the House to branch off from the discussion of the merits of the case, and to try to prove that some have been guilty of inconsistency who some years ago may have entertained opinions that they do not entertain now. Where these hon. gentlemen find an instance of that kind, they seem to imagine that their case has been proved. Now, with regard to what I may have said about the Intercolonial Railway and the building of the short line, I would not deny ,to-day that I did believe at one time that it would be unnecessary and impolitic to parallel the Intercolonial Railway, and I presume that I have made statements to that effect. But, when we come to the consideration of a great transcontinental railway line scheme, and when it becomes apparent after investigating all the conditions relating to that scheme, that its success or failure depended on the work which should be done by it; when it becomes apparent that if we are to give business in the winter to the maritime province ports we must have the very best tools and the very best conditions; and when it becomes apparent that to send freight around a circuitous route with heavy grades, over the Intercolonial Railway, would put

us in a position where we could not realize the object we sought; then these conditions confronting one, one would naturally modify his opinions. Now, Sir, the question is not whether I once thought it would be impolitic to parallel the Intercolonial Railway and shorten this distance and lower these grades, but the question is, that we are building a transcontinental route from ocean to ocean, that we are seeking to place our own products at our own sea-ports and control our own trade, that we are carefully deliberating as to the methods and the means that are necessary to reach that desirable consummation, and if I make up my mind that the straightening of the Intercolonial, and the lowering of its grades were necessary in order to enable the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific to compete with the New York Central, and the Pennsylvania, and other railways in the United States for the business of carrying wheat from the North-west to the sea-board, why, Sir, I will go back on any impression I may have formed before, and, judging from the data I have at my hand, and the investigations I am enabled to make, I will go for what I believe to be essentia] to the consummation of the project before me.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has probably satisfied himself by his explanation, but I do not think he has satisfied any other hon. gentleman in this House


John Charlton: I do not think I have satisfied you.


Andrew B. Ingram: At the very time that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) used the words I have quoted we were considering the question of a transcontinental route. I do not wish that the hon. gentleman should say anything against the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but I would like to know from him why he should load up the government and the people of this country with a line that he refused to load on to the Giand Trunk Railway. If the hon. gentleman was not considering a transcontinental route in the committee, what was he considering ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Anything in sight.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, and if the argument on which he based that statement in the committee is sound, how does he proclaim it to be unsound within so short an interval ?


Mr CHARLTON.: I have to say that 1 have very grave doubts about the accuracy of my hon. friend's statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, if there is any doubt about that, it is only an instance of one inconsistency, and I can quote another one to show that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is not logical. The hon. gentleman was giving reasons why the government should not state more in this Bill than the mere terminal points to which the Grand Trunk


John Charlton: Pacific Railway should run, and he said that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed there were only certain terminal points mentioned in the Bill. He thought that the same should be the case with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Does the hon. gentleman not know that circumstances and conditions have changed ? Does be not know that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built we had no railways in the North-west, and no settlement to give trade to a railway ? The people of this country were glad to get the Canadian Pacific Railway into that territory, and that is why they did not specify anything more than the terminal points.


William Forsythe McCreary: Does the hon. gentleman say that we did not know anything about that western country before the Canadian Pacific Railway went into it ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not say anything of the kind, because I know that we had much more information about the Canadian Pacific Railway and the country through which it was to pass, than we have with regard to this government scheme. What I am pointing out is that now, not only have we railways in the North-west but we have a. Iai'ge population there, and there is not that same necessity for a railway to-dav as there was then.
thanreverCbe?or^Y- ^ n6CeSSity is wor^
INGRAM- The hon. gentleman talks about the necessity being worse. Why, from the southern boundary of Manitoba to Lake Manitoba, they have now some ten railways, branches and main lines. And vet the hon. gentleman talks about the situation being worse than ever. It is ridiculous. When the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was before the committee we were told that instead of uselessly wasting the time of the committee from day to day in discussing the assistance that was to be given by the government, that we should not mingle up that question with the Bill then before us [DOT] that we were simply called upon to vote lor a charter granting the Grand Trunk Pacific certain rights, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific had a perfect right to construct their line of railway wherever they liked so long as they paid for it. We were toidl by the Finance Minister and others speaking for the government that when the question of a subsidy or of assistance to the Grand Trunk Pacific came before the House, the government would be in a position to state where the road was to go What are we told to-day ? When I rise in my place and ask the question of the Minister of Justice, a gentleman whom I have hitherto always found very courteous in his replies, he snubs me by saying that he is not going to waste his time in answering paltry questions of that kind. I want to ask the government, is it not due to us and

to tlie people of this country that we should have some idea of where the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is going to run between the points named in the charter ? Ever since these hon. gentlemen assumed power the transportation question has occupied a large part of the time of this House from session to session. When the Grand Trunk Railway Company gave notice that they were going to ask for legislation from this parliament, they did not state their intention of constructing any portion of the line east of North Bay. That has been loaded on to them since. X believe it would have been in the interest of this country to have granted the company the right to build a line of railway from North Bay to the North-west, and to have granted them reasonable assistance for that purpose; but when the government insists on their building a line of railway which, as the hon. member for North Norfolk has stated, will interfere with the value of a government line already constructed, then they are going entirely beyond what I believe the people of this country will approve of. As I have stated, this great transcontinental question lias for years been discussed in this House, and I want to know from the leader of the government what his government have been doing for the last seven years towards relieving the congestion in the North-west ? Why did they not have surveyors out through the country locating a line ? Had they done that, instead of the opposition having to devote weeks in this House in the effort to obtain from the government information as to where this railway is to be located, the Prime Minister would have been in a position to say to railway contractors that the government were ready to build a line from a certain point to a certain point, and that the contract would be awarded to the lowest tenderer. He would have been in a position to give the very information which the opposition desire today. That would have been an intelligent course to pursue. But what is the position of the government to-day ? On one occasion, when there were eight ministers in their places, they were asked to state within $10,000,000 what this road would cost, and not a single answer came from them. I asked the Minister of Justice to-day if the government are going to reserve to themselves the right to say to the Grand Trunk Pacific, when they come to them with surveys, that unless the location suits them, they will refuse the aid. If they refuse the aid. what will become of this contract ? Considerable time must elapse before the surveys are presented to the government. Then, when any of the followers of the government go to the country and tell the people of the different provinces that the government are going to construct this line of railway from such a point to such a point, how will these hon. gentlemen know ? Not one of them, from the leader down, knows
where this road is to be built; and if they are going to the country, as it is reported they are, not one of them will be in a position to say where the road will be located ; and any argument they use along that line will be frustrated by the question, where is your authority for making the statement 1 You have none. The hon. Minister of Finance, to-day picked up the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), and said that the government, when they went to the country, would be in a. position to carry each province ; but he is not in a position to make his argument very effective unless he can state the location of this line of railway. The hon. member for North Norfolk said that we could secure the very perfect grade that he has spoken of by the expenditure of money. I want to tell my hon. friend that one of the best railway experts of the Dominion of Canada, who knows the territory in New Brunswick better, I presume, than any other man in the Dominion, told me that he would challenge any government or party to secure six expert railway engineers, and if one out of the six would state that the government would secure grades of the description named by the hon. member for North Norfolk, he would state something that was entirely impossible. From what I can learn of that country, I say it is simply impracticable to secure gradients through it of the character named by the hon. member for North Norfolk. Then, we have hon. gentlemen on the government side stating that a few miles of distance more or less do not enter into consideration in these long hauls ; but unless you have better grades, you gain no material advantage. The right hon. leader of the House stated that the through-line would be shortened 120 miles by building this railway in New Brunswick. This, under ordinary circumstances, would be of very material advantage ; but in view of the statement made by this expert, it would be impossible to secure grades that would give the new line any material advantage. X would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that instead of adopting that scheme at all, he had better improve the gradients on the Intercolonial Railway, and thus save the $70,000,000 of public money that has been put into that road, and extend the line, as the leader of the opposition suggested, to the Georgian bay. If he does that, I am sure he will not be sorry for it in the long run, and it will serve the people of this country much better than the scheme before the House. Had it not been for the political influence that was brought to bear upon the right hon. gentleman I doubt very much whether any such proposition wouid ever have been submitted to this House. I cannot believe that the right hon. gentleman, with his long experience, would contend for a moment that the construction of this line, as proposed, is in the best interests of the people. I can only conclude that he was

compelled to give his assent to this scheme by the strong pressure of his political supporters, who have an eye to their own reelection rather than the building of a proper transcontinental line. My attention has been drawn to a statement which appeared In the ' Globe ' of June 4th, 1903, and I wouldi ask the attention of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) to this paper, which he is in the habit of quoting himself pretty often :
Mr. John Charlton protested against having the Grand Trunk Railway saddled with con-, ditions which would make the road an unprofitable undertaking. He favoured Mr. McCreary's suggestion and thought that if Quebec could be kept open by navigation all winter the road should be allowed to be built from Quebec to Winnipeg.
But he was down on the extension from Quebec to Moncton.


