1903-08-18

Mr. WILSON.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask if there has been a sufficient number of copies of this Bill printed with reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, so that members may distribute them in their various constituencies. I sent up the other day for half a dozen and only got one. I think it is desirable that we should have sufficient quantities printed so that it may be freely distributed.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The usual number of copies of this Bill have been printed. I am not aware that the government has any authority over this question, though I am not sure. I think the House itself is the party to manage that.


Uriah Wilson: I want to say another word, I do not want to cast any reflection upon the gentleman who is at the head of that department, for I have always found him courteous and willing to do what he could to accommodate members, but I do think we should have a sufficient number of these Bills, so that we may distribute them among our constituents.


Mr. SPBOULE.: The House ought to take it up, because we have had several applications for copies of this Bill that we could not supply. It seems to me the House ought to give its consideration to this matter, and order an additional number printed. It would not be very expensive.
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into Committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway.


Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants, N.S.).: I referred last night to the views of Mr. Hudson, an authority on railway questions, who had advanced the theory of the railway highway as a remedy for the difficulties which have been experienced by shippers to the United States. I took care in doing so, to say that I was not prepared to agree with his proposition to the whole extent to which Mr. Hudson carried it. I did not put it forward for the purpose of expressing agreement with it, but for the purpose of saying that this view had been seriously adopted by a man who had given a great deal of thought to the subject, and his views had been confirmed by ex-Governor Larrabee, another high authority, so that it can no longer be considered as a mere crotchet, but as a subject that is worthy of fair consideration. Now the government in this Bill do not go anything like so far as Mr. Hudson proposes, and as ex-Governor Larrabee endorses. We do not profess to say that this railway should be a highway for all the roads in the Dominion, but that it will be possible for several lines to use it if neces-saiy for them to do so. There cannot be at the utmost more than two or three railroads that will require to use it, perhaps in the fifty years which is the lifetime of the lease which is to be made.
When you go into a depot such as the Fitchburg in Boston, before the consolidation of the northern depots, or into any of the great depots in England and find trains going out from these depots in rapid succession, almost like bullets out of a rifle, and when you come down to the proposition of two or three freight trains creeping along a road 1,800 or 1,900 miles in length, perhaps 25 miles apart, you cannot say that there is anything remarkable or unsafe or impracticable about that. I could easily conceive that a short line of railway, such as the portion of the Intercolonial Railway running into Halifax, where two distinct systems of trains are accommodated, might be a more dangerous Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
contrivance than a railway 1,800 miles long built for the accommodation of through freight. I think this is all I have to say in reference to that subject and I only mention it because incidentally it came up in connection with the remarks I made last night.
A question was put to me last night, which at the time I did not apprehend the meaning of. I was emphasizing the point made by the hon. gentleman who preceded me, that that which appears in a smaller distance to be a large quantity, appears in a greater distance to be a disproportionately smaller quantity, and that what may be, speaking of the railway system as we have it in the maritime provinces, a matter of importance as affecting a railway some hundreds of miles long, when you get down to the question of a transcontinental railway 4,000 miles long, is practically a negligible quantity. The question was put to me, which I did not at the moment apprehend the meaning of : Why not then use the Intercolonial Railway. I thought the question was the one which has often been agitated in Halifax. Why do we not have western cargoes coming over the Intercolonial Railway, and the answer which has often been made by the Halifax Board of Trade to the suggestion is that as long as the Intercolonial Railway is destitute of western connections it is impossible for it to be a through road, and the very thing that is necessary to make it a through road is to afford it a connection with a western system of railways. It has been suggested tliht this was not the question that was asked me, but the question was, why, if a hundred miles is a negligible quantity, is it necessary to decrease the mileage of the Intercolonial Railway by constructing another railway through the central part of the province of New Brunswick? That is a fair question, but the hon. gentleman who asked it, and I do not know who it was, will see that it is a question that applies equally well to the American railways of the present day. Why is it, if the railway line to Baltimore is shorter than the railway line to New York, and if by virtue of the principle that in a long haul such a difference in distance between the two lines of railway is a negligible quantity, that the New York Central straightens out its curves and reduces its grades ? It is because of that which has been pointed out by one of the highest railway authorities on the continent-I refer to Mr. Fink, who is cited by all the railway authorities who discuss this question-the rate on through-freight is made up not merely to the S'\n-board, but the through-rate is made from the source of supply to the markets of the old world. It is because the through-rate is made from Chicago to Liverpool by way of New York, Baltimore or Portland, and not from Chicago to New York and New York to Liverpool, and the ocean rates adjust themselves to the land freights. If the hon. member takes that into consideration,

he will see why it is we want the Intercolonial Railway to be a through-road, to be in a position to carry traffic from Winnipeg to the Atlantic ocean. It is because we want to put our maritime ports on the same footing as the ports of Portland, Boston, New York, Baltimore and other American ports ; it is because we want to enable our ports to get the benefit of their natural advantages for ocean traffic ; it is because we want our roads in so far as we possibly can secure it, to get the land carriage in order that our superior ports, as we conceive them to be in the long run, will have the benefit of the ocean carriage, and in order that we may be able to give a rate from the ports of the Dominion of Canada, and particularly from the Atlantic ports, which will enable us to obtain the business in competition with the great arteries of commerce which flow through United States to Liverpool and the old country. If any hon. gentleman will take section 45 of this contract which I read last night and which I will not repeat this morning, he will see that this company undertakes to provide ocean tonnage upon both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans for the purpose of taking care of and transporting all its traffic both inward and outward at such ocean ports in Canada, and if he will read that in connection with section 42, which was not read in full last night by the hon. member who preceded me, and who very carefully abstained from reading it in full, he will see that the contract makes ample provision for safeguarding the interests of Canada in this matter. The full purport of this section has not even been grasped by a great many hon. members on this side of the House who are the warmest partisans and the most earnest advocates of this contract. The company agrees:
That the through-rate on export traffic from point of origin to point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the .shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
That means that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will not be able to make a rate from Winnipeg to Liverpool through Canadian ports higher than it makes the rate from Winnipeg to Liverpool via Portland or any other port. What on earth any contract could do more than that, and what any government could do more than to stipulate that when the freight is carried through Canadian channels across the ocean and to the ultimate point of destination the rate shall be the same by Canadian ports as by American ports, even though the haul may be longer through Canadian ports than American ports is something that I cannot understand. I do not see what else could be done to secure to our maritime ports the benefit of the natural advantages which they possess, or to secure to the people of this country the commerce that now flows
through the United States and across the ocean to the markets of the world.
Now, I am not sure that I should have considered it necessary or desirable to delay the vote on the question before the House with another speech, if I had not some few years ago advocated a proposition which has been mentioned in the course of the discussion as a possible alternative to the policy propounded by the government. Shortly after the acquisition of the Drummond County Railway, a report obtained currency that the government was about to purchase the Parry Sound road for the purpose of still further extending the Intercolonial Railway, and pushing it forward in [DOT] the direction of the grain fields of the west. It seemed to me at the time that this was a logical sequence of the steps already taken in the extension of the road to Montreal, and I publicly advocated the adoption of the policy in the interest of the maritime provinces and of the city which I then had the honour, in conjunction with the hon. leader of the opposition, to represent in parliament, and in the interest also of the Intercolonial Railway itself. If it were not for the immeasurable superiority of the proposals now before the House, I suppose I might still be advocating the extension of the road to Parry Sound, but I am sure that I would do so with some very great misgivings.
In the first place I should be inclined to despair of ever securing the assent to such a proposal of the other provinces of the Dominion. The construction of the Intercolonial Railway was a fundamental condition upon which the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered into union with their sister provinces, and without which there could have been no such political unit as the Dominion of Canada. The other provinces, and especially I speak of the province of Ontario which had least to gain from the construction of the Intercolonial road, have accepted that condition in good faith, and there is no man in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick who can lift up his voice to say that the terms of that compact have not been lived up to in a fair and honourable spirit by all the parties to the arrangement.


Mr. EMMERSON.: They get a greater benefit from it.


Benjamin Russell: I do not say whether Ontario gets a greater benefit than Quebec, it is immaterial ; at all events I would think it extremely doubtful if the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec which have faithfully and loyally lived up to the terms of that compact under which the Intercolonial Railway was built for the benefit of all the colonies and more particularly for the benefit of the maritime provinces ; I would not think it very singular if the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were willing to enter upon a further experiment in the operation of a government

road. We of the maritime provinces might have considered it desirable, and we should have been within our rights In urging e.very argument, by which such a proposition could be supported. But how would the argument have stood ? If it be true as the hon. member for South Lanark has informed the House that the Intercolonial Railway is responsible for a capital expenditure of $43,000,000. if there is any semblance of truth in his further statement that during the past six years the road has been run at a loss to the people of Canada of $2,500,000 a year ; if we regard this statement as misleading and extravagantly pessimistic, and strike off fifty percent of the deficit as stated by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) ; if we go still further and accept the statement of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that the road during the term of the present administration has notj only held its own from year to year, but has been earning a substantial surplus, but bear in mind that these may be years of exceptional prosperity, that the road may have been having the benefit of an exceptionally prudent and progressive management, and that it is entirely beyond dispute that in former years and under other management the road was being run with annual deficits of a quite substantial not to say serious and alarming character, I ask, Sir, taking all these circumstances into our consideration, and putting ourselves in the position of hon. gentlemen who are not primarily interested in the maritime provinces, whether it would have been reasonable to complain if the other sections of the Dominion, which had honourably redeemed every obligation resting upon them in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, had been unwilling to take upon themselves the burden of another extension by the government road with all the risks that such an undertaking would involve, of a further series of deficits, differing from those they had been accustomed to only in the greater scale upon which they must be reckoned. Will the hon. leader of the opposition be prepared to present such a proposal for the acceptance of his friends in number 6 as an alternative to the proposals of the government ? If so he will be met by all the cogent and, I fear, controlling considerations to which I have referred, but he will also have the still further objection to dispose of which	I	may	have	to	refer tomore fully in another connection. He will have	to	deal	with	an	objection
based upon a proposition which I venture to put in the forefront of this discussion as one that cannot be controverted and one that controls the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. My proposition is this: That there is not now, there never was, and until the nature of human beings and of human society undergoes a miracul-Mr. RUSSELL.
ous change, there never will be in any democratic state a case of a line of railway owned and operated by a government in successful competition with a railway owned and operated by private capital. If we had extended the Intercolonial Railway to Parry Sound; if we had made the best bargain imaginable with the owners of the Parry Sound road, a better bargain by far than any that was ever made by any government with any individual for the purchase of a piece of property ; if we had been able to operate the system with entire freedom from the waste and leakage that everybody except the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) regards as the inseparable accompaniment of government operation ; if all these impossibilities had been concurrently accomplished in the case of the Parry Sound purchase, we should yet have been obliged to compete with other lines of railway operating in the same field with ourselves and competing for the same traffic. Now the right hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill has given in a most strikingly familiar and convincing manner one of the reasons why a government cannot enter into competition with a private individual or company in the operation of a railroad system. I will not repeat his words for they were altogether too striking and vivid and convincing to need restatement. But I refer to them by way of noticing that a very zealous advocate and champion of government ownership affects to make merry with what he pretends to consider the simplicity of the view presented by the Premier upon this aspect of the question. The versatile editor of the Toronto 'World' writes:
It was pitiable in the extreme. He stood on the shore of Parry Sound and after Mr. Booth had shown him his new road to that point, the thought came to him that not only had Mr. Booth to build the road but he would have to find traffic for it and perhaps have to build hotels for travellers over it, and even to send envoys to other lands to seek commerce for the project.
Now whenever anything of this kind appears in the columns of the ' World ' we may rest in the confident assurance that we will sooner or later have it all over again from the place of an hon. member in this House. A traveller ini Europe who went to see the miracle-play at Ober Am-mergau once gave a very interesting account of the performance, mentioning among other drolleries the circumstance of Adam crossing the stage preparatory to being created. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) in like manner in his capacity of statesman and economist makes his daily appearance on the stage of the Toronto 'World' preparatory to the miracles of creative genius that he displays from time to time to the wonder and admiration of the House of Commons. Now, I do not know whether to refer to him as the

honourable editor of the Toronto ' World ' or the hon. member foe East York. .


Mr. GALLIHER.: The editor of the honourable Toronto ' World.'


Benjamin Russell: Well, I could hardly put it that way either. However, the hon. gentleman in his capacity of economist continually rehearses his performances in the columns of the Toronto ' Globe '-


Some hon. MEMBERS: The ' World.'


Benjamin Russell: Yes, of course ; God forbid he should have anything to do with the editorship of the ' Globe.'
It was no surprise then to hear in the course of the speech of which the hon. member was in such a hurry to disburden himself that he pumped it into the House under a motion to adjourn, when he could not ask us to receive it in the usual way under any of the regular methods of procedure, the very same line of criticism with *which we had been favoured through the columns of the Toronto ' World ' and the very same ridicule of the Prime Minister's illustration. It was no surprise, let me repeat, as coming from the hon. member for East York, but it was certainly a very great surprise to hear his hollow laugh reechoed by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, who Is usually a sensible person, and this in a serious speech delivered under most serious circumstances as a serious indictment of the policy of the government. There is a kind of laughter that a wise mau has said is like the crackling of thorns under the pot, and the laughter of thei exMinister of Railways and Canals at this point will help the House to appreciate the importance of his sneers at the expense of his former leader in connection with other aspects, as well as this of the argument presented to the House on the introduction of the measure. We do not need in this House or in this country any proof of the political genius of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House and who for many years to come is destined to lead this country. But if any illustration were needed, I would not ask for a better one than the fact that the very same idea that flashed itself upon his mind in a moment of insight is reduced to the form and terms of a definite economical proposition by one of the most luminous economic writers of the present day. I refer to a work on ' l'Etat moderne et ses fonctions,' by Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, a member of the Institute and professor in the College of France. In the chapter in which he states the arguments pro and con on the question of the operation of railways by the government of the country, he points out the difference between the operation of a railway and the conduct of those undertakings such as the post office and the telegraph, which mad be hopefully undertaken by the state. His words might almost have been taken
for those of the Premier himself. The idea and the argument ;s exactly that of the right hon. gentleman. He shows how necessary it is for the railway manager to cater to the variety of tastes that he finds in the community which he attempts to serve, how entirely different is the operation of a line of railway from the uniform and routine services performed by the telegraph or the post office and how absolutely essential it is that there should- be an individual and personal initiative such as it is entirely unreasonable to expect from a government official. ' It is not sufficient for the road to wait for traffic. It must hunt it up, must create it, must attract it. Experience proves that the profits of a line of railway depend on all these conditions.'
The ' young lions ' of the Conservative press may find amusement in the convincing illustrations of the Premier, and the hon. ex-Minister of Railways may display his ignorance by joining them in their fool's laughter; but I can assure them one and all that the men who know what they are talking about and who have had experience or profited by the learning of those who have had experience will be struck with its appositeness and cogency.
The ex-Minister of Railways really has no excuse for joining in the laugh, for he has himself had experience of the very difficulties connected with the administration of a government road to which the premier has called attention. How often have I heard him bewailing his impotence in this very matter of commanding freight for his road ? Has he forgotten the speech he delivered in the immigration building in Halifax a few years ago, when the organs of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition were denouncing him as the bitter and malignant enemy of Halifax who spent his days and his nights devising means to compass our destruction ; when his picture appeared in the ' Morning Herald ' as the destroyer of the city, and his name was coupled with the name of Judas Iscariot. He will recall with what painful conclusiveness he demonstrated the impossibility of the Intercolonial Railway ever, under its present conditions, handling any considerable portion of the traffic of the west. The Canadian Pacific, he told us, would not give him any freight. They would carry their freight by their own road over the short line to St. John. The Grand Trunk would give him none. They would carry theirs all to Portland. And I remember well how amusingly and graphically he pictured himself in the absurd performance of climbing into a tree at the western terminus of his road, and shouting over the land for freight to swell the receipts of the Intercolonial. Now the question that presents itself is whether he would have been any better off if he had secured the road to Parry Sound. Suppose he had bought this road from Mr. Booth ; suppose he had gone further, and built or

purchased elevators at Parry Sound to operate In connection with the road, would he not still have been left open to the proposal to climb into a tree, If there are trees upon the barren shore of the Georgian Bay, and send out his imploring cries over the blue waters of Lake Huron ? He might indeed in this way seek to call spirits from the vasty deep ; but we may be permitted to be as skeptical as Hotspur as to the prospects of their coming when he called them. He would find that he must have his line of steamers in connection with the road; and after all this had been done, which is surely the farthest limit to which by any conceivable possibility public opinion would have permitted him to go, the question still remains whether he would have been in a position to compete with a company like the Canadian Pacific for example which can swell its receipts by promoting the construction of mills as at Lake of the Woods, by the erection of palatial hotels, as at Quebec, Vancouver and Banff, and which can enter into almost any line of business that it finds conducive to the creation of a freight or passenger traffic for its line. I greatly fear that we never could have successfully' competed, that the acquisition of the Parry Sound Road, strongly as I was inclined to favour it with my own natural bias in favour of my own city and province, might have proved a failure, might have resulted in continuous and increasing deficits, might have subjected the maritime provinces to the criticism of the other members of the union and created a feeling of hostility towards them which must have materially militated against their comfort and self respect as consistent members of confederation.
I am very glad that the experiment has not been tried, and that the undertaking in a wiser and a better form has been unloaded upon the company that is to operate this national transcontinental line. I regard this portion of the scheme as one of the strongest features by which it is recommended to the favourable consideration of the House. When this subject was first discussed in connection with the resignation of the Minister of Railways, a letter from that hon. gentleman was read in which he described the government measure as a scheme by which the government was to build and own the lean section of the railway and provide a company with government credit to enable them to build and operate the fat section. It was a striking and a plausible statement of the case, and it was at once picked up by every unthinking critic and every Tory newspaper in the country. With his habitual shiftiness, the hon. gentleman had no sooner got them all committed to this view of the situation than he threw them all overboard, and he now presents the argument that neither the western nor the eastern section affords assurance of a paying traffic. Possibly he may have Mr. RUSSELL.
discovered on reflection the obvious fallacy of the way he was presenting the case in his letter. But this was the way he stated it, and the Tory papers have been ringing the changes ever since on the text that he has given them. Why, it has been asked, should the government give the Grand Trunk Pacific Company the end of the pudding containing all the plums, and reserve to itself the end containing nothing but the dough ? Well, Sir, if the government had proposed under this Bill to operate the road from Winnipeg to Moncton, as the hon. Minister of Railways now argues that they ought to have done, it is quite possible that the criticism would be just. In the hands of the government, I am very much afraid the line from Moncton to Winnipeg would have proved a far from profitable line to run. In the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific, I believe that it will easily be made to pay. The reasons for this belief would not be relevant at this point or to the course of argument that I am now pursuing. On the contrary, I am taking the opponents of the measure on their own ground with respect to "this eastern section of the road, and I so far agree with them in their opinion as to quite freely and fully concede that it is not this section of the road that would offer any inducements or attractions to a company. If there Is a burdensome section of this great transcontinental project, it is the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, and not the end from Winnipeg to the western coast. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways in his letters assumed this to be the fact, the opponents of the measure take it for granted that it is the fact, the hon. member for South Lanark goes even farther than the rest, and demonstrates to his own satisfaction that the road frbm Winnipeg to Moncton will not and cannot be made to pay a profit but must result in continually recurring deficits. He has discovered that the whole country through which this railroad is to run consists of northing but mountains and muskegs. But the men who have been over the country and know it best, the missionaries and hunters and surveyors, all tell a different story from that of the hon. member whose accuracy in such matters has never been regarded as one of his strong points. In this case he has certainly excelled himself in discovering impassable mountains and fathomless muskegs. where the officers of the Geological Survey find arable and cultivable land sufficient to support a large population, and furnish an abundant traffic. It is in this way that history always repeats itself. When George Stephenson projected his road from Liverpool to Manchester, it was the same old story, not so old then as it is now. It can be read in Fanny Kemble's introduction to the book in which she has recorded her impressions. There were the same sort of ' parliament men ' in those days as the two ex-Ministers of Railways, with their

mountains and muskegs to prove the utter absurdity and impossibility of a railway from Liverpool to Manchester. ' There is a rock to be excavated to a depth of more than sixty feet, there are embankments to be made nearly to the same height, there is a swamp of five miles in length to be traversed, in which, if you drop an iron rod, it sinks and disappears. How will you to do this ?' Well, if the parliament men had had their way, it would not have been done at all. But it was done, as this will be done, in spite of all the gloomy pictures and dismal prophecies of the member for South Lanark.
But for the purpose of my present argument, I take him at his word and accept his demonstration that the road will be so expensive a one to build and so unprofitable to operate that it cannot ever be expected to be run without a loss. What, then, in view of his demonstration, is the proposition we are called upon to consider ? Is it a proposal by which, as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has most unfairly, uncandidly and perversely represented, we are handing over to a company the fat end of the road and retaining the lean end in the hands of the government ? Surely it is nothing of the kind. It is a scheme by which the government, in consideration of the support that they are giving to this company in the construction of the road from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, and which they might well have given without any consideration whatever, as they have this very session given similar aid to another company, and as the French government has given similar aid to all its great railway companies, has loaded the company down with an obligation to operate, for the benefit of the older provinces, the eastern and more burdensome section of the road. The hon. member for South Lanark has very frankly admitted this to be the nature of the scheme. Whether he made the admission intentionally or in a moment of unconscious frankness, I have no means of determining. But, that there may be no mistake about the matter, I take his words as reported in the official record :
The Grand Trunk Pacific want the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean ; they want also the road from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, and they may arrange for connection with their North Bay or Montreal system of roads. But it is no interest to them, it is a drag and a load upon them to compel them to accept the road from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton.
These are the words of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). What is it that they prove ? Do they prove the proposition upon the strength of which the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals surrendered his portfolio, or do they not prove the very opposite of his proposition ? Surely, if the hon. member is correct and the acceptance of the line from Winnipeg to 280
Moncton is a drag and a burden upon the Grand Trunk Pacific, it is a drag and a burden which the government have imposed upon them and compelled them to accept as the consideration for the valuable franchises and substantial pecuniary assistance which they secure from the government under the provisions of this Bill.
There is only one possible answer to this presentation of the case. It may be argued that the road will be so unprofitable that it will not pay the company to operate it, and that the contract is so weak that the government will not be in a position to compel its operation. If both these propositions can be shown to be well founded, the bargain is indefensible. Even should the last of them alone be true, the bargain is not as good a one as it should have been. What then are the guarantees that the country will hold for the efficient operation of the road ? Well, Sir, there are two distinct and separate kinds of guarantee, the one intentional and express, the other undesigned entirely as a matter of guarantee, but to my mind more effectual, if that were possible, than the one that is expressly * nominated in the bond.' To my mind the best possible guarantee and the all-sufficient guarantee for the continuous and satisfactory operation of the road is the fact that it is in the covenants under which the company takes its franchise, and subject to the performance of which it will hold every mile of its road and every right that under this measure it will possess. This contract has been represented to the country as one of enormous value to the company. The government, we are told, has been gold-bricked into making such an improvident and thriftless bargain wih the promoters of the scheme. The concessions to the company were, in the judgment of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he was prepar-' Ing the statement of his reasons for surrendering his portfolio, so enormously valuable that he would compel the company to hand over perhaps a half, at all events, not less than a third of the net earnings of the enterprise as the price of the concessions. He appears to have changed his mind since then, or to have two minds upon the subject. In fact he has not been of one mind on any point connected with the subject for twenty-four hours together since he delivered his ultimatum. What his mind may be at this date as to the value of the franchise, it would be useless for me to conjecture ; but, everybody who has attacked this measure has agreed that it is enormously valuable and, we are told that it is to give us a new crop of millionaires.
Now, Sir, I should like to have it pointed out to me by what method of manipulation the company will be able to hold its franchise and realize all this affluence without continuously and efficiently performing its covenants for the operation of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. Breach of cov-



enant results In debt, debts ripen into judgments, and judgments are followed by delivery into tbe bands of the receiver. The breach of the covenants in the lease does not merely operate a forfeiture of the lease. The company has no option to surrender Its lease and he excused from the performance of the covenants. It is under covenant to continuously and effectively operate the road, and if it fails to do so it must also abandon the hope of earning the dividends which are the sole object of the company in entering upon the undertaking. It cannot continue to earn its dividends from its western traffic without continuously performing its covenant for the operation of the eastern end. In the nature of things, what better guarantee could the country ask for, and what more effective guarantee could possibly be given ? Is it not clear beyond controversy that the company will be obliged to operate effectively every mile of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton in exact accordance with the standard efficiency demanded by the contract ?
Now, what follows from the performance of this obligation ? I venture to say that the exacting of this requirement is pregnant with consequences of the greatest possible importance to the seaports of the lower provinces. The hon. leader of the opposition said a very wise thing in connection with this matter ; or if he did not quite say it, he came so near the mark that it would be a pity to deprive him of the credit of having hit the nail upon the head. He virtually admitted that no mere stipulations in a contract or a statute could divert the course of traffic from one channel to another. Be it so, you cannot by legislation or by contract make Halifax, for instance, the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway in place of Portland. But what you can do is to locate your great arterial lines of transportation in such a way that it will be natural for their traffic to seek its outlet in your own ports, and that is what the government have done in the location of this road. They have kept it well to the north, they have by its means sought to broaden and deepen the area of the eastern provinces. This road, when once its traffic is established, and its local trade developed, will turn as naturally to Quebec in summer and to the Atlantic ports in winter as the Grand Trunk now turns to Portland in winter and summer alike.
They have obliged this company to operate the road throughout its whole extent continuously and efficiently. It cannot afford to run empty cars. It is driven by every impulse that can be brought to bear upon a company to find traffic for its road. It must and will see that the forests are felled, that farms are settled, that industries are established throughout this new Quebec and new Ontario, so that its traffic may be developed and improved. The local Traffic originating in these new centres of Mr. RUSSELL.
industry will make a through-traffic profitable that could not otherwise be made to pay. I am no expert in railway economics, but, I think it is a matter of common knowledge that a through-traffic and local traffic over the same line may both be made to pay where either through or local traffic standing by itself would make a loss. In conversation with one of the officials of the Intercolonial some years ago as to the prospects of that road, he assured me that if he were free to handle the road according to his own ideas it would not be impossible for him to carry grain to Halifax for nothing. It seemed to me to be a paradox, but he elaborated his view in such a way as to make it seem entirely plausible. The present trains he said are running at a profit. Increase the power of your locomotives, double or treble the carrying capacity of your trains, and you add somewhat, erf course, to the expense for fuel and to the wages of your men, but you gradually approximate the point at which the ratio between the increase in the expense and the improvement in the returns is so small that the increased expense account becomes a negligible quantity. All this was given me in good faith and seriousness by a former official of the road, who is one of the brightest and most clearheaded railway men in this country. I do not pass judgment on his views. It is not my business to understand railway administration. But when I hear the hon. gentlemen opposite, whose knowledge is not better than my own, predicting with brazen confidence that this road can never carry its through freights across the continent, I bethink me of the equally confident and pessimistic ' parliament men ' that tried the soul of George Stephenson, the equally confident and pessimistic prophets of the early failure and ruin of the Canadian Pacific, and all the long and dismal succession of croakers and groaners who have stood in the way of every progressive movement that has ever been inaugurated.
If the opponents of this Bill are right in their predictions, if this policy does what the hon. leader of the opposition says that statutes and contracts cannot in themselves accomplish, then it is because no policy that can be adopted by this parliament can ever accomplish the task. It is a counsel of despair that our opponents offer us. The task is beyond the resources of statesmanship. Our dream of a national life realizing itself in conscious and genuine community of interests is destined to remain forever unfulfilled, and the soooner we acknowledge that our confederation is a failure and a blunder, the better will we be able to reconcile ourselves to the inevitable alternative. Now, I am not ready to adopt such a conclusion as this. I have said already, it is a counsel of despair. It is of a piece with the dreary pessimism of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals.

It lias no placq in the new life and the new hopes that are springing in the heart and soul of this young Canadian commonwealth.
I believe the day is bound to come when the cities of Halifax and St. John, each with its own peculiar advantages, and contending in friendly rivalry, will hold the same relation to the Grand Trunk Pacific that Portland now holds in relation to the old Grand Trunk, and that this will be brought about in good part by, if it is not almost wholly dependent upon, those provisions of the measure which I am next called upon to discuss.
The extension of the road beyond Quebec, eastward into the maritime provinces and to connect with the city of Moncton, has been attacked by the opponents of the measure as an unnecessary and improvident expenditure. As to this contention, let me point out, in the first place, how preposterously the relative importance of this expenditure has been overstated by the opponents of the Bill. If you will look at the map of Canada, you will see that the line from Moncton to Quebec is, roughly speaking, about one-fifth of the whole distance from Moncton to Winnipeg. (I rely upon dimensions as measured on the map.) It is about one-tenth of the whole distance from Moncton to Port Simpson, the western terminus of the road. Now, does it not appear to the House to be a question of small potatoes, when you are providing for a great transcontinental line from ocean to ocean, and there is a distinct national object to be served, a great national hope to be realized, a clear and strong national aspiration to be gratified, by the undertaking-does it not, I ask, seem to the House, and will it not, on due reflection, seem to the people of this country, to be a very small matter indeed, to cavil over the question whether we shall or shall not extend the railway a tenth part further than in the opinion of some of us it-may be absolutely necessary. It is a matter of three hundred and fifty or four hundred miles of railway out of three or four thousand miles in all. It may involve an expenditure of perhaps ten million dollars. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals even does not state it at more than $15,000,000, and his figures are extravagantly high. It may impose an outlay in interest of $300,000 or $450,000 a year. The government will have to pay this interest for seven years, when the load will be lifted from its shoulders by the company. The present value of these deferred payments may be less at the completion of the road than two million dollars, and cannot be more than three millions. And it is this expenditure of two or three million dollars that is going to bring ruin and disaster to the Dominion of Canada. The farm of every man in this country our opposition friends may be conceived as saying, is going to be mortgaged from this date; while grass grows and water runs.
for the sum of fifty cents for the building of this road from Quebec to Moncton. Is it not a terrible outlook ? Why the whole expenditure is less than we have made upon the mere terminal facilities that have been provided at Halifax and St. John. This expenditure is to be made, as the Premier has well shown, to redeem the faith of parliament pledged to the people of this country. The people of the maritime provinces have always held, the people of Halifax more particularly have been persistent in the contention, that the abandonment of the Harvey-Salisbury link of the short line railway was a clear breach of faith with the people who were interested in its construction. Now, surely, it will not be said that two or three million dollars of the money of Canada, a sum equal to from thirty-three to fifty cents a head of the population is an exorbitant sum to pay to redeem the honour of this parliament, and surely it is not an unreasonable sum for this House to vote, even if there were no question of honour in the matter, and the only question at stake was the hope of making the maritime provinces in fact, what they are now largely In form alone, an integral portion of the Dominion of Canada. Sir, if there were but one chance in twenty that this expenditure might result in giving the cities of St. John and Halifax the same position in this Dominion that Boston, New York and Philadelphia hold in the community of states that constitutes the American republic, there is no Canadian worthy of the name who would begrudge his portion of the outlay, and I fail to understand how any hon. gentleman from the provinces beside the sea can oppose this portion of the scheme without being untrue to the interests of the people that he represents.
But the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has objected to this part of the arrangement because it is proposed to parallel the Intercolonial Railway. Now, I do not wish to repeat any part of the argument that has already been addressed to the House; but I cannot refrain from referring in this connection to the exceedingly sensible and apposite comment on this part of the hon. gentleman's argument on the morning after the ministerial explanations were given to the House. The Morning ' Citizen,' speaking of the reasons given by the ex-minister for his procedure, said :
The ostensible reason given, is the objection of the minister to the clause in the Grand Trunk scheme which provides for the paralleling of the Intercolonial from Moncton north. Nobody who knows the Minister of Railways well would take seriously the report that he would object to the national expenditure of money entailed by the building of another government road from one end of his province to the other. There has been a good deal of talk of double-tracking the Intercolonial to increase its capacity so as to enable it to handle a transcontinental traffic. But "the financial difference between double-tracking an existing

road and building a new line is not of such an extent that it may not be justified on the ground that a separate line will afford additional facilities for the province through which it operates.
I do not quote these words for the purpose, with which they were written, of prying into the motives of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, or discrediting the account that he has given to the House of the actual reasons for the steps that he has taken. I have no doubt that he has given us a truthful statement on that matter. We know, however, that he was smarting under a sense of the slight that he imagined had been put upon him. He felt this keenly enough to place it in the forefront of his letter to the Premier, when every possible consideration of policy would have counselled him to leave the facts to be revealed, if at all, by his biographer. We may well discount the value of a political judgment on a great national question when the mind of the judge was obscured by such a cloud as this. One of the greatest of poets has given us the picture of the wrath that can animate even a celestial mind under the sting of a wounded self-admiration; and the whole demeanour of the hon. gentleman since he abandoned his colleagues has been such as to confirm the skepticism of the ' Morning Citizen ' as to the simplicity and singleness of the motive by which the hon. gentleman has been impelled. It may well be that no mere differences of opinion could have inspired the ferocity of his attack upon his former leader, or betrayed him into the mistake of sneering at the man whom this country delights to honour, and whose shoes' latchets the hon. gentleman might well consider himself honoured in being permitted to unloose. Nevertheless, I do not quote these words for the purpose of throwing doubt upon his motives ; I quote them for their intrinsic value, for their great significance, having regard to the source from which they come, and for the sagacious view that they present, as to the comparative unimportance of the difference between the proposals of the government and proposals which it is understood the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would not have been unwilling to entertain. They show that even to the mind of a convinced opponent of the scheme, the point on which the ex-minister has staked his political existence is not a vital point, nay, more, that it is in fact a meritorious element in the arrangement. Surely nobody in this country would have been thrown into convulsions of terror and alarm if the proposal had been made to double-track the Intercolonial as part of a scheme for a national transcontinental line of railway. Then, as this writer very properly points out, the difference between the cost of double-tracking and the cost of building an additional line of railway may well be compensated by the additional facilities afforded for local traffic to the portions of


Benjamin Russell: the country through which the road will be constructed.
But this is by no means all that can be said for the proposal. Everybody knows that when the Intercolonial road was built there were serious differences of opinion as to the proper line for its location. A writer in the ' Morning Chronicle ' of Halifax, who is vouched for as a railway expert, and who certainly writes from copious and exact information on the subject, has given us the history of the dispute between Mr. Wilkinson, the government engineer of the province of New Brunswick, and Major Robinson, who was appointed by the imperial government to report upon the route. Mr. Wilkinson recommended a route through the centre of New Brunswick. Major Robinson favoured the present location of the road. Now, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has told us that the road recommended by Mr. Wilkinson was and is impracticable. He has read from the report of Sir Sandford Fleming to that effect. But as the hon. member for Westmoreland has clearly established, he has, I do not assume intentionally, distorted utterly the effect of that report. Moreover, even if this had not been shown, the hon. member should have noticed that Sir Sandford Fleming's report is largely based upon the surveys of Major Robinson, and Major Robinson was expressly commissioned to locate a military road. Mr. Wilkinson, who was the government engineer of the province of New Brunswick, never concurred in Major Robinson's opinion, and never ceased to contend for the central as against the northern road, which eventually, for military rather than for either commercial or engineering reasons, was the one adopted. Now, let us imagine that the views of Mr. Wilkinson had, in fact, prevailed, and that the line had been constructed through the centre of New Brunswick as he had recommended that it should be. Does any hon. member believe that we would have endured to this day without another line of railway running along the north shore of New Brunswick and the south shore of the River St. Lawrence ? Does any hon. member imagine that the prosperous and thriving settlements along the present line of the Intercolonial Railway would have given this parliament any rest until they were afforded the same railway accommodation that other sections of the community were enjoying? A line of railway would certainly have been constructed corresponding substantially with the present line of the Intercolonial. It would have been constructed without criticism and with universal concurrence, and the condition of things would have become precisely such as will be brought about under the operation of this Bill. Why, then, the alarm and clamour ? Why all these groans and lamentations over a proposal to bring about a condition of affairs

Which would have been established with universal acquiescence it the course of history had only been a little different from that which it actually happened to pursue?
There is still another method of testing the propriety of this expenditure. Study the maps of New Brunswick and of the lower portion of the province of Quebec. This section of country will compare favourably in soil, in climate, in natural resources, and in everything that goes to make the home of a happy and contented population, with any of the New England states. Apart from the greater density of population, there is no reason why it should not furnish traffic for a railway mileage equal to that of any of the New England states. Now, what do you find to be the fact? Outside of the state of Maine,
I believe you could not travel in a direct line in any of the New England states for more than twenty miles without crossing a railroad track, and in many places you would cross a number of them. How is it in New Brunswick ? From the line of the Intercolonial on the north shore of New Brunswick across the province to the state of Maine, there is an immense area of country, from eighty to a hundred miles in width, without a single mile of railway. Why should this country not be opened up by a railway, even if the construction of such a road were not in the least degree essential as a link in a transcontinental road from ocean to ocean ? I consider that this is a most important aspect of the question. Standing alone it might not, in the' estimation of some bon. gentlemen, be sufficient, as it certainly would be in the minds of others, to justify the expenditure. But, taken as part of the consideration for the outlay, it is surely a most important element in the case. The older provinces of the Dominion have done much for the development of our national heritage in the west. We have voted our millions, not only without a murmur, but with unfailing cheerfulness and alacrity. The lower provinces in particular have derived hardly any material benefit from the heavy expenditures that they have been called upon to make for these great undertakings. With them it has been very largely a matter of patriotism and national sentiment alone. They have cheerfully seen their sons go forth from their midst for the peopling of the western lands, though the movement of population should leave their own fields unfilled that once laughed with the harvest, and result in the reversion to forest of lands that were cleared a hundred years ago. These results of the opening up of the west were clearly foreseen, and there was a time when even Sir John A. Macdonald himself looked upon the movement with misgivings and apprehensions as to its effects upon the older provinces. But we have, all of us, *outgrown these views.
Nobody in these days regrets what has happened in this respect or would wish that
the course of events had been other than it has been. But it is not for the interest of the country as a whole that this movement of population should go beyond what is reasonable. We of the lower provinces desire most keenly to retain our relative position in the Dominion as long as it is possible to maintain it. It is in the interest of the country as a whole that the balance should not be needlessly or greatly disturbed. We desire to retain a strong, a vigorous and a continually increasing population within our borders, and it is certainly to the interest of the Dominion as a whole that we should do so. To my mind nothing in the whole history of the United States is more pathetic, and few things are more lamentable, than the extent to which the descendants of the original population of New England have given place to the children of alien races. The statues of the old Puritan founders are in their parks and gardens, their streets and market places. Their memorial tablets are in their churches and public halls, and their names are immortalized in towns and villages and hamlets throughout the old colonies. But the descendants of these men are, many of them, no longer there, and those that are there no longer control the destinies or direct the spirit of New England. Another race has come to fill the tenantless houses and occupy the abandoned farms, a people that,, as Matthew Arnold says, does not strike its roots down lovingly into the soil and that has little in common with the ideals on which the New England commonwealths were founded. Now, if we can do anything to prevent the history of New England from repeating itself in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, I am sure it is well worth while to make the effort. The construction of this road will be a step in this direction, and a step of the very greatest importance. Every railroad that is constructed, every new industry that tstablishes itself along its line, every new mail route that is opened up, every new church and school house that are built, help to make the country more attractive and more habitable, more likely to retain in our midst the population, without which we cannot hold the position which it is in the interest of the country as a whole that we should occupy as members of the confederation.
I think, moreover, that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways has been unduly alarmed as to the extent to which the building of this road will militate against the interests of the Intercolonial. Not that I concede for a moment that if it should have that effect it would be any the less our duty to proceed with the undertaking. The hon. gentleman has watched over the Intercolonial so long and, I may concede, so tenderly and efficiently as well, that it may have become a hobby with him, or, like golf or billiards, it has developed into a passion. Indeed, in his particular case, it seems almost to have assumed the appearance of a

new kind of disease, and certainly it has assailed him in a particularly acute and aggravated form. He naturally would be inclined to look with fear and suspicion upon anything that would threaten the sources of its trade. But for the rest of us the Intercolonial must not be a fetish. The railroads, as the Premier well said, are made for man and not man for the railroads. The Intercolonial, I suppose, was built to serve the country. The country was not formed primarily for the purpose of feeding the Intercolonial. Therefore, even if it had to be conceded that the Intercolonial was to be destroyed by the Grand Trunk Pacific, we would be only pursuing the policy that has, we are told, 'been the secret of the immense and marvellous progress of the manufacturing industries of the United States. When their actual machinery and appliances were not up to the highest standard of perfection they pitched them into the junk heap, no matter how recently purchased or installed, no matter how expensive. If the Intercolonial Railway is over a hundred miles longer than it need be, if its use involves unprofitable expense and unnecessary delay, if a shorter and better route can be adopted, then we must insist on its adoption, even if it should make scrap iron of the present road.
But on this point, as on others, the hon. gentleman has altered his views essentially since he stated the excuses for his desertion of his colleagues. If I understood his speech at all, he demonstrated that the superiority of the Intercolonial Railway was so great over the Canadian Pacific short line to begin with, and over any possible line that could be constructed through the province of New Brunswick, that no matter what the Grand Trunk Pacific might do it could not take away its traffic from the Intercolonial. Why then, under these conditions, he should have shed such bitter, scalding tears as he did and drop them in such profusion over the fate of the people along the line of the Intercolonial, because its traffic was going to be destroyed and the road dismantled, perhaps he would explain some other day when he experiences another of those sudden and incomprehensible changes of opinion that he has been so frequently undergoing ever since he left the safe anchorage of his position as a loyal minister of the Crown. I agree as to the merits and position of the Intercolonial more nearly with the opinions in his speech than with those of his letters. When he left the government because of his fears for the Intercolonial I believe he was unduly alarmed. He failed to consider, as he has since been evidently led to consider, that the Intercolonial will still have some resources left with which to meet the competition of the proposed new road. That road will simply cross the Intercolonial at Quebec. It will come to Quebec on the west through a wholly different territory from that tra-Mr. RUSSELL.
versed by the Intercolonial, and it will proceed eastward through a wholly different country. What reason is there for assuming that it will take any part of the traffic of the Intercolonial beyond that which originates in the vicinity of Quebec and Levis ? All the conditions of the situation as they exist to-day will remain unchanged, with the exception of this transcontinental road crossing the Intercolonial at a single point and reaching out both east and west through a country that the Intercolonial does not touch. Now, the traffic originating in L6vis and its vicinity and the traffic from the maritime provinces destined for Levis and vicinity yields the Intercolonial Railway a Very small proportion of its actual earnings, and whatever will be lost from this source of income to the Intercolonial will be more than compensated, will be compensated ten times over, by the traffic developed over the new line both west of and east of Quebec which must be carried over the Intercolonial to seek its outlet at the Atlantic ports.
Before I leave the subject of the Moncton section there is just one further remark I wish to make, because of the diversion which some hon. gentlemen in this House, and some very wise newspapers in the country. have derived from the argument of the Prime Minister with reference to the bonding privilege. I must, in all candour, say that there is hardly any other branch of this case on which the opponents of this measure, including the hon. ex-minister, who certainly is capable of better things, have talked more nonsense than they have on this phase of the question. The hon. leader of the opposition quoted from an old speech of his former leader to show that the bonding privilege could not be cancelled, because it was held under a treaty. But he had, just a few moments before he read this passage, been listening to the reading of a message of President Cleveland, in which he recommended that Congress should pass legislation for the express purpose of placing this matter in the arbitrium of the executive. And if ever a man was in earnest it was President Cleveland that was in earnest when he made this recommendation to Congress. My hon. friend was not leader of the opposition in those days. He was not then in joarliament. He was, like myself, in his political short-clothes. I know not whether he read the newspapers then or not. But if he ever did, and if he took any interest whatever in the public affairs of the country, he must remember the apprehensions that existed throughout this country lest the threat of President Cleveland should be carried into execution.	[DOT]
The hon. gentleman, who has been followed in this contention by the hon. exMinister of Railways, has argued that the bonding privilege will never.be cancelled, because it is in the interest of the United States as much as it is to our advantage that it should be retained. Sancta simplici-

tas ! Did anybody ever bear sucb an answer to a suggestion of grave national peril ? As if nations, when tlieir blood is up, ever pause to consider their material interests. Was it in the material interest of the United States a few years ago to plunge into a war with England for the delimitation of a boundary line in Venezuela ; yet we were about as near to a war as nations ever go without the actual exchange of blows. Was it in the interest of the Boer republics to go to war with England over the question of the Uitlanders' franchise ? What is true in this respect of wars that are waged with rifle and bayonet thrust, is equally true of those that are fought with tariffs and trade privileges. Men do not ' pause on passion's fiery wheel to count the measure of their pulse.' The lion. ex-M inis ter of Railways did not xiause to consider the tangled web of self-contradiction and self-stultification in which he was about to involve himself when in a moment, whether of keen resentment or of high conviction, it is not for me to judge, he threw up his portfolio, turned his back upon his colleagues and slammed the door in their faces. And nations are no wiser than individuals are. They do not pause to weigh the question of material or pecuniary interest when the national spirit is aroused over some real or imaginary grievance. If we had stopped to consider our pecuniary and material interests, I am not sure that we would have imposed the surcharge on the goods of Germany. But we did impose it. The national spirit called for the measure, and the national spirit will sustain the government, no matter whether it is conducive to our material interests or not.
Should the day come when the national spirit of the United States is aroused over any real or supposed unfairness, in the conduct of this country, the bonding privilege may be cancelled with as little regard to questions of material and pecuniary interest ns there wras when the reciprocity treaty was abrogated. No truer note was ever sounded in this House than that in which the Premier asked this House to sanction this measure for this, among other reasons : to secure the independence of the country and render it indifferent to the whims and caprices of our neighbours. True enough, we are not absolutely at their mercy as it is ; we have the Intercolonial Railway. But every lion, member must have reflected that the Intercolonial Railway, under present conditions and in such an emergency would simply be a raft in a shipwreck. I well remember in a general way, what those to whom this line of reading and study is a specialty, will recall with fuller accuracy, the discussions that took place when the Intercolonial Railway was about to be constructed, and how it was even at that day represented by wise and high authorities that its chief use would be, not as a road for actual traffic purposes, but rather as a
lever to keep the road open to Portland for the service of the people of this country. This very idea finds expression in the report of Sir Sandford Fleming, which has already been more than once referred to in this debate. The suggestions of the opposition on this subject are in accord with this line of policy. But we have reached a more advanced stage of public opinion and a more truly national conception of the proper attitude of this country. We do not simply want a little bit of national road with no effective connections and no continental trade. So long as we continue under those conditions the fear of the dislocations of business and the infinite loss and suffering that must follow the cancellation of the bonding privilege will for ever be a handicap to the government of this country, no matter of what its political complexion, in any contest for the rights of this country where their assertion may threaten the cancellation of the privilege. Neither the friends nor the enemies of this measure will do it justice if they fail to recognize it as a bona fide effort, a heroic effort, let it be conceded, but a well-meant effort, and one that is full of promise, to make this national transcontinental railway a main artery of commerce between the inland and the sea, and to build up within our own borders the cities through which the commerce of the nation shall flow to the great markets of the world.
I am afraid that I have dealt at somewhat inordinate length with the questions that I have been discussing. I have certainly done so, if the views are correct which are expressed by the editor of the Toronto [DOT] World.' In his judgment all these questions that I have been considering are mere trifles. He has given us a description of a kind of criticism which nobody can read without realizing that it was meant for a summary of the reply delivered by his leader to the speech of the right lion, leader of the House in introducing the Bill, and he says that this sort of criticism is of no value. This, he says, is a great proposal and the criticism of it must be on big lines. The picayune criticisms of the hon. leader of the opposition he pronounces a failure. The opposition, he says, must discover an alternative to the government proposal, and that alternative is government ownership of the road. The hon. member for South' Lanark appears to agree with him, and the hon. exMinister of Railways has told us that his first choice would have been as to this matter at all events to row in the same boat with the hon. member for East York and the hon. member for South Lanark. The hon. leader of the opposition has not quite made up his mind about the matter. He has heard a good deal of irresponsible chatter about government ownership of railways just as he has heard of free silver and faith healing and innumerable other fads and crotchets. But he is a prosaic and common-

sense sort of person with little imagination and no sentiment; and while these imaginative enthusiasts, like the two exMinisters of Railways and the hon. member for East York, are ready to put to sea, ne shrinks into himself. He * lingers shivering on the brink and fears to launch away.' I must confess that I am with him in his misgivings. When I heard the hon. exMinister of Railways read from his letter to the Premier the passage in which he expressed his first preference for ' a government-owned and government-operated railway ' based upon the exploded theory of its * equalizing and regulating influence upon all the other railways ' with which it would come into competiaion, I must confess that his words produced the effect of a sudden shock. If they had been spoken by some raw young person like the former member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), I would not have been surprised. If they had come from the light-hearted visionary from East York who elaborates his theories of state policy on the wing, in the course of his hitherings and thitherings between his seat in parliament and his desk in Toronto, there would have been nothing in the circumstance to astonish the House of Commons. It would simply have been another illustration of what Mr. Ackworth has said that the movement for government operation is like the scarlet fever. It is liable to attack any community and at irregular intervals to become epidemic, but its attacks as a rule are severe, only in the case of the younger and more impressionable portion of the population. But when a hard-headed and practical person such as the hon. ex-Minister of Railways, who has had seven years' experience of government ownership and operation, and who must be presumed to have given some serious consideration to the subject, concurs in the views of the hon. member for East York and seems to be supported by the hon. member for South Lanark, the time has surely arrived for a calm and careful consideration of the question.
Now, I must admit at the outset, that I have a great degree of sympathy with the views those hQn. gentlemen have presented to the House. I have been at times seriously threatened with the symptoms of the disease with which they are afflicted. When the theory of government ownership was broached in the Railway Committee by some lion, gentlemen in the discussion of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, my heart went out towards them, and if I had been able to dispose to my own satisfaction of the very serious difficulties and objections by which the proposition is beset, I certainly would have been pleased to find that I was able to join them in the advocacy of such a measure. I started with a very strong bias in favour of the proposition and I have on more than one occasion indicated my preference for some such solution of the railway question if it could be safely brought Mr. RUSSELL.
about. But I am compelled to admit that the authoritative voices are for the most part opposed to the proposal for which the hon. ex-Minister of Railways has expressed his preference. I have quoted parenthetically the views of Mr. Ackworth, whose position and authority will be recognized by everyone who has read the literature of the question. A more scientific writer is the one I have already mentioned, M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu. In his work on ' the modern state and its functions ' he has a chapter devoted wholly to the presentation of the arguments for and against the proposition under discussion. He shows that the two countries in which a moderate and qualified success has been achieved in the state operation of railways are not really modern states at all. They are not moulded on the democratic model. In Prussia the central power is practically independent of parliament, if not absolutely so, in the general direction of political affairs, at least it is so in the choice and conduct of the personnel of the administration. Even Belgium, although it approaches more nearly to the democratic model, differs in two essential particulars from a real democracy, namely, in the narrowness of its suffrage, and in the relative permanence of its administration. The political conditions in both countries are so entirely different from those prevailing, as he suggests, in France and the United States, and let me add, so entirely different from those prevailing in the Dominion of Canada, that it is utterly impossible to argue from the partial and qualified success of government operation in Germany and Belgium, that we would enjoy any similar exemption from failure and disaster here.
The analogy of the post office and the telegraph, he rejects as being inapplicable. The post ahd telegraph system in France represents a receipt of 180,000,000 francs. The corresponding figure for the railways in France is ten or twelve hundred million francs. In Great Britain and Ireland he states the gross receipts of the post office and telegraph system as a little over nine million pounds sterling, while the receipts of the railways amount to over seventy-one millions. Because in the narrow and restricted sphere of the post office and the telegraph the government has successfully taken possession, it does not follow that a staff of state officials would be found competent to conduct a business infinitely more extended. But this is not the only difference between the cases. The service of the post office and the telegraph is of a simple and elementary character. That of a railway is complex and difficult in the extreme. The question of tariffs, as we all know, is an exceedingly complicated one, requiring the highest quality of expert knowledge and experience. It is so difficult that the House will remember one occasion when the exMinister of Railways could not make his

predecessor, the hon. member for South Lanark, understand even the meaning of the terms used in the Railway Commission Bill to define the different classes of tariffs, with which the commission will have to deal. Whether it was from want of lucidity in the explanations or from defectiveness in the ' uptake,' it would be invidious to say. Possibly there was a little of both ; but out of respect for such high authorities we will assume that the trouble was due to the intrinsic difficulty of the subject.
The expenditures for material' of every kind required for a railway call for a business knowledge that a political department cannot be expected to possess, and expose the minister to the constant suspicion of the country on the score of favouritism and boodling. Every political party when in opposition believes its opponents on the treasury benches to be guilty of these offences, and a large percentage of the commoil people believe both parties guilty. Even the high character and lofty integrity of Alexander Mackenzie did not exempt him from charges of this nature in connection with his purchases of rails for the road that was afterwards handed over to the Canadian Pacific. And if charges of this nature could be brought against Mackenzie, and be believed for'a time by one-half of the people of Canada, what must be the suspicions that will rest upon public men whose reputations do not stand so clearly out as his, beyond the reach of any reasonable suspicion ?
The writer next refers to the enormous army of employees which under the system of government operation must be subject to the control of the administration of the day. In Great Britain, at the date of his writing, there were three hundred thousand of these employees ; in Prance about two hundred thousand. * of whom the number is bound to be increased.' The smaller the number of state functionaries, the better the chance of preserving the precious boon of political liberty.
When the number of employees of the state goes beyond five or six per cent of the electoral body political liberty is greatly endangered. When the state functionaries form ten per cent of the electors it ceases to exist.
Nothing could be better than his statement of the injurious political consequences that must flow from the great extension of political power which the government ownership of railways would involve. Let me quote his very words, or at least present a fair translation of them :
The modern state, which belongs in a precarious fashion to a party, the personnel of which is changed from time to time as the chances of the ballot may determine, would be strongly tempted to transform the operation of the railways into an instrument of electoral corruption. It would have no power to resist the multiplication of trains, the increase in the number of employees, the. removal of political opponents and their replacement by others. The modern state is almost completely delivered
over to considerations of political expediency. This is a condition that applies to every branch of the public service, and for this reason it is well that the sphere of government operation should be as restricted as possible.
Such are some of tbe considerations, altogether apart from those derived from actual experience which he presents in opposition to the system of government operation. Coming down to actual experience, his demonstration is equally if not more cogent. Taking the system of government operation as he finds it at its best, in Germany and Belgium, he affirms it as a proposition not even open to debate that the system of government operation is more costly, less punctual, and more liable to accident than the system of company roads. Convincing statistics are presented on these points which it would be tedious to quote, and the author supports his argument in many of its details by citations from the reports of M. LeHardy de Beaulieu to the Belgian Chamber of Representatives.
I know that a question of this kind is not going to be determined by the marshalling of authorities, but I cannot forbear to cite the words of another writer who has made a more comprehensive presentation of the science of railroading than any other that I know of. I refer to Marshall J. Kirkman. I do not know how his authority is appraised by those who do not know, but he is described as one of the foremost railway men of the world, having spent his whole life in the service, besides having been, throughout his life, a diligent student of the railway question in its every phase. It should be a sufficient testimony to the value of his work that it has gone through at least five editions. How many more there may have been I do not know. He has presented the question in no less than twelve volumes, covering the whole service from the organization of the companies down to the coupling and uncoupling of the cars. His general remarks on the subject of state ownership are as wise as they are witty :
When anything goes wrong In the world or seems to go wrong, the ignorant and thoughtless everywhere rise up and call upon the government to interfere, as if a perfunctory body made up of agents loosely selected at best were more trustworthy than the mass from which it derives its life. Government interference is ' the sine qua non ' of young people, the hopeful, confiding and simple. It is the fancy of cranks and schemers.
I cannot undertake to assign to these several classes the hon. members who have advocated the policy in this House. They include the young and confiding, the cranks and the schemers. The ex-Minister of Railways will not be included among the young and confiding, and he has not heretofore been counted as a crank. Yet I will not draw the conclusion. Let me, rather, proceed with the quotation :
It is never fully adequate. It lacks in intelligent interest, energy and adaptability. It more-

over has the effect of weakening personal interest and individual effort. Its substitute for private effort is to trade off the practical experience and enthusiasm of the nation for the service of hired men. Government management lacks the spirit of alertness and desire to please. It is at once meddlesome, slow, cumbrous and bumptious. In no case has the train service of railroads managed by governments kept pace with that of lines operated by private corporations either as regards safety or efficiency.
These I am aware are only opinions, and I freely concede that the ex-Minister of Railways could confidently present his management of the Intercolonial Railway as a set-off to some of the accusations that have been brought against this system of state ownership and operation. He has given us a brilliant illustration of the capacity of the governent road to compete with a company road in the case of the cattle that went over the Intercolonial after the embargo prevented them from going through the United States. It shows what intellectual paralysis may come upon even a clever person when he gets on the wrong track. Did it never suggest itself to the hon. gentleman that it was not very conclusive as to the competing capacity of the Intercolonial that it should be able to beat the Canadian Pacific when its hands were tied behind its back by an embargo ? The fighting must usually take place under normal conditions, and under normal conditions the ex-minister, as I have said, has time and again bewailed his impotence.
I will refer to this point more fully in another connection, but in the meantime let me deal for a moment with the proposal that has been made by way of obviating the very palpable objections to. the proposition that the roads should he operated directly by the government througa a minister it-sponsible to this House. 8cme lion, gentlemen have advocated the idea that the government should own the roads, but should not directly operate them. Let them be built by the government, they say, and operated by a commission. In this manner we secure the rights of the public, and at the same time avoid the political dangers resulting from the direct control of the roads by the administration. I am afraid that even this proposal offers no satisfactory solution of the question. We have had the suggestion made that we should place this continental road in the charge of Mr. Hays, or Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, or some railroad man of equally eminent position and ability. But the question immediately occurs, what money would we have to pay to secure the services of an efficient manager ? The companies pay without compunction and without wincing, salaries as large as forty or fifty thousand dollars. Do you think the sovereign people would ever consent to install such a nabob as that, and pay for his services at such a figure ? Every editor of a paper in this country.


Benjamin Russell: who gets one or two thousand dollars a year, would lift up his voice against the outrage. Every barnstormer in the back country would inveigh against the extravagance of the provision for the luxury of such a railway dictator. Fancy the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in the back concessions of his riding, with such a theme as this to dilate upon ? What hurricanes of vacuous eloquence would he not bring to bear upon the devoted head of the unfortunate official ?	Would he not demand, with much	show of	reason,
that his salary should at the highest not exceed that of the Premier ? How long would a democracy, that thinks its first minister well paid at ten thousand dollars and its judges overpaid at salaries ranging from two to seven thousand, be willing to pay forty or fifty thousand dollars for the services of a railway magnate ? We may be well assured that such an official would speedily become the most unpopular person in the country. His position would become intolerable. His powers would be assailed as an encroachment on the rights of the people, and the demand for direct and immediate ministerial control would become as clamorous and insistent as it was in Victoria, and would be followed by the same disastrous consequences here as there. We should pass through a period of wild and senseless experiments such as have brought disaster and virtual bankruptcy upon some of the Australian colonies until we were ready to call in the railway commissioner again, as Victoria has done within the past few months.
I have referred in passing to the railway question, as it has presented itself in the Australian colonies. Let me deal a little more fully with the history of the matter on the continent of Europe. I do so for the purpose of establishing two propositions first, that while government operation may not be feasible, government ownership is feasible, and the best method of managing the business, under a system of government ownership, is the method that has been adopted in the measure now before the House; secondly, that, as to government operation of the railroads, no matter what conclusion we may come to on the general question, it is well established that no system of government operation can be successfully undertaken excepting under two conditions, neither of which exists in the Dominion of Canada. The first condition is that the government must not simply possess itself of a single line of road to be run in competition with a number of other roads; it must have the whole or none. The second condition is that there must be a complete and perfect organization of the civil service, making it absolutely independent of political parties and absolutely free from the dictation of the government of the day.
Let me discuss these propositions briefly,

in the light of the actual railway experiences through which the European countries have passed. It will he no information to those who have made a study of this question, that in 1844 Mr. Gladstone secured the passing of an Act, under which the railways of the country might be acquired after the expiration of twenty-one years from the date of the enactment, under the conditions and by means of methods fully set out in the Act of parliament. In 18G5 the time arrived when the option of the government could be exercised, but public opinion was not ripe for the adoption of the plan, and a commission of inquiry was appointed, under the headship of the Duke of Devonshire. It sat for many months and examined many witnesses. Its report is embodied in no less than seven huge volumes, which may be found in the library of parliament. I do not suppose that any lion, member of this House has ever read the whole of this report, and I doubt if life would not be too short to warrant one in undertaking such a task. But happily it would not be necessary, for the whole matter is summed up with the utmost lucidity in the conclusions arrived at by the commission. The argument against the proposal is embodied in the report of the majority. The argument in favour is presented in the strongest possible form by Sir Rowland Hill in a minority report. I do not propose to refer to either class of arguments. My purpose, in mentioning the matter, is to refer to the striking and convincing fact that neither the majority nor the minority of the commission ever dreamed, apparently, of any kind of government operation. beyond such as is provided for in the measure now before the House. They do not seem to have considered it thinkable that the government should itself directly enter upon the experiment of running a system of state railways. I suppose it would have seemed to Sir Rowland Hill to be the wildest sort of midsummer madness to propose, as the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals seems, from his own statement, to have proposed to his colleagues in the cabinet, that the government should own and operate this transcontinental road. They assumed that what the government would do would be to acquire the railways just as we are building the road from Winnipeg to Moncton and lease them to companies, as we are leasing this road to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
The experience of Italy is full of instruction also on this part of the question. It is nowhere better presented than by Mr. Hendrick in his essay on the subject of ' Railway Control by Commissions.' a monograph published by the Putnams, of New York, in their series of economical studies on questions of the day. Mr. Hendrick is described as a Ricardo Prize Fellow of Harvard University, and nobody can read his book without appreciating its lucidity and sobriety of statement.
No country, he well says, has had an experience with railroads more worthy of study than Italy. .	. . The working of government control in Italy has not only been clear but it has been brought into relief by the contrasts of the various systems she has tried one with another. She has tried the method of private enterprise with aid from the government, then the guarantee of interest to private companies in imitation of the system still prevailing in France, together with state construction of roads to compete with the private lines it was supporting

This is the method submitted as-his preference over all others by the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals.
-then for a period of five or six years, from 1879 to 1885, the state owned and operated all the roads, when this system in turn was abandoned in favour of the system now in operation.
%
While the roads were being operated by the state, a commission was sitting which had been appointed by the Italian government for the express purpose of determining what was best to be done for the settlement of a difficult problem. It was composed of fifteen members, six being senators, seven deputies, and the remaining two engineers. Its work, as Mr. Hendrick says, was without a parallel in railway history. The commissioners began by circulating throughout Italy among all classes who had any interest in railways, a series of nearly two hundred printed questions. Answers, oral and written, were invited to any or all of these questions, and they were made so explicit and precise that each who had a special bit of information might find a category for it. The commission sat in every large city of the peninsula, took oral testimony and invited essays from all who had, or claimed to have, any understanding of the question. So bulky was the information obtained by the commission that it was not until 1881 that it was ready to report. The gist of its report is given by this writer in the following words :
That it was well for the state to own the railways but unwise for the state to operate them ; that it was wise to leave the whole railway system to private corporations. Their arguments were that this was the best way to strengthen the finances of the government and insure efficient public service, that by this arrangement two great evils would be done away with, the first, the demoralization caused by the appointment and control of an army of railway officials, the second, the centralization of the vast power of appointment and the burden of constant supervision to prevent its abuse.
The evils of government operation, as they developed themselves in Italy, are presented by Mr. Hendrick in striking colours. ' The railway system, according to the commissioners. had become a sort of general hospital for friends, relatives and hangers-on of the local deputies, and in the matter of rates there was the same situation. Annually a general scramble took place to fix the tariffs to suit local and special in-

terests. Tlie rates came to resemble a congressional river and harbour appropriation/
1 will not go so far as to say that we have had a taste of these very evils in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. It is a comparatively small piece of government road. It has the exclusive attention of an able minister of the Crown, and unlimited liberty to call upon the taxpayers of Canada when it is in difficulties. It might be hoped that it would be administered witli comparative freedom from the pressure of localities for concessions, of hangers-on for employment, and of political supporters for the privilege of furnishing supplies. We know, however, that every party that is in opposition believes the actual administration of the road for the time being to be characterize)! by all the evils described by Mr. Hendrick as attending the management of the state railways in Italy. Small as it is comparatively, it seems to have been impossible for the minister to secure a manager to his satisfaction or to retain the services of a manager once he has been selected. One after another they have come and gone, the Harrises and the Rus-sells, and I know not how many others. They have come to the task with high personal hopes and large public expectations, but one after the other they have gone their way, leaving the old reliables in undisputed possession of the field; and I certainly have no fault to And with the present heads of the official staff or the present administration of the road. But let its proportions be extended to embrace a transcontinental system instead of a comparatively small piece of road connecting the maritime and inland provinces, and I fear it would require more than all the energy and ability of even the outgoing Minister of Railways and Canals to save it from the fate that has befallen other government roads in other countries. Even under the present conditions great resistance is required to keep up the staff. There is not a man who has broken down in other walks of life or proved his complete incapacity for effective work of any kind who does not look upon the Intercolonial Railway as the heaven-ordained sphere for his activities. 1 The blind, the lame and the lazy ' are all applicants for the privilege of serving the country in one capacity or other in connection with the government road. They may be resisted for a time, as I believe they have been effectually resisted by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and the staff may be kept, as I believe it is at present, a competent and efficient staff. But the pressure is there and it will continue. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety. It is a good deal to hope that this vigilance will always be continued, even under present conditions. With the area enlarged, as I have suggested, I must confess I should despair of the situation. It would not be within the pos-Mr. RUSSELL.
sibilities of human nature to resist the importunities of members, each in turn under pressure from his constituents, for employment for which the applicant was unfitted, for patronage to which the applicant was not entitled, for concessions which were opposed to the interests of the community at large. The road would become ' a general hospital,' not perhaps as in Italy, 'for the friends and relatives and hangers-on of the local deputy,' but certainly for all manner and degrees of official incompetency, backed up by political pressure upon the local representatives. No wonder that the Italian commissioners rejected this proposal, and adopted in lieu of it the method which the government has adopted in the present Bill for the management of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton.
This branch of the government proposal then, let me conclude as to this part of the case, is in line with the only system of government ownership regarded as worthy of consideration by the Duke of Devonshire's commission, the only system that seems to have been thought feasible by Sir Rowland Hill, who was a sincere and able advocate of government ownership. It is the very system hit upon by the Italian commissioners after the most uniquely thorough and comprehensive inquiry instituted by the Italian commission, and I may say that it is the system which I understand to have been recommended by a railway authority in this country, who has given a great deal of study and consideration to this question, who has been pronounced by the late leader of the opposition a profound and thorough student of the subject, and whose writings on this question, although not widely known, are known to Some hon. members of this House as constituting a very careful, learned and thorough study of the problem. I refer to Mr. Powell, of Saekville, New Brunswick, who represented Westmoreland in the last parliament, and who, it was generally assumed, was to be the Minister of Railways and Canals in the cabinet to be formed by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) in 1900, had it not been for the little accident that befel him in his county and the greater accident that befel his party in the general elections. I believe that the former member for Westmoreland is almost the only public man in Canada who has ever made a serious study of this question, and I understand that his conclusions are in line with those adopted by the Italian commission, which, in turn, are exactly in line with the plan adopted by the government for the operation of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. I will certainly have a right to be surprised if that gentleman is not an enthusiastic supporter of this portion at all events, of the measure now before the House.
The question has been very fairly asked by some hon. gentlemen : If this is a government system for the section from Win-

mpeg to Moncton, why is it not equally applicable to the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast ? Nothing could be easier than the answer to this inquiry. It is conceded on all hands, that there is not at present business, and there may not for years be business, for more than one new line from Winnipeg to Moncton. The whole stress of the argument of hon. members opposite is that there is not business for even one new line. West of Winnipeg the conditions are altogether different. It is almost universally conceded that there is practically no limit to the number of lines that will be wanted. The fertility of the westeru lands and the swelling tide of business in the western country warrant the government in two assumptions ; first, that private enterprise, at all events when aided with the usual modicum of government assistance, will be found sufficient to secure all the railroads that are required ; and, secondly that business will be found for all the railroads that are likely to be built. In the eastern section, the conditions are notoriously and admittedly different. If the government were to hold aloof, it may be that no company would be willing to undertake the task, and, in any case, as one road is sufficient for all the business, it is more economical that there should be but one line, with adequate provision for its use by all the others that may require an outlet. It does not in the least advance the argument to speak of this combination of methods as a hybrid scheme. It was a saying of Lord Beaconsfield's that the English people were governed by phrases, and the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals seems to labour under the delusion that he is making an argument when he invents a nickname. He might as well call bis costume a hybrid costume, because he puts a coat on his back and a pair of trousers on his legs. He adapts his garments to the purposes they are to serve, and we adapt our systems of administration to the different conditions and circumstances of the sections to which they are to be applied.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three, o'clock.