William Forsythe McCreary: a question arose a moment ago with reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes). I understood him to say that a certain charter had been asked for from the Manitoba government shortly after the visit of the Minister of the Interior to St. Paul, for certain lines of railway running from the boundary, and that the charter had been refused by Mr. Roblin's government. I said that it had been asked for again last session and had been granted. The hon. gentleman denied this. I have here the statutes of Manitoba last year, chapter 59, page 56, and find in them a charter entitled ' An Act respecting the Midland Railway Company of Manitoba.' The lines of railway are thus defined :
Commencing at the city of Winnipeg and running in a southerly direction to a point on the international boundary at or near Emerson; also a line of railway to a point at or near Selkirk, also a line of railway to Brandon and Souris and the western boundary of the province, also a branch from Brandon to Minto and Boissevain, also a line of railway from Emerson to the village of Carman and thence to Portage la Prairie and thence to Winnipegosis, also a line from Emerson, Crystal City and Lauder and thence to the western boundary-I need not read the whole description. There are five points at which this railway touches the boundary line. The incorporators are Chas. S. Mellen, Henry P. Uplinm, Chas. G. Hamilton, John S. Ewart and James Fisher. The Grand Trunk Railway had nothing to do with that charter, and if the Minister of the Interior has such immense influence with the Premier of Manitoba, we had better keep him in power and raise his salary. Not only did the Manitoba government give these gentlemen a charter, but it is well understood that if they construct these lines, some 1.100 miles in extent, they will be assisted by the province.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


William Forsythe McCreary: To the tune of $10,000 per mile. The whole questiou was thrashed out in the legislature, and it was generally agreed that if this company went on to construct those lines, it would get tlie same guarantee to its bonds as was given the Northern road.


Samuel Hughes: Is that in the Journals of the House?


William Forsythe McCreary: I wish just to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) the other night. I did not care then to take it up, because be made so many ridiculous statements that it was almost impossible to meet them all. He said that by the reduction of 2 cents per one hundred pounds on wheat last year the farmers saved $400,000, and that the saving this year would be $1,600,000 on the carriage of wheat to Port Arthur. But when you consider that only some 8,000,000 bushels of wheat was tributary in any possible shape to the Canadian Northern Railway, and that a great portion of it went to Duluth on which there was no reduction whatever, you will see that the largest amount that the farmers could possibly save would be $40,000 instead of $400,000, and this year it will be $80,000 instead of $1,600,000. But that is only a sample of the exaggerated statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria.) The charter that I referred to was asked for the session previous, and was then refused. The charter asked this year, and which was granted, was given to the Northern Pacific Railway, of which Mr. Mellen is president, and Mr. Armstrong solicitor. It is openly a Northern Pacific Railway charter. The hon. gentleman said that it got a guarantee of $3,500,000. He has the Journals of the House in front of him, and I challenge him to show that any guarantee was given. I say that it has not one cent of guarantee, and it never will.


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes, it will.


Samuel Hughes: While the hon. gentleman's head is frequently wrong, I know that his heart is right, and I am sure that he will rise and apologize for the misstatement he made. The thing stands exactly as I have said. The company that applied the previous year for a charter is not the company that applied this year. The company that was refused the year before is the organization which is at the back of this scheme to-day-a lot of Liberal politicians. With reference to the saving to the farmers by the reduction of freight rates, that saving was not effected on the wheat alone, but on all the products that went out and the goods brought in, and the estimate I gave is that given by the traffic managers of the various railways. And I may add. that when the great reduction which the Canadian Pacific Railway is making this year, owing to the policy of

the Roblin government in compelling the Canadian Northern to cut down its rates, comes into effect, it will be found that a saving of $1,500,000 will be well within the mark.
The hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) made the statement that the probability was that the Grand Trunk would go by way of Chicago. He admitted frankly, like a man, as he sometimes does in his better moments, that the Grand Trunk Railway had their line into Minneapolis to-day. The hon. gentleman found fault with me for objecting to that. Why, Sir, from the very start I have endorsed the Grand Trunk in their plan of going through Chicago, and I endorse them to-day. The only thing I ask is that they shall come out openly here, and tell us plainly what they are going to do, and not try to bunco the people of Canada by taking up this north shore line as a part of a great transcontinental system when they never intend to operate it or have anything to do with it. The hon. gentleman said that the Rlbe-ral-Conservative party entered into the arrangement to build the Canadian Pacific Railway without sufficient knowledge. Why, he knows that in the library and in the Department of Railways and Canals there are reports, which were laid on the Table of the House-and I am sure he has pored over them many a day-before the Canadian Pacific Railway was ever touched west of the city of Winnipeg, reports of surveyors who had been through every pass from the American boundary clean up to Peace river pass. The hon. gentleman knows that, or if he does not, he ought to know it, for those reports have been on file in the Department of Railways and Canals for thirty years. The hon. gentleman talks about an instrumental survey. No instrumental survey has ever been made from the Montreal river to the border of Manitoba passing north of Lake Nepigon. What is the object of the attempt made here fo deceive the House and the people by statements that tliei-e is evidence in regard to these things, when there is not ? If the hon. gentleman would frankly admit that the policy is to have a transcontinental road through by Chicago and on to the Pacific, their no fault will be found. It would be a mag nificent line and it would do Canada good Why ? They are running to Duluth. The hon. gentleman practically admitted that And we might as well admit it. Let us' face the facts squarely as they are. They will bring grain from Canadian and United States farming centres to Duluth, and they will tranship it by boat, as everybody knows, to Midland. That is the Grand Trunk part of it-other parts of the traffic will go to other Canadian ports. And, when the Georgian bay canal is completed, as I hope it will be


Mr. MURRAY.: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I have al
ways advocated that this should be done, though I happen to be more or less interested in seeing another part of our canal system developed. But I am not sectional, and I do not think any member of this House should be sectional in discussing these broad issues. When the Georgian bay canal is opened, trade will go that way. It need not be opened to a depth of 21 feet, for the carrying capacity of a canal depends not so much on its depth as on the length of its locks. We can have long barges of shallow draft with a capacity of 250,000 bushels, just as you can have shorter barges of deeper draft. With that canal completed through to Montreal, then, as was pointed out at this Minneapolis banquet by Mr. J. J. Hill, as I have read this afternoou, the trade not only of the great Canadian North-west, but of western and south-western United States, will find its outlet by Canadian ports. Run the line to Duluth ! It is going there, and the hon. gentleman knows it. He talks about it being provided that there should be a line to Nepigon. I cannot find it. I would ask the Minister of Justice, who seems to know something about it


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am informed that an amendment has been made in the Senate to provide for another Canadian port on Lake Superior. I understand this means Nepigon.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose that the local member out there, Mr. Conmee, who has a charter which carries certain pulp wood and fishing concessions is getting his oar in and is working his little scheme-after having got these concessions from the province of Ontario-to get a rake-off from the Dominion treasury too.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He has come down here fishing.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, and successfully. Let these gentlemen come out and say frankly and manfully that they are going to have this Duluth line. If they do, we will deal with them on the merits of the question.