Benjamin Russell: Mr. Speaker, I am almost ashamed of having occupied so much time in discussing the motion before the House, and I will promise not to be long in presenting the remainder of my remarks. Let me proceed with the consideration of my second proposition. I have said that the government cannot successfully operate a road in competition with a system of company roads, and that if it is determined to go into the railway business it must possess itself of the whole of the roads in the region in which it operates. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has presented a most attractive theory which I presume he has borrowed for the occasion from the repertory of the hon. member for East York
(Mr. Maclean), as to the great utility of a government owned and government operated road in the way of equalizing the freight rates on the company roads with which it would come iu competition. Perhaps I do him an injustice. Perhaps he has had in mind the railroad history of the kingdom of Belgium in which this theory controlled for a time the railway policy of the country. Great praise has been given by almost every railroad authority to the wisdom and sagacity of Leopold I, who happened to be an exile in England at the time when George Stephenson was successfully accomplishing his great undertaking of making his railroad float upon Chat Moss. King Leopold was able to study the conditions of railroad enterprise in Britain, and apply the lessons that he learned to the situation in Belgium. He rejected the policy of private construction and was able to secure for the state at the very inception, the control of all the best paying territory in the kingdom. Undoubtedly his policy was brilliantly successful for a time, and it was exactly the policy described by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals of having one central line of railways owned and operated by the state in such manner as to secure a controlling effect upon all the other railways of the country. If we had begun in this way there might have been some hope for the success of such a programme. If we had adhered to the policy of Alexander Mackenzie, I suppose this would have been the actual condition of affairs to-day. But I lay no stress on this, for I am well satisfied that next to the occupation in which the two hon. exMinisters of Railways and Canals have been engaged, of predicting the probable effect of a policy to which neither of them is capable of doing justice, there is no more futile occupation for the human mind than that of endeavouring to conjecture how things might have been if they had been otherwise than^ as they are. So many occult and incalculable factors enter into the case that it would require omniscience to determine what would have been the result if a different course had been adopted in any important particular from that which actually was pursued. We know what has happened. As to what would have happened under other than the actual conditions it. is perhaps not easy to conjecture. In Belgium, as I have said, the policy which Mr. Mackenzie was working out for us was brilliantly successful. So enamoured of its success was Mr. Adams, the great railway commissioner of Massachusetts, that lie at one time desired the state of Massachusetts to purchase the Fitchburg road for the purpose of running it in competition with the company roads of that state. But his proposal never was adopted, and Mr. Hadley tells us that he had good reason later to reverse his earlier opinion on the subject. The fact of the matter is, as Mr. Hendrick puts it, that whenever the state attempts to enter into

competition with the companies it is bound to get the worse of the competition. The time would fail me to refer to all the authorities that might be cited as to this contention. There are many of them, and so far as I am able to recall, they all speak with one voice. I will content myself with the remarks of Mr. Hadley, because he is the most fair-minded and the best informed of all the really competent authorities who have endeavoured to deal with railway problems in an unbiassed and scientific spirit. His testimony on this point is clear and conclusive :
It Is a curious fact, that in any such competition the State is not stronger than private companies, but weaker. Theoretically, it may have power to forbid private companies engaging in such competition. Practically, public opinion will not allow it to exercise, that power. NOr can the State railroads exercise a dignified reserve. If the private railroads are run to make money, and succeed in doing so, the State railroads must be run to make money too, or else the authorities will have to face the criticisms of an indignant public. And in this money-making race it is impossible for the government to have the same quick elasticity of action as a private company. Thus it happened that in Belgium the competition was not quite even. The State had somewhat better routes, but the advantages possessed by private companies in a business fight just about offset this difference.
In another place, the same author, referring to this very proposition of the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals says :
The idea of government ownership of one among several competing lines attracted undue attention, owing to its supposed success in Belgium. The earlier reports of the Massachusetts commission, deservedly high authority, favoured the idea, but it was never carried to a successful conclusion in Massachusetts, and it was abandoned in Belgium, the government purchasing a large part of the private railroads. The competition with the private lines had been too onerous for the Belgian government, and had left it too little independence of action. The private lines regulated those of the government 'rather more than the government regulated the private lines. Experience is against the probability of success in the attempt on the part of the government to regulate either railroads or telegraphs in this way. To do anything efficient it must control not a few lines, but the whole system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if even in Belgium, where everybody agrees that this system advocated by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals and his leader in this matter, the hon. member for East York, could be tried with better prospects of success than in almost any other country in the world, in which the wise foresight of King Leopold secured for the government all the best paying territory and enabled it to enter into the competition with all the chances of the game in its favour, with a restricted suffrage and ft government acting in comparative independence of the whims and


Benjamin Russell: caprices of the multitude and even the deliberate criticisms of those who knew, if, I repeat, even in Belgium it was found that instead of the government regulating the company railways, the company railways regulated those of the state, and the experiment had to be abandoned by the state taking to itself the whole system, as it was also found to be necessary to do in Prussia when the same influences operated to bring about the same results, I ask what hope would there be for us with our line of railway planted in the midst of keen competitors such as the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern, with the greater elasticity and plasticity of their management, with their far more carefully selected staff, with their better paid officials, and with alert and active agents in all parts of the country, with all the immense advantages that a private company has already been shown to have in such a competition, and all the handicaps under which it is necessary for a government railroad to enter upon the race ? Does it need any very great acumen or anything more than a little modicum of common sense which was one of the distinguishing characteristics of the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals before he surrendered his judgment to the control of the hon. member for East York, to see that the result of the competition here would be ten-fold more disastrous than it was in Belgium or in Prussia. In both those countries the testimony is complete that the government found it impossible to compete successfully with the private companies and was obliged in consequence to take over practically all the railroads of the state. If we are prepared for that issue, we may hopefully adopt the proposals of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. If we are not ready for so desperate a plunge let us adopt the sound and rational and truly conservative policy that is now before us for our acceptance.
It only remains to me to consider some views which I honestly believed before I heard the speech of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) had no representatives in this House. I knew that those views, although I never had heard them voiced within these walls, had nevertheless obtained some currency throughout the country, for besides the hon. member for Jacques Cartier there are some people in the country who are opposed to the idea of government assistance in any shape or form. They do not oppose the present measure merely because of its particular provisions, but because they consider that the business of railway construction should be dealt with in the same way as every other line of business and left to shift for itself as best it may. They oppose this measure as they would oppose any other measure or any possible measure involving the assistance of the government because they object to the principle of state aid


to railway construction in any form whatever, whether by land-grants, or money subsidies, or guarantees of interest. It may well be that this class of objectors is not numerically important, but it is a class whose reasoning is not to be despised and whose contentions are not to be disposed of with a sneer. Its views are presented with great energy, with very considerable ability, with infinite pertinacity and with every appearance of deep and sincere conviction. I have seen these views from time to time presented in substance in an ably conducted journal, which I believe is mainly supported by the farming industry of Ontario, a journal which must be of very great utility to that industry, and which were it not for its prevailing note of pessimism and its occasional devotion to fads and crotchets, would be one of the most readable of Canadian organs of opinion. It seems to have imposed upon itself the mission of persuading, if possible, the farmers of this country that whatever may be the actual condition of their minds, they ought to be profoundly miserable, because, although they may delude themselves into the belief that they are among the most happy and comfortable people on the face of the earth, they are in reality an exceedingly oppressed and down-trodden portion of the community who are being put upon by every variety of imposition that the malice and craft of their representatives in parliament are able to devise for their destruction.
Hardly a single number of this able and influential journal comes from the press, in which we are not invited to contrast the policy of this country with respect to railway bonuses and railway taxation with the policy of the United States. Here, it is said, we bonus the construction of railways, sometimes with land, sometimes with money, and sometimes with land and money both. There they allow the roads to get along as best they! can upon their own resources. Here our railways are for the most part exempt from taxation. There the taxation of the roads affords a substantial relief to the ordinary ratepayer. The contrast is certainly a striking one and I do not see how it can fail to make a strong appeal to the readers of the ' Farmers' Sun ' who must, I should think, be among the most intelligent and influential members of the farming community of the province in which it circulates. If there were nothing to be said on the other side of the question it would certainly seem that we in this country have been pursuing an indefensible policy and that we should reverse it at the earliest opportunity.
But it is only fair to ask at the outset whether the comparison is just. Are the circumstances of the two cases at all to be compared ? Is the problem of railway construction and railway extension in this country the same as in the American republic ? Now, I venture to affirm that no such comparison can justly be presented. It is the comparison between the growing boy and the grown-up man. If the United States were in the circumstancesi in which we find ourselves to-day their policy would be the same as ours. It was the same as ours long after they had reached the stage in their national development at which we have arrived and I venture to predict that this country will have given its last subsidy for railroad construction, its last land-grant if it has not already done so, and its last guarantee of bonds long before we have secured either the population, or the wealth, or the condition of national development to which our neighbours had attained before they abandoned the policy of government assistance to their roads.
When this country is inhabited by seventy millions of people, when Quebec and Montreal are cities like New York and Philadelphia, when Winnipeg has the wealth and population of Chicago, when our fertile valleys and expanding plains are peopled to such a degree that we shall discourage instead of welcoming the immigration on which we now expend so liberally, when in other words our wealth and population are the same as those of the United States are now, our policy will be the same as theirs. Instead of running after the railway-builder or seeking to attract him to our projects with bonuses or grants of land as the United States did long after they had reached the present condition of this country, we may be demanding payment for our railway franchises or subjecting the exercise of them to taxation for the support of local and municipal burdens. The United States, as the right hon. Prime Minister well said, are in, this position to-day. But they were not always so. Would anybody who reads the ' Farmers' Sun ' believe that in 1850 when the population of the United States was-not barely six millions, as ours is now-but a shade over twenty-three millions of inhabitants, congress granted to the state of Illinois for the Illinois Central Railway, 2,595,000 acres of land. Ex-Governor Larrabee, of Iowa, in his work on the railway question, states that the total number of acres of land granted by congress to aid the construction of the Iowa roads was 4,069,942, and he estimates the total) value of the gifts made to the roads of Iowa state, including railroad taxes voted by the counties, townships and municipalities, grants of right of way and depot sites, and public and private gifts of money at $50,000,000, or enough to build forty per cent of all the railways of the state. Between 1850 and 1871 there were granted for railway construction 197,000,000 acres of land, of which 35,000,000 were forfeited by subsequent legislation, leaving 162,000.000 acres, equal to 253.000 square miles, which is more than the area of the whole province of Ontario. The value of these lands has

been estimated by competent authority at $300,000,000 at the time when they were granted. What amounts they yielded to the companies at their improved values it Is impossible to say, but the late Mr. Blaine estimated the total amount of advances to the United States railway companies, including gifts by towns, counties, states and the United States at $1,000,000,000. When we reflect for. a moment upon these tremendous figures, so large that we can form no real conception of their meaning, whicli are in fact almost as bewildering to the ordinary intellect as astronomical magnitudes, and when we still further remind ourselves that the United States did not abandon the policy of making land-grants in aid of railway construction until after they had three great transcontinental railways assured, I think it will occur to most of us that we have not much to reproach ourselves with from this point of view and that no very powerful argument against the policy of aiding the construction of railroads with the capital or credit of the country can be drawn from the example of the United States. Having assured with national assistance the construction of three great continental roads, having secured a population of thirty or forty millions, the people of the United States might very well abandon the policy of government assistance and leave the railroads for the rest to work out their own salvation ; but the comparisons in which the ' Farmers' Sun ' indulges between the United States and Canada and which I have no doubt have made many converts to its views on this question, are none the less, for the reasons I have mentioned, the shallowest of fallacies. The doctrine of laissez-faire in the matter of railway construction may be a good one for the United States to-day, or for a densely populated country like England, with its teeming millions to afford a passenger traffic and its vast and diversified industries to swell the freight receipts. One would have supposed that the same thing would be true for France and that private enterprise without the assistance of the state would have been found sufficient to secure an adequate system of roads. But even in France, private enterprise was not found sufficient to cope with the situation. When France began effectively to enter upon the work of railway construction its population was six times as large as the present population of Canada, while as to the territory over which our present population is spread, which constitutes the very essence of the problem to be solved, there is absolutely no comparison whatever to be made. Yet Mr. Ackwortli, whose name will be familiar to, and whose authority will be recognized by every one who has ever seriously studied the railway question, states that the French government has paid nearly two hundred million pounds sterling, equal to about $1,000,000,000 in capital outlay and is con-Mr. RUSSELL.
tinuing to pay some millions annually in the form of guaranteed interest for the railway companies, and Mr. Hendrick writing at a later date says that up to 1895 the great companies had received from the state 22,800,000,000 francs. Mr. Ackworth's figure is the same as that stated by Mr. Blaine as the contribution of the United States to the railroads owned and operated by the railway companies. True enough, there is a difference between the two cases. The French policy contemplates a term of years, after which the roads are to become the property of the state. But the period is remote and no human being can pretend to say how much the government will still be called upon to pay before the reversionary interest of the state will become an estate in possession.
Now, if it be the case that a great and flourishing state like France with its compact and fertile territory and its population of thirty or forty millions, in the years of its great railroad activity, was unable to secure a satisfactory system without contributing in one form or another a thousand million dollars, if even the United Kingdom found itself compelled to subsidize the construction of railroads in Ireland, if the United States, down to the time when its population was in the neighbourhood of forty millions, continued the policy of aiding the construction of railways with the grant of lands and its people>
expended for this purpose in one form or another, as Mr. Blaine has stated, $1,000,000,000, I do not think it need be very surprising that we in Canada, with a population less than six millions, spread over half a continent, should have found that we could not have the roads that were demanded as the indispensable prerequisite to natural unification and the continuously progressive development of the country without either a liberal subsidy from the public treasury, or a generous tender of the public credit. Our government has chosen the latter alternative and I believe it has chosen wisely. We give this Grand Trunk Pacific Company a guarantee which costs us nothing but our good-will, and saves the company a large amount of money that must otherwise be wasted so far as this country is concerned in the payment of interest to foreign investors and capitalists. We enable them in this way to build their road on the most advantageous terms, we place its whole undertaking as we do all other railroads that we are allowed to control, under the regulation of a com'r mission which has the power to prevent all unfairness and extortion ; we avoid the difficulties and the perils that have been encountered in other countries by daring and dangerous experiments, we widen and enlarge the boundaries of old Canada, we relieve the congestion of traffic in our western country, we open up a new hope of enlargement to the maritime cities of the Atlantic seaboard, we bind the lower prov-

inces to the inland and the western to the eastern by the new and stronger tie of material interest and) interprovincial trade, and we open up to the whole Dominion unlimited possibilities of expansion which the most sanguine among us could not find it possible to exaggerate.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker. Let me in the first place thank the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) for bringing to my attention an unintentional misstatement which I made to the House in speaking very hurriedly after the Prime Minister. a few days ago. I then said, that only 2,500,000 bushels of grain had been carried out during the past year by the all-rail route from Fort William and Port Arthur. I made that statement on the authority of a gentleman who was in possession of the facts. Since the error was pointed out to me by the Minister of the Interior, I communicated with that gentleman to whom I had written for information in the first instance, and he sends me in reply the following letter :
We have been asked by several different members as to the all-rail shipments eastbound from Fort William ; in some eases the inquiries applied to wheat only, and in other cases to grain of all kinds. X may say that this led to some confusion, and that the figures given to you by me were not entirely correct. Our records show that during last year the all-rail shipments of grain of all kinds amounted to 5,697,695 bushels. Of this quantity about 3,100,000 were for export, and the balance went to local points in Canada. I intended to give you the quantity shipped for export, because local shipments play no part in determining the practicability of an all-rail route to the sea for grain. The expansion, if there is to be any, must be in the carrying by rail of grain for export. Apparently, I gave you the local figures, instead of the export figures, so that your statement was about 600,000 bushels under the mark. You may use this letter to correct error, if you choose to do so.
It is desirable that any statement of facts in the House should be correct, and therefore I am obliged to the Minister of the Interior for attracting my attention to tills, and I take the earliest possible opportunity of correcting the statement which I then made.
Let me say further, that I am also informed that the circumstances under which some 5,600,000 bushels of grain went out last winter were altogether exceptional. The Canadian Pacific Railway required stiffening cargoes for their vessels, and there was also a pressure that the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William should be cleared out, and in consequence grain went out last winter by the all-rail route which we could not reasonably expect would go out in that way under other conditions.
I would also like to say, that while I am thankful to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior for correcting me in this respect, I am not particularly thankful to him for the manner in which he quoted my re-281
marks of the 30th of July. He attempted to make it appear that in some way I misled the House as to the meaning of section 12 of the contract. I read that section to the House at the time and I made some observations which the Minister of the Interior quoted only in part. I corrected him as to one mistake he made-or one oversight-in regard to my remarks of the 26th of May, and I desire now to correct him with regard to his misquotation, no doubt unintentional, of my remarks of the 30th of July. I quoted section 12 on that occasion and 1 followed that quotation up by these words :
Therefore, the company guarantees by the deposit of $5,000,000 to do something without which its enterprise would be of absolutely no moment at all.
That is to say, having built the line, of course the company might naturally be expected to equip it, and as the guarantee of $5,000,000 is for the building of the line and the equipping of the line, you are not very far from the mark when you say that it is1 practically a guarantee to do something' without which the enterprise of the company would be of no moment at all. Then I continued :
In other words, the company guarantees to build a railway as to which it receives a guarantee 'of $13,000 a mile for one portion of it, and $30,000 a mile for the rest, and it deposits with the government $5,000,000 as security that it will use for the construction of the railway the moneys derived from the bonds guarantee)! by this government.
And practically, that Is all that this) guarantee amounts to; and I did not observe then what has been noted in this debater that this very sum of ?5,000,000 can be paid out to this company practically on progress estimates from time to time as it proceeds with the work. Then I continued :
That is certainly a most remarkable piece of statesmanship, and I am not surprised at the plaudits with which the announcement of this clause was greeted by the right hon. gentleman's supporters. It is quite evident that they were kept as much in ignorance of the real nature of this clause as were the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
Permit me to say, before I go further, and before I forget it, that I would like to reassure my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior with regard to the people of the maritime provinces. That gentleman, in the course of his remarks, was good enough u>
say. in effect, that the people of the maritime provinces were a mean spirited and a weak-kneed people, or they would have had a railway through the centre of New Brunswick long ago. He told us in effect that if they had the spirit of the men of the west, we might have expected that they would have arisen in their might and demanded this railway years ago. I want to tell my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who of all men has the least cause to complain of plain speaking from the people of the



maritime provinces, that liis own department has been somewhat in question down there, not only among the Liberal-Conservative papers, but among Liberal papers as well. There is a newspaper published in the city^ of Halifax called the ' Morning Chronicle,' which is owned by thre; gentlemen, of whom one is the agent of the Deputy Minister of Justice at Halifax, a very prominent Liberal, another is the Liberal member for the county of Colchester in the provincial legislature, and the third is president of the Liberal Association of the county of Halifax ; and I have before me some plain speaking from that paper in regard to the hon. Minister of the Interior, so forcible and so personal in its character that I will not read it to the House to-day ; but if any hon. gentleman wants to see whether the people of the maritime provinces are incapable of speaking out plainly and forcibly, let him consult the columns of the ' Morning Chronicle,' of September 27, 1902. If the hon. Minister of the Interior consults the editorial columns of that paper of that day, he will find something that suits even his craving for strong language in regard to the conduct of the government.
I must apologize to my hon. friend the member for Hants (Mr. Russell), because I shall not be able, I fear, to give very .special attention to his remarks. I was unfortunate enough not to hear the whole of them. A greater part of what I did hear consisted of a personal attack upon my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), which consumed about an hour of the three hours and a half in which the hon. gentleman condensed the remarks he made to this House. The other portion consisted very largely in somewhat slighting remarks with reference to his late leader the ex-MInister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and the imputation of unworthy motives to that hon. gentleman for his resignation from the government. But, in passing, let me ask my hon. friend why he is so extremely optimistic in regard to the prospects of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and so extremely pessimistic in regard to the prospects of the Intercolonial Railway ?
I was under the impression, until I heard the hon. gentleman speak, that he was one of those who had voted for an expenditure of some $15,000,000-that is what in the end it amounted to-to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. We have been treated this afternoon to a long lecture, a long historical review of every country which has attempted the state operation of railways. The hon. gentleman, in dealing with the question, does not seem to realize for one moment that it is not a question of theory in Canada at all ; it is a question of what we are going to do with the Intercolonial Railway. We have 1,600 miles of state-owned railway in Canada ; what does my hon. friend propose to do with it ? What does he mean by asking whether or not we
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax),
shall enter into the state ownership of railways in Canada ? Let me read, for his information, if he is not aware of it, a portion of a folder which is issued by the government which he supports, through good report and ill, and which points out that there is government ownership of railways in Canada at the present time ; and that, to use a common expression, it is a condition and not a theory that we have to deal with in this regard :
Perfect travel means good road-bed, good equipment, good secenery, which you have on your own line. The Intercolonial Railway of Canada is, in more senses than one, the people's line. As a government road, it is owned by the people, and in the operating of the line this principle is ever kept in view, so that the best available service will be given. In another sense it is the people's line, because it is popular, as the great all-Canadian system and the only all-rail line from Montreal to the extreme points of the maritime provinces. It is equally popular as the great tourist and sportsman's route, and that by which the desirable places in the provinces by the sea can be most conveniently reached.
What is the logical outcome of the argument of my hon. friend from Hants ? The logical and the only inference you can draw from his argument is that we should sell or give away the Intercolonial Railway at once. He has made a long-drawn out argument against undertaking government ownership in this country, when in fact we have government ownership now. I would like my hon. friend to go back to the people of Nova Scotia and tell them whether or not his argument means that the Intercolonial Railway is to be given to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or to some other railway company, and is to be no more the people's railway, and that state ownership in Canada is no longer to exist. It was somewhat amusing in this connection to hear my hon. friend giving a lecture to the ' Farmers' Sun ' because it opposes the granting of subsidies to railways. Was not the song of hon. gentlemen opposite, of whom my hon. friend was one, through many weary years in opposition, that no railway subsidies should be given ? To have my hon. friend stand in the House and discuss editorial articles in the 'Farmers' Sun,' and endeavour to bring that paper back from the supposed error into which it has fallen, an error in which the hon. gentleman himself participated and believed in in days gone by, is a spectacle that would have been more refreshing than it is if fortunately during this summer session we were not blessed with cool weather.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to deal any more in detail with the argument of my hon. friend from Hants ; but I think I shall, during the course of my remarks, answer two or three of the arguments which he, in common with other hon. gentlemen on

the other side of the House, have put forward in regard to this scheme. I do not know that we might expect that a policy such as this is, evolved by the government, as we are told by the kon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, without any assistance from experts, without any assistance or advice from the officers of the Intercolonial Railway, would be likely to commend itself to the country at first blush. The record of the government in the past with regard to these matters is not a very striking one in point of success. We know their proposals with regard to the fast Atlantic service. We know the story that was told throughout the country at that time, a story quite as glowing as that which was presented to the House by the Prime Minister the other day. We were told that the fast Atlantic service was absolutely accomplished. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister received a telegram at Toronto in the nick of time, for the purpose of reading it to a Toronto audience, stating that the fast Atlantic service was a fait accompli at last. Month after month and year after year have gone by, and we are no nearer the accomplishment of a fast Atlantic service than we were on the day he read that telegram. If you look at the record of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, you would not be inspired with any confidence in any project they may bring before the House, without advice, particularly when you realize that the policy they are bringing down is one that has led to the resignation and retirement from the government of the only man among them who during the last seven years has been studying this transportation problem, the man who during the past seven years they have been hailing as- the ablest railway administrator that ever presided over the department. It is amusing-it is more than amusing, it is delicious-to see these hon. gentlemen, after cheering the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals for his administration of the Intercolonial Railway for seven years past, after supporting him by vote and speech on every occasion, now standing up in the House and belittling him as a statesman, and imputing unworthy motives to him ; and when the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches do not care to do that themselves, they put up some one like the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) or the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), the pupil in political life, if I am rightly informed, of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, to show that that hon. gentleman never was a statesman, never was a man of broad views or a man of courage, and that he had not resigned from the cabinet on a question of policy, but really because he was subjected to some personal slight. Well, as I have said before, there have been rumours in this House that there were other gentlemen in the cabinet who were not one whit 281}
better pleased with this project than the Minister of Railways and -Canals, the only difference between them being that he had the courage of his opinions and they had not.
The transportation problem of Canada beyond doubt is a very complex problem. Having had to give some special attention to this subject during the past four or five weeks, I have realized, more than ever I did before, the very great complexity which surrounds this question in Canada and the very great importance indeed of our not acting too hastily or not taking any leap in the dark, but procuring, before taking any action, the very best expert advice and assistance that can be obtained. In speaking on this subject in the city of Winnipeg, in October last, I used this laguage :
It Is the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party to grapple with this transportation problem from a national standpoint. We would not do it hastily, but would do it after taking the advice of experts and others familiar with railway problems and after fully investigating as to what would be the best course to pursue. In this the party should commend itself to the people, for railway transportation and other matters of this kind require the very best expert advice and assitance that can be secured.
I am glad to know that the Winnipeg Board of Trade endorsed that opinion by resolution during the past year in this language :
That a thoroughly qualified expert in the management of railways be appointed to make a report on existing conditions, and what in his opinion would make the Intercolonial a paying concern and of the greatest benefit to the country, and also to study and make recommendations on the following alternative schemes for the consideration of the government and the people.
At the beginning of the session, a policy of that kind was promised by the government. It was not necessary that an announcement of that kind should have been delayed until the opening of this session. During last autumn, or immediately after the closing of last session, the government should	have appointed that commission which they proposed this year in the speech from the Throne, and should	have	had* the report of that
commission ready for this House when it began to sit this year. If this government had, during the phst year, taken the best advice which this continent can afford, we might have had a very different proposal submitted by the government this session; but this so-called businesslike government, with its unbusinesslike methods, procrastinated and dallied with this question until the session opened and then came down with a speech from the Throne, in which they used the following language-good, sensible, rational language. The only fault to be found with the government, in that respect, is their delay in taking the step which, in

the speech from the Throne, they promised to take :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
A good, sensible, proper view to take of the question, considering that it involves problems in Canada of a most complex character.
Well, Sir, the session opened on the 12th of March. Nothing was done from that time until the 19th of May, when an Order in Council was passed, which was subsequently brought down to this House, and which contains language startling in its character, when contrasted with the speech of the Prime Minister made on the 30th of July. Let us observe what that language is. This is the language of the government, affirmed by His Excellency, and put in the shape of an Order in Council brought down to this House, declaring the policy of the government on the 19th of May last:
That the development of North-western Canada has manifested the inability of existing Canadian transportation agencies to take care of Canadian products.
That our agricultural exports can only command the prices over seas to which their natural excellence entitles them when they cease to be confounded and confused with the inferior and often adulterated articles produced elsewhere ; and to preserve their separate identity they must go through Canadian channels.
The minister further states that the questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to be sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world.
This involves the consideration of their transportation :-
Prom place of production to Canadian seaports.
Prom place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
From Canadian seaports to Europe.
Prom place of production through Canadian ports on the Pacific.
As it affects the products of the eastern provinces of Canada it involves their movement:-
To the seaports.
From the seaports to Europe.
I call the attention of the House and country to these words :.
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can be reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made regarding :-
The conditions of original shipment and the possibilities of improvement in the conditions surrounding such shipments.
The storage requirements of lake, river and ocean ports.
The harbour facilities of the inland lakes, rivers and Atlantic and Pacific ports.
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, and, generally, any improvement, enlargements, or other matters


Robert Laird Borden: affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or wrnter.
Taking in, by those comprehensive words, the whole system of transportation in Canada :
The minister further states that in making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but, if necessary, new surveys should be made to determine w'hether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely :-
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ;
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by our competitors should be carefully studied and reported upon.
The minister apprehends that in these circumstances it devolves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, and it is thought that the most efficient method of conducting such an inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts who may be appointed and authorized under the provisions of chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
That was the attitude, the carefully thought out, well considered attitude of the government on the transportation question on the 19th of May. It was also the attitude of the government later than that, because there was no recession from that attitude, when I brought the matter to the attention of the House on the 26th of May. I would like the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who is to follow me in this debate, to tell me what occurred which altered the opinion of the government on that point between the 26th of May and that day in June, when the government press, for the first time, announced that the government would bring down a policy of its own and that the reasons for the appointment of any such commission as I have referred to, had ceased to exist. What was the reason which caused this change of policy ?
On the 19th day of May, this question is one which requires the most careful consideration and deliberation. Words of caution are used by the government with regard to this subject. On the 30th day of July, the Prime Minister speaks in a tone of panic, telling us that a crisis has developed. What crisis developed, Mr. Speaker, between the 19th day of May and the 30th day of July ? Was there any crisis with regard to the bonding privilege on the 30th of July that did not exist on the 19th day of May ? It is true the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) came home in the

latter part of May, and it may be suggested that lie had something to do with the crisis -brought it with him, perhaps. But there has been no suggestion of that kind up to the present time. Now, a grave change of attitude on the part of the government with regard to a question of such transcendent importance to this country as the transportation question requires some better explanation than any that has been given up to the present time. I will endeavour to examine, later on, the reasons which the Prime Minister gave on the introduction of this measure. In the meantime, if my right hon. friend, or the hon. gentleman who is to follow me, can tell me what crisis existed on the 30th day of .July with regard to the transportation question that did not exist on the 19th day of May, it is only right and proper, and it certainly is desirable that the House and the country should be informed with regard to it.
Mr. Speaker, there is no use wasting words about it. We know that no such crisis did exist. We know that the Prime Minister, when he came down to this House on the 30tli day of July, knew of no crisis before this country. He knew that the conditions were exactly the same on the 30th day of July as they were on the 19th day of May. He came down to this House with a bogey with which he might frighten some people with regard to the bonding privilege, and might appeal to certain national sentiment in Canada, which he was wont to condemn very much in days gone by, when he used to speak-I do not know whether on this side of the line or on the other-of his pre-< ference for the American dollar over the British shilling, and to point out to the people of this country that their natural interest would lead them to trade with the people of the United States rather than with the people of Great Britain.
The Prime Minister, in introducing this measure, rested his case mainly on three grounds, which I want to state fairly before the House. The first was that a transcontinental railway such ns this is required to save Canada from the effect of the repeal by the United States of the bonding arrangement ; second, it will have the effect of diverting to Canadian channels traffic which now passes through American channels and to American ports, particularly to Portland ; third, a road built in the manner and along the route proposed is necessary for the development of the country. Now, I want to take up these grounds one by one and examine them.
First, let us deal with the question of the bonding privilege. I observe that, as this debate has proceeded, my right hon.- friend has not received very much support from any of his colleagues who have spoken with regard to the bogey he raised before the House. In answering the right lion, gentleman on the spur of the moment after he had spoken, I took the ground, which I still
believe to be the true ground, that the people of the United States are as much concerned and Interested in the bonding arrangement as are the people of this country.


Mr. CLARKE.: More so.


Robert Laird Borden: An hon. gentleman near me says that they are more interested, and I would be inclined to go even to the length of that hon. gentleman's opinion, and say that the people of the United States are even more interested in this bonding arrangement than are the people of Canada. And I pointed out, as I still desire to point out to the people of this country, that it is an undignified thing for the Prime Minister of Canada to stand in his place in this House and practically tell, not only the people of Canada, but the people of the United States, that we are at the mercy of the United States in this matter. I say again, as I said then, that we are not at the mercy of the people of the United States. We can do without' this privilege if need be, as well as can the people of the United States, and we can work out our destiny and our political future even if the United States should go so far as to commit the unfriendly act of repealing this bonding privilege. But how does the right hon. gentleman propose to save us from the effect of the repeal of this privilege ? By building a Ihie from Levis to Moncton which passes within two or three miles of the American boundary. This will save, according to the right hon. gentleman, a distance of from 120 to 140 miles. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), who has evidently not made much of a study of the question, went a little beyond that-he saw the right hon. Premier, and went a little better-saying that it would save 200 miles, I believe. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) says it will save 110 miles. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says it will save 9G miles. Other hon. gentlemen say it will save from 50 to 70 miles. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), after having studied the reports of Sir Sandford Fleming, and after having discussed the subject with that gentleman, who is well informed on the question, say that it will save nothing at all if you build the road in such a fashion as to give the grades which are required for economical hauling. That is the way in which the right hon. gentleman proposes to save the people of this country. My hon. friend the Finance Minister does not go quite so far as the Prime Minister. He says that we shall build it-well, as an object lesson. Practically, that is what he says. We shall build this line so that the people of the United States, when they look across the border to ascertain the effect of repealing the bonding privilege, will say : Alas ! it. is too late ; it is no use to repeal the bonding privilege; the Canadians have built

a short line from Levis to Moncton, and we might as well leave the bonding privilege where it is. But, Sir, the Minister of the Interior really excelled himself with regard to this subject ; and, in order that I may not do injustice to that hon. gentleman- whose absence to-day I very much regret-let me quote his mode of supporting the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to this point. I think that my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who has, even with regard to matters that are controversial in this House, a very excellent sense of humour, will enjoy this very much:
The Grand Trunk Railway has a line from the city of Montreal to the city of Portland. It is a magnificent line of railway, well equipped in the best modern style, and it has terminal facilities which I am credibly told have cost from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000.
By the way, this is the line that the Minister of Finance proposes to nationalize in some not very easily understood way.
We are told by the Grand Trunk people that the facilities which they have for doing business between Montreal and Portland are not sufficient now to cope with it.
Now what is the proposition of the member for Hamilton. It is that the Intercolonial, with its .barely sufficient equipment to do the business which it has now, shall take the three or four times as great business of the Grand Trunk, that it shall take the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that the business of these three railways shall be suddenly precipitated upon the Intercolonial Railway, and that that railway shall be expected, with its insufficient facilities, to do the business of the whole three. And my hon. friend says that that is a consummation to be desired. He says we should not he alarmed at a prospect of that kind, that it is something which will help the Intercolonial and which does not at all call for any action upon the part of this government for the purpose of preventing the consequences which might flow from it. Why, Mr. Speaker, has he considered for half a moment what would happen in such a case as that ? Why, we would have in the traffic of Canada confusion worse confounded, we would have a blockade which would throw into the shade the wheat blockade which took place during the last couple of years in, the Northwest; we would have the railway business of the country disorganized, because the business of Canada depends upon its export trade, and we would have millions upon millions of money of the people of Canada annually wasted on account of our inability to do the business which ought to be done over these railways. That, Mr. Speaker, is the contribution to the discussion of the railway question which is made by the railway expert of the Conservative party.
Well, how opposite are the views of the right hou. gentleman and the Minister of the Interior ? The right hon. gentleman wants to divert the trade of Canada into Canadian channels, and the Minister of the Interior pictures the horror and dismay which would overtake Canada if the trade from Portland should be diverted to the Intercolonial. Why, Sir, imagine the peo-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
pie of the United States considering Whether or not they should repeal the bonding privilege. They would look over into Canada and they would say : There are some idle, good-for-nothing railways in Canada which are hardly employed at all; there is the Intercolonial Railway, which according to the statement of the gentleman who has been operating for seven years, could do four times the traffic which it does at present. Here we have railways which are actually overloaded, let us relieve our railways and send our surplus traffic over to the Canadians, and so punish them in that way, by means of repealing the bonding privilege, we will send all this traffic over to Canada.' But my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, I suppose, had more particularly regard to the question of congestion. We would all deprecate any congestion of business in Canada. And what would be the logical way of dealing with this question if we -were confronted with any suon difficulty as that? Would it be to build more railways? No, but to equip the Intercolonial so that it could do four times the business it is doing at prjsent, a business which the officials of that railway say it is easily canable of handling.
But when the Minister of the Interior gets as far as Moncton, I do not know how he would relieve the situation there. In the first place, how would he relieve the situation before he got to Moncton ? Is he to keep the present Intercolonial up to the standard of a through railway, and is he to have two such railways from LCvis to Moncton ? If so, he is going to run this country into a pretty big expend!t ire; if he does not do that, he has just one railway to Moncton as we have to-day, and after he gets to Moncton, what about the congestion? Is there any duplication of the line from Moncton to St. John ? Is there any duplication of the line from Moncton to Halifax ? None whatever. So the congestion so alarmingly pointed out by the Minister of the Interior would only be transferred from L6vis, or Quebec, to Moncton. There is one possible explanation, and that is that the Minister of the Interior, being misled by the Minister of Finance, thinks of equipping Moncton as an ocean port. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, with great gravity, stood vp in this House and stated that this was a true transcontinental railway, because :t extended from the Pacific coast to Moncton: end he pictured the great number of passengers that were going to travel over that railway for the purpose of viewing the celebrated ' bore ' of Moncton. Now, I know that the town of Moncton is an enterprising, active and progressive town inhabited by splendid, enterprising, progressive and industrious people ; but I do not think the town of Moncton has ever claimed to be capable of doing business as an ocean port. Cer-

tainly, if it is to be equipped as an ocean port, I would expect my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) to put in a similar claim for Amberst, and my bon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) to put in a similar claim for Truro. As a matter of fact, this bogey about the repeal of the bonding privilege does not amount to anything at all. There is no danger of it, as was point ?d out by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). The very men who stand as the backbone of this undertaking, the men who are controlling the destinies of the Grand Trunk Railway to-day, are the men who are putting their money into enterprises which depend to a great extent for success upon the existence of these very bonding privil-' eges.
Now, my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior was somewhat exercised with regard to my attitude concerning the Quebec-Moncton line. He had evidently been somewhat misinformed with regard to the condition of affairs in the maritime provinces, because he seemed to think that I was in a somewhat embarrassing position concerning that line. Let me assure my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior and the House, that I feel no embarrassment on this subject whatever. As he has invited me to state my view with regard to that, I will state it at once, though I might have left it to a later period in my speech, wh-*re it would more properly belong. But I will say at once what my attitude is with regard to that line. I say that if there is to be found a better and shorter line between Rivi6re du Loup, or any other point on the Intercolonial, and Moncton, a line the construction of which will give to Halifax and St. John and the Maritime Provinces generally a better fighting chance for western traffic than that which they have at present, I will support the construction of that line. But I will not support it with the object for which this Bill provides. I will tell my hon. friend how 1 will support it. I will support the construction of that line as part of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not believe in constructing that better and shorter line for the purpose of handing it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other railway company; but I do believe in constructing it and keeping it for the people's railway. That is my position and it is a position which I am ready to discuss in the maritime provinces or anywhere else, with either the Minister of the Interior or any other hon. gentleman in this House. For what reason should we, having found a better route through the province of New Brunswick, having found a route by means of which another railway might compete with the Intercolonial, as the Intercolonial exists at present, for what reason ffiouid we conslrm t another railway there and hand it over to a competing company for the purpose of destroying the Intercolonial Railway which
belongs to the people of Canada? Build a railway, if it will give to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick a fighting chance for the trade of the wTest, and when you have built it, keep it for the people of Canada, as part of that system which we have at present, and which I hope to see some day extended further west than at present. In all this, act reasonably, survey your country, consider the grades to be secured, consider the distance to be saved, consider the cost of haulage to be saved. Do not plunge into the thing rashly, do not undertake to build it upon a survey made 30 or 40 years ago when railway conditions were different from what they are at present. Go into the enterprise sanely, and after having obtained information which would justify you in believing that it would give a better chance for trade to the people of the maritime pro-, vinces, and. to the cities of Halifax and St. John; build it, as I said before, by the people of Canada, for the people of Canada, and for the people's railway.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. LOGAN.: Why don't all the hon. gentleman's supporters cheer?