William Findlay Maclean: The clause now under discussion by the committee is as follows :
Section 2,
The said agreement bearing date the 29th day of July. 1903, and a copy of which forms the schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty and the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and His said Majesvy and the said company are hereby authorized and empowered to do whatever is necessary in order to give full effect to the said agreement.
It is all very well putting these things in an Act of parliament. But we have had experience in the past with regard to these tilings. I specially wish to direct the attention of the Committee and of the country to an agreement or under-


William Findlay Maclean: gave a certain concession to the public. I stand liere to-day and, on behalf of the people of Canada, demand that before a single dollar is given to the Grand Trunk or any company connected with it, it shall fulfil the obligation embodied in the Act of parliament which I have quoted, passed more than fifty years ago. It Is on questions like this that the people will judge this proposition when they come to deal with it. I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the government to this matter and of reminding them that they themselves have laid down the principle that, when assistance Is given to a company, concessions shall be demanded of that company in the interest of the people. At the very least, we should insist that the obligations to the public undertaken by the company shall be carried out. Now it is up to the government to-day to show their good faith and to show their intention of carrying out their obligation, to show that they intend to insist on the Grand Trunk fulfilling that obligation made more than fifty years ago.


William Alfred Galliher: It is outlawed.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think it is. I do not think you can outlaw a good Act of parliament. But if the government do not insist on that, what guarantee have we that this agreement is worth the paper that it is written on ? Is this to be outlawed too ? Now, I call the attention of the Prime Minister to it, and also to the Canadian Pacific Railway agreement, where there is a solemn undertaking that the rates are to be regulated. I say that parliament is bound to see that these previous agreements are fulfilled before we give either of these companies a single dollar in addition. One is here to-day, the other will be here tomorrow, and they should not get a single dollar until these undertakings of former years have been carried out.


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. gentleman has referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway rates. Will he say where and when the Canadian Pacific Railway have exceeded the limit of the rate that was fixed for them in the Crow's Nest Pass road ?


William Findlay Maclean: Provision was made here for a reduction of the tolls on the Canadian Pacific Railway as soon as its earnings reached a certain percentage on the cost of construction. That is a matter to be ascertained, and should have been ascertained long ago, and the attention of the government has been called to it.


William Alfred Galliher: I did call the attention of the government to that the first session I was in the House, and I was then informed by one of the ministers that the company was not charging up to the limit of the rates it was entitled to, as fixed in that Act.


William Findlay Maclean: But I am pointing out that they never ascertained what the roadj cost.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is being done now.


William Findlay Maclean: Now we are getting some information. Then what has been done in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway, and its non-fulfilment of its obligation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: By way of information, would my hon. friend be good enough to say whether the penny-a-mile clause still exists in the Grand Trunk charter ?


William Findlay Maclean: It was in the charter under which they got this $50,000,000 public money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to know if that'section is still in the Grand Trunk charter, and if not, when it was repealed ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not say it was repealed. If it was, it was after they got the people's money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let us be accurate. Does my hon. friend say it was not repealed ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I do not say that,
I will not vouch for that. I will only say that there was an agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company of that day and the then government of Canada when they got a charter. They got the charter, and with it a promise of large financial assistance. They got the financial assistance. and as a condition the people of Canada received a promise of a parliamentary rate of two cents a mile. Now where is the performance of this undertaking ? There was an undertaking that they would give the public a two-cents-a-mile-rate. We have undertakings in this contract that the public will get certain things, and how are they to get them ? Will these undertakings be carried out ? I say the first thing the government should do in connection with this new agreement is to say to them : Before we sign this you must show your good faith by carrying out your former obligation to give the people a two-cent-a-mile-rate.


William Barton Northrup: I want to ask the hon. member for North Norfolk a question. I see by the ' Globe ' of June 4th. referred to by another hon. member, that the hon. member for North Norfolk stated that Quebec would be kept open for navigation all winter. Now, I am certain that the hon. member never made a statement before the Railway Committee to influence his brother members there unless he had evidence sufficient to justify him in making such statement. I am perfectly satisfied therefore that when he made his statement he had evidence which at that time satisfied him that Que-328



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
bee harbour would be open all winter. Now,
I wound not for a moment suggest that the Minister of Justice had since persuaded him that that is not the fact, I am sure the Minister of Justice would be only too glad if it were the fact.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is the fact.


William Barton Northrup: I am very glad to hear the Minister of Justice corroborate the statement made by the hon. member for North Norfolk. Then if it is the fact that Quebec harbour is open all winter-I suppose nobody will dispute that it is open all summer-then why should not Quebec be our national port, and why extend the railway away beyond Quebec when we have there a harbour open the whole year round ? Therefore, since that has been stated by the hon. member for North Norfolk and corroborated on the floor of this House by the Minister of Justice, I now appeal to the Minister of Justice, as representative of the city of Quebec, to do justice to his constituents, and since he honestly believes- for we must suppose he would not otherwise have made the statement-that Quebec is a port open the whole year round, I ask him to do justice to his own port and to see that instead of attempting to carry grain uselessly away beyond Quebec to Moncton, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway should ship that grain the whole year'round from Quebec.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is always well to be accurate. The hon. gentleman says it has been stated that the port of Quebec is open the whole year round. My recollection of the port of Quebec, covering now about fifty years, is that it has been closed in the winter, about a dozen times ; outside that the port of Quebec is open all winter. But I have never known any shipment of grain to be made from Quebec in the winter. As to my .constituents, I am responsible to them for my statements, and when the time comes my hon. friend will see what my constituents think of me.


John Charlton: Will my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Nortlirup) kindly send me the passage that he quoted from ?


William Barton Northrup: As the hon. member for North Norfolk has asked to see this quotation, perhaps when he is answering me, he will be kind enough to give us further information, because it might be instructive, and enable us to come to a conclusion on certain other matters. I find that the member for North Norfolk recently made an address in his constituency recommending the present scheme, and in that address, which is reported in the ' Globe ' of the 25th of August, he so succeeded in working up the feelings of his audience that a motion was moved by a Mr. Wells, K.C., endorsing the scheme, and congratulating the



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
lion, gentleman on the eloquence with which he had presented it. Now, perhaps the lion, gentleman, while explaining his references to the port of Quebec, would be good enough to let us know whether this Mr. Wells who, on the 25th of August last, was a humble lawyer and has since been appointed to the bench of the province of Ontario- perhaps he will let us know whether his apointment to the bench was a reward for services rendered on the 25th of August, and whether it was that no other man could be got to move such a motion unless this inducement was held before him.
John Charlton: I will take the last point first. I may say with regard to the resolution moved by the joint associations of North and South Norfolk endorsing the railway policy of the government and presenting a flattering opinion as to my own services, that I was very much gratified at that expression of opinion. With regard to the statement quoted by my hon. friend


An hon. MEMBER.: Who is Mr. Wells ?


John Charlton: Mr. Wells is a citizen of Canada, an elector of the county of Norfolk, and is entitled to make a motion if he chooses to do so, a privilege of which he availed himself on that occasion. With regard to the quotation made by my hon. friend, it seems great importance is attached to any statement that I make, especially if there is the remotest possibility of finding any tinge of inconsistency in me. The report in the ' Globe ' is necessarily an epitome of what was said.
He favoured Mr. Cochrane's suggestion and thought that Quebec could be kept open for navigation all winter.
Now, I remember very well the statement that was made upon that occasion, and in dealing with the question of keeping Quebec harbour open I expressed the opinion that it could "be done, and reiterate the expression of that opinion to-day. I pointed out [DOT]on that occasion the fact that the Baltic sea, which was formerly closed to navigation for several months of the year by ice, is now kept open by means of ice breakers, and that Kroonstadt can be reached at any time by the operation of these huge ice breakers, which can make their way with ease through ice ten feet thick, and that I saw no reason why, if the Baltic sea is kept open, Quebec, which is naturally open most of the time, could not be made available to navigation in winter.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend beside me has made a prophecy; I hope it will be realized. He tells us that there is no doubt whatever that within a short time tiie railways will be able to carry grain more cheaply than it can be carried by water route. He is going to prove that to us.


Albert Edward Kemp: Three cents a bushel less.


William Barton Northrup: 


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, if he can do so he will be a great man-he is already a great man I can see-but he will be a greater man. My hon. friend, I very much fear, is not as accurate as he has been in the past when he has carefully studied a question.


John Charlton: I- suppose my hon. friend would not wish to put me in a false position.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly not.


John Charlton: I referred to the water and rail route.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly, I take issue just on that point. My hon. friend puts up the all-rail against the all-water route, is not that it ?	[DOT]


John Charlton: No, I put up the allrail route against transportation from the west by rail and water.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Very well, my hon. friend says he put up the all-rail route against the route by rail and water. I take issue with him on that basis. My hon. friend knows this continent as well as any other man, he knows very well, for instance, that between Chicago and New York, by rail, the distance is 912 miles; between Chicago and Buffalo there are 412 miles by rail and 900 miles by water. In spite of that it cannot be controverted that the water route is constantly gaining on the rail route. So much is this the case, that the rates on the water-ways are now so much Tower than by rail during last year on Lake Superior alone it has been established by official statistics, $63,000,000 have been saved, that is, taking the rates as they have been paid on the water-ways and ns they are charged on the rail route, $63,000,000 have been saved.


William Findlay Maclean: A year ?
Hon. Ml-. TARTE. Last year only, and on Lake Superior only. I quoted the other day from an address delivered by Mr. Noble, president of the American Society of Engineers, who gave these figures in June last.
My hon. friend knows there will be 1,500 miles between Winnipeg and Quebec by the new road andt perhaps there will be 100 miles more. There are 1,500 miles between Winnipeg and Quebec. How, in heaven's name, can he expect to compete against grain, for instance, from Chicago to New York, a distance of 900 miles, against the line between Chicago and Philadelphia. 820 miles; against Chicago to Baltimore, 812 miles-how can my hon. friend hope to compete? It is out of the question. My hon. friend will let me tell him that he is simply serving unwittingly the cause of American ports, nothing short of it. I charge him with helping unwittingly the American ports against Canadian ports, and the reason is

obvious, the charge is proved by the fact itself. The American water-ways charge 1} cents a bushel from Duluth or Chicago to the port of Buffalo. The American railways charge 3 cents from Buffalo to New York. How can my hon. friend expect to be able to compete by Ills all-rail scheme against freights like these ? My hon. friend knows right well that our American friends are to-day contemplating the deepening and widening of the Erie Canal. The present rate on a bushel of grain on the Erie Canal is on an average 24 cents. They expect to reduce that by one-half cent, which would make a rate from Chicago to New York of 2 or 24 cents. They are contemplating also deepening the Detroit and Ste. Marie rivers from 19 to 20 feet, which would increase the capacity of their boats 10 per cent and decrease the rates proportionately. The only policy by which we can compete with our American friends in carrying out, not only our own freight but their freight, is by the development of our water-ways. That is the only way to do it, and any other exclusively railway policy we may adopt will be simply playing into the hands of American people and American ports. My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) should not do that. He is a well-posted man, one of the best posted in the House, and he knows that the figures I give are correct. He lias himself given them in the House. I rise to protest with all the energy I can put in my words against the policy he has suggested. Let the friends of the government andi some of us who have independent views


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Joseph Israël Tarte: adian trade from the west to east, but American trade as well. Let us improve our harbours and let us develop our rail connection with the Georgian bay, and then we will be able to compete with the Americans, but otherwise we cannot. My hon. friend from North Norfolk knows that the means he suggests is not the proper means to develop the trade within this country from a transcontinental standpoint. He will have to prove first that the history of American transportation is a lie, and if he can prove that we will be glad to listen to him. I take exception to a statement made by a gentleman on the other side; that during the last few years we have been doing nothing to relieve the congestion in the west. Well, Sir, we have started in the right direction. We have started to improve the St. Lawrence route from the Straits of Belle Isle to Montreal, and we have started to improve our ports on the lakes. When I was Minister of Public Works, I preached the gospel of transportation as much as 1 could, but I often found myself in the presence of deaf ears, and I was met with the answer that I was asking too much money from parliament It is my determined opinion that we have proceeded too slowly. We should have equipped our water-ways and harbours twenty-five years ago, and because we did not do so, is the reason why we have not diverted the trade from American centres. One of the reasons why the North-west has not developed as rapidly as it should have, is because we have not given to our waterways the attention that they deserve, and if we did give them attention, they would have cheapened the means of transportation to the farmers of the west. I am glad for one that the Grand Trunk is going into the west. We have listened to many patriotic speeches, in which we are told that the present policy of the government is to build a railway on Canadian soil all through. But the fact that we will build a railway on Canadian soil from Port Simpson to Moncton does not prove that we will handle the trade. Facts are stronger than words, words do not always mean much in this world. Now, what is the Grand Trunk going to do ? Having the map in our hands are we sure that at some future date the Grand Trunk will not make an arrangement with the Northern Pacific, or the Great Northern to handle their trade through Duluth or through Chicago. What guarantee is given to us in this contract on that very important point ? The Grand Trunk is partly an American railway and partly a Canadian railway and that is no crime. They ha ve been carrying freight to Portland 330 miles further than Montreal for the same rate tbat they are charging to Montreal. That is a fact which cannot be disputed by any business man. They have been obliged to do it because they have invested $25.000.000 in their Portland line. I grant you that we have not sufficient accommodation Hon. Mr. TARTE.
in Montreal. Now let us remember that the Grand Trunk to-day is located in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and from Duluth to these cities it is only, I think, 150 miles. If we do not take means to keeji tbat trade within our boundaries it may get away from us, and we may wake up some fine morning to find that we have had a very bad dream. These are facts that should be discussed not from a party standpoint, but from a business standpoint. I do not wish to lecture the House, but I do say that this is a business matter and not a party matter. We will be judged by what we are doing at the present time. The geographical position should not be ignored. What means will the government take to prevent an arrangement by which the trade of the North-west will be diverted to those American points ? I am asking the question because I think we should now make the future safe. If we do not improve our own water-ways, where is the trade going to go ? During the last four or five years, I have heard our excellent friends from the west over and over again telling us that they do not care for the St. Lawrence route, but they want to ship their grain as cheaply as they can, and they have spoken to us of Duluth and other American points. We are face to face with a great responsibility. We have been told that we did not take any precautions of this kind when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was incorporated ; but the position then was not the same as it is now. The Canadian Pacific Railway was to be a Canadian railway; it was not located partly in the United States and partly in Canada. It seems to me that these matters deserve the consideration of the right hon. leader of the government and his friends.


Mr. MEIGS.: I am not going to make a speech. I only want to say that I do not agree with the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte). I have had experience in the transportation business ; I operated canal boats between Montreal and New York, and schooners through Lake Champlain ; and I want to say that I was driven out of business by railway competition. The Delaware and Hudson River Railway was built along Lake Champlain from New York to Montreal, and it killed the transportation business by boats.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How long ago was that ?


Daniel Bishop Meigs: About thirty years ago. Before the railway was built the business was very good ; but the railway drove me out of business, and I knew enough to sell my boats and quit. I could not compete against the railway, and we all know that in the United States the canals are being closed up by railway competition. There are six or seven canals in the United States already closed by railway competition.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How deep are those canals ?