Mr. COCHRANE.: Why didn't the hon. gentleman cheer himself ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is very curious. What would he think of the proposition, which I suggest?


Hance James Logan: If I followed the hon. gentleman's argument, and if such a line would parallel the Intercolonial, I would be opposed to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad that I have elicited for my right hon. friend a very frank expression of opinion from the hon. member for Cumberland in opposition to the very project which he has brought down here. I assure my right hon. friend that it was quite unintentional. I was not aware before I spoke that the hon. member for Cumberland was on strike. There are, of course, many other things which would have to be considered in the expenditure of this money. Do not let any hon. gentleman in this House suppose for one moment that there is no room for the expenditure of more money in the maritime provinces for improving the Intercolonial Railway. The terminals at Halifax should be improved, the line between Truro and Moncton should be improved and there should be a better passenger service than there is at the present time between the maritime provinces and Montreal. I passed over the Grand Trunk Railway two years ago between Hamilton and Toronto, and I found that if the Intercolonial Railway could operate their express trains at the same rate of speed between Montreal and Halifax we would reach Halifax in twenty-one hours from Montreal instead of twenty-eight hours as at present. The train creeps along, stopping at every

station and makes very poor time for an express train. In many other matters there is room for expending money on the Intercolonial Railway, but notwithstanding that if the.construction of this line through New Brunswick will give our maritime cities a better fighting chance I would be prepared to support an expenditure of money for that purpose. What are to be the grades of the proposed line from Moncton to Levis ? Does any lion, gentleman know Is the maximum to be a grade of twenty-one feet in the mile, or is it to he a grade of forty-two feet in the mile, a grade of one per cent, or is it to be a grade of four-teenths of one per cent in the mile ? As has been pointed out bv the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) before we plunge into the building of a railway we should understand that thoroughly ; and I am glad that I have the support of that hon. gentleman who said that it would be of. no use to build this railway unless we can get grades not exceeding four-tenths of one per cent, or not exceeding at most one-half per cent which, if I remember his remarks correctly, he said to be the highest possible grade over which any railway can haul grain successfully under modern conditions. Now, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) justifies the haste in connection with this railway because he says companies often get charters before they commence to build. There is no analogy between that and this. They do not make a charter to build. This is not a charter to build but it is a contract to build. Did you ever hear of a railway company contracting to build a line through a country about which it had no more information than the government have about this country 1 Did you ever hear of a contractor undertaking to build a line through a country of which he had no more knowledge than we have about this country ? All that the opposition have said about this is that the government are not in possession at the present time of sufficient information to justify them in proceeding With the scheme without further surveys, and I am prepared to say further than that, that if a line is built it should be retained as part of the Intercolonial Railway.
My hon. friends the hon. Minister of the Interior and the hon. Minister of Finance both referred to the question of the paralleling of railways. The hon.. member for Cumberland is troubled about this paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway. I would like to ask these hon. gentlemen and I would like to ask the hon. member for Cumberland, assuming that the building of this line through central New Brunswick means the paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway, means a better line, a line over which through freight will go, is it better to have the Intercolonial Railway paralleling itself by this better line or is it better to give that better line over to a company which will compete with the Intercolonial Railway ?


Robert Laird Borden: If you are going to parallel the Intercolonial Railway by a better line surely the Intercolonial Railway had better parallel itself and use that better line for the traffic which otherwise would be carried over the railway competing with the people's railway.


Hance James Logan: No hon. member can make any such assumption. It would be an impossible assumptiqn. You could no more parallel the Intercolonial Railway by building a line from Levis to Moncton than you could parallel the two sides of a triangle by building across the base.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad my hon. friend has come back to the fold. A moment ago I thought he would not return, but now he says that the road does not parallel the Intercolonial Railway V


Hance James Logan: I do not think my hon. friend wishes to misrepresent me. What I said before was assuming that the arguments put forward by the followers of the hon. gentleman were correct, therefore I drew certain conclusions, but I make no such assumption and deny that they are correct.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept at once the statement of my hon. friend. I regret, I am sure, that I misunderstood him in any way. I certainly understood when he spoke a moment ago that he was opposed to any line which would parallel the Intercolonial Railway, and that lie thought a line through New Brunswick would parallel it. I am glad that he and I are of the same opinion in regard to that and as that difficulty is out of his way now I would ask him again what he thinks of the people of this country owning the proposed shorter line through New Brunswick.


Hance James Logan: I will answer the hon. gentleman's question later on.	.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) came to the rescue of my hon. friend from Cumberland but it was. too late to help him. The hon. Minister of Justice says they own it now. I suppose he means that they will own it under the conditions of the present proposed Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They will own it under the proposed Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that is a perfectly fair answer. They will own it, but what will they do with it V They will take that better line and hand it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I see that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) is also going to interfere. Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will deal with this matter later on and we are better not to have any more cross firing than is absolutely necessary.
The next point in the speech of my right hon. friend that I desire to deal with is that this road will bring and keep Can-

adian trade within Canadian channels. Well, there is no man on this side of the House who will not support the right lion, gentleman most heartily and most earnestly if he will bring forward a scheme that is likely to accomplish that result. In Canada to-day we are all at one in regard to that. No* one doubts its desirability, but this is in contrast with the idea which was to be observed in certain of the right hon. gentleman's utterances years ago. Now, the trend of trade, according to his views, should be from west to east and across the ocean to the mother country, but in the old days it was to be from north to south, it was continental free trade, it was unrestricted reciprocity, it was commercial union, which the right hon. gentleman desired, and. I am sure no one congratulates the right hon. gentleman more heartily than the Conservative party upon the fact that he has come round to their view upon this question. However, I suppose it is a matter of legitimate inquiry to know how the right hon. gentleman proposes to accomplish that object. He proposes it by a clause in this agreement which provides that unrouted traffic shall be carried by Canadian ports. Let us read the clause and let us see to what extent it is likely, particularly In view of the utterances of my right hon. friend, to accomplish the desired object:
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the [DOT]through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
In section 43 tlie company further agrees :
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian' ocean ports.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I took tlie point in my remarks on the 26th of May last, that I doubted very much the efficacy of a provision of that kind. After having submitted to tlie attention of the House a memorial from the Halifax Board of Trade, I said :
I must confess, that, having regard to the conditions as they are in Canada at the present time in regard to the Grand Trunk .Railway, I have not been able to reach a conclusion that such guarantees as have been spoken of in the
press and in these resolutions, can be very easily enforced or carried out. I should be glad indeed to see the Grand Trunk Railway taking its part in the solution of Canadian transportation problems, and I hope it will be able to do so, but we have to consider conditions as they are and we know that the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway to a very considerable extent are, of course, centred in a winter port in the United States in which it has expended a very large amount of money in terminals and shipping facilities.
I want to say with regard to this that it all depends, in the first place on wlmt enforcement you can have of this contract ; and in the second place, on how much unrouted traffic there will be in Canada, and particularly in' connection with the export grain trade of Canada. I will give latei; on some information which I have gathered to that which will indicate to the House that so far as grain is concerned, a covenant that unrouted traffic shall go to Canadian ports simply amounts to nothing at all.
Some remarks of mine were referred to to-day, by my hon. friend from Hants. I desire to declare to this House and to the people of this country my sincere belief and solemn conviction, that the only way to send Canadian traffic through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports, is to make transportation by that means at least as economical, as expeditious and as advantageous to the shippers of Canada as any other means of communication. There is one way and only one way to accomplish that object, and that is the way I have stated to the House just now. I may be wrong with regard to that ; I do not claim to be infallible ; I may not meet the views of the majority of the people of tins country-I do not know anything about that, but I declare it to be my most solemn faith and conviction, that the only means by which you can send' Canadian trade through Canadian channels' is by means of accomplishing a result such as that. Trade and commerce, and transportation as well, will flow along the line of least resistance, and I do not believe that by all the Acts of parliament in the world you ever can accomplish the result in any other way.
Now, let us see to what extent we shall have accomplished anything by means of these covenants upon which the Prime Minister and his supporters rely. This particular covenant, obviously will be of no value at all unless the products are to be carried by rail to Montreal, Quebec, Halifax or St. John. The Minister of the Interior argues that grain would be so carried, and he cites a rate in the United States from Kansas city to 'Chicago to establish a rate of 11 i cents a bushel to St. John, New Brunswick. If you take the rate from Winnipeg to Fort William and base thereon the rate from Port William to Quebec or Montreal, you will find that from Fort William to Quebec, say 1.000 miles, the rate would be 23-3 per

hundred pounds, or 13 98 cents per bushel ; from Fort William to St. John the rate would be 34-97 cents per hundred pounds, or 20-97 cents per bushel, and from Fort William to Halifax the rate would be 37 cents per hundred pounds or 22 cents per bushel, a railway carry grain for any such sum mer, Wolvin & Company are carrying grain from	Duluth to	Quebec for	threecents and a half cents a bushel, and it has been	as low as	three	cents.	Cana railway	carry grain for	any	sumas that ?	The rate	from	Fort	William on the Canadian Pacific Railway is 20 cents per 100 pounds or 12 cents per bushel to Montreal as well as to St. John I believe, and they are not anxious for business at that rate, and they carry this grain out only for the purpose of providing stiffening cargoes for their vessels at the port of St. John. We must remember that in all these matters you cannot judge by any particular rate at any given time. A_ railway company may have ships chartered at a point on the Atlantic coast, and it may be absolutely necessary to make such an extremely low rate as to astonish one, simply for the reason that the railway must supply cargo for that vessel which it has chartered to carry cargo across the Atlantic. The ban. Minister of the Interior referred to the rates from Depot Harbour to Montreal giving the maximum rate of four and a half cents, and the minimum at two and a quarter cents per bushel. This would give a rate from Fort William to Quebec of about 12 cents maximum, and six cents minimum, but, as I have pointed out it has been carried by water from Duluth to Quebec, a greater distance, for three cents per bushel. Grain is now being forwarded from Fort William to Montreal via Depot Harbour for three and three-quarter cents per bushel. Over that Georgian bay route and by the Canada Atlantic Railway grain has been hauled this summer for three and three-quarter cents per bushel, and I ask whether it can reasonably be expected that grain would be carried that distance over an all-rail route north of Lake Superior for anything like the same sum ? The railways have some chance of competing with canal transportation, because canal vessels take small cargoes, but when railways come to compete for 500 miles along Lake Superior with boats that will carry 300,000 bushels each, you cannot reasonably expect real competition by the railway against the water route. I am also informed that by developing our water ways, by providing proper elevators at Port Colborne and other lake ports, grain can be carried by lake, river and canal, from Fort William to Montreal for three cents a bushel and earn a fair, moderate profit. I am informed of that by a gentleman who has made a study of the subject and who I believe will probably engage in that business before very long.


Robert Laird Borden: Let ns remember in this connection that the lake and river route, and the all-water route of this country serve two distinct purposes; they are both necessary, and therefore we should look to the development of both. The canal navigation closes about the middle of November, and the Georgian bay does not close for navigation until the 15th of December, and those who are familiar with the navigation of the Georgian bay tell me that there is hot the slightest difficulty in keeping up the navigation later than the 15th of December, up to the 1st of January and even the middle of January, if assistance were given in the shape of breaking the ice which forms near the shore. You would thus have the lake and canal routes operating up to some time early in November, and after that the railway and lake routes operating up to the 15tli of January. These are complementary to each other, all serving a common purpose ; because it is necessary that we should get a very considerable portion of the grain of the Northwest, not only to Fort William and Port Arthur, but to the eastern side of Georgian Bay, before the close of navigation, so that it may be transmitted to Atlantic ports by rail as soon as possible.
Now, let us compare the grain rates in the United States. Let us take some of the rail rates which have been established in the United States by the Grand Trunk Railway itself. The all-rail rate in cents per hundred pounds from Chicago and Chicago junctions to Boston is 20'3 cents; to New York, 18-3 cents; to Philadelphia, 16'3 cents; and the rate from Minneapolis and St. Paul to Boston is 294 cents; to Now York, 274 cents; and to Philadelphia, 25} cents. Compare these rates with the quotations to which I have just been referring to, and consider, if you will, whether or npt profitable rates can be established over this railway running to the north of Lake Superior. These railways in the United States are charging these rates in the presence of fierce competition, not only with other railways, but with the all-water route and the lake and railway routes as well. They are railways established in a thickly settled country, with heavy traffic in both directions, and largely supported by local traffic. Do you imagine that a railway running north of Lake Superior can make even as fair rates as those to which I have referred; and even so, are these rates which can compete with the lake rate or with the lake and rail rate which I have given to the House ? Let us apply some common sense to this question, and consider for a moment whether or not a railway north of the height of land, having among other disadvantages to carry its coal a thousand miles into that country, having to compete for five hundred miles with vessels carrying 300.000 bushels, can make as good rates as the United States roads. If it can, it cannot possibly compete with the all-water routes or with

routes part rail and part water. Let us see what is said in the United States Industrial Commission report of 1900 in this regard.
A very competent witness, whose evidence is cited in the report, gives the .rates in the United States as follows :
For the year 1897 the average all-rail rate from Chicago to New York on corn (Indian corn, maize) was 11-43 cents per bushel. During the season of navigation of that year the average rate by lake and canal, including the charge at Buffalo, was 4-53 cents per bushel. For 1898 the average all-rail charge on corn was 9-8 cents, and on wheat twelve cents. The average charge by lake and canal, exclusive of charges at. Buffalo, was 3-81 cents on corn, and 4 45 cents on wheat.
Now, compare the two rates in 1897, 11-43 cents per bushel on corn by rail, 4-53 cents per bushel by lake and canal ; in 1898, 9-S cents per bushel by rail, 3-81 cents per bushel by lake and canal. On wheat in 1898 the rates were : By rail 12 cents, by lake and canal 4-45 cents. Then he says, further on :
On the amount of grain exported during the year 1898. t.he difference between the all-rail charges and the lake and canal charges would be about $25,000,000.
We have a report on this very subject ourselves. I do not know whether the members of the government, in dealing with this question, have thought fit to consult their own reports. If they did, they might find conclusive evidence on this point. Let them turn to the report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the present year, and compare the rates given in that authoritative volume for these different modes of transportation. I will give only the rates of wheat, although the rates on corn are given, as well. The rates 'on wheat	per	hundred-weight	by	lake andcanal have	been as follows	:	In	1881, 8'07
cents ; in 1S82, 7-23 cents ; in 1883, 9 cents; in 1884, 7 cents ; in 1885, 6-5 cents ; in 188(1. 9-1 cents ; in 1887, 9-5 cents ; in 1888, 7 cents : in 1889, C-9 cents ; in 1890, 6-7 cents; in 1891, 6-9 cents ; in 1892. 0-4 cents ; in 1S93, 7-6 cents ; in 1894, 5-1 cents ; in 1895.
4-	8 cents ; in 1896, 0-2 cents ; in 1897, 5-2
cents ;	in	1898, 4-4 cents	;	in	1899, 5'8cents ;	in	1900, 4-5 cents	;	and in 1901.5-	11' cents. So that you see a reduction in the cost of carrying wheat by lake and canal from 8'67 cents in 1881. to 5-11 cents in 1901. a period of twenty years. The rate on wheat per bushel from Chicago to New York by lake and rail was reduced from 10-49 cents in 1881 to 5/54 cents in 1901. In 1881 the all-rail rate from Chicago to New York was 14-4 cents per bushel, and in 1901, 9-88 cents per bushel. In the year 1901 the cost in the United States of carrying a bushel of wheat from Chicago to New York by these three different modes of transportation, was as follows : By -lake and canal. 5-11 cents per bushel ; by lake and rail. 5-54 cents per bushel ; and by all-rail, 9-88 cents perbushel. If you look at the decrease in cost, you will find that the lake and canal and the lake and rail rates have decreased proportionately quite as much as the allrail rate. This is a very significant circumstance, particularly when we consider that the people who are anxious that the state of New York shall undertake the deepening of the Erie canal to a depth of 14 feet, estimate that when that work is completed, it will be possible to have wheat carried from Chicago to New York for 24 cents a bushel.	Theyestimate that in this way :	They saythat the average cost of transportation from Chicago to Buffalo last year was li cents per bushel, and that when the deepening of the Erie canal is completed, it will be possible to take wheat from Buffalo to New York for eight-tenths of a cent per bushel, thus making the rate from Chicago to New York practically -i -cents per bushel. In view of these facts it is very difficult for us to believe that this project can be very successful, as regards the carrying of grain, and upon that the success of the whole project depends. Let us take the evidence given by an officer of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, given before a committee of the House in 1898. It is to be found in sessional papers, volume 33, appendix one, page 149. It is the evidence of Mr. Wainwright, a very able man, who was giving evidence on the question of railway transportation:	[DOT]
Q. As a railway expert what on ordinary freight is the charge per ton per mile that would pay expenses ?
A. That is a difficult thing to answer. It depends a good deal on the description of freight, the quantity you can carry and the distance of haul. In carrying coal for instance we do not calculate on a rate per ton per mile, we calculate what we can carry a train load at. It is carried in train loads and we can afford to carry it very much cheaper per ton per mile than in the case of other classes of freight.
Q. Take hauls of 400, 500 or 1,000 miles for instance, what would you regard as a satisfactory charge ?
A. We look upon a rate of 1 to 1 of a cent per ton per mile as satisfactory.
Q. That is a satisfactory rate ?
A. It is a covering rate if carried some distance in train loads.
Mr. Haggart :
Q. It is according to distance ?
A. Yes. entirely.
Mr. Powell :
Q. I am asking about long distance train loads. As a supplementary question, what proportion would be profit and what expense ?
A. That goes into the question entirely of working.
Q. Take a fairly economically managed road, take the Intercolonial for instance, what do you [DOT] think would be a fair charge per ton per mile over that for long hauls under favourable conditions *
A. I could not tell you as to the Intercolonial. On our own road at half cent per ton per milo under most favourable conditions we should not make more than one-tenth of a cent per ton per mile.

Further on he said three-tenths of a eent might cover the actual cost on a perfectly level road.
Coal, labour and materials have all increased in price since above evidence was given and consequently cost of haulage must have increased also.
In dealing with freight of this character, he puts down coal as freight which is carried cheaper than anything else. That would equal a rate from Fort AVilliam to Quebec of $4 per ton, or 11 cents per bushel, and from Winnipeg to Quebec of 16* cents per bushel. There is more than that. I would like to read to the House a short memo, as to the relative merits of rail and water routes which I have obtained from a transportation expert. It is in these words :
The average all-rail cost from Fort William to Montreal during the past five years has been twenty cents per 100-twmlve cents per bushel.
The average all-water, and lake and rail rate for the present year from Fort William to Montreal is five cents per bushel. The nominal lake and rail rate to-day is less than four cents, and grain is actually being carried at less than this. The rate via Midland to-day would be a little higher, about 4J cents.
The Wolvin Company is at present carrying grain from Duluth to Quebec for 3J cents per bushel.
By the all-water route from Fort William to Montreal, grain has been carried in large quantities during the present season at live cents less i cent for elevating charges-42c.
By carrying in large steamers from Fort William to Port Colborne, there unloaded into elevators, reloaded into craft of the size suitable for Welland canal and forwarded to Montreal, the cost of transportation would not exceed three cents per bushel. Not more than ten per cent of the wheat is carried by the rail route and it is so carried only in times of necessity when it is absolutely necessary to bring the grain forward at almost any cost. In the United States the rail and water routes carry over seventy-five per cent of the grain of the United States and it must be remembered that the rail competition there is over railroads which run through a thickly populated country having large commercial interests and supported by very large local traffic. The conditions connected with the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific from Fort William to Montreal would be absolutely different.
I have other statements here comparing the cost of transportation in the western states with that in Canada. For example, from Barling, a town west of Chicago, 44 miles distant, the rate is 20 cents per hundred pounds and 12 cents per bushel. From Chicago to the sea-board, 908 miles, the rate is 14 cents per hundred pounds and 8-4 cents per bushel. The total distance is 1,349 miles, and the rate per hundred pounds is 34 cents, and per bushel 20 p4 cents. That about corresponds with the distance from Winnipeg to Quebec. From White Earth to Duluth, a distance of 602 miles, the rate is 20 cents per hundred pounds and 12 cents per bushel. From Duluth to New York,


Robert Laird Borden: 1,387 miles, the rate is about 20 cents per hundred pounds and about 12 cents per bushel. The total distance is 1,9S9 miles, and the rate about 40 cents per hundred pounds and about 24 cents per bushel. And so on, with many other . illustrations of a similar character, with which I will not weary the House, as I fear I am taking up too much time. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior referred to a rate of 5 cents per hundred pounds between Kansas city and Chicago, a distance of 488 miles, but that was obviously a cut-rate during a period of severe competition. I find that tlie rate between these two points has been as high as 19 cents, and to-day it is 14 cents ; the standard rate is 12 to 14 cents per hundred pounds, or nearly three times greater than the rate my hon. friend gave. My hon. friend quoted this rate of 5 cents to show that freight could be carried at lli cents per bushel from Winnipeg to St. John. But take the lowest standard rate between these two points, and you have a rate of 47 cents per hundred pounds from Winnipeg to St. John, or 28 cents per bushel. And, as I have said, these American rates are on roads running through thickly settled country with large local traffic, subject to control by commissions and to fierce competition, not only by other railways, hut by water routes.
The provision in this contract regarding unrouted freight is of no importance unless there should be a considerable quantity of such freight. But what is the practice with regard to unrouted freight in the United States and Canada ? Have the government stopped to inquire ? Can any one on the government benches tell me how much unrouted freight is sent forward from Fort William ? It all goes to Fort William as unrouted. But thence to the coast, it is routed by men who know much more about this question than any member of the government-men who make this question of transportation an every day study, men who know ten times as much on the subject as nine-tenths, at any rate of the members of this House. Unrouted freight goes to Fort William iust as it goes to Minneapolis, Duluth, and Chicago, and is routed thence for export to Europe. How is that done ? It is done in this way. The shipper, who has made a study of all possible routes, wires to one line and to the other, inquires as to rates, and when he has got the rates, he selects his own route. Does the government know that one man in Canada last year controlled the routing of 10,000,000 bushels of grain ? What does that provision regarding unrouted freight amount to unless yon can show me that some considerable part of the grain of Canada will come within its scope ? Wliat are the terms of the contract ? They are :
That all freight, not specifically routed otherwise by the shippers, shall when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely in Cana-

flian territory, or between Canadian inland ports.
Where does that bring it to ? To Fort William as it is at present. What happens then ? It is routed for export. Will any hon. member point to one provision in this contract which will prevent the Grand Trunk Railway from competing at Fort William or Port Arthur or Midland or any of those ports on the Georgian Bay and securing that freight and carrying it to Portland ? If there is I would like to know where it is. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior would seem not to have read this contract, although he was put up in the House to defend it. Let me quote some of his language with regard to it. Referring to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) he said :
My hon. friend then proceeded to show that the result would be that the Grand Trunk Railway, long before the government line to Winnipeg was built, would be hauling out wheat from Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and bringing it down to the lakes and sending it to the markets of the world. I may be excused if I do not regard that as a very alarming proposition. If the proposition is that before we get the line built to Winnipeg the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be relieving the congestion and raising the blockage in the west by taking the grain out by way of the lakes, the way our hon. friends say it ought to go, that is not a very alarming criticism of the proposition before us. We trust that that will be the case. We trust that the prognostications of my hon. friend from Hamilton will come true that at an early date the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will to a considerable extent be able to relieve the congestion in the west.
Well, we shall be delighted to have the Grand Trunk Pacific, when it gets to the west, remedy the congestion. But let us not suppose that there is anything In this contract that will prevent the traffic going to Portland. It would he brought, as the Minister of the Interior says, to the lakes, and then the Grand Trunk Railway, controlling as it does the Grand Trunk Pacific, will see to it tliat that trade at the lakes goes to itself. And when that traffic gets out of the lakes, is there any contract which forbids - it being carried to Portland instead of to Halifax or St. John ? I have not found that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is a party to this contract. Is it a party to the contract ? The hon. Minister of the Interior seems to think it is. Let us look at his language :
Are the opponents of this measure driven to such absurd reasons as these against a provision of this kind in a solemn contract made be: tween the government and the Grand Trunk Railway ?
Does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) say that the Grand Trunk is a party to this contract ? I have the document before me. It is not even a contract With the Grand Trunk Pacific, but is a contract made by certain gentlemen, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and others, ' acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company '-not on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior is referring to some imaginary contract between the government of this country and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Where is that document ? Wliy has it not been produced to the House? It is not a mistake, a slip of the tongue on the part of the Minister of the Interior, because he repeated it again and again. For instance, be says :
I would like to see my hon. friend the leader of the opposition or the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals sitting upon a bench, as the sole arbitrator between the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway to adjudicate on a complaint that the contract was being violated under such circumstances.
And he says, later on :
But I go further, I would not consider it at all advisable to put in this contract a penal clause, a clause that would provide, for instance, that a fine in the ordinary sense should be levied against the Grand Trunk Railway for the violation of the clause. It would not, in my judgment, be an appropriate pr proper way of arriving at the end we desire to reach.
How are you going to put a penalty against the Grand Trunk into a contract to which it is not a party ? Then, later on :
If the Grand Trunk kailway carries out its contract, then there is no escape from the conclusion which was placed before this House by my hon. friend. You cannot get oyer it by laughing, you cannot meet the argument by jeering at it. There is only one way of meeting the argument that he presented to this House, and that is by showing that the Grand Trunk will not be able to carry out this contract. That is the only way you can meet it. If the Grand Trunk Company carries out its contract, then we will pay just what the Finance Minister said, not one dollar more or one dollar less.
And still later :
And yet, we are asked to believe that after a little while the Grand Trunk will fail to carry out its contract, and it won't go on. What does that argument amount to ? What is the Grand Trunk going into this scheme for ?
And so forth. Now, I respectfully point out to the House that the Grand Trunk is not a party to this contract. The Minister of the Interior is in error in supposing that it is a party; a fid the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance have no grounds for their supposition that you can come to this parliament and get parliament to punish the Grand Trunk for the violation of a contract by which it has never been bound. When I pointed out that there were no sanctions in this contract, what were we told? We were told : Parliament will create the sanctions after the offence has been committed. I think it would be better for parliament to create the sanctions before the offence comes. That would be the fairer way. These hon. gentlemen seem to think it would not interfere with

the sanctity of contracts in this country to say : We will not put a punishment or sanction in this contract, but when there is an attempt to evade it, parliament will come forward and provide the punishment and sanction. But surely you are not going to punish the Grand Trunk for violation of a contract they never entered into. That is the argument, nevertheless, of my hon. friends the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior.
The practice in Canada at the present time, the practice which has grown up in Canada as in the United States, is to route the freight from an interior point to a Lake Superior port, whence it will be routed by the best, most economical and expeditious line ; and the Grand Trunk is at perfect liberty, under the terms of the contract, to carry to an American port every pound of freight which it thus secures at Lake Superior. In that way, has the government, by the expenditure of $100,000,000 attempted to secure the transport of Canadian products through Canadian ports. There is only one way to do that, as I said before, and I hope, before I sit down, to point out the means by which it can be accomplished in a somewhat surer way than that which the government have brought to the attention of the House.
The third point in the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister was that this road was necessary to develop the country for settlement. The opposition are ready to support any well-considered measure looking to that end. The Grand Trunk Pacific is entitled to build in the west. So far as subsidies are concerned, they should not be given where private enterprise will build all necessary railways. If we accept the statement of the Minister of the Interior, the government should never have granted assistance to the1 Grand Trunk Pacific. For that hon. gentleman pointed out that there was such a future before any railway building into that country that the enterprise would attract capital from all over the' world. According to what the hon. gentleman says, railways will be built there without any assistance whatever. But I say, in respect to the development of the west, I would be willing to support the government in a measure for the building of further railways through that country for the purpose of opening up land for settlement and providing means of communication for the thousands of settlers who are going into that country. And I would not count the cost over-carefully in such a matter. But in the portion of the country where the Canadian Northern and Canadian Pacific Railway are stretching out their feeders, as they must do to supply their very important lines, I should think that private competition would do everything that was necessary. Therefore, I would think it the duty of the government to see to it that the Grand Trunk Pacific went Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
north into the undeveloped country to provide means of communication for the people who are going in there and not send it through the country that is already served by rail. Now, so far as that part of the government scheme is concerned. I think that you might give to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, for some distance west at least, the assistance proposed by the government for the reasons I have mentioned, and for the further reason that you will, perhaps, by means of that-though I think you can do it in a better way which I shall point out later-bring the great railway systems of Ontario and Quebec into close and direct communication with the great railway systems of the west. What are the objects to be aimed at in dealing with the transportation question at this time?
1.	To secure the lowest possible rate for transportation in order that our people may obtain a portion as large as possible of the price at which their products are sold in our domestic and foreign markets.
2.	To secure the transportation of Canadian products through Canadian channels.
3.	To promote trade and intercourse between the two great divisions of our country, the east with its great industrial future, its vast resources of the field, of the forest, of the mine and of the ocean, and the west with its vast plains capable of supplying the food not only of the empire, but the world, and beyond the province of British Columbia with its great mineral and other resources.
4.	To take immediate steps for the relief of any congestion of traffic on Canadian lines of transportation.
5.	To develop and utilize for transportation purposes our great national highway, the Intercolonial, on which we have expended more than seventy millions, as well as our great inland waterways, rivers and canals upon which we have expended quite as much. It is not possible to ignore this vast expenditure amounting to more than $150,000,000 in considering our future policy in regard to transportation*.
0. To promote the development of our country by encouraging colonization and settlement in districts suitable for that purpose.
7.	To firmly insist that any assistance given for the construction of railways shall be amply compensated for by equivalent advantages secured to the people of the country.
8.	To act in concert with and not to restrain or discourage individual enterprise, but at the same time to prevent monopolies and to maintain effective control over great corporations.
9.	In this connection it should be added that if, in the public interest, the whole or any portion of any great line of transportation can be more advantageously operated by the country than by a private corporation, then the same justification exists for

exercising the right of eminent domain, upon payment of due compensation, as that which permits the government of a great railway corporation to expropriate the business, or property, or undertaking of a farmer, of a merchant, or manufacturer.
My right hon. friend smiles, I do not know for what reason he would make any distinction between the two. The principle has been justified in the United States, in Great Britain and in this country, on the ground that it is in the public interest and in the interest of the whole country, and X say I know of no reason why it should not be exercised In the case X have mentioned with all due regard of course to private interests, because in such cases you must not only be fair, but you must be generous to the person whose property is taken against his will. But so far as the principle itself is concerned, I say that it supports action in the one case as well as in the other.
Now, taking these points which I have referred to, the government proposal, it seems to me, has nothing in it to ensure or even to render probable a reduction of rates, dealing with the first desideratum I have made. The present rates by lake and rail and by lake and river are much lower than those which can reasonably be expected from the line proposed by the government. The road in the west will be subject to less stringent control than that exercised over the Canadian Northern at present by reason of the agreement which has been made between that company and the Manitoba government.
Further than that, this company is to have a very large capitalization. I know there are many hon. gentlemen in this House, some of them on'my own side, who do not agree with me that capitalization has anything at all to do with the control *of rates. But the extent of capitalization has been raised in the western states, where it is relied on and made the basis of argument ; and I feel that, taking human conditions as they are, dealing with human influences as they are exercised, you must come to the conclusion that over-capitalization will, have some influence upon the fixing of rates. What is the capitalization of the line from Winnipeg to the coast ?
Capital stock	$45,000,000
Prairie section bonds $20,000 per mile
mile for 1,100 miles	 22,000,000
Mountain section bonds $50,000 per
mile for 600 miles	 30,000,000

$97,000,000 for 1,700 miles equals a little over $57,000 per mile. The $25,000,000 of common stock may be acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway Company for a consideration that cannot be regarded as more than nominal. Further than that, if the eastern section is built, with the grades which are referred to by the hon. member for North Norfolk, is there any gentleman
on either side of the House that can give us any estimate at all of what that road will cost ? The hon. member for North Norfolk says you must have grades not exceeding one-lialf per cent. He says that economical haulage would probably call for grades of not over four-tenths per cent. Is there any hon. gentleman who can give us within $10,000,000 an estimate of what that road will cost with grades of that kind ? There is no one capable of answering that question to-day-and I dare say I might increase the amount within which I could ask them to name a figure. But I venture to say that there is no one who can give us that amount within $10,000,000, and support it by any data which would be regarded for one moment by any company undertaking to construct a railway in Canada. Well, what will your rates be ? They will depend altogether on the cost of this road, because the country is to pay 3 per cent of the cost of the road, and does any one suppose that great corporations like the Grand Trunk Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will not be able to see to it that such rates shall be fixed as will enable them to pay that rental without loss to themselves, or else they will throw over the road upon the government and say that they cannot operate it at all. There are some peculiar provisions in this contract by which the government can stop the construction of this road at any time between sessions of parliament. .1 did nof exactly understand the explanation given by the Minister of Finance with regard to that, but possibly some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House can give more detailed explanations of it.
Now, in the second place, as regards keeping the trade within Canadian channels, a majority of the grain, as I have said, will go to Thunder Bay ports, it will 'be carried by lake and rail, and eventually the greater part of it will be exported to Europe. The Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other road, can go there and compete for this grain without fear or favour. The Grand Trunk Railway is not any more bound by this contract than is the Canadian Pacific Railway, so far as I can understand. Therefore, it is not bound in any way to carry it to Canadian ports. There is nothing in the present scheme specially calculated to 'promote trade between the east and the west. The greater portion of the heavy traffic will be carried as before.
Then what lias been done to relieve the congestion of traffic. The present congestion is occasioned, not by lack of railways, but by lack of equipment. It is admitted and stated, not only by men who are concerned in this matter personally in the west, but by the newspapers all through the west, that there are plenty of railways, but a lack of equipment. I was astounded the other day on being told the amount of traffic

that the Great Northern Railway handles upon a single line. The two railways from Winnipeg to Fort William and Port Arthur can handle this traffic easily enough, there will be no congestion if they are only properly equipped, and the same thing, I have no doubt, might be said of the other lines from the west.
In the next place, if the scheme is successful, it is calculated to destroy the usefulness and opportunities of the Intercolonial. The Minister of the Interior took issue with regard to that, and I am prepared to take just as sharp issue with him. We spent more than $15,000,000 on the Intercolonial in bringing it to Montreal, and to improve it, and equip it after we brought it there. Now, is any one in this House prepared to say that that railway was not extended to Montreal for the purpose of capturing some portion of the trade of the west ? The policy of the government with regard to that was announced at the time by the Minister of Railways, the mouthpiece of the government, and hearty cheers were evoked by the very language I am now about to read to the House, which was used by him on the -16th of June. 1S97, and which is to be found on page 4286 of the ' Hansard ' of that year :
And, as I was saying a moment ago, if you examine the details of the contract which has been entered into between the government * n the one hand and these companie's on the other, you will perceive very clearly that we have been solicitous and careful, that every term and every condition should be introduced which would ensure us an opportunity to gain our share of the western ira.de. As you will see. we have engaged with the Grand Trunk to carry the freights for us from the west to Montreal and to deliver these freights to us when they get them there, not to take them around by the Richmond line or by Ldvis, not to carry them off on the Grand Trunk, hut to deliver them to us. So, when we send our canvassing agents through the west, as all railway companies do and ought to do, and those agents pick up traffic and make contracts, we may be sure that the business will' fall into our hands when It reaches Montreal.
That was the policy of the government then. The right hon. gentleman had not then had the inspiration of his visit to Depot Harbour. He came to the conclusion that the government should send out agents to solicit business for the railway, and ask for the trade of the west, and it was on this ground that we extended the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal and on this ground almost alone, although of course, it was important that better communication should be in that way ensured to the maritime provinces. The great desideratum pointed out to the House and the country at that time was that the Intercolonial Railway, should be prepared to reach out and obtain control of some of the trade of the west and for that purpose it should send canvassing agents through that territory. What happens now'? According to the terms upon which my right hon. friend supports this scheme the


Robert Laird Borden: grain trade of the west is to go over the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific and is not to go near Montreal at all. Having expended $55,000,000 in the first place on the Intercolonial Railway and having expended $15,000,000 for the purpose of capturing some portion of the trade of the west W'e are now expending $100,000,000 in order that the Intercolonial Railway shall get no portion of that trade. Yet, the hon. Minister of the Interior stands up and says that it does not affect the agreement which was made in 1897. Does he not remember the elaborate traffic arrangments entered into between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company by which the trade secured by these canvassing agents and brought from the west by the Grand Trunk Railway wrould be delivered to the Intercolonial Railway for transport to Halifax-delivered to the Intercolonial Railway not at Levis or Quebec, but delivered to it at Monreal? Now, these same bountiful products of the w'est are to be carried over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railwmy, over its eastern section to Moncton, by running powers to1 St. John and Halifax, and the Intercolonial Railw'ay is not to carry one pound of that freight. Was my hon. friend the li in. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals right or w'rong w'lien he said that I did not put this matter strongly enough ? I said it wms a reversal of the policy which the government had entered into in 1897. He says that it is a condemnation of the policy of 1897. I am prepared to admit that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals wms right because I do not think that even he used strong enough language to describe the conduct of the government as it affects the Intercolonial Railway. After spending $15,000,000 in 1897 to get a portion of the trade of the west, after having arranged to send out canvassing agents to secure It and to have it delivered to the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, they are now spending $100,000,000 to take It over this proposed railw'ay away from Montreal and away from the Intercolonial Railway altogether. They add to the national debt $100,000,000 for the purpose of undoing that y'hicb they spent $15,000,000 to accomplish in 1897. Look at what w'e have on our hands in Montreal at the present time. What did we do for the purpose of securing the trade of the w'est ? We rented half of the terminals of the Grand Trunk Railway Coinpany of Montreal. There was an investigation in connection with the proposal, and one of the Grand Trunk officials was asked the question: Do you not think this is a pretty big thing for the Intercolonial Railway to undertake-the renting of half of these enormous terminals of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in Montreal ? His answer was : It is pretty large, it is like a newly married couple hiring a very large house but they will have use for it in the future. Well we have our terminals in Montreal and we pay $140,000

a year for them and we also paid during this last year $168,000 as our share of the maintenance of these terminals ; making an expenditure of $308,000 a year for the terminals at Montreal alone. Now we are to spend $100,000,000 more to take all the traffic away from Montreal.
I want it to be remembered in this connection that in offering this criticism of this project I am not at all offering any criticism of the proposal that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company under that name shall get into the west. What I am criticising is the mode of doing it. It sems to me to be most extraordinary, most contradictory and a complete reversal and condemnation of the policy which the government adopted in 1897.
Then, what advantages are secured to the country for the assistance granted to this road ? The portion which the hon. minister says is a magnificent business proposition is the portion which is to be built with government assistance. There is no contract for the control of rates such as has been obtained in Manitoba. There is only the control that is exercised over railways generally. Are there any lower rates guaranteed ? None are guaranteed and how can you expect lower rates in view of the statistics which I have presented to the House and in view of the statistics of a similar character which have already been submitted. In addition to that there is, for the reasons that I have mentioned, no assurance that the trade shall be sent through Canadian channels. Further than that the Grand Trunk Pacific is given power to engage in almost every possible description of enterprise and in that way it may be possible in the future that individual enterprises may be dwarfed and curtailed when it may come into competition with this great corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition might well content itself with stating generally the objections to the policy of the government, but, in view of the importance of the question it is essential that an outline of our policy should at least be stated. In the first place I say that I believe this is a question upon which any political party in Canada should obtain the best possible expert assistance and advice and it would be our policy, by commission or otherwise in the speediest possible way to obtain that advice and assistance so as to be able to act upon broad lines, upon reasonable lines and with due inquiry, with due promptitude and at the same time with due caution and deliberation. Subject to that consideration the policy which I think should be adopted by the country is, in the first place, as follows :
Canada has expended on the Intercolonial Railway over $70,000,000 and of that expenditure $15,000,000 pointed to further development. to a further extension of the road to the west. As I said before in answer to the 282
hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), you have the Intercolonial Railway and you have to do something with it. Are you going to sell it, or give it away ? Are you going to let it stand still or are you going to develop and extend it ? Is it alone of all the great railways in this country to stand still, because we must remember that stagnation means in the end ruin ? I say that I am not one of the pessimists such as the hon. member for Hants who are afraid of the future of the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman talked about pessimists. Did you ever hear anything more pessimistic than the doleful account he gave of the prospects of the Intercolonial Railway and his expression of opinion that the people are not able to operate efficiently their own railway ? He spoke about croakers. I do not want to apply any terms of that kind even though they come from him, but I will ask when he is dealing with the Intercolonial Railway who the croaker is in this House to-day.' What are we going to do with the Intercolonial Railway ? We are not going to give it away, I hope, we are not going to sell it, I hope, and we are not going to let it stand still, I hope. Other railways throughout the country are being developed and extended. Why not the Intercolonial Railway ? I say that I do not believe the Conservative party, the party which had the courage to build the Intercolonial Railway, the party which had the courage to build the Canadian Pacific Railway in the face of opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, will shrink from extending the Intercolonial Railway to the shores of Georgian bay. That may be done either in the mode mentioned by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, or by some other way. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) spoke of, and the public press of this country have discussed, the question of acquiring the Canada Atlantic Railway. I have no doubt that that railway is a very valuable line. I have made some inquiries with regard to it and I may give to the House and to the country some information as to what it has accomplished in the way of solving transportation problems in this country during the past six or seven years. The Canada Atlantic Railway extends from Depot Harbour on the Georgian Bay to Coteau Junction, a distance of 342 miles. In addition to this they have a line 57 miles in length between Coteau Junction and Alburgh Junction in the state of Vermont, making in all about 400 miles.
In order to obtain access to Montreal a line would have to be built from Coteau Junction to Jacques Cartier Junction, or a similar point, to connect with the Intercolonial Railway.
During the last year for which we have a report, over 19,000,000 bushels of grain were carried over this road, over one-half a million barrels of flour, 12,700 tons of live stock,



over 500,000 tons of lumber and wood and about 500,000 tons of manufactured goods and other articles. The total tonnage amounted to 1,545,000 tons.
Running east from Depot Harbour to Madawaska, a distance of 133 miles, the grades are about one per cent, but from Madawaska to Coteau Junction in no place do they exceed one-quarter of one per cent. At the present time their engines are hauling from twenty to twenty-five cars of wheat from Depot Harbour to Madawaska and from Madawaska to Coteau Junction they haul from sixty to seventy cars of wheat.
At Depot Harbour the Canada Atlantic Railway has an elevator capacity of 1,250,000 bushels. They have two warehouses 700 feet long by 90 feet wide, and the docks form an aggregate length of 3,000 feet and are built in 22 feet of water.
The harbour is about half a mile in width, and the water is of sufficient depth to accommodate the largest lake going steamer and perfectly safe in all winds and weathers.
In connection with the Canada Atlantic Railway, there is a steamer service known as that of the Canada Atlantic Transit Company. They have several very large steel steamers of 4,000 to 7,000 tons burden each which have a capacity from 130.000 to 275,000 bushels of grain, equal to from 175 to 275 carloads. Those steamers make trips between Fort William and Depot Harbour. They also run to Chicago, Milwaukee and Duluth, where they obtain a large amount of freight to and from. During the past season they carried 19,000,000 bushels of grain, there being generally two or three million bushels in transit.
Large quantities of package freight are shipped every season between New England towns and places in Manitoba and the west over the Canada Atlantic Railway.
The gross earnings of the Canada Atlantic Railway last year were $1,816,946 and the net earnings were $569,000 or a little over $4,000 per mile. Their net earnings last year were sufficient to pay five per cent on their capitalization.
They have forty-five passenger cars, about 1,000 box cars, over 500 platform and coal cars, besides the ordinary snow ploughs and other equipment, and sixty engines.
The steamers are not owned by the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, but by the Canada Atlantic Transit Company, and while there may be some difficulty about the crown owning steamers which ply for commercial purposes to foreign countries, I should suppose, though I did not consider the question very carefully, that a difficulty of that kind could be overcome by maintaining the present organization; or in other words, the legal title to the steamers would remain vested in the company, and the government could own stock in the company in the same way that the British government own stock in the Suez canal. Let me point out to the hon. member Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
for Hants (Mr. Russell) who talked about the advisability of carrying grain from Montreal or Quebec to Halifax for nothing, that this is the scheme that suits him exactly. Here are 19,000,000 bushels of grain that he can capture in this way and bring to Halifax ; here are 31,660 cars of grain, or from 800 to 1,000 trains. According to the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Russell) this could be carried to Halifax without appreciably increasing the cost of operating the Intercolonial Railway. Is not this a splendid opportunity to carry out the idea of my hon. friend (Mr. Russell) who I am sure will be the first on the other side of the House to stand up and regret that this matter has escaped his attention, and to assure me that a scheme of this kind will receive his absolute and unqualified support ? The Canada Atlantic Railway is thus referred to in the report I have already mentioned of the Industrial Commission of the United States :
A new and very advantageous route has recently been established in what is known as the Canada Atlantic Railway. This route is from Chicago via water to great lake ports, say Parry Sound, Ont.; thence by rail through Canada to a place called Coteau Point, where grain is transferred into barges and taken alongside vessels at Montroal This route was built two years ago and has handled an enormous amount of grain. It has had a tendency to regulate to a certain extent the rates via the American allrail lines	At present the Canadian routes are the cheapest, and during last season they have had all the grain they could possibly take care of at Montreal, and the lack of ocean tonnage has been the only thing which prevented Montreal from doing a much larger business.
Any bon. gentleman who likes to investigate the subject can see the evidence of the witness who gives the evidence referred to at page 412 of this report.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not wedded to the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway. I am only propounding a policy which I think ought be followed, namely, the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to a Georgian Bay port. It may be that after expert advice has been obtained some other scheme may be found for carrying out that policy that would be better and more advantageous than the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway. So let it be. If, however, the Canada Atlantic Railway commends Itself to the judgment of experts, and from what information I can obtain with regard to it, I should think it ought to so commend itself, and I would think that the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from such a point as Jacques Cartier Junction to Coteau, and the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway to Depot Harbour, would place the Intercolonial Railway in a very much better position than it is at present.
What would be the advantages of this proposal ? It would place in the hands of the government a means of bringing to the

Intercolonial Railway a very considerable portion of western traffic, and thus absolutely secure in the country, transportation of Canadian products through all Canadian channels to a very great extent. There would be no gainsaying the question of all Canadian channels then. Here is a railway that carries 19,000,000 bushels of grain alone, and an enormous freight traffic besides. Go and acquire this railway ; go to a Georgian Bay port and you would at once most assuredly and certainly bring to Canadian channels all that traffic so secured. In the second place, it will render the present Intercolonial Railway more valuable by obtaining a share of the western traffic ; it would render it more valuable by giving it that through traffic which is so important for the reasons that have been suggested to-day by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) in that cogent and forceful way in which he presents such matters to the House. In the third place, it will bring the people of the maritime provinces into close touch with the people of the west, and by this means the government railway-or as the Minister of Finance rightly described it, the people's railway-the people's railway will have taken one more step further to the west. It will connect directly at the Georgian Bay with the industrial life and increasing development of the great west. In the fourth place, this is the logical outcome of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. In the next place it is an advance step, not a retrograde step in the principle of government ownership. We should abandon government ownership altogether, or we should give to our system of government railways such extension and development as the business interests of the country demand. Is every other railway to advance, and the Intercolonial Railway to stand still 7 No, Mr. Speaker, I believe not; and I believe, that the Conservative party, having carried this railway to Lake Superior, as they will be in a position to carry it when they come to power at an early date ; the Conservative party having thus extended this railway, will make it in the best sense the people's railway. The Conservative party which was not afraid to build the Canadian Pacific Railway and to bind together the scattered communities of Canada will not be afraid to carry this Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian Bay, and if the needs of the country demand it, to the distant shores of the far Pacific.
I do not expect my hon. friends on the other side of the House to be enthusiastic about this. I know how they were afraid of the Canadian Pacific Railway project in days gone by. I know that they will be afraid of this extension to the Georgian Bay. Let them have hope and confidence in the future of this country. Let them not be afraid that the people of this coun-282i
try will not know how to operate their own railway. Let them not be of that faint heart which showed itself so unpleasantly twenty years ago ; let them come forward and adopt this principle of government ownership of railways as far as the Georgian Bay at least, with an extension some time in the future to the Pacific coast. Let them demonstrate to some extent, that conversion which they claim from their faint heartedness, and lack of confidence of twenty years ago. Let there be no uprising of croakers or faint-hearts when this proposal is mentioned. Let us remember that this is the people's railway ; let us remember that the people of Canada are capable of governing themselves ; and let us remember that the people of Canada, if they are capable of governing themselves, are capable of operating this railway in a way which will free it from party political control, while maintaining over it political control in the broadest and best sense of the word. I know that strong men have failed in the past in dealing with this question, but I do not despair of dealing with it vigorously and efficiently and rightly in the future. I believe that some means can be found of freeing the management of the Intercolonial from that party political control which has done so much to keep it in the background in the past. Take away from it the party element, and retain in it the. broad political element, namely, that it is the people's railway, operated by the government of this country for the people and under the control of the people. Taking our stand upon that broad principle, and not going upon theories of the King of Belgium or any one else, let us realize once and for all that we now have government ownership in Canada to the extent of 1,600 miles of railway.
The next proposal I desire to make-and I say again that it is a question on which I would ask the advice and assistance of experts-is this : There are in Canada two great natural divisions, the west and the east. These at present are in some respects two separate communities. They have business interests which, though different in some respects, should fit harmoniously into each other. These two great divisions of our country are connected in summer by a magnificent highway, the water-way of the great lakes ; in winter they are separated by a thousand miles of uninhabited country, and there is some tendency, with excellent railway communication to the south of us, for the lines of trade to run north and south, instead of east and west, as they should. Now, we have in the west at the present time two great railway systems, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. We have in the east three great railway systems-the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway. This great uninhabited country between the east and


the west-which I hope some day, so far as the northern part of it is concerned, may answer the expectations of hon. gentlemen on both sides who have addressed the House, and may become a prosperous and thickly settled country-is bridged over iu the winter by the Canadian Pacific Railway. That railway, from Fort William to North Bay, is a line which doubtless could be improved, which has cost a great deal of money, and upon which some more money might advantageously be expended. The grades, I understand, are not bad ; the curves are in many respects very favourable, but could be remedied at no very great expense. This railway undoubtedly is capable of carrying five times, or perhaps, with the improvements I have suggested, ten times the traffic which is carried over it at present. I say it would be a proper thing and a wise thing for this government to acquire that railway from North Bay to Fort William, and make it a national highway of Canada, and operate it by mean* of an independent commission, giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway equal running powers over it. I say that for this reason, that to build . two railways or three railways where one railway, with running rights over it, will answer the same purpose, is economic waste. By the acquisition of this railway you can put the Grand Trunk Railway, one of the great railway systems of Ontario, into direct touch with the commercial life and development of the west inside of six months. For the purpose which I have suggested, the government can acquire either full ownership of that railway or the absolute control of running powers over it.
It may be suggested by some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House that what I propose is impracticable. I say it is not impracticable ; and I have talked this question over with many railway men who are more familiar with the subject, I think, than any gentleman in this House, with the possible exception of my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who has given these subjects a great deal of attention. It is difficult to give to one railway effective running powers over a line which is under the control of another and competing railway. But if the government acquires this railway from North Bay to Fort William, it can establish and maintain an independent control over it and give to these three railways exactly equal running powers over it for which they shall pay in proportion to their user on a wheel-age basis ; and that object can be accomplished, as I have been informed by railway men, the highest in the country, without any difficulty and without any friction whatever.
I would not for one moment suggest that anything should be done that would break the continuity of a great transcontinental


Robert Laird Borden: highway like the Canadian Pacific Railway. But this would not break the continuity of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company at the present time owns that road, which has only one-fifth or one-tenth of the traffic it can carry. If you give to the Caadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, in common with the Canadian Pacific, equal running powers over that line, you will increase its traffic to some extent, but for many years to come you will have an avenue for all the trade that will be carried from the east to the west by means of a railway. You will not only bring the Grand Trunk immediately into touch with the commercial life of the west, and with it every village and town of Ontario, but you will also bring the west, by means of the Canadian Northern, into direct touch with the villages and towns of Ontario. I regard the Canadian Northern as being as much entitled to the status of a transcontinental railway as the Grand Trunk Pacific. Its object and aim has been to reach the Pacific coast, and its object and aim must be also to reach the Atlantic coast : and having received running powers over the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to North Bay, there is no reason why that railway should not at an early day be extended to the shores of the Atlantic. Already it has a line under construction to the town of Edmonton ; and with regard to a line from there to some further point in the west, I will give you my views before I sit down.
I have suggested the extension of the Intercolonial to the Georgian Bay. If we should acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, we could build a line from that point or more probably from Scotia Junction to join the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Sudbury. That country has already been surveyed five or six times by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, once by the Canada Atlantic Company, and once by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann. The cost of constructing a railway through that section is well known, or could be ascertained by the government in a few days. By that means the Intercolonial, besides being extended to the Georgian Bay, could be joined by a line about 105 miles in length to the Canadian Pacific Railway running north of Lake" Superior.
The third proposal which I would submit to the consideration of the House, as a sound policy, is to assist in improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Fort William, upon the condition that complete control of rates is obtained and that the Grand Trunk Railway, as well as-the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Fort William into Winnipeg. Such running powers might be exercised by joint operation ; or if that were found unpracticable, owing to rival interests, then under an independent authority appointed for that purpose by the govern-

ment. This arrangement will bring the Grand Trunk Railway, with all its great system in Ontario and Quebec, into direct touch with the railway system and industrial life Df the west, inside of six months or a year. What will be the advantages of this proposition ? In the first place, it will insure further competition with respect to rates in the west. In the second place, it places at the disposal of all our great railway systems the existing line from North Bay to Fort William, which can serve the requirements of all our great railways for many years to come. In the third place, it will give the people control over rates by the mere fact that the Intercolonial Railway has power to enter .Winnipeg. It will place the people in a position to own and operate their own line through the west to the coast, in case of oippressive rates, or in case control of rates by the railway commission should not fulfil our expectations, or in case the development of the country, within a few years, may point to that as a desirable policy.
The fourth feature of the policy which 1 propose is this : I would assist the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway on reasonable terms, to build a line north of the Canadian Northern Railway and as far west as Edmonton or some adjacent point. This assistance should be coupled with complete control of rates and with all the stipulations now contained in the proposed contract as to carriage through Canadian channels and ports. Furthermore, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, as well as the Grand Trunk Railway, should covenant that traffic, as far as possible, shall be carried through these ports. We should not only have such a covenant from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, but also from the Grand Trunk Railway, if it be of any value. I do not regard it as of any great value, but I do regard it as of the utmost possible value to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay and thus to secure a considerable portion of the products of the west for transportation upon the people's railway to our own ports of Quebec and Montreal and the ports in the maritime provinces.
As far as the line from Edmonton to the coast is concerned, I do not believe that at present there is in Canada any call for two railways. We know that the Canadian Northern Railway is looking for extension to the coast. It has its charter to the coast and it has its line partly built to Edmonton and from Edmonton west. I repeat that you must regard the Canadian Northern Railway as one of the great transcontinental systems of Canada. At some point on this side of the Rocky Mountains, there should be a common point, a junction between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. From that on to the coast, there should be one line. That line should be built by these companies, under such an arrangement as
would give them joint control. Reasonable assistance should be given by the government by a guarantee of bonds in aid of construction. Should there be any difficulty in coming to such an arrangement, the government should build that line itself and maintain control and give these railways for a terms of years equal running powers over it. There is no reason why we should build competing lines through the Rocky Mountains, but there is reason why we should build the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway into the west because the west is developing rapidly. But from some point near Edmonton to the Pacific ocean, there should be one railway. If these two great corporations, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway-or the Grand Trunk Railway, as it is in fact-had equal running powers over that line to the coast, under independent control, by that means you would have in fact three transcontinental railway lines in Canada, and I think you would have the transportation problem in Canada settled, as to its main features, for the next twenty-five years.
So far as the line from Quebec to Winnipeg is concerned, I am not disposed to minimize the possibility of that northern country. Looking at the history of the great west, there may be a great flood of settlement into that country north of Lake Superior, some day or other, at least up to a certain point west, but I do mot think we know enough to justify us at present in saying that there will or will not be, because I do not know how far that country is capable of competing, in the early future, with the magnificent country we have in the North-west. I have some doubts as to whether or not that great northern country may compete as early as we would desire with the great western country. But I am not disposed to minimize its importance in any way, and to my mind the rational way of dealing with the proposed line from Quebec westward is this:	First, thoroughly
exploit and explore that northern country, realize and understand its capabilities and possibilities for settlement and colonization and build such railways as these conditions and requirements may demand. Build only after you have obtained the fullest possible information and obtain that information with the least possible delay. You may find curious conditions surrounding you when you get into that country. You may find that the road, which is the most direct line to the Pacific coast, will not be the road that will open that country for colonization. You may find it necessary to have a road running in one direction for colonization purposes while any future line to the coast must take a very different direction.
You may also find that lines running north from the settled portions of Ontario and Quebec will be required for the development of that country- You must go upon sufficient

information, upon sound and reasonable lines, and when you do that, give to thatj country all the development which the people require. Not only build that line, but operate it as a government line. A government line, it seems to me, would be peculiarly suitable to that country for colonization purposes, and I see no reason why the problem should not be solved in that way. If in the future the enormous development of the west should make another transcontinental line necessary and if through this northern country an economial and practicable route can be found, then extend that road to the Pacific coast ? Build it as a government road from Quebec to the coast. Be not afraid to undertake that project, but do not undertake it until you have the information, the data and the necessity which will justify you to deal with it. i am not saying this for the purpose of unnecessary delay. I believe in going ahead with the work once you get the information and the data which are necessary and as soon as the development of the west justifies it.
The next feature to which I refer is one upon which I think there ought not to be two voices in this House or country. Thoroughly equip our Georgian bay ports, our national waterways, our St. Lawrence route, and our ports oni the Atlantic coast. Give them the terminal facilities which shall enable them to compete with the American ports. Give them, if necessary to properly compete with the American ports, free terminals. Give them terminals on the Georgian bay, both on the east and west coasts, develop the waterways on the St. Lawrence route, develop the facilities at Port Colborne, exploit the harbour at Montreal and make that a national port, a free port in the true sense of the term. Do the same with regard to the port of Quebec, with regard to the port of St. John, with regard to the port of Halifax. The people of this country are not afraid of spending money, if it is spent in a sane and reasonable way. And I know of no better way in which the money of this country can be spent than by improving the great inland waterway, the St. Lawrence route, and our great national ports. And I am prepared to support this government, or any other government, that will spend money for this purpose, and spend it in such a way as will enable the people of this country to compete with the tremendous influences which affect this question of transportation to the south of us. There is no reason to be afraid of spending money. I am not afraid of spending money. And the country is not afraid of spending money. But let us spend it in a reasonable and proper way. And no saner or better way can be found of spending the money of this country than in providing these terminals on the lakes, developing the lake ports to which I have referred, improving the St.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Speaker, one of the most celebrated of modern French authors, I think it was Renan, when he wrote his first book, refused to hand over the manuscript to his publishers, because, be said, on reflection I have come to the conclusion that all I have written has been better said before I undertook to say it. Comparing small things with greater. +Uat is to some extent the position in which I find myself to-night. I quite realize that it is almost impossible for me to contribute much that is useful to this debate. Having, however, been identified to some extent with the negotiations which led up to this agreement, and being technically, at all events, responsible for the form in which the contract comes before this House for consideration, I venture, Mr. Speaker, to claim your forbearance, upon the very solemn promise which I now give to you that I shall not trespass at too great length upon your patience.
I had intended at first to explain the scheme which is now submitted to the House ; but I think I may as well now deal briefly with some of the arguments put forward by the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon. I shall venture to call his statement the alternative proposition put forward by the opposition. Why does that alternative proposition imply? First, government ownership in the abstract; then, the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Parry Sound; the expropriation of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Port Arthur; running rights over the road from Port Arthur to Winnipeg; and the extension by the government of the Intercolonial over the proposed route from Quebec to Edmundston, and thence to Moncton.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will pardon me. I did not suggest the extension from Quebec, I suggested the extension from a point in the vicinity of Rivii?re du Loup. But, of course, I would

be guided in that regard by the opinion of experts.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I understood that what my hon. friend had in view was the use of the Intercolonial from Quebec to Rivi6re du Loup, then its extension, probably by way of Lake Temiscouata, to Edmundston, and then from Edmundston to Moncton. Now, what does all this imply? Let us begin with the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway from here to Parry Sound for the purpose of extending the Intercolonial Railway. Some time ago an application was made by this company to the Railway Committee to obtain power, I think it was, to consolidate their bonding powers at all events, in connection with the application, the solicitor of the company appeared and told us that the Canada Atlantic Railway had up to the present time cost Mr. Booth $17,000,000. That is the expense in connection with the Parry Sound extension, and I apprehend my hon. friend does not assume that it will be possible for us to acquire this railway at less cost than the amount I have just mentioned.


Robert Laird Borden: On the contrary, I said it could be acquired for about $12,000,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The sum I have mentioned was the actual cost, as stated by the solicitor, Mr. Chrysler. Now, let us realize what it would mean, if we did not buy the Canada Atlantic Railway, but if we undertook to extend the Intercolonial system from Ste. Rosalie up to Parry Sound, Ste. Rosalie being at the present time the western terminus of the Intercolonial. It is true that we have running rights over the Grand Trunk Railway into Montreal, but the western limit of the Intercolonial is at Ste. Rosalie. Now, you would have to build from Ste. Rosalie, I imagine, to some place in the vicinity of Coteau. That intervening distance must be covered in some way. If you have to do that, let us consider what it means. My hon. friend told us this afternoon that the extension of the Intercolonial from Point Levis to Ste. Rosalie and thence into Montreal had cost this country $15,000,000. What would it cost us to extend that road up to the point of intersection with the Canada Atlantic Railway ?


Robert Laird Borden: I included betterment and equipments in that sum.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Well, that is the estimated cost of the road in its present condition. Now, we could not afford to have an extension of that road up to the point of connection with the Canada Atlantic Railway that would be in any way inferior to, the road we have got to Ste. Rosalie ; therefore, to secure that extension you would have to make an expenditure of $17,000,000 for the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway, that being the very least


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: figure, I think. But that is notiall. You would then require to extend the road from Parry Sound to Sudbury and then to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Port Arthur, 500 odd miles. In addition to that, he proposes to acquire running rights over the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port Arthur into Winnipeg. From Sudbury to Winnipeg I believe the distance is about 1,000 miles-from Port Arthur to Winnipeg the distance is 420 miles, and from Sudbury to Port Arthur, 555 miles. What does that imply in the way of expenditure? At least $75,000,000. It seems to me, after listening to my hon. friend this afternoon, that new blood has been infused into the opposition. I think that my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) must have had some forethought of what my hon. friend was going to say this afternoon


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Would the hon. gentleman permit me? I am just back from Montreal.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me finish the sentence. It seems to me that my hon. friend from St. Mary's must have had some forethought of what the leader of the opposition was going to say this afternoon, when he told us a year or two ago, ' Wait till you see us next year.' I am afraid that next year has come for the opposition. The leader of the opposition, I think, has not quite realized what all this means, or at all events, he has been more faithful to the enthusiasm of his early political convictions than to the mature opinions of his later years. He has entirely forgotten what used to be the view of the Conservative party with respect to the government ownership of railways; he has entirely forgotten what Sir John A. Macdonald said in answer to those who, in 1880, at the time the Canadian Pacific Railway was being extended to the west, proposed that it should be done by the government. Listen to what Sir John said at that time :
The government had every right to use all their exertions in order to relieve themselves and the country of the obligation of building this road and the still greater obligation of running it. Let any one consider for a moment what these obligations are and how they press upon the government. We see this in the Intercolonial and every public work. Why, Sir, it is actually impossible, although my hon. friend has overcome many obstacles with regard to the Intercolonial Railway, for the government to run that railroad satisfactorily. It is made a' political cause of complaint in every way ; the men that are put upon the railroad, from the porter upward, become civil servants. If one of these men are put on, from any cause whatever, he is said to be a political hack. If he is removed, it is said his removal was on account of his political opinions. If a cow is killed on the road, a motion is made in respect to it, by the member of the House who has the owner's vote and support. The responsibility of the worry and annoyance having charge of special work are such that for these causes alone it was considered advisable to get

out ot the responsibility. We have enough ot evidence of that in this House.
That was the doctrine preached by the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, in 1880. How have the mighty fallen. What a change has come over the spirit of the dream of hon. gentlemen opposite. How they have gone back in their belief, and how complete has been the change of heart that has come to them. It will be no doubt for the hon. gentleman who follows me to explain.


Mr. BROCK.: How about your own change of heart ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The change of heart is in the right direction with us. To show that the Conservative party does not follow my hon. friend, let me read from the Montreal ' Gazette' of August 13, an expression of opinion on this question of government ownership. In concluding an article upon government ownership, and its results, it says :
This gives one an idea of the actual detriment government ownership is to transportation inasmuch as it destroys almost every inducement leading to the improvement of rates of travel, whereas under private ownership competition constantly, renders improvement imperative.
Passing now to the matter in hand, what is the object that the legislation which the government has submitted to the House is designed to promote ? Is the project one of immediate and urgent necessity ? Have proper precautions been taken to carry out the object in view with due regard ito the public interests ? The object which this legislation is designed to promote is to procure at the lowest possible cost to this country a common railway highway from ocean to ocean wholly within Canadian territory. As a result of the construction of this railway we will open up for settlement enormous areas in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia, and by opening up these territories, by giving this country breadth as well as length, we will give an answer to those who have said that Canada is a mere fringe of habitable territory on the northern frontier of the United States of America. It is not necessary for me to refer to the extent of country that will be benefited by the construction of this road, or to the resources with which nature has dowered this part of the Dominion. It would be an idle repetition for me to attempt to do anything of the sort after the exhaustive speech delivered by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) here a few days ago, and who has, we must agree, by that speech, established once more his right to speak with authority on the resources of this Dominion. In the words of the contract, it is our intention to construct a through-line of railway from the city of Moncton, in New Brunswick, to the navigable
waters of the Pacific ocean. From Moncton to Edmundston the road runs through the centre of New Brunswick, and 1 was much struck the other day in listening to the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) when he described Moncton as the natural railway centre for all the maritime provinces. A very superficial glance at the map shows that not only is it the railway centre for the province of New Brunswick, but also for the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. From Edmundston to L6vis the line is destined to serve a fertile country, partly settled, but which has been for years and years asking for additional railway facilities. It is within the knowledge of this House that the Intercolonial Railway skirts the shores of the St. Lawrence river, and that it is located on the old line of the Grand Trunk Railway, which location was first established over 40 years ago. Since that time settlement has gone on in many places between the line of the St. Lawrence river and the Maine boundary. There are settlements extending back, 40, 50, aye 60 miles, and these settlements back from the line of the Intercolonial Railway the distances which I have mentioned are to a large extent without railway communication. No man has lived in Quebec without realizing that the result of this has been to discourage settlement, and as a matter of fact that part of the province of Quebec has materially contributed to swell the tide of emigration that set in some years ago towards the United States. I can say that throughout the length and breadth of that portion of country, there is scarcely a single family that has not got one, two, three and even more members who are now residents of some of the manufacturing centres of New England. The people have cried out for a railway, and we have realized that it is a real grievance they complain of. To the best of my recollection, as far back as 1885 a discussion took place in the Quebec legislature, and at that time the Conservative government in power promised an investigation and give some assistance towards the construction of a line of railway through this country. The same thing occurred in 1890 when an exploration took place from L6vis to Edmundston, and as a result of that exploration it was ascertained that it is easy to build a line throughout that whole section of the country. Not only is that the case, but we in this House have incorporated a company to build a line from L6vis to Edmundston ; that company is known as the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. Not only have we given a charter to the company, but we have subsidized the company to aid ip the construction of the railway. That is not all. There is running from Quebec southward through the valley of the Chaudi&re, and thence by way of Thetford to Sherbrooke, a very important


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am glad to know that it met with the approval of the hon. member of Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). This was practically the scheme that was contended for by the leader of the opposition this afternoon-the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Parry Sound, the purchase of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Port Arthur, the extension from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, would bring trade down by North Bay.


William Rees Brock: It is a good scheme.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is a good summer scheme. It is a scheme that brings our trade to North Bay, and to Toronto and from Toronto to Montreal. It is a good scheme for the summer, but where is your winter port ? It brings the trade to Montreal and the winter port for Montreal is Boston, or Portland, or New York. These are the winter ports for Montreal from the month of November to the month of April, both months inclusive. We take issue with hon. gentlemen opposite who say : Benefit Ontario, benefit the particular section we are interested in, and then let the trade drift southward if it may. We take issue with these hon. gentlemen, and we say : benefit Ontario, give equal advantages to
Quebec, and let the maritime provinces not be forgotten.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have made light of the argument used by the right hon. the Prime Minister when he spoke of the bonding privilege as being a reason why we shouiu be independent of the United States for an outlet for our commerce. What is our position getting to be ? Each day brings us more directly in competition with the United States in the British market. Our great competitor 'in the English market is the United States, and for six months in the year, yes, for seven monthe in the year, we are depending upon our chief competitor for an outlet to that market for our Canadian products. Is that wise or is it prudent? How can you get out from Montreal in winter except by way of Portland or Boston or New York ?


William Rees Brock: By way of Halifax.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Halifax competing with Portland ? It is double the distance practically.


William Rees Brock: What is the use of talking ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What is the use of talking 1 Can we shut our eyes to geography ? Can we shut our eyes to facts ? How much of the trade of Montreal has gone to Halifax ? How much grain has gone from Montreal to Halifax or to St. John ? How much of our food products have gone that way ? Invariably they have gone to Portland or to Boston or to New York. As Portland is to the Grand Trunk Railway so Boston is going to be to the Canadian Pacific Railway. At all events, so long as we understand one another, and so long as the issue remains between us what it is- that is to say, an extension from North Bay into Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and then to let the trade drift where it likes after it leaves Ontario, as against our scheme to construct a line from Winnipeg to Quebec, giving opportunities to all the commercial centres in the intervening distance to connect with it, so long as we get equal opportunities to get the trade to Quebec in order that we may be able to compete there with Montreal or the other	outlets-it is perfectly satisfactory. Let us see what the respective distances are. The distance from Winnipeg to Quebec by the Grand Trunk Pacific, taking the St. Maurice river as the outlet, is 1,364 ,miles. The distance from Winnipeg to the junction with the Temiscaming branch at Little Abitibi lake is 814 miles; from Little Ahitibi lake to North Bay, 242 miles; and from North Bay to Quebec via Orillia, 662 miles; that is to say, the route which hon. gentlemen opposite favour covers 1,718 miles, whereas by the route proposed by us the distance is 1,364 miles, an advantage of practically 400 miles in favour of the route from Winnipeg to Quebec.