Daniel Bishop Meigs: I can tell the hon. gentleman one of the canals that was closed, and he can measure it if he likes. The great canal from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, 300 miles long, was closed by railway competition. They built a railway alongside of that canal, with 100-ton engines and 100-pound rails, and they closed up the canal. Two hundred miles of it have been closed for the last ten years. There are several other canals in the United States that have been closed by railway competition, and I think it is a useless expenditure of money digging canals, inland canals at any rate. There might be something in opening up natural water-ways ; but when you take into consideration the fact that a canal is closed for six months in the year, that your capital is idle all that time, and that the canal has to pay during the summer or you cannot operate it, I think it is a waste of money digging canals. The improvement in railways has settled the transportation question. 1 believe the railways will carry wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec cheaper than it can be carried by the water-ways, because they can haul it the year round. I have no doubt of that in my own mind, and that is the reason I supported this scheme. I am opposed to digging any more canals. We have spent perhaps $80,000,000 on canals in Canada, which do not pay a cent of revenue, and the people of this country are getting tired mf spending their money and not getting any return for it. This railway is going to pay ; I have no doubt about that. It is going to open up millions of acres of land. When hon. gentlemen get up in this House and say that a railway with a 21-foot grade cannot be built through that country, I do not think they know what they are talking about. You can build a railway anywhere with a 21-foot grade if you have a mind to spend the money to do it. You are not obliged to go over mountains ; you can go under them. My opinion is that the Grand Trunk people would never have undertaken this scheme if they were not satisfied that they could build a railway and make it pay. There is no common sense in the argument which I have heard in this House that these people are going to undertake a scheme which they cannot carry through. They are not shysters, and to my mind there is not a word of truth in that statement. In the United States they are not enlarging their canals. The hon. member for St. Mary's says that they are talking about enlarging the Erie canal. They have been talking about that for the last ten years ; but they are a sensible people, and they will not fool away their money in that way. Only about one-tenth of the grain carried from Buffalo to New York goes by the Erie canal ; and I was told that the railway people offered to carry the grain free if they were paid the interest on what the enlargement of the canal would cost. In my
opinion, canals are out of date. They might do for the old days, but they will not do for the present day. This government, Mr. Speaker, has brought this country out of the dark days of 1896 to the prosperous days of 1903 ; and I want to say right here that the Liberals are the people, and our leader is the greatest statesman in Canada. The present government have increased the revenue of this country from $38,000,000 up to $66,000,000, and they have the money to build this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or any other railway that they choose to build. A tariff for revenue is the true policy for this country-not a tariff for manufacturers, but a tariff for the whole people of Canada. The whole people of Canada get the benefit of the revenue tariff, and not the manufacturers alone. What did hon. gentlemen opposite tell us ? They told us that manufacturers were going to employ enough help to eat up all the products of the Northwest, and create a home market for all the grain of the North-west and all our butter and cheese. But that is all humbug. The opposition to-day are trying to get back into power. They started a show some twenty-five years ago, and they had on their bill boards ' Protection,' and they humbugged the country for eighteen years. But in 1896 the bubble burst, the present government came into power, and the country is prosperous. They may obstruct this House all they like, but when they have to face the electorate at the next election, their numbers will be diminished less than ever.


John Charlton: I would not ask the indulgence of the House, but for the fact that the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has made some allusions to myself, and rather cast an aspersion upon my political honesty. He made the assertion that a transcontinental railway cannot compete with a part rail and part water route from the North-west to the sea. I maintain that it can, and my hon. friend asserts that in this I am misleading the public. I wish to deal svith that one particular point, and I start out by the assertion that the grain from the Northwest can be carried by the proposed transcontinental line, when completed, to the seaboard more cheaply than by rail and water -by rail to Port Arthur and by water either to Parry Sound or to Buffalo, and by rail thence to New York or Montreal. The average freight rates from Chicago to New York for the year 1902 by all-rail were 9-94 for corn, and 10:62 for wheat. By lake and canal they were 4-83 for corn and 5-57 for wheat. By lake and rail they were for corn 5-51, and for wheat 5 89. ' Chicago is a point that corresponds with Duluth or Port Arthur, and we may take these rates as applicable to those points. Or a rate of 5-89. practically six cents per 'bushel from Port Arthur to New York by water and

rail or about the same from Port Arthur to Montreal. We have to add the cost of transportation from the prairies to Port Arthur. The rate from Brandon to Port Arthur has recently been reduced. It is now fourteen cents per hundred pounds, or 8'40 per bushel. Adding 8-40 to six makes 14-40, or practically fourteen and a half cents per bushel from Brandon to New York or Montreal- by rail to Port Arthur, by vessel to Buffalo or Parry Sound, and by rail from Buffalo or Parry Sound to New York or Montreal. Can that grain be transported from Brandon to Quebec for that figure, fourteen and a half cents per bushel or less ? If it can be transported for fourteen and a half cents, then the rates by rail and water are practically the same from Brandon to the seaboard as they are by all-rail.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I am well informed, this year the rates on the Canadian Northern Railway from Brandon to Port Arthur are between five and six cents.


William Forsythe McCreary: Ffom Winnipeg to Port Arthur on the Canadian Northern Railway up to yesterday the rate was twelve cents per hundred pounds. It will be ten cents from this out. The Order in Council was passed on the ltltli of July. It was fourteen cents over the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Joseph Israël Tarte: From Duluth to Quebec it cost only three cents per bushel and even less this year. But even if it costs seven cents, the rate will certainly decrease between western points and the outlet, it will certainly come down to three or four cents per bushel. Then you will be face to face with a rate of about six cents by rail and water to Quebec.


John Charlton: That is in addition to the rate to Port Arthur.


Joseph Israël Tarte: To-day the Wolvin boats are taking to the port of Quebec wheat at three cents per bushel. They have taken it occasionally at two and a half cents, but the average rate this summer is three cents. The rates are the same from Port Arthur and Fort William. Now the Canadian Northern Railway has charged this year seven cents.


William James Roche: Six cents.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That makes nine cents from the wheat fields to Quebec. The rate from Port Arthur, Duluth and other western points will certainly come down. But take them as they are now, and the railways are out of court.


John Charlton: That remains to be seen. I would ask permission to complete my statement without interruption. The rate from Brandon to Port Arthur was sixteen cents per hundred pounds up to yesterday. Yesterday it was reduced to fourteen cents or 8 40 a bushel. If my hon.


John Charlton: friend is correct about the rate from Port Arthur to Quebec, that makes 1140 or eleven and a half cents.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There never has been a bushel of wheat carried by water from Port Arthur to Quebec.


John Charlton: I am proceeding on the assumption that the hon. member foist. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is correct. I know what the rate is to-day from Brandon to Port Arthur, and I know that it has been reduced, but I have no right to presume that it will be reduced further. I take his statement that the rate from Port Arthur to Quebec is three cents, but 1 cannot suppose that that will be the normal rate. I do not believe it, as a matter of fact, but, for the purpose of this argument I accept his statement that the rate from Port Arthur to Quebec is three cents per bushel. I assert that the present rate is 8 40 cents per bushel from Brandon to Port Arthur. What can it be carried for by rail?


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what the distance is ?


John Charlton: I just wish to get through this statement. I have been interrupted to-day at every second or third sentence. I have data with regard to the cost of transportation furnished me by Mr. .1. G. Scott, of the Great Northern Railway. That gentleman states that there is one division of that road where the grades are 6-10ths or 31 68-IOOth feet to the mile. With a Mogul engine weighing seventy-five tons without the tender, they draw on that division loads of 2.000 or 2,020 tons. That is equivalent to forty-five cars loaded with 1.000 bushels of wheat each, or 45.000 bushels of wheat to the train. And the cost of performing that work on this road was eighty-nine cents per train mile-that is for every mile travelled by the train. Let us place that at one dollar, instead of eighty-nine cents. And let us suppose that we have a road from Brandon to Quebec having similar grades. The distance is given us at 1,475 miles from Quebec to Winnipeg. That is in excess of what it actually is, but let us take those figures. The cost of hauling over that road on the basis of the figures I have given would be 3 58 cents per bushel. Add to this fifty per cent profit and you have 5 37 cents per bushel as the cost of transporting grain from Brandon to Quebec, with a profit of fifty per cent. I put this against my hon. friend's statement that it can be sent by part rail and part water at 11-40 cents. The hon. gentleman says that the all-rail is not in it. Why, Sir, the water route Is not in it. Now that we are in a position to make calculations, we find surprising results. Let us see what this traffic can be done for on a 4-10 grade. On such a grade, an engine of the character I have stated can haul sixty ears loaded with 1,000

bushels to the ear, or 60,000 bushels, | amounting to 1,800 tons. That is a model