The scheme of the government means a Canadian national highway, with summer ports on the St. Lawrence and winter ports in the maritime provinces. We hold that the Canadian national highway is important, not only from the standpoint of mere carriers' profits, which are well worthy of consideration, but in order to keep for Canadians the handling of Canadian goods, whether travelling by land or water. In the language of the report recommending the appointment of the transportation commission, I say it is clearly impossible, so long as our grain, our fruit, our cheese, our butter and our bacon, are brought through American ports, that they shall preserve their separate identity in the markets of Great Britain. Our agricultural products will never command over seas that price which their natural excellence entitles them to, until they cease to be confused in the1 markets of the world with inferior and possibly adulterated articles produced elsewhere ; and I add further, that I believe, in answer to what was said by the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon with respect to water-borne freight, that for many years to come the river St. Lawrence will remain the great commercial highway of this country, and that Montreal will always be the head of river navigation.
4 nd in this connection does my hon. friend realize what he means when he talks about extending the Intercolonial Railway to Parry Sound ? This afternoon 'he showed us how the Intercolonial would be brought into direct competition with water routes. He told us that from Duluth, at the other end of Lake Superior, Mr. Wolvin was now carrying wheat to Quebec for 3i cents a bushel. Where is the money to come from to pay for the -extension of the Intercolonial when it will have such competition as that to face ? We would be going right into the mouth of the lion. Can we pretend to be able to carry wheat from Parry Sound on the Georgian bay to the maritime provinces or even to Quebec, and to compete with such rates -as that ?
Further, when you get your line to Port Arthur, where are you going to get your freight for that line ? My hon. friend this afternoon said that the Canada Atlantic Railway had carried last year 19,000,000 bushels of wheat from Parry Sound to Montreal. I venture to make the statement that not a bushel of that was Canadian wheat. The whole of it came from American points. -If that be the case, how is this scheme to relieve the congestion in the west ? And that freight was obtained by Mr. Booth under conditions which the government could not hope to imitate. The government could not possibly do for their railway what Mr. Booth did for his. The past is there to prove to us that private enterprise does more for the development of railways than government control can possibly do. A moment ago I gave Sir John Macdonald's view of govern-Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
ment ownership and of the extension of our obligations with respect to the Intercolonial Railway. Not only did Sir John Macdonald express in 1880 the views which I read to the House, but in 1897, when the question of extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal was up for consideration in this House, Sir Charles Tupper spoke as follows :
Sir, have we not sunk money enough already in connection with the Intercolonial ? Is it not a sufficient burden upon the country already, without loading it down with a capital expenditure of $7,000,000 in addition to all that has already been expended upon it. I say that a more unwarrantable, a more unjustifiable, project, it appears to me, could not well have been undertaken	
Verily am I entitled to say that a new prophet has arisen in Israel. Sir Charles Tupper went further. He said :
I do not hesitate to say that neither to the Intercolonial Railway nor to the people of any portion of this country is this undertaking of the slightest value whatever.
These were the views of Sir Charles Tupper in 1897. But we have more than that. We have the views expressed by Mr. Foster, who then was truly a prophet. Mr. Foster said :
Now. I take this view, and I commend it to the House to be thought over, whether under these circumstances, it would not have been far better for the government to have the connection at Levis with the Canadian Pacific Railway and with the Grand Trunk Railway, and that in view of the strong competition at Montreal that they knew they must have and always will have on account of the distance, whether there would not be a decided saving and a decided advantage by making a connection there at the cost of a million dollars or so, instead of pressing this scheme with an expenditure of $7,000,000 to which we are tied irrevocably.
'These are the views that were held a few years ago by the leaders on the other side of the House.
Now, we have the Intercolonial Railway, with a mileage of 1,500 or 1,600 miles, which has cost this country about $70,000,000, with net -deficits resulting from its operation of $5,281,000; and still hon. gentlemen opposite want us to go on extending it to Parry Sound. These figures speak for themselves, and furnish a complete answer to the suggestions of the hon. leader of the opposition.
I now- come to the question as to whether or not this project Is of immediate and urgent necessity. The argument put forward by the other side is that we are proceeding with undue haste, that we have not sufficiently considered this question, that we do not know where it is -going to lead us and what the expenditure is going to be. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite do not hesitate to formulate a scheme, which would cost twenty times over the possible limit of any expenditure in connection with the scheme before the House.


William Rees Brock: Twenty times ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, at the very least. When the hon. gentleman considers the scheme, he will realize that I am not exaggerating. Is this project now before the House of urgent importance ? In that connection, the first witness I have to call is the Hon. Mr. Blair, the' ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He is now the prophet, from a railway! standpoint of hon. gentlemen opposite. He is the only one who knows anything about railway development. He has apparently taken the place of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and superseded the hon. member for Hamilton .Qfr. Barker). And when this afternoon, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition told us that he was struck dumb with amazement, that he was horrified to notice the way in which the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was received by hou. members on this side when he made his speech the other day, I think we can fairly retort by reminding these hon. gentlemen of the manner in which they received the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals in the beginning of this session when he addressed the House on another matter. He was greeted with the jeers, gibes and flouts of the opposition. What has come over the spirit of their dream ? What has caused this radical change ? Is the exMinister of Railways and Canals to-day in a position to speak with greater authority than he has a few short weeks ago ?
Well, I was about to refer to what the Hon. Mr. Blair said less than a year ago. regarding the necessity for a transcontinental line. He said :
We cannot long remain content with only one transcontinental line. X am ambitious myself to see another.
When ? To-morrow ? Next week ? Next years ? After pause, hesitancy and reflection ? No, he wanted it right away ; he wanted it that very evening. The needs of the country were so pressing that he could not wait. But we have another witness, who knows something about the North-west Territories and Manitoba, and whose authority no one will challenge. I refer to the high commissioner for Canada in London. The other day, when in attendance at the gathering of the Chambers of Commerce, he said : ' Such a road is now a necessity.' There is corroboration of the position taken by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and it will have great weight in this country.
With reference to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, it seems to me-and I regret he is not here to-night-that he might have found some better explanation of the course adopted by the government than to suggest that we were moving forward at the beck and call of Senator Cox. It seemed to me that the hon. gentleman, when he used these words, said either too much
or too little. He said too much, if he did not intend to imply something improper on the part of the government. He said too little if he really meant what he said and did not go any further. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman owes it to himself, owes it to this country, owes it to the respect his ex-colleagues bear for him, and which he is presumed to bear for them, to explain what he meant. We should stop here now this cry which has gone forward throughout the country that this scheme is one propounded by Senator Cox for his personal benefit. We should stop the suggestion, the vile, contemptible insinuation, that we are acting from unworthy motives. If the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was serious, this is the place, and now is the time to make a charge, if he has one to make, and to prove it. It is unfair that that expression should be allowed to travel throughout this country and furnish a text for every Tory scribbler who wants to attack the Liberal party. I say now that I defy the hon. gentleman to make or successfully maintain any charge against the government in this connection, and I say that this is the place and now is the time to make good any charge if he has one to make. On the same day, when the hon. gentleman used the expression I have quoted in this House, in another place, under this same roof, a similar expression was used. One could understand that a gentleman, speaking at the time under the influence of the generous hospitality of the leader of the opposition, should so far forget himself in an after-dinner speech as to make use of an expression of that sort, but it is unpardonable on the part of an hon. gentleman who came here carefully prepared to deliver a speech, and in cold blood make such an unfounded insinuation. Let me remind the ex-Minister of Railways' and Canals the position in which he was placed in this House at the time the Drummond County Railway bargain was up. He found it necessary then to use these words, speaking of the manner in which that bargain was attacked by hon. gentlemen opposite :
It was called a flagrant job, and I am characterized as being a bold Jobber and a corruptionist by reason of having made this proposition to parliament as a member of the administration.
Surely these words should have been remembered by him when he used the language I have referred to.
Well, Sir, one would almost think that the experience which some gentlemen have had in the past with regard to charges of that description would have led them to exercise a little care, a little caution, and a little judgment before starting out on such accusations. We all know how very easy a thing it is for people to make charges of jobbery against governments. it does not require very much material to formulate these accusations, and it is very often by reason of the absence of any real solid objections against the proposals which are made.

I call upon the hon. gentleman to answer himself the charge he made, and I apply to himself the very words he used to others. But let us get back to this question as to whether or not this project is one of immediate necessity. All that is required, in order to realize how urgent it is, is to bear in one's mind the map of this country. You will iind that there are about 750 miles of practically uninhabited country, which to-day separates Ontario and the other parts of eastern Canada from the west. You will find that in that country there are about 100,000 square miles, and that this territory has only a population of 100,000, or about one to every two square miles. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that the population from the south is pouring in and bringing with them the traditions of the country they come from and maintaining their business relations with the south. We must also bear in mind that these enterprising, intelligent men will become dominant factors in the centres in which they labour. Their natural inclination is to trade south, and we can see that from the south to the north, American railways are springing up and branching out like the fingers on a man's hand and to the east there is one single line. Now, it is time, it seems to me, that we should alter that condition of things. In January, 1881, Sir [DOT] John Macdonald, speaking in connection with the contract of the syndicate of the Canadian Pacific Railway, said :
It was a great misfortune to the country that the bargain entered into in 1872 with Sir Hugh Allan to build the Canadian Pacific Railway had failed because of the Pacific scandal exposure. He said that the North-west instead of having but a small settlement in the east end of it would have been the happy home of hundreds of thousands-to use the smallest figure-by that time.
Then he went on to say :
Our Dominion is as big as all Europe, and we might as well say that the'railways running from Paris to Moscow might supply the wants of all Europe as to say that this railway (the Canadian Pacific Railway) might supply the wants of the whole North-west. There will be room for as many railways in that country by and by as there are In Europe.
Now, the construction of this road will not only encourage immigration to the North-west, but it will also help us to settle the hinterland of Ontario and Quebec. Originally, as is well known, the lumbermen were the great colonizing force of this country, and the lumbermen rendered great service in opening up this country. The early settler wished to remain, as far as possible, within sound of the lumberman's axe. With the lumberman he got employment during the long winter months, and to the lumberman he sold the products of his farm in summer. The settler wanted to keep within sound of the lumberman's axe and within sight of running water. Now things have changed. The new set-Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
tier desires to keep within sight of the railway engineer. The new country back of the height of land will support a large population. Explorations and surveys already made show this. And in this connection, I would draw attention to the report of those gentlemen who were sent out by the Ontario government in 1900 to learn the facts with regard to that country. The findings of these gentlemen were received with jeers and flouts by hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me, for the benefit of those who are willing to be informed, give the conditions under which these explorations took place :	The report
of the survey and exploration of northern Ontario shows that the work was in charge of ten licensed land surveyors, each at the head of a party of explorers. There were also twelve land and timber estimators and the same number of geologists employed in the work, each of whom made a report on the district assigned to him to the surveyor in charge, and attached to the report of each of those officers, excepting one land and timber estimator and two geologists, is an affidavit or solemn declaration attesting the statements made to be true and correct. Four of the surveyors made affidavits of like character, and one died before his report was completed. The other five surveyors do not appear to have sworn to the correctness of their reports, but they are all so well and favourably known throughout the province that their honesty and good faith will not be seriously questioned. They are Alexander Niven, of Hali-burton; T. B. Speight, of Toronto; Walter S. Davidson, of Sarnia; H. B? Proudfoot, of Fort William, and David Beatty, of Parry Sound.
They tell us of the enormous resources of that country. They tell us how, north of the height of land, you find a country that will grow anything that can be grown in eastern Ontario. They tell us how, beyond the height of land, you find a soil in all respects similar to that in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and more than that, that this country is rich in forest wealth. And, in that connection, let me remind the House how the pulp industry of this country has grown until it has assumed large proportions. In the decade from 1891 to 1901, the number of pulp mills increased from four to thirty ; the number of employees from 1,025 to 4,550 ; the earnings of the employees from $292,000 to $1,587,000 ; the value of the product from $1,000,000 to $6,176,000. If it were merely for the purpose of giving Canada an opportunity to get that district settled the expenditure in connection with this railway would be well worth making. But we have more than that. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that we are in a hurry about the construction of this road, that we have no information, that we move with reckless haste, without any regard to con-

sequences, without any idea of wnat the project involves. Let me tell these lion, gentlemen that the journals of this House will show that, in 1872, parliament, l>y a deliberate vote and by a very large majority, placed at the service of the government the sum of $30,000,000 and 50,000,000 acres of land for the construction of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and an additional amount of 20,000 acres per mile for the Nepigon branch. Sir Charles Tupper said in 1880 :
At that time. Sir, I may remind the House that it was expected, as possibly may prove to be the case yet, that the line of the Pacific Railway from Nipissing westward would run to the north of Lake Nepigon ; and provision was therefore made for a branch by a vote of 25,000 acres of land per mile for 120 miles to secure connection between Lake Superior and the main line.
But, more than that; speaking in 1872, thirty years ago, according to the official report.
Sir Hector Langevin read from the report of survey to show that the best practicable line eastward from the head of Lake Superior was on the plateau north of the height of land.
A reference to the map shows that the height of land is north of Lake Nepigon. If we had that information in the public records then, are we to be blamed if, in this year of grace 1903, when we have become better informed, we are carrying out the project which was launched at that time? More than that, is it not important to this country to realize its obligations towards the west and Manitoba ? Is it not important to realize how that country is growing? Take, for instance, some figures which enable us to compare that country as it was in 1901 with what it was ten years before. In 1891, the acreage under wheat was about 1,010,000 acres ; in 1901, it was about 2,495,000. In 1891, the acreage under barley was about 64,000, and in
1901,	162,500. In the same time the acreage under oats had grown from 218,000 acres to 833,000 acres. Our surplus of wheat in 1901 was 45,000,000 bushels and in
1902,	50,000,000 bushels, we may expect that by 1906 it will have grown to 59,208,000 bushels, and in 1911 to 99,300,000 bushels. How are we to make provision for handling this surplus? This road will not be ready before 1908. Are we to allow these conditions to continue, are we to say to the people of our North-west: Keep your eyes turned southward; send your products to the south through the United States, foi we will not offer you facilities to trade with eastern Canada.
I have now reached the agreement entered between the company, or those who represent the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and the government, which provides that this line is to be built from Winnipeg to Moncton, and the Grand Trunk Pacific undertakes to lease and operate the line when
comxfleted. In effect, what does that mean? It means that the eastern section of the road will be built at the lowest possible cost and of the highest possible effectiveness. Why ? Because the money to construct the road will be found by the government under the most favourable conditions, and because effective control will be exercised over the specifications and over the work that is done in connection with these specifications. That effective control will be exercised under section 7 in the contract, which provides that the work is to be so done as to be acceptable to the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as well as to the engineer of the government. So you have this dual control, which will ensure the highest standard of efficiency at the lowest possible cost. More than that, you will have no promoters' profits, you will have no construction company to make millions out of the contract, you will have no watering of stock, you will have no sacrificing of bonds, you will have no sudden growth in wealth of individuals at the expense of the general public. Dealing now with the clauses of the contract which have reference to construction, I will first draw attention to section 5, which provides :
The said eastern division shall be constructed by, and at the expense of the government, upon such location and according to such plans and specifications as it shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients and favourable curves.
Clause 8, provides :
The construction of the said eastern division shall be commenced so soon as the government has made the surveys and plans, and determined upon the location thereof, and shall be completed with all reasonable despatch.
Clause 7 provides for general control of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the government over the specifications and the work to be done. Clause 6 provides :
The company agrees to construct, maintain and operate the said western division, and to take a lease of, maintain ajid operate the said eastern division upon the terms and conditions and in the manner hereinafter set forth.
Now, do these clauses imply recklessness ? Do they imply undue haste ? Do they imply disregard of the public interest ? In the first place, you have the location fixed according to the plans and specifications to be made by the government ; that is all to be done so soon as the government has made the surveys and plans, and determined upon the location thereof, and should be completed within reasonable despatch. There is no time limit, the government will proceed deliberately, will make proper investigation, will make proper inquiry, will be in a position, when this contract is let. to have proper specifications in order to have proper control over the work. Then clause 7, which I consider to he one of the

most important clauses of this contract, provides for joint control of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the government. That joint control must necessarily result in effective control and in cheap construction. It must result in effective control and cheap construction, because if the Grand Trunk Pacific undertakes to pay 3 per cent on every dollar expended in the construction, they are interested in seeing that every dollar is properly expended, and that it yields 100 cents to the dollar in benefits to the company. Furthermore, it was necessary to provide in this contract for the construction of the western division and for the operation of the eastern division, it was necessary to provide that both these things should be done at the same time. It was necessary to make a condition of the aid that wafe given to them in connection witli their western division, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company should operate the eastern extension to Moncton. If the government did not construct that line from Winnipeg to Moncton, what would be the position with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific ? It would have been necessary for us to allow them to build their line from North Bay to Winnipeg; it would have been necessary to allow them to build that line to Winnipeg, because it was impossible to expect that they would expend their money in that western country without having means of communication with their eastern system in Ontario.
My hon. friend said some time ago that it was inconceivable that the government should undertake to build what they are pleased to call the lean section from Winnipeg to Moncton, and allow the fat section west of Winnipeg to remain in the hands of a private corporation. But what did my hon. friend say this afternoon when he proposed to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior ? How fat is that section? What profits are likely to be derived from the operation of that particular section of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? What comes of the argument that we are building the lean section and leaving the fat section to the Grand Trunk Pacific ?	I submit
that the contract by which the Grand Trunk Pacific secure aid for the construction of their line through Manitoba and the territories on the conditions set forth in the contract, and that they should operate the eastern end, is in the interest of the general public. In that connection let me draw attention to section 14, which defines the meaning of the word expenditure as applied to the eastern section. Section 15 defines the cost of construction, and section 16 defines betterments. Now, you will find that in the cost of construction is included the interest on the money expended as the work progresses, so that when this work is finished the interest in the interval is added to the capital account; and what we guarantee is three-fourths of the cost of construction, the in-Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
terest during the course of construction being part of the cost. Section 16 provides for betterments, that is to say, that as the road is operated it may be discovered that it is desirable to make certain changes in the road-bed, or to make certain improvements, which are to be charged to capital account. In that connection it is provided that no such changes shall be made without the consent of the operating company, but when changes are made they shall form part of the capital account, and the company will pay three per cent interest on this expenditure as well as upon the general cost of construction.
Then with respect to operation. Section 20 provides that when completed the eastern division shall be leased and operated for 50 years. Section 23 provides-and that is important, and I draw attention to it because it appears to have escaped the consideration of those who have discussed this contract up to the present time. It is to the following effect:
The lease of the said eastern division shall contain all necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing, during the entire term of the said lease, the efficient maintenance and operation of the said division.
Now, doubt has been expressed as to whether this company would operate the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, doubt has been expressed as to whether, after the company is put in possession of this portion of the line, and if they find it unprofitable, they will continue on and comply with the terms of their lease. Let me draw attention to this fact, that you have this security in the first instance, that they are obliged to set aside and to assign to the eastern division $5,000,000 out of the $20,000,000 which they agree to expend for equipment. The equipment to the extent of $5,000,000 under the terms of this contract is a guarantee to us that the company will operate the line between Winnipeg and Moncton. If they fail to operate that line from Winnipeg to Moncton it will be in our power to take this equipment to the extent of $5,000,000 that we will have on the eastern section and use this equipment for the purposes of the road. But, we have better security than that. We have a security which is absolutely perfect and depending solely on the regard which parliament has in the future for the interests and rights of Canada and it is this: Winnipeg is the eastern limit of the western extension of the railway. The Grand Trunk Pacific-build and operate the line from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. The limit of the eastern connection in Ontario is North Bay. The intervening space which must be covered in order to operate these two systems together, the key of the whole situation, is in our own hands. We own the link which connects the two together, and if they cannot operate the line from Winnipeg to Moncton this parliament will see that they do not operate the line from Winnipeg to North Bay, so that we have the matter absolutely

in our own hands. The connecting link between the two systems is in our own hands, the key to the situation is under our control, and all parliament has to do in the future is to be true to the interests of Canada and this road must be operated.
Now, in his remarks this afternoon, the hon. leader of the opposition said that, of course, the grain would seek an outlet by the great lakes, and that after it reached Port Arthur it would go across the great lakes to Midland, Midland being a Grand Trunk Railway terminal, and from Midland to Montreal, and in that way the whole scheme of this contract would be defeated. Nothing of this sort will be the case. If the grain goes from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, as I believe it will go in the near future, thence across the great lakes to Midland and from Midland to Montreal, I have no complaint. There will be a literal compliance with the terms of this contract. Montreal is not a foreign port, Montreal is a Canadian port, Montreal is the commercial metropolis of this country. The prosperity of Montreal reflects the prosperity of Canada, and every pound of wheat from the Northwest which finds an outlet by way of Montreal is so much done for Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: What I suggested was that when the grain came to the sea-board of the west, that is Lake Superior, it would be routed from there and it might be routed either by Montreal or Portland without the slightest breach of any condition of this contract.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will answer the question of routing later on, but let me say that there are not going to be any two routings of this grain. As soon as proper facilities are provided in the North-west, there will be one routing between the place of production and the place of destination. When the grain is put through the warehouse there will be a through bill of lading from the place of production to the place of destination, and the grain will be carried through Canadian territory and by Canadian ships through Canadian waters, and thence to Liverpool, if the terms of this contract is complied with.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice if he thinks there is going to be a through bill of lading for wheat that remains at Port Arthur all winter ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Wheat that remains at Port Arthur will go down across the great lakes to Midland and to Montreal, and we will be perfectly 'delighted if it does.


Samuel Barker: It will be routed from Port Arthur.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If there are two routings, but if there is one shipment by way of Port Arthur, it will go as I have said. However, I will deal with 283
that question later on, because I do not regard the opinions of amateur railway experts as being as important as those of men who have knowledge of the subject.


Mr. OSLER.: The hon. Minister of Justice is an amateur railway expert, I assume..


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, I am not an expert, not even an amateur.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That will explain the hon. gentleman's statement.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When I come to the question of routing, I will have the opinions of men whose opinions will be valued by this House as highly as those of others who assume to speak with an authority they do not possess. I can assure my hon. friend that in respect to the operation of the eastern division, as I have already said, we have the remedy in our own hands. We have the security of the $5,000,000 equipment, and we have what is even better than that, the control of the ownership of the one connection between the Grand Trunk Railway in the east and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the west, and that connection cannot be bridged over except with our consent.
From Winnipeg, or some point on the eastern division, the line is to be built to the Pacific ocean. There you have in connection with the western extension a division into mountain and prairie sections. The western division is to be constructed by the company according to plans and specifications which are to be subject to the approval of the government. The work is to be commenced forthwith, and is to be completed in five years from the 1st December,
1903.	Then there is another provision that is one of the conditions of this contract, and that is that the standard of the railway from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean is to be equal to the Grand Trunk Railway from Montreal to Toronto. That is something that is worth considering, and in addition we have a provision that the railway throughout its entire length from Port Simpson to the Atlantic ocean shall be fully equipped so as to meet all the necessities of the traffic. To secure compliance with the conditions of the contract you will find that there is to be a deposit of $5,000,000 as provided for in section 12. I will refer to that at some length, because this afternoon my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that that $5,000,000 to be deposited as security might be paid out by the government on progress estimates as the work went on. Let me quote from section 13 of the contract:
The government shall return the said deposit to the company on the completion of the construction of the western division and the first equipment of the whole line of railway, according to the terms hereof, provided, however, that, when it is shown to the satisfaction of the government that the application of the same will enable such construction and equipment to he completed


902S
Not as the work progresses, but that the $5,000,000 can be paid out to secure the 'completion of the work.
*-and that the same will be so applied, the said deposit shall be released by the government in such instalments as may be from time to time agreed upon, but, if the company shall make default in the performance of the obligations of the company for the construction of the said western division and for the first equipment of the whole line of railway, under the terms of this agreement, treating the same as entire, then the said sum of money shall he absolutely forfeited to the government for the use of His Majesty the King.
That is not quite advancing the money on progress estimates. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and I think the suggestion was one that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition acquiesced in, that this equipment of $20,000,000 might be' leased or hired equipment, and that it would not be available as security for the government at all. I must confess that if that proposition had not been put forth by an hon. gentleman of the high legal attainments of the hon. member for Hamilton and concurred in, as I understand it, by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I would have made bold to say in this House that the point was not arguable.


Robert Laird Borden: What is that ? I was not following.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That the $20,000,000 of equipment may be leased or hired andl not be the property of the company at all, and therefore not available as security.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think I dealt with that point this afternoon.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend did not, but he offered the suggestion in the course of the speech of the Minister of the Interior. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) did not argue it this afternoon, and he is too good a lawyer to take the responsibility of arguing that seriously. Section 11 provides :
The company shall lay out, construct and equip the said western division of the said railway to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada between Montreal and Toronto.
That says that they shall equip the line of railway to a standard not inferior to the Grand Trunk Railway. Section 12 provides :
The company shall within thirty days after the passing of the Act confirming this agreement and of the Act incorporating the company hereinafter referred to, deposit with the government. five million dollars in cash or approved government securities, or partly in cash and partly in such approved securities, at the company's option as security for the construction of the western division and for the first equipment of the whole line of railway, as provided for in this agreemnt.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is the- security that they are to equip the whole' line of railway to the extent of $2000,000, and yet it has been argued that they could comply with that condition by leasing the rolling stock, and putting it on the Line. Section IS provides':
The government shall return the said deposit to the company on the completion of the construction of the western division and the first, equipment of the whole line, of railway, according to the terms hereof.
Section 19 provides :
For the purpose of enabling the government to determine the cost of construction of the said railway, or of any portion thereof, or the cost of the equipment supplied, the government shall have the right from time to time, and at all times, to inspect all the books of account, pay sheets, contracts, correspondence and all other books, papers and documents, the inspection of which may be considered necessary for the purpose of determining such cost.
Here the government have the right to make an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining what was the cost of the equipment supplied, and still it is suggested that this may be leased equipment. Section 22 provides :
The company shall equip both divisions of the said line of railway with modern and complete rolling stock suitable and amply sufficient for efficient operation and the handling of all classes of traffic to the satisfaction of the government. and the first equipment for the completed road shall he of the value of, at least, twenty million dollars, of which not less than five million dollars worth shall be supplied for the operation of the eastern division of the said railway, and the said five million dollars worth of rolling stock, together with all renewals thereof and additions thereto, shall be marked as assigned to the said eastern division and shall be held to he and form part of the equipment of the eastern division of the railway during the said period of fifty years and shall he used as the equipment appertaining thereto, according to the ordinary practice of railways during the said period of fifty years.
And yet the suggestion Is made that they can comply with the provision to equip the line with an equipment of the value of $20,000,000 and that they can comply with that provision by hire. Then section 34 provides :
Inasmuch as the bonds to he guaranteed by the government only make provision for a part of the cost of construction of the western division. the company hereby agrees that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guar antee bonds of the company for the balance required for the construction of the. said western division, exclusive of the said twenty million dollars required for first equipment.
And then we have the final section 35
(a) :
(a.) A mortgage which shall be a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property, tolls, rights and franchises of the company, including all equipment and property to be thereafter acquired by the company flint not including branch lines exceeding six miles in length or the revenues therefrom or

the franchises in connection therewith, or such additional rolling stock as may, with the assent of the government, be designated and marked by the company as constituting the equipment thereof, and not including ships or any municipal or provincial grants of land, by way of bonus or subsidy, to the said company other than for railway purposes) to secure the payment of the said issue of first mortgage bonds guaranteed by the government.
They bind themselves to give ns a mortgage on the railway and the equipment of the company and the suggestion is that this provision may be complied with by having leased property. Section 35 (b) provides :
(b.) A mortgage which shall be a second charge upon the property covered by the mortgage provided for by paragraph thirty-five (a), save and except the rolling stock constituting the equipment of the eastern division, to secure the bonds to be guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada as aforesaid.
They take the precaution there of exempting the equipment of the eastern division from this mortgage, but if it did not belong to the company what is the use of dealing with it in that way. Then section 37 it seems to me places the matter beyond the possibility of doubt :
The company shall purchase all material and supplies required for the construction of the western division and the equipment of the whole of the said line of railway from Canadian producers.
As I said, I should not have thought this point arguable had it not been suggested by hon. gentlemen on the other side. I took the trouble even to consult counsel about it. I had it in my mind when this contract was drawn, to provide that this equipment should be subject to the claim of the government ; that it should be real and effective security. It was so discussed by the parties who were present When the agreement was drawn, and it was so understood between us all. But when I heard my hou. friend (Mr. Barker) argue this point, I came to the conclusion that possibly I had failed to carry out what I intended and what both parties to this agreement intended. I consulted a man whose opinions are worth something in this country. I consulted Mr. Shepley, of Toronto, and he said he does not think that the question can be fairly argued.


Samuel Barker: Might I ask the minister whether Mr. Shepley was not one of the counsel engaged in drawing up this agreement ?


The MINISTER OF .TUSTICE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: On the other side ?


The MINISTER OF .TUSTICE.: Oh, no ; we are not quite so bad as that. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) really is too clever.


Samuel Barker: That is so.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is not so.
2S31


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When the contract was practically completed Mr. Shepley was asked to come in and advise, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not we had overlooked anything, and we got the benefit of his advice..


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was called in by the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course called in by the government. My hou. friend (Mr. Barker) would not imagine that I consulted the other side. Then I thought I would get the opinion of Mr. Chrysler who was also engaged in this matter, and I asked him whether we had failed entirely to carry out the expressed intention of both the contracting parties, and Mr. Chrysler expressed some surprise that the thought ever was suggested. I went further. I suspected that my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) might think that these two gentlemen having been consulted by the government in connection with this contract might perhaps have a leaning towards the government view of it, although I never thought he would suspect me of calling in counsel on the other side. What did I do ? I consulted Mr. Gormully, solicitor for the Bank of Montreal, one of the men who in this country is most competent to speak on such a subject, and Mr. Gormully expressed absolutely the same opinion as the other two gentlemen. And then, last but not least I thought I would take the judgment of a gentleman whose opinion stands high in this country, a gentleman whom I for one look upon as one of the best lawyers we have in this country, and whose opinion I highly value ; I refer to the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, and he concurred absolutely in the opinion expressed by the other counsel.
To assist the company in the construction of this western division it is provided that the government shall guarantee the payment of the principal and of the interest to the extent of $13,000 per mile on the prairie section, and to the extent of $30,000 per mile on the mountain section. That is the limit of our liability. If three-quarters of the cost of construction does not come up to the figures I have mentioned, then of course the government is not obliged to go beyond three-quarters of the cost of construction. If, however, as is anticipated, it may cost more than the amount estimated, the government's liability is fixed and limited with respect to the prairie section at $33,000 per mile and with respect to the mountain section at $30,000 per mile ; and. as I said a moment ago, interest duimg the course of construction is incl ided in the cost of construction. If you look at sections 15 and 18 of the contract, you will find the words ' cost of construction ' defined. They include almost everything that it is possible to imagine with respect to the eastern division. and they include, with respect to the

western division, * the like classes of expenditure as in the case of tne construction of the eastern division.'
Then it is important to know how the cost of construction is to be ascertained. Section 19 provides :
For the purpose of enabling the government to determine the cost of construction of the said railway, or of any portion thereof, or the cost of the equipment supplied, or the net earnings of the railway, or of any part or parts thereof, pursuant to this agreement, the government shall have the right, from time to time, and at all times, by and through such agents, engineers, accountants and inspectors as it may appoint for that purpose, to inspect all the books of account, pay sheets, contracts, correspondence and all other books, papers and documents, the inspection of which may be considered necessary for the purpose of determining such cost.
We have absolute control over their hooks of account and over their whole administration, for the purpose of ascertaining or controlling the cost of construction.
Another point to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is one of very considerable importance. You will remember that government is to guarantee the cost of construction of the western division to the extent of seventy-five per cent. It was important to know how to ascertain the cost of construction; but it is also important for the House and the country to know when the government is going to bind itself with respect to this guarantee. When is the guarantee to be given ?-immediately, or after the road is completed V Let me draw your attention to section 29 of the agreement:
Such bonds may be issued in such denominations in the currency of the Dominion of Canada, or in sterling money of Great Britain, as may be agreed upon, and the principal of such bonds shall be payable in fifty years from the date of issue, and the said bonds shall be dated and issued, and the guarantee of the government endorsed thereon, so soon as the Western Division is constructed and equipped ready for operation.
They must construct the western division, equip it and have it all ready for operation before the government is under any obligation to endorse these bonds.
The government has absolute control over the whole work. Section 40 provides :
The company shall, before being entitled to the guarantee provided by this agreement, furnish evidence, satisfactory to the government, that all just claims of contractors and for materials, wages and supplies, and all just claims against contractors and sub-contractors for materials, wages and supplies entering into and supplied for the construction of the railway have been duly paid.
Not only have the company to build the road and equip it, but they have to furnish evidence to the government to the effect that they have liquidated all their liabilities here mentioned before being entitled to the government guarantee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You will naturally ask me, how is the company to finance this enterprise during the course of construction ? Provision is made for that.
I draw the attention of the House to the wording of section 30, which provides for the issue of interim bonds :
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this agreement, interim bonds of the company secured by first mortgages may from time to time, during, and for the purpose of the work of constructing the said Western Division, be issued by the company and guaranteed by the government, as may be agreed upon from time to time, subject to all the limitations and conditions imposed by this agreement.
There is no obligation on the part of the government to endorse a single bond until this road is finished and equipped, except so far as under this clause of the agreement the government may choose to do so. It is entirely optional with the government. With respect to the western division, the road is to be 'built by the company, equipped by the company, and our obligation as guarantors of their bonds begins only when the road is finished in its entirety from Winnipeg to the waters of the Pacific ocean.


Mr. HEYD.: At that stage how much money will the company have invested in the western division ?


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Not one penny.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The company will have invested at that stage the total cost of construction. That is estimated at $20,000 a mile for the prairie section of 1,200 miles, and $50,000 a mile for the mountain section of 480 miles. They will have invested all that money. That is a total of $48,000,000, apd in addition $20,000,000 for equipment, making a total expenditure of $68,000,000 by the company. The property upon which that amount of money will have been expended will be security to the government for what ? For a guarantee to the extent of $13,000 a mile for the prairie section and $30,000 a mile for the mountain section. The result will be that we shall have guaranteed to the extent of $30,000,000, and shall have a security to the extent of $68,000,000.
There is more than that. Assuming now that we will be called upon to pay the interest during the seven years upon that mountain section, that interest would amount to $3,024,000, so that the extreme of our possible liabilities in connection with the western section is $33,024,000. and the result would be we will have a road costing $68,000,000 as our security. But we have even more than that. We have additional security in this respect, that the Grand Trunk Railway is bound by this agreement to guarantee the bonds issued to secure the money necessary to complete this road. What does that mean ? Should the prairie section cost $20,000 per mile, the Grand Trunk Railway will have to guarantee $8,-

400,000, being the balance required to complete that section. Should the mountain section cost $50,000 per mile, the Grand Trunk Railway will have to guarantee $9,600,000. That is to say, their guarantee will amount to $18,000,000, independent altogether of equipment. Then suppose there should be a default in the payment of interest on the bonds guaranteed by us, we will take the road and the equipment, and the holders of the second issue of bonds will be obliged to apply for payment to the Grand Trunk [DOT] Railway. ITence, it can easily be seen that the Grand Trunk Railway will not be in a position to afford to allow any default to be made. They cannot make themselves liable to the extent of $18,000,000 and allow a default to occur, the result of which would lie that they would have to take out of the funds of the company $18,000,000 and hand that over to the bondholders, and we would take the road. Therefore, in addition to the security of the road, we have that security, which results from the fact that the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway Is pledged to the extent of $18,000,000.
What are the advantages, independently altogether of the opening up of that country, which will grow out of this contract ? In the first place, we will have control of the rates and we will have running powers over the line. Section 39 provides :
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company upon any part of the said railway shall be under the control of the Governor in Council, or of such authority, commission or tribunal as may be designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
Then we have the question of running rights. It seems to me that we are in a curious position to-day, after the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition. We remember how one gentleman connected with this side of the House (Hon. Mr. Blair), who is in a position to speak as an authority on railway matters, told us that the clause relating to running rights was absolutely ridiculous, did not mean anything, and could not be effective. But not only the new apostle of the opposition spoke in that sense, the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who is a railway expert, took the same ground, and explained how impossible it was to effectually carry out the pr ovisions of the agreement with respect to running rights. But how does the stand taken by these hon. gentlemen compare with the position now taken by the leader of the opposition ? This afternoon he unfolded to us a project, according to which he was going to buy the railway from Sudbury to Port Arthur and give running rights over that line to all other railways. What did he mean this afternoon when he said that, with respect to that portion of the line from Port Arthur to Winnipeg he was going to acquire, by purchase from the
Canadian Pacific Railway, the right of all railways to run over it ? Surely there riust be a mistake somewhere.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend pardon me if I explain ? As far as the road to North Bay is concerned, the Canadian government, operating that line independently of other railways, can, in the judgment of railway experts, do so without contradicting in any way what has been said by my hon. friend from South Lanark or my hon. friend from Hamilton. The difference between that proposition and the one set out in the Bill is simply this. In the one case the Grand Trunk Railway controls the line, because it has a lease of that line, whereas in the other case the government, which is an independent body, operating by means of a commission, would control the line and give every railway company absolutely equal running rights over it. So far as the line from Port Arthur to Winnipeg is concerned, of course, my remarks were rather hurried, as I was trying to close at six o'clock, and perhaps I should have explained a little more definitely that a line of that kind between those two points must be worked and operated under joint arrangement. The remarks of my hon. friends from South Lanark and Hamilton do not conflict at all with the suggestion I made to the House, because in the one case there is an independent commission to operate the road, and the railway companies using it will have absolutely equal rights ; whereas, in tire other case, there seems to lie neither joint operation nor operation unleader of the opposition ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Has my hon. friend forgotten the picture presented to the House by the ex-Minister of Railways, when he described the Intercolonial Railway arriving at Quebec and proceeding on its way west, stopping to get water or give food to the employees, until it reached Winnipeg ? What is the difference between that picture and the one which would be presented by these different cars of different railway companies running over the same line proposed by the leader of the opposition


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon;. friend will permit me, the answer is this. The right hon. the First Minister portrayed a train belonging to the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax and some official of the railway saying to the men in charge : You had better take a little jaunt across the continent ; and the right hon. gentleman seemed to think that that would be perfectly feasible. But that is entirely different from the case where you have a road operated by an independent authority, under a commission. and the different railway companies using it subject to that authority.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let my hon. friend read the contract, and point out

the difference between the conditions we provide and those which he suggests himself. Our intention is to develop commerce through Canadian ports by constructing and operating a common highway across the Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the recital in the contract in which both parties concur, to which both give their assent. Then, has my hon. friend forgotten that this road belongs to the government, and that we are leasing it ro this company ? We are the owners : the road is vested in the government


Robert Laird Borden: Subject to the lease.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: ways liable to the corroding' effects of time, but to draw them together by a tie that time does not affect except to strengthen, and the force of which increases as years roll by, and as generation succeeds to generation, I refer to that living healthy bond which is woven out of human flesh and blood. The hand stretched out to us from western Canada we grasp in all amity and friendship, because we desire that their trade, that their affections, that their political sympathy, should turn towards the east rather than towards the south.