ate load for these engines on a line with these grades, with heavy rails, massive bridges and the other modern equipment required. They could handle seventy cars just as well, but that the train would be unwieldy. 1 live on a road where they can haul one hundred cars with a grade of nineteen feet. With a 4T0 grade from Brandon to Quebec the actual cost of hauling would be 2-68 cents per bushel. Add 134 cent-that is, add fifty per cent for profit-and you will find that grain can be hauled at 4 02 cents from Brandon to Quebec with a road such as I have described and still allow a profit of fifty per cent. Some lion, gentlemen tell us that this road cannot solve the transportation problem, but that it will be a failure. My hon. friend tells us that the government scheme cannot be justified on transportation grounds. I say that the most magnificent and conclusive of all the demonstrations thut can be afforded ns to the wisdom of the government's project will be its results on transportation grounds. I do not wish to go further into the question, but I thought these remarks should be made in answer to my hon. friend.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The figures that have been quoted, let me say with all deference to Mr. Scott, are fancy figures. In this discussion we have before us the results of the experience of the greatest railways in the world. There are 200,000 miles of railways in the United States, managed by able men, running through a thickly settled country with a population of 80,000,000. There is not one single railway among them that charges such rates as the hon. gentleman quotes. These are simply figures on paper, figures which cannot be upheld by experience. There is nothing easier than to dream of figures, to play with figures. But what is the experience ? Where are the facts which my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton), well-posted as he is, can give us to show that these figures have any sense in them ? That is the word I mean-any sense in them. If the hon. gentleman can give me the case of any railway on the other side of the line whose rates are within one hundred per cent of the figures lie has quoted, I shall have no more to say. These rates are fancy rates, rates made by a man of good will, a very enthusiastic man. We have heard him before the Railway Committee. I had these figures in my own hands. Mr. Scott sent them to me. I was carried away with them at first. But I have discussed them with able men, men well-informed in railway business, and I have been shown that there is no reason in them. They cannot be established by the statistics and by experience.


John Charlton: The hon. gentleman asks what are the facts. I quoted the facts.
1 gave Mr. Scott as authority for the fact
that on a certain portion of their track, with certain power, they had hauled 2,000 to 2.020 tons, equivalent to 45,000 bushels of wheat, at a cost of eighty-nine cents per train mile. But I called it one dollar per train mile, adding eleven cents, to be sure J to cover the cost. These are data on which to base an absolute calculation. If the data are correct, the calculation proves itself. The hon. gentleman asks, where are the American roads that charge these rates ? Last year, in discussing this question of transportation, I showed on the authority of a New York Central official that the New York Central could, if necessary, at fifty cents per ton from Buffalo to New York, or at the rate of l-6 cent per bushel, and still yield profit enough to make it an object to do the business. We have made wonderful improvements in railway transportation in recent years. With level roads, heavy rails, massive bridges, the fish-plate joint, making a practically continuous rail, powerful locomotives which will carry five times the load of locomotives of a few years ago, with cars of large carrying capacity, with longer trains managed with the same force of crew, we see that the future is with rail transportation. We see that this transcontinental road will do the business of the country and will lay down the traffic at Canadian ports.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What are the New York Central rates ? In the winter months, five cents per bushel, from Buffalo to New 'York, a distance of only 440 miles. My hon. friend knows that well. And, in the summer months their rates are three and a half cents per bushel. I do not see how the hon. gentleman can quote the case of the New Y'ork Central. He gives us the opinion of a man who tells us. that he can do so and so. I believe Mr. Scott has not carried grain in quantities.


John Charlton: He has not carried it at all.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Then, his figures are not based upon experience, and should not be accepted.


John Charlton: What dividend is the New York Central paying ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I shall not go into that question now.


John Charlton: On watered stock, $500 of which represents only $100 cash investment, they pay 5 to 6 per cent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But they are not carrying grain only.


Albert Edward Kemp: This questiou of the cost of carrying grain from the North-west to the sea-board is probably the most important one in connection with this transcontinental project. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said a little while ago that hon. gentlemen on this side had quoted his assertions very frequently

in respect to this matter, and more often than any one else. The reason for that is that the hon. gentleman has made more definite statements in respect to this matter than the members of the government have, and there has been in some of his statements something to go on, and something to criticise, whereas the members of the government have been very general in their statements regarding the cost of transportation. Now, I do not want to misquote the hon. member for North Norfolk, but I understood him to say a few moments ago that the rate from the head of the lakes to Buffalo was six cents a bushel.


John Charlton: My hon. friend evidently does not take in statements readily. I said from the head of the lakes to New York or Montreal, six cents a bushel.


Albert Edward Kemp: From the head of the lakes ?


John Charlton: From the head of the lakes to Montreal.


Albert Edward Kemp: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. He meant to say the rate from the head of the lakes to the sea-board was six cents a bushel.


John Charlton: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: Now the hon. gentleman was endeavouring to compare the rate from the head of the lakes to the sea-board by existing routes, with a rate which he proposed to figure out over this new line, and he used six cents a bushel in this case.


John Charlton: I used, in addition to that, the cost from Brandon to the lake.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) accused the member for North Norfolk of not always being accurate in his assertions. Whether that is so or not, I would like to say to the member for St. Mary's that it is not necessary to bring proof to upset what the hon. gentleman has said here this afternoon with regard to freight rates, because we have his own words. He stated a few moments ago that the rate from the head of the lakes to the sea-board is six cents a bushel. But in May last, speaking on this transportation question, he said this :
That tradie will seek the waters of the great chain of lakes.
He went on to say :
So you have the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for three cents a bushel.
Not six cents a bushel, as he states now.


John Charlton: Will my hon. friend allow me to explain ? I was speaking then of possibilities, and not of conditions existing. I said in that speech that wheat had been carried from the upper lakes to Buffalo for a cent and a half a bushel, and that it could be carried from Buffalo to New York for one cent and six mills. But I did not say it was being done, and I do


Albert Edward Kemp: not believe it will be. But even if it were done, with that rate from Brandon to Port Arthur we can beat them-even at three cents a bushel.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman says he was speaking with regard to possibilities and that he didn't suppose these possibilities would ever be realized. Then X suppose that we are to take in the same way the statements he made this afternoon with regard to carrying freight from Brandon over this Grand Trunk Pacific to Quebec, I suppose we are to treat them as possibilities which will not be realized.


John Charlton: My hon. friend should be fair enough to give me credit for telling this House that the;! work can be performed from Brandon to Quebec for a certain figure. If a fair profit is added to the actual naked cost, it will make a certain figure. Now let him controvert that statement if he can. But to say that I said something in May last, perhaps upon insufficient data, that conflicts with something I say to-day, has nothing to do with the argument unless he chooses to assume that I am an ass who never changes his opinion.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will read the rest:
So you have the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for 'three cents a bushel, or at most four cents a bushel. Now these are conditions which render it, in my opinion, impossible at present to compete with that route. It is useless to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all-rail route to Quebec, or to Halifax, at prices ouch as those I quoted with regard to the American lines.
So if the hon. gentleman blames us for quoting him too frequently, he must remember that he is inconsistent in his statements. Now, Mr. Chairman, I contend that it is an absurd proposition for the hon. gentleman to say that wheat can be carried from Brandon to Quebec for four cents a bushel. I do not understand how the hon. gentleman arrives at his figures. All railway statistics point to a certain cost of doing business, under certain conditions. If you have favourable gradients and favourable curves in your railway, you can do business for a certain rate per ton per mile. If these gradients are unfavourable it costs more. Now the lowest cost at which grain can be carried per ton per mile, or any other kind of freight, according to the statistics which have been furnished us, is from five mills per ton per mile to four mills per ton per mile, and under extremely favourable conditions, it can be carried for perhaps three or three and a half mills per ton per mile. The fact is that the rates which exist at present from the head of the lakes to the seaboard are half what it would cost if these figures were computed, and I challenge the hon gentleman to contradict me. It will cost double the rates that exist to

carry grain from Winnipeg to Quebec by rail, and you cannot possibly expect that road to be a grain carrying road. I think that the best thing the government can do in regard to this question is to get some expert testimony. Why can't they get a letter from some prominent railway man of unquestionable authority on this question backing up the statements which are made by the member for North Norfolk ? Why don't they have some evidence as to this matter before us ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: They cannot get any. Let them get a letter from Sir William Van Horne.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, or from Mr. Hays. Let Mr. Hays, over his own signature, tell us that grain can be carried on this road for four cents a bushel. Grain is not. carried at any such price over the Grand Trunk system, nor for double that price.
But this discussion started out in regard to the question of the location of this road, and we have been wandering all over the field. I have been trying to get on my feet once or twice to ask some questions. In the Grand Trunk Pacific charter the principle is laid down that this road will be thirty miles at least away from existing roads excepting at the terminals, and we asked the government the question whether they were going to adhere to that principle or not. In the Railway Committee the exMinister of Railways and Canals, in the early part of this session, was candid with the committee, and he stated that the government were prepared to lay that down as a principle, not only with regard tc this road but in regard to other roads, and that no charters would be granted to railways in the North-west unless they were thirty miles away from any existing road. He thought at first it should be forty miles, but afterwards the distance was reduced to thirty. Now the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) this morning, when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the Prime Minister were discussing this matter, came into the discussion and illustrated the matter in this way : He said there are railroads running from here to Montreal, or as you go into Montreal, there are two railroads alongside of each other, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and there you have competition. Now, he says, you will have competition with this road which will run alongside of the Canadian Northern Railway. Well, that is a question. I do not think there is any competition in two railroads running alongside each other, because the rates are already fixed. But that is not what we want. We want to know whether the government intend to force the Canadian Northern Railway to sell out to the Grand Trunk Railway. If that is not the policy of the government, will they say that this railroad will be at least thirty
miles away from existing lines, and that the principle laid down in the charter is going to be adhered to ? Now, something has been said in regard to the location of the eastern section of this road, and I admit that may be a matter of some difficulty. But there is one point upon which I would like some information. Why is it that there is not something in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific stating what the grades are to be on that road ? We are having assertions here all the time ot the fact that this railroad is going to carry the products of the North-west to the seaboard, and that it will carry them cheaply and economically.	.
If that is the case the road must oe well built because it must be a road with easy grades and easy curves. Yet there is nothing said in the contract in regard to the standard of the eastern section. If the government build a road which has five-tenths per cent grades or grades more difficult than five-tenths per cent, will the Grand Trunk Railway consider that they are bound to operate that road ? It appears to me that they would be able to repudiate the agreement altogether unless something definite is said in the contract in regard to the standard of the road. This road certainly cannot carry grain to compete with a water-route from the head of the lake to the seaboard, but what hope would there be of carrying grain or any other kind of produce unless it is built in the very best way, unless the grades are of the easiest. The arrangements in this respect appear to lie very loose and I hope that we will get some more light in regard to that. I do not desire to take up the time of the House now, as I wish to refer to these matters again, but I will say that if grain can oe carried by this road as cheaply or more cheaply than by water, why do the government hesitate to say that grain will be carried over this road at a less rate than the rates now in force to the sea-board. The Manitoba government in their agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway and in the consolidation of the Northern Pacific Railway with the Manitoba system said : You must reduce your rate of freight two cents by such a date and two cents more by such a date. The farmers of the Northwest could understand that agreement and they know that any grain shipped over that road is worth that much more per bushel to them. Will the government venture to say that grain will be carried by this new road one-half or one-quarter or one cent or two cents cheaper than at present. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said the rate would be three cents less than the existing rates to the sea-board. If the government would put something like that in the Bill that would be something that the people would understand, let the amount be as small as you like even if it is only one-quarter of a cent a bushel.


Mr. WRIGHT.: There is one thing to which I would wish to draw attention. We are all anxious to do an increasing trade with the mother country and one feature with reference to that trade was brought to our attention at the recent congress of the Board of Trade of the Empire Congress in Montreal? It is a matter which I think we should take into careful consideration. Complaint was made and I believe truly made that the quality of the grain which they received in the old country was not up to the standard. That statement was made publicly on the floor of the congress by reliable men and it was not disputed by our own people who were there. One question asked was :	Is there any way by which
we can go to the farmers of the Northwest. buy their grain direct and land that identical grain at our mills in the old country without any fear of its having been contaminated i One way in which we can solve this problem is by building a railway from Quebec to Winnipeg. Then, they can go to the farmers there and buy No. 1 hard for what the English merchant at the congress said they were willing to give shillings a hundred more-these were the identical words of the gentleman who made the complaints, ' shillings a hundred more '-if they were going to get the identical grain which they purchased in the west. If these people could buy grain in the west, put it in a car. haul it direct to Quebec, put that identical grain which they purchased into a compartment in a vessel and take it to their own sea-port, then they would know that they were getting their own grain. This matter was talked over privately with some of these gentlemen and when it was explained that it could be done with regard to wheat they asked whether it could be done in the case of oats. They said :	We
want a superior quality of oats, we want your white oats of the best grade and heaviest quality to make meal in our own country. The gentleman who asked this was assured that it could be done in the same way and then he asked if it could be done with pease. He said they wanted pease grown on our clay soils for cooking purposes on the other side because they said that pease grown on the clay soil will boil and mash down when others will not. These are practical men and they said : If there is any way in which these difficulties can be removed we will be able to' pay more for these products; under present conditions grain during shipment from the west must necessarily be mixed as it is handled in so many different ways ; a man buys grain in the west and it is put into an elevator with wheat of all qualities even although it is graded No. 1 hard, it will not be No. 1 hard when it reaches Liverpool. The reply of the Chairman of the Board of Trade of Montreal was that the grain was not tested in Montreal, but in Winnipeg and Port Arthur and that they were not responsible for the grading. The grain goes into the Mr. KEMP.
elevator in Winnipeg or wherever it is purchased in the west. Then it is placed in cars and mixed with other grain. It is elevated at Port Arthur and again mixed. It is placed in a boat and mixed again. It goes to Parry Sound, is placed in an elevator and mixed again, then it is put 111 tIle cars and where further mixing takes place and from there it is hauled to Montreal, where it is put in the vessel and still further mixed with other grain. There is no possibility of getting to Liverpool the actual grain which was originally purchased in the west. However, with through road from Winnipeg to Quebec the cars would be loaded with the identical grain the man purchased and would be taken through to Quebec. where the grain would be put into compartments in vessels, then the purchasers would get the identical grain purchased, which is what they want ; if they can do that, they say they are prepared to give shillings a hundred more for the grain than they otherwise would.


William Findlay Maclean: Can they not do that by the Canadian Pacific Railway now ?


Aaron Abel Wright: I give the gentleman's identical words, and gentlemen who were present at the meeting of congress will recall them. The words were that they were prepared to give shillings a hundred more. One can easily understand that they want to get the very highest grade of wheat and want to know when they are paying for that that they are really getting it. " Our friends opposite talk as if there was nothing but wheat to be brought from the west. They must understand that cattle are raised there in increasing numbers and that you cannot carry cattle in the same way as you can wheat. You cannot dump cattle into an elevator and into cars and boats and elevate them again as you can grain. We want this railway in order to carry cattle by it. We want it to carry the cheese which will be raised in increasing quantities in the west; we want it to carry the butter which will be raised in increasing quantities there and we want these products to go by a through route so that they will not be injured In their passage. This road will be a good thing for the country, and every man interested in the welfare of this country will do well to vote for and support it in every way he can.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to refer to the calculation that was made by the hon member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and I am sorry that he is not here for it seems to me that the calculation was so unfair that it should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. In his calculation in regard to the cost of drawing wheat from Brandon to Quebec a few minutes ago he said that it would be drawn by the new line at four cents a bushel. Then he went on to show that it is taken now from Brandon to Port Arthur for 8-41 cents or nearly 8} cents a

busliel. Now it is carried by rail there and if he had allowed the same proportion of reduction upon that part of the trip which was only by rail there would have been more fairness in it, but he takes the crude rate that is now charged by rail. But although the charge for 560 miles rail is now 81 cents he says we can draw it by rail for 1,900 miles over the new line for 4 cents a bushel. Does it not seem absurd to say that that comparison is a reasonable one V There is no sense in the world in the comparison, because if you can reduce the rate to that extent between Brandon and Quebec, you can reduce it as well proportionately between Brandon and Fort Arthur. It is only a three cent rate from Port Arthur to Quebec by water and if-you make the same proportionate reduction between Port Arthur and Brandon, that the hon. gentleman proposes to make on his all-rail carriage between Port Arthur and Quebec, you will still have the rate by the water-route very much cheaper than by rail. There is nothing in that comparison. If the hon. gentleman can improve the carrying power of his railway, and so reduce the rates, that same improvement will apply to the railways between Port Arthur and Brandon or between Parry Harbour and Montreal or Quebec. The existing lines are as susceptible of the same improvements as you are going to put on the new line. Grain is carried from Port Arthur to Parry Harbour for one cent a bushel or less. No matter what calculation the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) makes, he will find that the rail and water route is still the cheapest.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright) made a long argument to show that as one of the necessities for this railway, we would be able to take No. 1 hard at Winnipeg, and deliver the same No. 1 hard at the sea-board. Why can not that be done to-day ?