William Barton Northrup: Mr. Speaker, had I been a resident of the city of Quebec, with all my interests centered in that famous and classical city, my belief that the people of this Dominion were bound to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the better people of that city, would certainly have been satisfied fully by the arguments which have just been addressed to us by the Minister of Justice, on behalf, I cannot say of Canada, but of the city of Quebec. Almost the only omission that the hon. gentleman made was that, despite the full and exhaustive explanation that he made of this interesting contract, he did not tell us how we were going to cross the river at Quebec, and how much it was going to cost, and who was to make the profits out of that bridge. He was careful to tell us that Montreal, which was not much of a place at best, could be reached [DOT] by river navigation. He was careful to tell us that Halifax could not compete with Portland, and that inasmuch as Halifax could not possibly compete with Portland, it was desirable that $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 of money should be spent in order to convince even those who were at this time sceptical, that this was a fact.
Now, before going into the various arguments advanced by the hon. gentleman, I would like to refer to one matter which has been brought before this House, not only by him but by one or two of his colleagues who have spoken in this debate. We have been, I might almost say, taunted on this side of the House because, when the exMinister of Railways and Canals addressed this House he received applause from hon. gentlemen on this side. Well, Sir, we are not ashamed to say that we did applaud that hon. gentleman; but we are ashamed and sorry to see that the fact that we could applaud him and they could not, perhaps illustrates one great difference between the two parties, which is to be made even more conspicuous in the progress of this debate and the probable passage of this Bill. Hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House know well, as we know and as the country knows, that in the years past they have been accustomed simply to applaud the man regardless of the arguments that might be advanced: we on this side of the House can applaud a man under certain circumstances,


Charles Fitzpatrick: and when a gentleman who has been held up before the people of this country as one of its leading statesmen for years, a man who has been so honoured by the party in power that they placed him in charge of one of the principal departments for years, and when that gentleman feels it his duty to his country, and when a sense of his own personal honour is such that he must lay down the emoluments of office rather than support a scheme which he believes detrimental to the interests of his country, then I say that we on this side of the House are not ashamed to applaud a gentleman who has done that. If we applauded that hon. gentleman when he arose to address the House, as we are in the habit of doing on this side, we could applaud him as he spoke on account of the arguments that he advanced; and if all we have heard be true, not merely of his late colleagues but of the [DOT]lion, gentlemen opposite who have discussed this matter in caucus, other hon. gentlemen opposite would, if they had been sincere, have joined with us in some of that applause.
Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat started off with asking a few very pertinent inquiries, but he carefully failed to answer them. His first inquiry, was : Is the project now before the House an urgent and immediate necessity; and I am sure that not one single word was said by him, good, bad or indifferent, to convince or convert even the most well disposed of his suporters behind him that there was any urgent or immediate necessity for the construction of this particular road. He also asked :	Have proper means to secure information been adopted ? Here again, having made the inquiry, he thought he had done all that was necessary, for he certainly gave the House no information whatever to show us that any steps had been taken by the government to secure this proper information. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman did not give us some information, if it is so easy to procure the kind of information that hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think possesses some value. When the right hon. the Premier introduced this measure to the House he gave us considerable valuable information as to the climate, and the timber, and the agricultural land in this favoured part of the country through which this road is to run. When the Minister of Finance came to address the House' he too gave us some very valuable information; and when the Minister of the Interior came to address the House h,e too referred to the same sources of information which had been referred to by his two colleagues previously. But when we come to look at the report of which these gentlemen spoke, we find that while, as a matter of fact, a number of statements are made just such as they mentioned, and while, as a matter of fact, in that book are contained reports made by surveyors who went over that line, all the

alleged information given by bon. gentlemen opposite is information taken from the introduction, -without the authority or sanction of any one's name, a report made out for the purpose of making the work interesting, or for the purpose of making the people of Ontario believe that they received some value for their money, and a report made up by some unknown persons, not signed by any name, and only professing to be an epitome of what is to be found in some of the succeeding pages of the book.
1 do not wish to occupy the time of the House by reading from the pages of this work. I might be accused by some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House of doing that which they have been accused of doing, of raising a cry against the country which might some day do it ill. Therefore, I abstain from reading extracts which I might give referring to this country, but if. any of these lion, gentlemen will take the trouble of reading a few of these not anonymous sentences from the actual reports of the surveyors who have gone through that land'they will find that these reports do not bear out the statements made by the hon. Minister of the Interior. When the hon. Minister of the Interior came before the House he professed to come in the fulness of his good-will, with the latest and most perfect information obtainable. For the first time in the history of a great transcontinental railway all the surveys have been laid out by a clerk, sitting in his office, having before him all the reports he could find which had been made by the Geological Survey, and from these reports, as the hon. minister tells us, he was able to place upon the map a very accurate and practicable route from one part of this country to another. Would hon. gentlemen opposite sit in their seats and without shouts of derision-I might almost say without cries of disgust-allow hon. gentlemen of our shade of politics to attempt to pass before the judgment of the House a measure of the transcendent importance of this measure and have no more information than the hon. gentleman presented to the House ? In view of the utter ignorance of these hon. gentlemen about the country and after all their professions, I think I may quote some of these anonymous remarks which were given by the First Minister and the hon. Minister of the Interior from that report, which were endorsed by the hon. Minister of Finance and therefore he cannot complain, the right hon. leader of the government cannot complain and the hon. Minister of the Interior cannot complain if I quote from some parts of this document to show what the author thinks of the kind of information upon which this map made by the clerk of the hon. Minister of the Interior was based. I shall read from the first page :
Of course some information was at hand, hut it was very vague. Parties had penetrated to
James Bay from time to time, and these had seen good land and quantities of spruce along the streams which they had travelled, but at what distance from any known point and in what quantities they could not say. Mr. E. B. Borron as stipendiary magistrate of northern Nipissing, who had that immense region under his charge, had made several trips to Jam ;s Bay by different canoe routes ; and he, too, had seen and reported good land and quantities of spruce and other timber upon the different streams he had travelled, but as to quality and locality he was necessarily very indefinite, having only observed as he navigated or portaged in an entirely un3urveyed territory. The Geological Survey of Canada, too, had examined the geology and characteristics of the land adjacent to certain streams which they had ascended or descended, and soma, of our own surveyors in running a few base lines and the boundary line between the districts of Nipissing and Al-goma, had passed through good land, and spruce timber ; but after all, this sort of information was disjointed as well as limited, although of sufficiently favourable character to warrant the belief that when systematic exploration was made great sources of natural wealth would be discovered in that little known region.
That is about all the information that flip government had! on hand when they undertook this tremendous scheme which is at present engrossing tjie attention of the House. Before going into the details of this scheme perhaps it would not be out of place for a moment to call the attention of the House and the country to the extraordiary circumstances under which the government launched this scheme. In considering the magnitude of this proposition it is perhaps important that we should view the surrounding circumstances and see what lessons can be learned and what is the true purpose of it so that we will be enabled to judge whether the scheme is one which is entitled to receive the endorsation of parliament. Can those who are responsible for the presentation of this scheme to the House and to the country show that this tremendous expenditure for the building of the railway is necessary and justifiable at the present time ? It seems to me that I need not waste time by going into all the preliminary details as to how this scheme originally was introduced when three or four capitalists, Senator Cox, Mr. Pellatt, Mr. Wood, Senator Gibson, and some Grand Trunk officials applied for a charter for a road from North Bay through the Northwest Territories. I may say that there is nobody in this country but would be delighted to have that great company, with the capitalists whom I have named at its back, building a road at its own expense from North Bay through the North-west Territories and it is no wonder that when their intentions were first made known the gentlemen who were interviewed in all parts of the country expressed their approval of such a scheme precisely as every one of us in this House to-day would express his approval. It is in the memory of hon. members that day after day through the

sweltering days of the summer, because we had some sweltering days, we fought in the Railway Committee over the details of this Bill when it came before parliament, we in our innocence, thinking that we were doing our duty, that we were wresting something from this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and feeling gratified that Mr. Hays should graciously from time to time make concessions little knowing that at that very time the right hon. leader of the government and Mr. Hays at night were working out the practical details of the bargain which we were allowed to discuss by day. I can quite understand the surprise of the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman when for the first time he burst into the council chamber and brought this new creature of his brain with him, laying it at their feet and calling their attention to it, in the words of Touchstone :
A poor virgin, Sir, an ill-favoured thing, Sir, but mine own. A poor humour of mine, Sir, to take that that no man else will.
Perhaps it is not surprising that when tile right hon. gentleman introduced this offspring of his brain to the one man of the ministry with experience in railway matters and who perhaps because he had experience in railway matters was not allowed to know of this precious contract-X say perhaps it is not surprising that the one gentleman who had sufficient experience in railway matters to know a curve from a grade, felt that the curve from the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill as originally introduced to the Grand Trunk Pacific contract was too steep a curve for him to take, and perhaps he thought that his grade of morality was too high and that the grade of patriotism suggested by this scheme was too low to enable him to give it his support and so we find that the one man in the ministry who knows a curve from a grade promptly repudiated the scheme and retired from the ministry. One would have thought that under these circumstances the government would have hesitated, that it would have had some consideration for the people of the country and one would have thought that the right hon. gentleman might have had some colleagues behind him of sufficient honesty and courage to go to the right hon. gentleman and point out that although they admired, as we admire, the many good qualities that he possesses, although they valued and appreciated his strong magnetic-personality, although they admired his geniality and recognized his eloquence and the powers of his sunny smiles, they were also aware that when It came to transacting railway business his experience was somewhat limited, and it might occur even to the ordinary tax payer of this country, that, when a great scheme for the expenditure of a hundred million dollars in money was brought before this House, perhaps the interests of the people might have been protected in some better way than by the right Mr. NORTHRTTP.
hon. gentleman with his lack of business ability, despite all his other virtues, sitting down to make such a contract with one of the ablest, one of the shrewdest, one of the wiliest and most successful railway men in this or in any other land. Is it any wonder that a contract conceived under such circumstances bears some of the marks that the contract we are discussing to-night shows prominently on its face ? I would have thought that some gentleman sitting about the Prime Minister would have felt some regard for their reputation ; some regard for the honour of the Crown if they had none for their own. They cannot so soon have forgoten the words they put into the mouth of His Excellency at the opening of this session. They must have remembered that they caused the Crown to solemnly state to parliament :
The great influx of population into our North-western territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
This statement in the speech from the Throne was based, as the colleagues of the Prime Minister well know, on the Order in Council which has been read by the leader of the opposition this afternoon, which gives in detail the reasons which satisfied the colleagues of the Premier, which satisfied the Crown, and which was intended to satisfy this House and the country, that the pressing question of the hour was a transportation commission in order to investigate the complex and complicated subject which had been engrossing, and which was to continue to engross their attention. Surely, in the face of all that, we might have expected some one minister if not more, to have pointed out the extraordinary circumstances under which this Bill was conceived, and the slight probability there was that this country would secure its rights in such an agreement. Let me call attention to the fact that although this agreement) was made between some gentlemen representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the government, the agreement will be wholly inoperative, and we are wasting our time discussing it, unless the Grand Trunk Railway, which is in no way at present bound by it, will come forward and carry out the engagement which these gentlemen have made for it. What are we to think of the contract made by the Premier with gentlemen, one of whom stated to a meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway in the motherland a few months ago, that they were about to enter into an undertaking which would

never in any respect cost them one dol- I lar or jeopardize one dollar of their property ? What are we to think of a bargain of such a character, that the government itself cannot be certain that the Grand Trunk Railway shareholders at their next meeting will ratify it and yet we are spending a month here discussing the matter, and relying solely on the Grand Trunk Railway Company being willing to carry out a contract to which at present they are not parties. No more conclusive evidence can be given of the one-sidedness of the bargain, of the advantage on one hand and the disadvantage on the other, (the country of course being at a disadvantage), than the simple fact that both the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the representatives of the government were perfectly satisfied without any guarantee except the inherent nature of the contract itself, that the Grand Trunk shareholders will ratify such a bargain. When we come to look at this contract, we on this side of the House, and I ought to be able to say, gentlemen supporting the treasury benches as well, are entitled to say to the government :	Surely you had some reasons
to justify such a contract as this.
Well, Sir, the Prime Minister did give his reasons. Far be it from me to say that in his long and eloquent speech no reasons were adduced. I have gone through the speech of the Prime Minister carefully and I have collated his reasons, and I shall state them to the House. I ask the House to say whether in a case such as this, we should not first consider whether the reasons given for such a measure are or are not founded in fact. If they are not founded in fact we are surely justified in refusing to support the measure, and if they are founded in fact then the next consideration would be :	Will the effect of
them be as represented ? In looking over those reasons given by the Prime Minister, I think I can fairly ask of hon. gentlemen opposite if they honestly in their hearts believe that these reasons are sufficient justification for their supporting such a measure as this ? These are the reasons given by the Prime Minister :	That the
construction of this road was a national and commercial necessity ; that the construction must be immediate ; that it must be from Moncton to the Pacific ocean ; that it will not parallel the Intercolonial Railway ; that you must keep control of the road ; that we must be safe from the bonding privileges ; that we used American ports because we had no railways to reach our own ports, and that we had to keep control so as to regulate the traffic. These were the reasons given by the right hon. gentleman, as those which led the government to introduce this measure. Now, let me in a few words take these reasons one by one. I have enumerated them together so that hon. gentlemen
may have an opportunity, if they see fit, to compare the Prime Minister's reasons as I have stated them, with the reasons set forth in: his speech and I am sure they will not find one reason given in that speech beyond those I have mentioned. The first reason given is that this is a national and commercial necessity. I am free to admit that the expression ' national necessity ' is rather a euphoneous phrase. One naturally feels an almost instinctive yearning for anything that is a national necessity, and so I suppose hon. gentlemen opposite are ready to jump at once to secure for themselves and their constituents in Quebec a national necessity. But after all, when we come down to facts ; when we lay aside the gems of oratory and come down to the level of hard facts, does any one of the supporters of the Prime Minister believe that the construction of this road from Moncton to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to the Pacific is a national necessity ? Is there a gentleman in this House who does not know that we are a nation, that we have been a nation ever since the happy morning the Prime Minister awoke to find that somehow he had made us a nation. We have the best authority for knowing that we are a nation ; but we have existed without this road so far. Is there a single man in this House or in this country to-night, so blind to all sense of reason, that he can face his fellowman and say honestly to him, that this road is such a national necessity that we cannot as a nation exist without it ?
Then, if it is not a national necessity, is it a commercial necessity ? In what possible sense can it be a commercial necessity ? Why, Sir, if this road be a commercial necessity and a national necessity, heaven defend us, for we will not be a nation during the six or seven years that it is being built. We, must cease to be a nation ; we must be swallowed up by the adjoining republic or submerged beneath the waves ; some dreadful fate must be' ours if this is a national or commercial necessity, for we cannot have it for six or seven years. Does not every one know that when the right hon. the Prime Minister spoke of this as being a national and comipercial necessity that he was merely using a high-sounding euphoneous expression which was not warranted by the facts.
Then the Prime Minister told us that the construction must ]be< immediate :	that
there was no time to wait for surveys ; that he had no timel to wait for any more information than the government has on hand at the present moment. Why this extraordinary haste ? There was a time years ago when the country was bound to build the Intercolonial Railway : there was a time when this country entered into an agreement also to build the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the right hon. gentleman when he said that this road should be built

which will he in Winnipeg from three to five years before the eastern section reaches that city. It is perfectly clear that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be in Winnipeg long before the eastern division reaches that spot. Had the agreement been drawn intelligently and in the interests of the country-and I am not blaming the Minister of Justice, because I presume he simply put the intentions of the parties in legal phraseology-it would have provided for the building of a line from Winipeg east from which a branch could be built to North Bay or to Port Arthur or Port William and thus secured the transportation of the products of the west by the lakes through our eastern ports. But instead we find the government making an arrangement which lays before the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway the temptation for years to come to send then- wheat south from Winnipeg across the border, through to Chicago and Duluth, and we know that it is one of the hardest things in the world, once traffic has taken a certain route, to divert it to another. . Had the government been more eager to look after the interests of the coun-trv and less anxious to make a bargain, we would have had a totally different arrangement submitted to 11s.
When my hon. friend the Minister of Finance came to discuss the question, he added very little to the reasons advanced by the First Minister. He pleaded that the Conservative party did not require surveys in 1871 before entering into a contract for building the Intercolonial Railway, nor did they require surveys before contracting to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. But the circumstances in these cases were entirely different from those which exist today. What were the facts when the Intercolonial Railway contract was entered into? That road, Sir, was a national necessity. Every one knows that the old provinces had been getting along so unhappily, every one knows that there was so much friction between them, owing to unhappy religious and racial difficulties, not fomented by the Conservative party, that it became necessary to do something ; and so the statesmen on both sides of politics agreed that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be added to the original Canadas and thus restore harmony by forming a confederation. There was therefore a national necessity for the building of the Intercolonial Railway. The lower provinces would not have come in unless they were promised a railway to connect with the upper provinces. Surely, if ever there was a case of national necessity which justified the conduct of the government, it was that one. But will anybody pretend that such a necessity now exists ? Then, when the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway was entered upon, the question of building that road had been before the country for years. This country had pledged itself to British Columbia to build the Mr. NORTHRUP.
road, and again there was a national necessity. We had purchased the prairies of the west and we knew that extension to the Pacific was absolutely necessary for the Dominion. It was necessary for our national existence that we should build a railway across the prairies to connect with British Columbia ; and that being the case, we entered into the contract to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. But is there anything in the circumstances to-day which, in the most remote degree, resembles the circumstances of those days, when a real, true national necessity existed ?
A great deal of capital was sought to be made by the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) out of the charge that we had attacked, year after year, the management of the Intercolonial Railway. They stigmatized us as not being friends of the Intercolonial Railway. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have never attacked the Intercolonial Railway itself from this side, but have attacked, and will continue to attack, the management of that noble public work ; and when hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance actually deride us because we oppose grants for the construction of elevators at St. John and Halifax, we can easily turn ,ie tables on them by pointing to the fact that not a single bushel of grain has gone through the Halifax elevator and but one cargo and that at an expense to the country of $10,000, through the elevator at St. John, so that these two institutions are standing as costly monuments of the lavish expenditure of this government.
My hon. friend the Finance Minister, whose honesty every one on this side, I am sure, admits, has said-and I am certain he said it in all sincerity-that he had looked carefully through the Bill and thought it was an honest Bill, because he could not find anything in it for the promoters. I am quite willing to accept the assurance of the hon. gentleman. I think that about as near as he could get to finding out where the money was to be made would be to look through the pages of the Bill, and if he did not see dollar bills sticking out he would be unable to find anything in it for the promoters. But there are perhaps other people who have better ideas on that point. Just look at the position of the road. If hon. gentlemen opposite would lay aside their party prejudices and view the question upon its merits, I am perfectly certain that a mere statement of the position of the road would prevent the Bill being discussed five minutes. Just think of the position in which the country is to be placed. The country is to guarantee 75 per cent of the western section, and I shall say nothing of the ease with which a company could put in the whole cost under cover of the 75 per cent guarantee. The country bears all the cost, in the meantime, of the construction of the eastern division, so that when the road is completed, it is

perfectly clear that this country will owe $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 for the construction of the eastern division and will have guaranteed three-quarters the cost of the construction of the western division. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have obtained their charter. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Heyd) asked me what the promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway put into the road up to the time of its completion, and I told him that they did not put in one dollar, as I shall prove. Let us see whence the money comes. From Moncton to Winnipeg the government bear all the expense of construction. West of Winnipeg the government bears 75 per cent. That only leaves 25 per cent to be raised by the company. Whence does that come ? I confess it will be a little hard, from reading the Bill, to be perfectly certain just whence it does come. The language is so artfully changed in the c'ause providing for the 25 per cent to be guaranteed by the Grand Trunk as compared with the government guarantee of 75 per cent, that it is very hard to say what the meaning of the words may be. But the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior both agree as to the meaning of that clause, and both say that the Grand Trunk Railway has to provide 25 per cent by guaranteeing sufficient bonds to raise that amount.
Now, if the government provide 75 per cent and the Grand Trunk is to guarantee bonds to raise the other 25 per cent, what is the Grand Trunk Pacific to put in? Your road is completed, and your company has. not paid a dollar. What, then, is the position of your company ? It has $20,000,000 of preferred stock and $25,000,000 of common stock, and there has not been a dollar put up for it. I suppose the Grand Trunk will get either the $20,000,000 or the $25,000,000 for guaranteeing the bonds. The balance will be divided, I suppose, among the intelligent, industrious and successful promoters. And if the Finance Minister were in that neighbourhood I fancy he would be able to form some idea where the dollar bills were. But we find the road completed, and the company has not put a dollar fnto it. And in this r appeal to the words of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior, who stated distinctly that the Grand Trunk is to guarantee, not the balance of the bonds, but enough of the bonds to make up the balance of the money. There will be quite a distinction between the two. It seems to me that the contract clause was such that nobody could say with certainty exactly what it meant. On the whole, I should thought it possible that under it the Grand Trunk would guarantee the bonds for the face value of 25 per cent and, if that was not sufficient, the shortage would be made up by the company in some other way. But when two of the gentlemen who made the contract, one of them the Finance Minister, who
must know if anybody knows, the meaning of the financial terms, tell us that the Grand Trunk is to raise the whole 25 per cent of the cost, we naturally ask where the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is going to put in a dollar.
Now, the Minister of Justice spent some time in discussing the question of equipment, and I take that up now, because it is germane to the question of who provides the money for the construction of the road. The hon. gentleman said that the meaning of section 22 and some other sections to which he referred, was cleat beyond per-adventure, so clear that no lawyer of the eminence of the ieader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the senior member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) should have dreamed of making such a statement as that the company was not bound to purchase the equipment to be provided for this eastern division. I venture to say that the statement made by the Minister of Justice has confirmed every member of the House who has taken the trouble to pay attention to the clause in the belief that the view expressed by the leader of the opposition and by the hon. senior member for Hamilton is absolutely accurate, and still more, that the Minister of Justice is afraid that it is so. Let us see what was done. The contract was drawn up by the Minister of Justice. Then counsel, Mr. Shepley, is ealled in. I wish to be understood as saying that Mr. Shepley is one of the ablest and most experienced and most painstaking counsel that the Minister of Justice could have secured. I hope it will not be thought for a moment that I am finding fault with that part of it. If Mr. Shepley received a rattling good fee, I for one will not criticise the estimate when it comes down. But, after he has revised the contract and it has been accepted, suddenly in this House a new idea Is sprung, and the minister goes back to his counsel and says : Do you mean to say you were such an idiot as to leave such a hole in the contract-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not suggest that he was an idiot.


William Barton Northrup: I am merely putting it in extreme form. He asked the counsel if he thought he could have made such a blunder. If the Minister of Justice did not read to Mr. Shepley, the deputy minister, Mr. Newcombe, and to Mr. Gormully any more of the sections of the contract than he read here to-night, I should be sorry to say that they were wrong in the opinion they gave


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Counsel generally read contracts before they give opinions in my country.


William Barton Northrup: I should think so. But the opinion was such that I concluded that they could not have done so. The Minister of Justice' called our attention to

sections 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 34, 35 and 37. In the majority of these sections, we find that all depends on the meaning of the word ' equip.' Now, ' equip ' is not a legal term. I am not aware of any legal work in which any legal meaning is attached to that word. I consulted several legal lexicons, and I do not find it mentioned. Consequently I take the Standard dictionary in order to find the ordinary meaning of this English word, and I find that the meaning of ' equip ' is given as ' To furnish or fit out for service, task or course ; provide with all that is necessary for a successful undertaking.' You will see that it is possible to provide with all necessary for a successful undertaking without purchasing. If the Minister of Justice, upon taking office under the Prime Minister were to say : I would like to secure a house ready furnished for my residence in Ottawa ; and the Prime Minister were to provide him with such a house, the Minister of Justice could hardly refuse to pay the rent on the ground that the furniture had been borrowed or leased- so long as it was not stolen. It would not be necessary that it should be purchased. Equip' is one thing ; purchase and equip is another thing. I should have thought under ordinary circumstances that when we find the word ' acquire ' used again and again in this contract-there are probably few words used in it so frequently-that in this case the Minister of Justice would have it read ' acquire and equip ' or ' purchase and equip.' Then, we should know where we were. The other clauses the minister read did not take the matter a*particle further. They merely repeat the use of the word ' equip.' We do not find that it means that the company* shall purchase and equip. Then, we come to section 14, which the minister did not read to this House. Let me take the liberty of reading the 14th clause to the House, and then I will ask if there is a layman in this House who cannot at a glance see the meaning of the word ' equip ' as used in this contract. This clause, 14, provides for the working expenditure. And hon. gentlemen will remember that, for the first ten years the expenditure is to be deducted before the rental is paid. So, it is important to know what the working expenditure is. On the eastern division they can take certain things for working expenditure. This is the clause:
For the purposes of this agreement, the expression * working expenditure ' as applied to the eastern division of the railway, shall mean and include all expenses of maintenance of the said division, and of the stations, buildings, works and conveniences belonging thereto, and of the rolling and other stock and movable plant used in the working thereof, and all such tolls, rents or annual sums as are paid in respect of property leased to, or held by, the company

They have some leased property. That is admitted. Now, I will call the minister's attention to what follows :


William Barton Northrup: -in respect of the said eastern division (apart from the rent of any other leased line), or in respect of the hire of rolling stock let to the company as part of the equipment of the said eastern division.
Can the English language be plainer ? Here is an agreement by which $5,000,000 of rolling stock is to be provided-not purchased-for the equipment of that road. It is marked; as assigned and set apart for that division ; I suppose in order that if it slips off to any other it can be brought back, and, on the average, the value of rolling stock shall be $5,000,000. There is no doubt that the value of the rolling stock is to be $5,000,000. but the sections are silent as to the ownership, except that in this section relating to working expenditure, it is provided that the Grand Trunk Pacific can add to the working expenditure any sum that they pay for the hire of rolling stock, let to the company as part of the equipment of the said eastern division. If the case were to go before a judge and the Minister of Justice were to say that ' equip ' means ' purchase and equip,' would not the judge say at once : You yourself have defined it in this clause which provides that they may lease a part of the equipment of the eastern division ? Is it open to question that it would be held that the requirements of the clause would be fulfilled by borrowing or leasing rolling stock for this division to the value of $5,000,000 ?
There is another consideration that the hon. gentleman will not overlook, that is the question of working expenses is for the first ten years. After that time we are not concerned with the working expenses. It is when the company has to pay rent that working expenses is allowed. We find that the company has to supply $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock for the eastern division, and because the government is satisfied that the business will not pay for ten years, they let them off from paying rent for ten years. When we find this state of affairs admitted by the government, would it not be the height of absurdity to say that while they will not make enough money to pay their rent, they will also be supposed to lease additional stock in addition to the $5,000,000? If that had been the case we can depend upon it that some of the shrewd lawyers who drew up this agreement would have put in two or three words here such as ' in addition to the $5,000,000 purchased therefor ' or words to that effect. Now, the Minister of Justice will say :	You have not
touched the 35th clause. Let tis read It. It provides for security in the shape of a mortgage which will be a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property, tolls, rights and franchises of the company, including all equipment and property to be thereafter acquired by the company. If the company buys one car, the government it entitled to a mortgage on that car. If the company leases $5,000,000 worth

of equipment, what will be the effect; every lawyer knows that the lessee obtains a title which he can mortgage. That is the first charge on the lessee's interest. It would be a novel statement of law that the lessee could give a mortgage to be a charge on somebody else's property. The Minister of Justice must not forget that if the Grand Trunk Company feels so friendly to this Grand Trunk Pacific Company that they will guarantee their bonds gratuitously, they might possibly lease their cars on such favourable terms that if the government had to take over this road it would be an advantage to the government to step in and to take the lessees' position, and not compel them to buy new cars, but to use the old cars. But that is a different proposition from saying that because you are to have a mortgage upon equipment, you will have a mortgage upon the property of somebody else. Then when we take the other clauses (b), (c) and (d) they do not carry the subject any further. You come back to the equipment, and the moment you decide what equipment means then all these subsections follow naturally in their place.
Another argument the hon. gentleman made is that clause 37 is conclusive. I did not think he would refer to clause 37, but that he would have left a less skilful lawyer to refer to that. Now, here is a clause different from all other clauses in the contract. It is put in for a spec'fic purpose, and every one knows that purpose. It is put in to ensure that whatever the company buys in the construction and equipment of its road, it should buy in Canada. I do not think a more futile clause was ever put in any agreement by any conveyancer. All that Is provided is that the company shall purchase all material and supplies required for the construction of the western division and the equipment of the whole line, from Canadian producers when the same are produced in Canada, and when such materials and supplies can be purchased in desired quantities arid of equal quality for the purpose required and for prices and upon terms equally advantageous with those procurable elsewhere. That is to say, if the company can buy goods in Canada just as cheaply and of as good quality as they can out of Canada, they will be wise enough to save their freight and insurance and buy them at home. But if they do not choose to buy them in Canada there is no provision by which they can be compelled to do so, and who will be able to say in years to come that the contention of the company relying on this option, was wrong ? That is the purpose of that clause, to provide that what the company has to buy must be bought in Canada. What has that to do with the construction and equipment ? The word ' equipment ' stands by itself. If that implies that they must buy it in Canada, you do not need that clause; it is all provided for in the 22nd clause if equipment includes the idea of 284
purchase, if equipment does not include the idea of purchase, then this clause does not apply. So I submit that the contention raised by the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from Hamilton is quite correct, and that this document does not provide the security that should be provided for the people of this country.
Then the Minister of Justice spoke about the country not being bound to pay anything until the road was completed. Now, I think he has not carefully read the clauses, or he would find that practically the government must contribute as the road goes on. 1 admit that it is optional.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not contend any more than that.


William Barton Northrup: I think the hon. gentleman did, for this reason; unless he did contend for more than that, it was vain to speak of it at all. The only object would be to lead the people to believe that the country is not bound to pay while the road is being built. It is one thing to say the country is legally bound to pay, I do not say that; it is another thing to say the country is practically bound to pay, and that is what I do say. If this country is guaranteeing the bonds on $75,000,000, when it saw this company crippled by extortionate charges made on every contract, why should it not advance the money in the meantime Y Why, if the government exercised its option and did not pay a cent until the road was completed, that road would cost three or four times as much as it would if the contractors were paid as they went along. It would be interesting, when the hon. gentleman is again addressing the House, if he would enlighten us as to how the western section is to be built, assuming that the government pays nothing, guarantees no bonds, until the whole road is built.
I want to say a few words about the contract itself. It is such an extraordinary document that we are almost justified in declining to consider it on account of the inherent signs of weakness on almost every page of it. In the first place, it is indicative of haste, and perhaps that is the reason the Prime Minister said we must move at once, that there is no time for deliberation. If there has been one statement made in this debate that can be accepted by the House without hesitation, it is the statement that the government moved without deliberation. Perhaps one reason is that the government themselves did not know where they stood nor with whom they were dealing when they came to draw up a document for the construction of a transcontinental railway. When one looks at the original Bill, No. 64, to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, it is seen that the incorporators are:	[DOT]


The Honourable George A.: Cox, H. M. Pellatt. and E. R. Wood, all of Toronto, Ontario, the Honourable William Gibson, of Beamsville, On-



tario, J. R. Booth, ot Ottawa, Ontario, the Honourable H. B. Rainville, Charles M. Hays, Frank W. Morse and William Wainwright, all of Montreal, and John Bell of Belleville, together with such persons as become shareholders in the company, are incorporated under the name of ' The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway i Company,' hereinafter called ' the company.'
These gentlemen applied to parliament and we gravely discussed tlieir application in this House and passed the Bill which has gone to the Senate, but which has not been adopted there, incorporating these gentlemen as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Then, suddenly, like a bolt out of the blue, comes down the government Bill setting forth that :
An agreement has been entered into, bearing date the 29th day of July, 1903, between His Majesty the King, of the first part, and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, C.B.,	G.C.M.G., and
others, representing therein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-	[DOT]
Who are they ? The preamble tells us- -a company incorporated by an Act of the parliament of Canada passed at the present session thereof.
They are not incorporated, and the Act is not true on its face. This may be a small matter, but it shows the recklessness and the haste with which everything in connection with this contract has been done. It appears to me that the government apparently drew the Bill and the railway lawyers drew the contract When we look at the contract we find that it is between the government and a number of gentlemen-
Representing therein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by an Act of the parliament of Canada passed at the present session thereof.
Showing that the railway lawyers knew the true position of affairs and that the government did not. I think it is rather extraordinary that this debate has proceeded for so long a time. The right hon. leader of the government has introduced this Bill, several of his colleagues have spoken but none of them has yet explained how it is that when eight or ten gentlemen apply in the ordinary course to' be incorporated, suddenly, liking the melting of the dew in the morning sun, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company disappears and we enter into a contract with several other gentlemen representing the Grand Trunk Railway Company and professing to represent the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Surely the House is entitled to an explana-tio.i as to the way in which this contract was drawn and as to why the government did not know the status of the gentlemen with whom they were dealing. Now, I will refer to section 21 of the Bill which is a peculiar section :
The Governor in Council shall have the power at any time to suspend the progress of tho


William Barton Northrup: work upon the said eastern division until the then next session of parliament.
Is it possible that hon. gentlemen opposite have suspicions themselves ? Is it possible that they fear that what the hon. ex-i Minister of Railways and Canals says is right ? Is it possible that they anticipate, that the expenditure may be so enormous that even this country will not stand the construction of the eastern division, or is it possible that this agreement may be held before the country until after the election when the government can put in another division if they see fit ? Surely some light upon the subject should be given to an anxious and inquiring House. The hon. Minister of Justice has spoken of the care that has been exercised by the government to see that the road is constructed in a reasonable way. The hon. gentleman makes a fair presentment of the case. He points out that the government will construct the eastern division of the railway, that the company will pay 3 per cent on the cost of the railway, that the company will construct the western division of the railway, the government guaranteeing 75 per cent of the cost and that each will thereby be overlooking tlie line constructed by the other. He points out that in this way the country has been safeguarded. What could be safer, he asks ? How could any of the moneys-of the country be improperly expended where the interests of both parties are so carefully safeguarded? Let us look at section 7 and see how far they have been safeguarded. I would like to know whether the hon. Minister of Justice or the lawyers of the railway company are responsible for this clause :
In order to ensure, for the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed

What do the people get as their security ? -that the specifications

That the specifications-the specifications

-for the construction of the eastern division shall be submited'to, and approved of by, the company before the commencement of the work.
What about the tenders ? What about the contracts ? Where does the money come in in the specifications ? It comes in with the tenders or the contracts. I think that the hon. gentlemen opposite must surely have thought that the people were worthy subjects of Barnum's irony when he said that the. people liked to be humbugged when he tells us about the provisions made for safeguarding the country, because, although he does provide for the specifications he makes no provision for the tenders and contracts and practically all the unholy work is done, if it is done at all, in connection with the tenders aud contracts. The same thing applies



IS, 1903

[Stage Direction]
to the western division. We read all through that there is such a provision in respect to the specifications, but not in regard to the tenders and contracts. I notice all through this agreement that one of the inherent weaknesses of the agreement is the careless and reckless manner in which it has been entered into. It is rather singular that we should be told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we are not to be put to any expense in connection with the construction of the eastern division because the Grand Trunk Pacific is to pay us a rental of 3 per cent. We guarantee their bonds for 3 per cent, but the bonds are payable half yearly, and the rental is payable yearly. It would have been the simplest thing in the world for the government to have insisted that if they have to pay the interest half yearly they should get the rent half yearly, because, in large sums running up into millions, a half year's interest represents a considerable amount of money. If the contract were drawn in the interest of the railway company it would have been drawn exactly in the way in which it has been drawn but if it were drawn in the interest of the country it would have been drawn in such a manner as to provide that the reiital should be paid half yearly. Then, there is another clause which provides that if the rent is not paid when due it is capitalized but it is not capitalized in such a way as to give compound interest to the country. There may be arrears that will be capitalized three years hence but the country will lose the interest in the meantime. Then clause 21 is a singular one. It provides that the state of affairs shall be at the end of the term :
If, upon the termination of the said lease, the government shall determine not to undertake the operation of the eastern division, tha company, provided the terms offered by it are as favoufable to the government as those offered by any other railway company equally competent to perform and fulfil the obligations required by the government to be assumed by the lessees thereof shall have the right to an extension or renewal of the said lease for a further period of fifty years, upon such terms as may be agreed upon.
I think any one will see that this puts the government in an extraordinary position. At the end of the time the government will be found operating the road from Moncton to Winnipeg beginning nowhere and ending nowhere. If they want to expropriate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway running to the coast they can do it, but they would have to pay for the value of the road fifty years hence. Now they contribute three-quarters of what it will cost to build it, but they will have to pay the enhanced value that will accrue to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific. No other company can possibly compete with the Grand Trunk Pacific, for the lease of the eastern division, because, suppose that any other company makes as good a proposition to operate the 2841
road the Grand Trunk Pacific by reason of the efficiency of its system, its connection with and its management of the eastern division would be in a better position to carry out the lease than any other railway company and therefore practically the government are making a present of the eastern section of this road to the Grand Trunk Pacific for all time to come, and should the government want to buy out the western section fifty years from now they will have to pay what the road is worth at that time. The government have contended that one of their chief reasons for carrying through this scheme is to secure the regulation of rates, but Che whole section, which purports to do this really appears to do everything else. If they expect to do it in the way in which the section relating to that matter is drawn I would say that it is the surest way to avoid the accomplishment of the result which they profess to have in view. Just look for a moment at the position of the farmers of this country. We have $25,000,000 of one kind of stock, and we have $20,000,000 of another kind of stock that will be given among the promoters and the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway for nothing, and for all time to come the farmers of the North-west must make sacrifices to pay dividends on this stock which is given to some one for nothing. And yet, this is supposed to be in the interest of this country.
I am not prepared to go so far as to advocate the building of a road from Moncton to the Pacific as a government road, although perhaps the time may come when with further information, and because of changes in the conditions of the country, I might be willing to go thus far. But, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that as between a scheme to which the government is to contribute 75 per cent of the money for a certain time, taking all the risks, and the company supplying nothing, but getting a friend to guarantee for 25 per cent, and taking all the profits ; I say unhesitatingly that in the interests of the people of this country we had better own the road and hold the $25,000,000 pref erred stock and the other millions of common stock, as trustees for the people of the country, than have outsiders drawing dividends on these stocks for1 50 years to come.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the House longer, save to call attention to one point, and I call attention to that mainly in order to illustrate the style of argument that hon. gentlemen opposite have adopted. If hon. gentlemen would only honestly face the facts and reason from them, perhaps there would not be as great difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as we often find. Let me take one illustration. The Minister of the Interior went Into ecstacies on the one hand, and was filled with amazement and 'horror on the other.
[Stage Direction]
because gentlemen on this side of tbe House praised Mr. Booth for what he had done, and blamed the government for what they had done. That would be a perfectly fair and reasonable argument if Mr. Booth and the government had done the same thing, but it is a perfectly unreasonable argument and an insult to the intelligence of the House, if Mr. Booth andi the government had not done the same thing. What are the facts ? Mr. Booth had a line and the government had a line ; Mr. Booth had his own Canada Atlantic Railway and the government had their own Intercolonial Railway ; Mr. Booth decided to extend his line. The first thing he did was to make the surveys, to lay out the plans and locate the line, and after he had made his surveys and located the line, then he decided to build. Did the government do that T I>o we not find fault with the government on that point beyond most others, that what Mr. Booth did, they did not do, because they did not make such surveys? Then when Mr. Booth got ready to build he extended his own line,
Mr. SCHELL.: Let me ask the hon. gentleman, if Mr. Booth has surveyed the line that he is now proposing to build from Whitney west, and for which he has obtained a charter ?


William Barton Northrup: I am speaking of the Canada Atlantic Railway extension to Depot Harbour, which was alluded to by the Minister of the Interior, and I am trying to show the vast difference in the circumstances under which Mr. Booth built his road to Depot Harbour, and the circumstances under which the government propose to build this road through an unknown land. Mr. Booth extended his own line. Is the government extending its line? Mr. Booth, by extending his line, improved and increased the value of his line. The government is not extending their line, they are paralleling their line. Surely there is a difference there. We may well bless Mr. Booth and blame the government as to that. Then, after Mr. Booth had built his line as an extension of his own line, he operated his line. I am not aware that the government propose to operate the line that they are going to spend so much money to construct. Then, after Mr. Booth had constructed his line he carried all his freight by his new line over the full length of the new line down to the old, and he had the additional benefit not merely of the carriage of the freight on the new line, but the additional profits from its carriage on the old. The government are not doing that; they are handing over their line to another company. Then, when Mr. Booth was looking about for a place to extend his line, he extended it to the lakes ; that is along the line suggested by the leader of the opposition. Mr. Booth extended his line where he knew he could get business ; he


William Barton Northrup: extended it to the place where people were looking for it, and where they brought their grain for transport. Has the government extended its line to the lakes ? Have they not built a blind line to Winnipeg, where they get nothing except what comes from this other line which is projected as a continuation of it across the prairies ? I think it is a reasonable conclusion that when this side of the House applauded Mr. Booth for what he did, they could not help but to blame the government for what they did. We were consistent in applauding Mr. Booth and blaming the government, because what that sane, sensible, shrewd, business man, Mr. Booth did to make his road a success, has been carefully avoided by the government, and that is the reason they are going to make their scheme such a failure.
We appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to recognize that this is a question which should rise above party politics. No one will deny for a moment that the expenditure of from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 must affect the credit of this country for better or for worse. No one will deny that the expenditure of $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 on this proposed railway will certainly curtail other expenditures which may be more desirable and more important in the future than the construction of this railway. And, Sir, I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite at such a time as this, to lay aside party prejudices, to look on the question simply on its merits, to decline to be automatic voting machines, to refuse to jump like jacks in the box simply because the Prime Minister may pull the strings, but as intelligent representatives of the people to recognize that they owe a duty to their country and to those who sent them here. I appeal to them to consider the reasons which have been given by the ministry to support of the measure, and if they find that no one of the reasons given is founded on fact, if they find that few of the guarantees promised are found in existence, I ask them to join with this side of the House in defeating this measure, and allowing the country to obtain the best return it possibly can for the money it may expend on the solution of the transportation problem.


Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.).: , I desire Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on this very important question. I do not think it necessary that I should offer any apology, even though I may uot be able to make my remarks as interesting as many hon. gentlemen who preceded me, or who may come after me. But, Sir, having occupied a position in public life for so long a time, having witnessed the Initiation of the Intercolonial Railway as well as the initiation of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and having lived to see these two great projects accomplished facts, I do feel a deep interest

as a Canadian-which is the proper interest to feel-in this great national project. I feel a special interest on this occasion coming as I do from the province of New Brunswick, because at no time in the history of this country since confederation, have the interests of New Brunswick been so much exposed to misrepresentation and prejudice. I feel it my duty therefore, Sir, to repudiate many of the statements made during this debate. This whole discussion has been in many respects extraordinary. Gentlemen who spoke in opposition to the scheme have from the beginning condemned this policy, and have condemned the government for introducing it, because' as they allege, there is no proper data before us. We have been told by gentlemen who have spoken against this project, that the country in New Brunswick west of Moncton is absolutely unknown,	that the	northern parts of
Quebec and Ontario are also unknown, and the same argument is applied all along the line. But, Sir, any one listening to the discussion must be surprised at the assertions which these gentlemen make as to a total absence of information on the part of the government when you think of the full and complete information, which these gentlemen themselves say they are possessed of, as to the heavy grades to be encountered, the mountains to be crossed, and the difficulties to be overcome. If there is a total absence of information, how is it that there is so much information to prejudice the scheme ? I think the two arguments are inconsistent-just as inconsistent as many of the other points taken. The Intercolonial Railway was an important factor in the question of confederation, so important that without that inducement to the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would not. I believe, have entered into the confederation at that time. Since confederation and since the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, I have sat here under both administrations, and I have heard the attempt frequently made, especially in the province of Ontario, 'to prejudice the members coming from that section against the Intercolonial Railway as a burthen on the people of Ontario for the special benefit of the people of the maritime provinces. I think that was a most unfair and ungenerous charge to make. In the first place, the principle was laid down from the start, that there was no idea that the Intercolonial Railway should be constructed as a commercial line. It was for the purpose of uniting the different provinces, encouraging interprovincial trade, and bringing the people together. We in the western section of the province-and I include the city of St. John and all the counties along the river in that section-felt that our interests were sacrificed by the adoption of the Robinson route: and we are told today that we are responsible because the
route was not a commercial success. We are not responsible. The selection was made from a military point of view, and but for that consideration the Robinson route would never have been adopted. Hon. gentlemen may talk as they please, but those who remember the discusions before confederation and in the first session of parliament after confederation, will admit, I am sure, that the arguments were overwhelming in favour first, of the frontier route, as it was called, and secondly, the central route as a compromise. We have been told by hon. gentlemen, in this debate, and by a newspaper which has been cautiously discussing this scheme, in its issue of the 15th of August, that the central portion of New Brunswick is an impassable section of country. More than that, some hon. members have said that it is a worthless country, not worth developing. I do not feel that I have any great cause of complaint against these hon. gentlemen, because the hon. ex-Min-istey of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), the one representative in the cabinet from our province, has indicated in his speech that the road will pass through a country difficult and almost worthless, leaving out the better portions which are settled. Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as the position of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways is concerned, I have been a friend, politically speaking, of that hon. gentleman for a great many years. I supported him as the leader of a coalition government in our province, which lasted for years to the satisfaction of both parties in the province. I supported him then while he was a Liberal, as I have supported him while he was a minister in the present government. I have no desire to say one word that would be offensive to that hon. gentleman or his many friends. But I have a right to say this, that when the hon. gentleman, who represents the province of New Brunswick in the cabinet, gave the reasons why he retired from the government and condemned this policy-and I say it in all candour and in all honour-that I have not yet heard any reason given by that hon. gentleman that satisfies me that it was the reason which induced him to take that step. The hon. gentleman himself, in discussing this question, has taken the ground, as have all the newspapers which have attacked this scheme, that the weak point in it is the eastern extension of the line from Quebec to Moncton. Why, it was first assailed as the result of piratical efforts on the part of the maritime members; and if we find ourselves weak in that respect, it is because the hon. ex-Minister of Railways has given strength to that argument. But we are only weak because arguments which have no foundation in fact are used against that part of the scheme. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). who always speaks as a practical man, and who has himself had a large experience as Minister of Railways-though he sometimes speaks

without being sure of his facts-stated his objections to the extension of that eastern section from Quebec to Moncton. First, he stated that it would merely be a parallel road-that for the first 100 miles after leaving Ldvis it would not be more than fifteen miles from the Intercolonial Railway at any one point. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman will look into the facts, he will be the first to see that he has made a mistake. At no point after the road leaves Chau-diere Junction will it be within double that distance of the Intercolonial until it passes that point in Maine so often referred to on the St. Francis river. From that point it increases the distance until it more than doubles and trebles it, and, as was well stated by the Prime Minister, it passes through a country which is quite inaccessible by the Intercolonial, and is separated from it by that range of mountains which in fact has been used a$ an argument against the construction of this road-as if this road would cross over those mountains. We do not generally build railways over mountains. If these ridges were impassable mountains, with no breaks or natural valleys in them, I would admit that there was something in that argument. But nature has solved the problem. Do you think you are going to traverse the Rocky Mountains with a railway because it is said they are insuperable and you cannot build a practicable line over them ? That is true, but nature has solved that problem in many cases. You have the Kicking Horse pass, the Yellow Head pass, the Pine River pass, the Peace River pass. The wTaters in that pass rise wfithin 125 miles of the Pacific coast. Its waters rise in the hills and flow eastward through thousands of square miles of that territory, which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains, and find their passage through the main range of the Rocky Mountains, continue on eastward forming the Peace river, thence to Athabaska and Greater Slave lakes and into the Mackenzie river, and on to the Arctic ocean. That is on account of the natural formation there, and the question of grades does not arise at all. Other passes are south of that.
I listened to the hon. gentleman from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), a gentleman who has attained such a reputation for his military capacities, who has such high ideals, if not great ambitions, in that direction, who excels in everything he undertakes; and he produced the most wonderful results by merely glancing over the country. I am sure he never travelled all the country he has spoken of, but everywhere he went through that portion of New Brunswick and up through Quebec, as he travelled in his imagination along that route- because he never actually travelled over it-the hills and mountains were rolling around him and getting higher and higher, until it was a question to my mind which Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.
was the most elevated-these mountain peaks or the hon. gentleman himself.


An hon. MEMBER.: The doubt is in favour of the hon. gentleman.


John Costigan: The proposed route, so far as I know-and I shall not undertake to assert things I have not a reasonable knowledge of-from Chaudiere Junction will not cross the height of land where any of these altitudes which have been referred to occur. It will avoid the height of land by following up the valleys of the streams which fall into the St. Lawrence. Passing by that' range of mountains, it will cross one or two small tributaries which flow into the St. John, it will reach the south side of that range of mountains and follow down until it comes to that point near the boundary lake, where it joins the River St. Francis. The general report on our rivers is that the difference in levels is about ten feet in the mile. There can be no very great difficulty where the difference does not exceed ten feet per mile, and it does not in the river I have mentioned. You go down that valley, you strike the valley of the St. John in Canadian territory, and go on to Edmundston and Grand Falls, and thence strike across the country to Moncton. My own impression is that the final location would be via Edmundston and Grand Falls, but that is a matter of detail to be settled later. The engineering difficulties held out against the scheme are bugbears, and have no existence outside the imaginations of gentlemen who used them as arguments. We are told that the surveys made by Sir Sandford Fleming, or under his direction, prove absolutely that it is impossible to get through that central portion of New Brunswick. Well, while the report is not very favourable, what is it ? It says that the central portion of New Brunswick is an assemblage of high hills running up the sources of the Tobique, the Miramichi, the Restigouche and the Upsal-quitch. It is true that all the rivet's named rise in a small area, and flow in different directions, and that in that section, where these rivers take their source, you have a cluster of hills of considerable elevation; and if any one spoke of getting a road through there, I would say, not that it was impracticable, but that there were heavy grades, and that the greatest trouble would be the curvature and the length of line. But the proposed line goes south of all these highlands. The highest of the whole range in that province is the Blue Mountain, on the north-east, side of the Tobique river, about 40 or 45 miles from its junction with the St. John river. If any one were to tell me that the government had decided to build a road across the Blue Mountain, I would say that the government did not know much about the country,

and I would urge them to seek bettor information.


Hance James Logan: If you built from Riviere du Loup, you would have to cross the Blue Mountain.


John Costigan: No. There is a road built from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston now and in operation. When the debate was on with regard to the question of finally locating the Intercolonial Railway, we were pretty evenly divided in New Brunswick between the valley route and the north shore route, so that our vote did not amount to much. We always believed that Nova Scotia would favour the Robinson route, because that would place it in a more advantageous position towards St. John than If the road went down the valley of the St. John. I stated in my speech at nomination that the province of Quebec would naturally favour a route which would go down the St. Lawrence through Quebec counties and develop two of these counties, while the other route would not develop so many, and that the province of Ontario might be careless about the matter unless it were influenced by political reasons. But importance was attached to the military consideration, and what turned the scales was the fact that we had the credit of the English government for the cost of the construction of the road at that time, on condition that the British government approved the route adopted. That route was built, and the feeling in New Brunswick was this: While the people were disappointed, while they felt that a road three times more expensive, a great deal longer, less commercial in its aspect was selected, still people in the western portion, in course of time, did not begrudge the road to the north shore people, and the general opinion has been that after all it was as well, because a railway was afterwards constructed in that valley, in the local interest, up as far as Edmundston, and the north shore would not have got its road had it to depend on its own resources.
The impression left on the minds of hon. gentlemen who spoke from the opposition side, judging from their speeches, was that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals left the government because he could not support that scheme conscientiously, because it was a wild, inconsiderate and ill-considered scheme. But he did not leave the cabinet, as I understand it, because the government refused to take his view and go to St. John for a shorter road. That would have been inconsistent with the ground he took himself and the ground he is given the credit of having taken. His whole ground was that he could not justify the paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway. No one will say that a shorter line than the one now proposed could be found by going from Riviere du Loup across Temiscouata to Edmundston and down by the valley of St. John.	,
Surely no one in this House will say that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals resigned his seat in the government because the Intercolonial was to be paralleled, and destroyed, and dismantled, and discredited, and that he would have remained a defender of that policy if they had only paralleled the road by going along the Temiscouata route to St. John instead of to Moncton ? That would be inconsistent. But there is an object in having the two strings to the bow. That object appears in a newspaper published in New Brunswick, the St. John ' Telegraph.' The ' Telegraph ' indicates that the hon. minister left the government when he found that the government would not agree to the construction of a road across from the Intercolonial at Riviere du Loup to Edmundston and down the valley of St. John to St. John. That is not honest politics at all. But what would be the value of such a road ? You have heard the objections to the grades and curvatures and the cost of construction of the proposed route. I do not profess to be a railway engineer, but I profess to have a little practical knowledge and to be able to form opinions as to what conclusions practical men like myself might draw from certain facts. I can tell this House that a road was built from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston, largely subsidized by this parliament. It has been in operation for years. It was built in the face of reports against the grades and curvatures of that route. A firm by the name of Fraser & Son, Scotchmen, who came to New Brunswick and settled in that country and succeeded in building up a lumbering and milling business, bought the limits and put up a mill, one of the largest in New Brunswick, on the shores of Lake Temiscouata, half way between Rivi6re du Loup and Edmundston. They made a contract with the company to deliver the lumber at RiviSre du Loup for shipment. I do not know what the grades are, but I know that, with a load of ten cars, the engine has to do a great deal of puffing to pull the train over the line; and I know that if you put more than ten cars on a train you have to put on two engines. You do not require to study what the grades are; you see the effects of the grades. You could not make a profitable freight road out of that. Besides it would be 40 miles longer than the proposed road even to Edmundston, without counting the saving from Edmundston across the province to Moncton.
I shall not attempt to go into the matter of the contract or the legal conditions. I think that some of the lay members of this House are quite capable of taking part in a discussion of that kind and holding their own pretty well with the legal gentlemen. But I think it would be undesirable for me to interfere. I am satisfied that the gentlemen who are looking after the interests of the government, and to the interest of the country, are reliable men and capable of

guarding the public interest, as it is their duty to do. And, without saying anything offensive, I ana not at all convinced that the gentlemen who criticise the contract are satisfied that that contract is as worthless as they appear to make out. I am satisfied that it is worthy of the support of this House. Some hon. gentlemen have said what would happen if you could get the voice of the people upon it. 1 can look ibagk as one of the men who stood here over twenty years ago, when, after the acquisition of the North-west Territories and the bringing in of British Columbia, Sir John Macdonald proposed the policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway transcontinental line, as it was then considered. I followed the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) the other evening with great interest. I thought it was one of the good speeches of this debate-argumentative and full of information. But the last part did not, in my opinion strengthen his argument, nor was it necessary to his case. I myself will make a comparison between the two contracts and the two enterprises, this one and the Canadian Pacific Railway. My object will be to prove that the Canadian people are as ready to-day to endorse the policy of the government in this scheme as they were to endorse the policy of the government at that time. I do not think it is necessary or in good taste to undertake to prove that that contract was not a good one. The country has decided that question long ago. The Canadian Pacific Railway has aided to build up this country more than anything else that has been done-we are at one on that point. But let us make a fair comparison of the two enterprises. When Sir John Macdonald entered upon his bold policy based upon his hope and confidence in the future of this country more than anything else, there was no very full information as to the capabilities of the North-west Territories, nor was there much confidence in its capabilities, but one thing largely strengthened that policy, and that was that, having brought in British Columbia, having acquired the North-west Territories, there was only one way to administer them as a part of the Dominion, and that was to build the railway. We could only hope that the railway would justify its own construction- and it did amply. The government o.f the day had to give large subsidies in money, in land, and in constructed railways, in order to get the company to undertake that contract. It has 'been said that the terms were extravagant. Anyone who can remember the debate of that day knows that there was severe criticism, and perhaps as unreasonable and unwarranted criticism as there is against this scheme to-day. If any one is inclined to think that that was an extravagant contract let him remember these two things. First that the land that was given at that time was worthless if it was not developed by the construction of that road ;


John Costigan: and second that after that company was organized, entered upon its contract, made its financial arrangements, and commenced operations, it had to come back to parliament and say : We cannot go on, we are at the end of our resources; the whole thing is up unless we get a loan of $30,000,000 from the Canadian parliament. That staggered the Canadian people, the members of parliament and even the members of the government. But, Sir John Macdonald found that it was a necessary and safe investment to make. He made the loan. It secured the construction of this great work, and every dollar of the loan was paid pack. I feel proud of having contributed to that great work. I feel proud to have lived long enough to give my vote, and as I intend to do, in favour of the great work which is now proposed. And, while I would not like to hear an hon. member decry the result or the terms of the policy of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am going to try to do what is fair by this policy in a comparison of the two. When that land was given to encourage the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it was worthless. It has become of great value now. When the contract was entered into the faith in the future and the confidence of success was more limited than the prospects of the success of this enterprise. Cannot this government go to the people of Canada to-day and say : You endorsed the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway originally to develop the North-west and British Columbia. You did not know what you were undertaking at that time. It was a courageous undertaking. But to-day you have the country partially developed, and when I say partially developed, I have in view the almost boundless extent of that country. You propose to build another line there. Why ? Because the lands that were unknown then are known now, not only to the Canadian government and people, but to the civilized world. Those lands are known now to be capable of producing enough bread to feed not only Canada but millions of people across the Atlantic. They are known to be valuable lands, bringing good prices.
One good feature about this scheme is that it will pass through undeveloped portions of that territory and will increase the value of the lands just in the same proportion that the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway increased the value of the lands in the sections through which it passes. But there will be this difference, that while the Canadian Pacific Railway were entitled to the lands that they earned, they are at the same time reaping a rich harvest in the value of these lands that were of unknown value twenty years ago. The lands which will be increased in value by the construction of this road will not pass into the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but will remain the property

of Canada for Canadian settlers. I think you should not underestimate that one feature of this contract. I do not say this for the purpose of making a contrast to the prejudice of the former contract. You could not have constructed the first line in that way, because there was no such guarantee of the future value of the land as there is now. Therefore you are fully justified in undertaking tills expenditure, which is moderate after all compared with the results to lie achieved.
Some one has said : Who has asked for a transcontinental line ? Where is the hurry for this line ? Why, Sir, three years ago this question was discussed in this parliament, and it has been discussed since ; it has been discussed by the press throughout the country. Now this question of transportation is no doubt at the present time the chief question before the Canadian people, and it is worthy all their attention. It should be considered, as my hon. friend who preceded me suggested, on broad Canadian lines, independent of party considerations. This great question is coupled with another one of great importance. The solution of the transportation problem also carries with it a development to the largest possible extent of the Dominion of Canada. You cannot introduce a scheme into this country and call it a Canadian scheme if it leaves any portion of the Canadian people out in the cold, let them be little or big, few or numerous. That was the policy at the bottom of confederation, that is why the Intercolonial was built, that is why the Canadian Pacific Railway was built later- to cement together all the provinces between the two oceans. Therefore I say the scheme promises not only to solve the transportation question, but to do for Canada more than could be done in any other way by developing all the provinces of the Dominion. In the west you develop new lands all through that enormous region, you develop trade for British Columbia, you develop a hew field for the mining industry of British Columbia, you develop a new outlet for timber industries, you develop agricultural lauds that so far have been inaccessible. You do the same to a considerable extent for the province of Manitoba. Then you come down through northern Ontario and develop sections there of immense value to that old province, and without a cent of cost directly to that province except its proportionate share of the general cost. You come to Quebec, and you develop the northern portion of that province. I have heard some hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec say that this is a barren country through which the railway is to run. Well. I would advise them not to say that too often, because the reports do not justify the statement, and we may conclude that the argument is used more for political effect than in the interest of the province.
Now, Sir, the name of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals is used, and his authority is given for the assertion that the part of New Brunswick to be developed by this line is a barren waste. Well, I am going to make a statement on my word as a member of parliament, and I know more of that country than any other man inside this House or outside of it, and that is saying a good deal, though I am not given to boasting. I have travelled through the most of that country, I have surveyed part of that country for farm lots, in the county of Carleton adjoining my own constituency. I have fished, I have hunted, I have cruised. I have lumbered through that country, and I make the statement defying contradiction, that this country is a valuable section of country. I do not say that it will compare with the prairie section, I do not say that it will compare with the Niagara peninsula, but I do say that we cannot find in the Dominion of Canada an equal extent of wilderness lands still unsettled of greater value than this very tract that is decried to-day. I make that statement knowing whereof I speak. The upper portion of it will compare favourably with any highland in Canada, no matter how fertile it is. It has some of the finest land you can imagine. In the county of Victoria and the Mada-waska region you will find highlands and bushlands of the greatest value. After that country had been surveyed into lots, you could tell a man : Go to the Crown lands office and take a map, and pick out any number you like ; you cannot miss it, they are all alike. Now you cannot do that in every country, for you would be liable to get a waste lot, to get a swamp lot. That extends down through the counties of Madawaska, Victoria. Carleton and York. From York across to Moncton the land will not average as high, but it is good agricultural land, and it is well timbered. When I say well timbered I do not mean to contradict one statement that was made especially by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. One of the points made by that lion, gentleman was that the valuable timber had all been taken out of the country. There is a good deal of truth in that, but there are gentlemen here who know something about the lumberman's business, gentlemen who have not been engaged in the business but who will easily understand that when lumbering operations are carried on in territories adjacent to streams and natural watercourses which are convenient for transporting the lumber from the country the lumber can be floated down these streams and they get the benefit of these watercourses, but beyond the region of these streams there is no other outlet and the timber remains there. Practical business men in this House and in the country well know that under the conditions in a country like that where the best lumber

has been taken out of the country and where the streams have been utilized as highways down which the raw material in the form of logs is taken, if you have a railway beyond that country you will develop new industries as important as the ones w7hich have been nearly exhausted, because you are reaching a point in the country which has hitherto not been reached by these lumbering operations and you are giving opportunities to do the most important work that can be done, that is to produce the finished article, or if not the absolutely finished article to add to its finished condition, or to approach the finished condition and to ship it in this form over the railway thus develoifing new interests in that section of the country besides developing the agricultural interests and these two interests combined are necessary one to the other in creating a trade for the railway that is running through the country. Fifty years ago there was talk of railway construction. You could not talk with the view of interesting any capitalist in a railway enterprise unless you brought before him statistics of good character, statistics that were undisputed that would show the probable trade that the road would do. Now it is a pretty generally accepted idea and principle that given an undeveloped country with any mineral resources, or lumber or agricultural capabilities, and put a road through it that road will develop new industries and thus bring the country into a condition of usefulness. X was very much struck also by the fact which was developed during the discussion that a man may even be led too far by Ms enthusiastic impulses. When the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was talking of the capabilities of the Intercolonial Railway he used one argument that to my surprise was received with wonderful applause on this side of the House. I would not applaud it and for the reason that I would not have applauded it it should not have been applauded on this side of the House if it had been thoroughly understood. What was it ? In 1883, I think, Sir Charles Tupper came to this parliament and proposed a vote of $170,000 for a guarantee for 15 years to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of joining Montreal with St. John and Halifax. The project did not mature, but next year, in 1884, Sir Charles Tupper came down to the House again with a proposition to give $250,000, speaking from memory, or $280,000 for 20 years.


Hance James Logan: It was $250,000.


John Costigan: $250,000 for 20 years instead of $170,000 for 15 years. It was
not this time to join Montreal with St. John and Halifax, but this guarantee was given to' secure the construction of a road starting from the south side of the St. Lawrence, opposite Montreal, passing down through the townships to Moose Head Lake, Mat-tawamkeag, Fredericton and then to Salis-Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.
bury. It was a wTell defined route as far as it appeared in the resolution. What was the explanation which Sir Charles Tupper gave for paralleling the Intercolonial Railway, even if he had to go through a foreign country to do it ? Sir Charles Tupper stated that the Intercolonial Railway had been built for military purposes and for considerations other than commercial purposes and that it had done more than was expected of it by its friends and opponents, but on account of its mileage, the ports of St. John and Halifax could not be expected to compete against American ports unless some way was found to shorten the distance to St. John. It wras in order to shorten the distance to St. John by giving these better facilities for getting to St. John that the Intercolonial Railway was paralleled and it was intended that it should compete successfully. That was the point. We gave that large guarantee for this new road. It was built to St. John and not to Salisbury. What did the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals prove the other night and which I think was so strangely cheered ? He proved that Sir Charles Tupper's justification for giving $250,000 for 20 years for a short line was a mistake and then he said that Sir Charles Tupper was all wrong. After saying that Sir Charles Tupper was wrong in asking parliament to provide this, guarantee and that parliament was wrong in aiding the building of a short line as a successful competitor with the Intercolonial Railway he said :	I know that when the
cattle embargo was on the Intercolonial Railway carried cattle down to St. John quicker and cheaper than the short line could after all the expense they have gone to. What does that mean ? I think that Sir Charles Tupper's reasoning was good. What I am complaining of is the argument that Sir Charles Tupper having asked parliament to make this expenditure and having given reasons which are logical the fact which the hon. gentleman stated proves that the building of a short line was not a success. If it was not a success in this instance, it was because the grades and curvatures were too great. Now, I perhaps have spoken too long-half an hour-but I do not think half an hour is very long compared with the speeches that have been made on this side of the House, and I promised my hon. friends that I would not take the floor until short speeches became the order of the evening.


An hon. MEMBER.: The order of the morning.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have already spoken an hour.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Just exactly an hour.


John Costigan: I think half an hour.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Just exactly an hour.



John Costigan: I think the hou. gentleman is about as near the mark as he is in regard to this railway contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman commenced speaking at half past eleven and it is now half past twelve.


John Costigan: I will not take up much more of your time. We had hopes In the west of the province that at the time Sir Charles Tupper made the proposition some line like this proposed line would he found through Canadian territory shortening the distance to St. John. And our hopes were reasonably well founded, and I think they would have been realized had it not been for the fact of existing lines constructed then, reaching towards Mcose Head lake, and leaving the shorter distance to be constructed. To our western friends I would say that the transportation problem after all arises in that country. There is no doubt that the future welfare of Canada depends on the successful solution of that question. What the people of the west want is a cheaper outlet for their products, and no Canadian would be patriotic if he did not endeavour to secure for them that cheap outlet. We want their produce to come through Canadian territory to build up our ports in the east, as we will endeavour to help building up their country in the west. In that way the people of the west and the people of the east will have a common object in view. One hon. gentleman stated to-day that he took a broad position as a Canadian, and that he -spurned the idea of sectionalism. But he complained that the government were by this sclnin" pro itling a through line for freight so that the labourers along the route would get no toll out of it, and he pointed out to the member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that Collingwood was going to be destroyed by this policy. Well, that was not a very broad view of the case, because the proper Idea is to get as little toll as possible out of the western grain as it passes through Canada, and the labourers will be compensated In other ways than by* taking this toll.
In conclusion, I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken on this subject chiefly because I know that there will be an effort to misrepresent this scheme, especially that part cf it which passes through the central part of New Brunswick, and which s me pretend to regard as the weak spot in the project. Well, Sir, I am sorry we have not the help of the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) to promote the interests of New Brunswick on this'occasion. I am quite sure, however, that these gentlemen on the Conservative benches who now praise him so highly, would pepper him just as hotly if he were to open his mouth in favour of this project, or in favour of his province. He has risen high in the estimation of our friends of the opposition
very suddenly. He deserves their respect and good opinion. He is a capable and able man, but their attitude towards him has very quickly and very materially changed. I must express my deep sympathy however, with one old friend in this House, I refer to the energetic and talented member for St. Mary's (Hon. Sir. Tarte). When he ceased to be a minister of the Crown he was deified all at once by his former opponents, and instead of being in their eyes an avowed traitor to his country as they had termed him, he became the ablest minister that ever sat in the Laurier cabinet. His stock went up wonderfully ; he was received with open arms ; he was courted and complimented and flattered. But since-the ex-Slinister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) has appeared upon the scene, I notice that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) seems to have dropped into oblivion There is not half the importance attached to him now that there was a few months ago, and lately the affection of the members of the opposition has been centred upon this greatest man that ever was at the head of the Railway Department. But, Sir, remember that these very same gentlemen are those who denounced the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) not so long ago as anything but honest or moral. I have to say that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair), has been a strong man in his province. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) made it a leading feature in his speech to attack the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) who is an old personal friend of mine, and a gentleman whom I have known for a great many years. The member for East Grey dealt with the member for Westmoreland without gloves, hut if he did not hurt the member for Westmoreland any more than he hurt the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme, the member for Westmoreland will long survive.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am sorry I killed him.


John Costigan: I do not suppose that the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) had any desire to injure my hon. friend physically, but I can tell him that any private member in this House might feel well satisfied to enjoy so highly the confidence of his constituents as does the hon. member for Westmoreland. It was also stated by some one that the hon. member for Westmoreland was the pupil or the protege of the exMinister of Railways: Let me say that the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) is a strong man in his. county, and a strong man in his province. He is well known all through the province of New Brunswick, and is highly respected wherever he is known. Let no one make any mistake about the standing of the hon. member for Westmoreland in the province of New Brunswick. He is a gentleman of long experience, a gentleman with a good record, and a gentleman who is trusted among the people ot New Bruns-

wick. No one would be less disposed to minimize the good qualities of the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) than I, but after very considerable experience I can say that there is no man so strong that he can do without his friends, and whatever strength that bon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) had in this parliament he owes it to the good friends who have stood behind him. If they stand behind him yet, he is as strdng as ever, but if they do not support him, he will be very weak indeed, so far as federal influence is concerned. I myself have been pretty strong in my own county. I have fought a great many elections, and I have represented it a great many years. I suppose that even my opponents will say that I am a strong man in that county, but I would like to know how strong I would be if I lost the confidence of the men who make me strong. There is where the whole question comes in. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I can speak for my own constituency, as there are other men to speak for theirs, and I can say unhesitatingly that so far as I can judge of other constituencies, without speaking officially for them, this scheme is well viewed in New Brunswick and will receive cheerful and strong support in that province.


Hance James Logan: On behalf of the bon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.40 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 19, 1903.