Aaron Abel Wright: I gave an illustration of how the wheat was handled, and my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) knows it, because he is an old grain dealer as well as I am. He knows very well that the grain is taken into the elevator at say Portage La Prairie, and that when they take the wheat from the farmers they grade it. It all goes to the elevator, and afterwards it is taken into the cars and comes to Port William, and there it is mixed again in the elevator. Thence it goes into the steamboats, and all kinds are mixed together, and are graded perhaps as No. 1, but they are not all No. 1 by any means.


An hon. MEMBER.: You are all wrong.


Aaron Abel Wright: I have been in the business, and I know it, and those gentlemen in Montreal who spoke at the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce, complained that they did not get all No. 1 hard.


Nathaniel Boyd: What is your government inspector doing ?


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. How does your new line affect the matter at all ? You have your train of cars alongside the elevator and you fill these cars with No. 1 hard, and you send it over this new railway to the ocean port. Why, the same thing is being practically done every day.


Aaron Abel Wright: The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do, that when the wheat is taken from the farmers by the dealers they do the grading to suit themselves.


George Taylor: What arrangement is the hon. gentleman going to substitute for that when he has his new transcontinental road? Is he going to gather it from the farmers along the track, and put it on the cars V Mr. WRIGHT. This gentleman at Montreal argued, that the farmers have sent him perfect samples of No. 1 hard, and he wanted to buy that wheat direct from the farmers, so that he would get it equal to sample.


George Taylor: You can do that to-day on the Canadian Pacific Railway. You can buy (he wheat direct from the flat warehouses, direct from the farmers and carry it through on the Canadian Pacific Railway cars. That has been done in my section of the country by farmers who wanted No. t hard for seed, if these English gentlemen want to do that they can do it, but it is impracticable from a commercial point of view, even if you had your new road.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As it is near six o'clock, I would call the attention of the Prime -Minister to the fact, that we sat up very late last night, and it has been suggested that possibly we could get along as quickly with the work if we adjourned at six o'clock.
I think it would not in any way lengthen the debate if we did that. At least that is the wish that has been expressed to me.
I may tell my right hon. friend that there is no desire at all to delay the committee. We wish to do our duty in regard to the discussion of this scheme, but there is no idea whatever of delaying unduly the progress of the Bill.	,


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would be very anxious to meet the convenience of my hon. friends on the other side, and all the more readily because we would share in the benefit of the suggestion. I must remark, however, that we have been all day on this Bill, and that we have not passed one clause. I believe that the discussion has been important, although some parts of it were more or less academic.


Samuel Hughes: This is a most important clause.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not find fault at all with the nature of the discussion to-day, but I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) to tell me that we will pass this Bill within a reasonable delay. I should be



COMMOXS

[Stage Direction]
glad to comply with his request, but it would be upon the understanding that we shall pass this measure within some reasonable time.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I can not take that responsibility, particularly in view of the fact that I am only here in the position of a vicegerent. I think, however, there is a disposition to proceed with the Bill in a business-like way, provided my hon. friend gives us the information we require in a business-like way. There is not the slightest desire to obstruct the passage of this Bill. That is as much as I can say, and I think it is the feeling of my colleagues.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As to the information my hon. friend has asked for, the government cannot give any more information than we have given already. We could go on debating for days, but it will not be possible to give any more information than we have given at the present time, because it is impossible to say where that line will be located until the surveys are made on the ground, and until we have reports and have made a selection from the reports made to us. So far as that goes,
I have given you all the information that I can give.


Samuel Hughes: This clause that is now before the committee is the all important clause, and the fact is that it will be the only one to discuss in connection with the whole Bill. If this clause went by, the whole Bill might go by. I may say that there is a great deal of information wanted yet in connection with this measure, and there is a good deal of information that can be given from this side of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection to every reasonable discussion. That is quite proper. If hon. gentlemen opposite tell me that they have not exhausted the discussion on this clause, I have not any fault to find. But before we agree to an adjournment at six o'clock, I think it would be reasonable that I should expect from gentlemen on the other side a promise that they shall do their share to expedite the business.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have made substantial progress to-day. We have passed the resolution on which this Bill is founded, given the Bill a second reading, and now we are in committee on the Bill. It is my opinion that we are scampering through this business too precipitately. Has the right hon. gentleman laid all the information in his possession before the House in respect to this matter ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have been collecting a great deal of information with regai d to the character of the road between Quebec and Winnipeg. I stated when I introduced the measure, that there were Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
mountains of information, and I have nothing to detract from the strength of the information that I gave then. But these mountains of information are very hard of access, and it will take a good deal of time to get at them. I have tried to condense them, however, and I hope to have a condensation of them to lay on the Table of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Might I ask if, in these mountains of information, there is any information of a precise nature in reference to the rates of freight from the west to the east, particuarly on grain ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Iam not aware that the subject of rates was ever investigated by engineers or surveyors.


William Findlay Maclean: But perhaps the right hon. leader of the government would be nble to bear out the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for North Norfolk, by a document supplied by Mr. Hays, the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, to the effect that if he gets this road and all these concessions, he will be able to carry the grain of Canada over his line for less than the water rate.


Samuel Hughes: Nobody takes the hon. member for North Norfolk seriously.


William Findlay Maclean: That would be accurate information, and I think we are entitled to it.	-


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid that my hon. friend is a doubtful Thomas, and that we can never convince him.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not understand the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition at the present to be disposed to make a promise for the members on this side of the House as to the course they shall pursue in the discussion of this matter. Speakink for myself alone, I would be very much indisposed to have any concession made on the terms, expressed or implied, that we should be hampered in the free exercise of our best judgment as the matter proceeds I understand that it may be the feeling of all members of the House, after the laborious efforts we have been making, that time would be saved if members took a pause and a rest to-night; but I want to say most expressly that I would be very sorry indeed to see this concession granted if it is not tlie clear understanding that in connection with it we waive no privilege whatever and we make no implied promise whatever.
If it is not mutually for the convenience of both sides of the House, I do not think this side of the House wants it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I said nothing that would imply any intention on the part of the government to curtail discussion or to prevent any hon. gentleman exercising

the legitimate powers with which he is entrusted ; but there is a way of carrying on business. I understand that the desire of the hon. gentleman is to facilitate business, and that is all I care for, and all I expected.


Haughton Lennox: I presume there is no reason to believe that members on this side of the House are not as much disposed to facilitate the transaction of business as members on the other side. We are all equally anxious to go home at the earliest possible moment; but it is still more important that this matter should be properly discussed. I do not want to say anything that is not perfectly courteous to the right hon. leader of the government; but I want to prevent any possible implication that in' whatever the right hon. gentleman may decide upon there is any understanding that we shall be bound in any way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I see the hon. Minister of Labour is in his place in the House, might I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention that the House shall adjourn over Monday next on account of its being a statutory holiday ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it is the intention of the government that the House shall sit on Labour Day. If my hon. friend had been in the House some few years ago, at the time Sir John Macdonald was Premier, he would remember that we sat once or twice on Dominion Day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We had not a Minister of Labour then, nor a Labour Day.
Progress reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 0 p.m.

Thursday, September 3, 1903.