1903-08-12

Mr. SPROULE asked :: How many miles of railway have been constructed in Manitoba, North-west Territories and British Columbia, without Provincial or Dominion government aid in money, land grant or guarantee of bonds ?


Mr. CHARLTON.: 2. By what companies built, and what is the number of miles belonging to each road ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S. Fielding).
(I.) 150-65 miles.
(2.) In Manitoba, none.
North-west Territories-British Yukon
Railway	57-97
In British Columbia-Bedlington and
Nelson	   15-20
In British Columbia-British	Yukon.	..	32-35
In British Columbia-Eenora Mount
Sickar	11-50
In British Columbia-New Westminster Southern	24-10
In British Columbia-Red	Mountain..	9-53


DR. MOREAU.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	By whom was Hypolite Moreau, junior, of St. John d'Iberville, recommended as collector of the Chambly canal at St. John d'Iberville, and what is his salary ?
2 Has Hypolite Moreau, junior, given security to the government, and of what nature ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The appointment was made on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals. The toll having been abolished no security was taken.


LOUIS M. TROTTER.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	Is there a person named Louis M. Trottier in the employment of the government at St. John d'Iberville?
2.	If so, what is his employment, and by whom was he recommended ?
3.	Is this employment new, or has it always existed ?
4.	If it is new, for what reason was it created?
5.	What is the salary of the said Trottier ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: 1.	Yes.
2.	Temporary excise officer. He was recommended by Mr. L. P. Demers, member for St. John d'Iberville.
3.	It is new.
4.	Increase of excise work and relieving officer.
5.	He is paid at the rate of $400 per annum.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on a certain proposed resolution declaring :
That it is expedient, in connection with the Bill now before this House, respecting the construction of a National Trans-continental Railway, to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the said Bill, entered into on the

28th of July, 1903, between the government and certain persons on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by parliament at the present session thereof, and to authorize the government to do whatever is. necessary to give full effect to the said Bill and agreement.
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker. At the close of my remarks last evening I had very nearly finished my review of the speech of the hon. the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair). I have only a word to add to what I have already said in that connection. I have thought over the position of that hon. gentleman ; thought'it over carefully, and I am obliged to arrive at the conclusion that there was no sufficient reason for the course that he has taken. When I coiTtrast his declarations in his speech made in Victoria last October, in which he asserted that we wanted another transcontinental road, that we wanted it right away, that we wanted to penetrate and open up new districts of country in the North-west and fit them for settlement- when I contrast that with his statement of yesterday : that we do not want a transcontinental road now, that we should delay in proceeding with the construction of that road, that the government were proceeding with indecent and reckless haste in the matter ; the two positions are irreconcilable, entirely irreconcilable. He puts me in mind of a story I read a few years ago as to the great riot in Chicago. A United States regiment of regulars who had been engaged in a winter campaign under General Miles against the Sioux Indians, were on their way to quarters in the east where they were to be granted a respite from their labours. They were ragged and toil-worn but they were veterans evidently, and as they were drawn up in line a person on the side walk said to the soldier nearest to him : you would not shoot us fellows would you ? He replied : I would not unless the captain told me to. Now, the difficulty with the ex-Minister of Railways is that he, did not shoot when the captain told him to. It is necessary to have discipline in an army, it is necessary to have discipline1 in a party. Individual men may have very strong individual opinions-1 belong to that category myself


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: But it is unreasonable for an individual to suppose that a party must accept his opinions and act upon them, and it is in the highest degree injudicious for that individual to kick over the traces because he cannot govern the party, for, in doing that, he destroys what little influence he might otherwise possess, and that is what my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, I fear has done.
Now, as I have said, there is no radical difference between the policy that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) advocates,
namely a government road ; there is no radical difference between that policy and the policy adopted by the government, of a road partly of government construction, partly aided by the government, leased by the government to a private corporation, a road destined to serve the same purpose under the arrangement that is made that a road would have served if it had been strictly a government road-I say there is no radical difference between these two propositions ; no difference so radical between them as to warrant the hon. gentleman to resign his position as Minister of Railways, and to go against the government as he did most unmistakably and most bitterly yesterday. His position yesterday, lacking as itj did that dignity which ought to pertain to the position of a gentleman who resigns on high patriotic and moral grounds, and the bitterness of his attack convinced me that there is something beneath and beyond the ostensible reason assigned for his leaving the cabinet.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: I repeat what I said last night, that the hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks gives us a clue to his feelings in regard to this matter, a clue to his action in this matter, when he tells us that he was not consulted, that no official of the Intercolonial Railway was consulted, that the government forsooth, that the Premier of this country and his advisers proceeded to organize and arrange a policy about which the hon. gentleman was not consulted and which he did not approve of. I imagine Mr. Speaker, that when that hon. gentleman resigned, he had arrived at the conclusion that he would make the captain shoot at his command instead of shooting at the captain's command.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: And the outcome was that the captain did not shoot, and that the rebellious member retired from the ranks, and he is out of the ranks. I am sorry for the whole incident; I am sorry that the exminister (Hon. Mr. Blair) 'should have thought so highly of his own individual opinion ; should have decided that it was necessary for the government to accept his opinion and act upon it, and that if the government failed to do so he would leave the government in the lurch. Well, he has left the government in the lurch, if being deprived of the hon. gentleman's sanction could place them in that position. Now. Sir, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) devoted a large portion of his speech to the Intercolonial Railway. As I said last night. I shall leave the detailed discussion of that matter to gentlemen better acquainted with the condition of affairs in the maritime provinces than I am myself.. Still, it is patent to me. and must be patent to any person who has a fair knowledge of the situa-



tion, that the hou. gentleman in his criticism upon the policy of the government with regard to the Intercolonial did not take the pains to put us in possession of all the facts. He laments the ruin of the Intercolonial. He laments that we did not adhere to the policy of attempting to create a business for our maritime ports by using a second-class road with an unnecessary mileage of from 100 to 140 miles, with heavy grades, and one that we know cannot fulfil the conditions that we must expect of it if the scheme of the government is to be made a success. He did not tell us that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk are separate and distinct corporations. He did not tell us that the government had a contract with the Grand Trunk for 99 years to turn over to the Intercolonial at Montreal all freight the road brings to Montreal designed for points east of Quebec. The Intercolonial cannot be deprived of the business, one of the largest items of business it possesses. He made no calculation as to the grea,t accession to this road of business at Moncton for Halifax and St. John. If the straightening of its line, if the reducing of its grades, if the increase in its capacity, which are making it first-class and shorter, will lead to bringing from the west of a large amount of grain for ,shipment at maritime ports, the Intercolonial must share in the benefit. The Grand Trunk Pacific ends at Moncton. There are 183 miles of the Intercolonial road to share in the business that will come to Halifax ; there are 89 miles from Moncton to St. John to share in the business. The gross business of the Intercolonial will inevitably be increased by the construction of this short line, owing to the large increase of traffic between Quebec and the maritime provinces ; and there is besides the retention to the Intercolonial of the trade which I have mentioned that pertains to it and that cannot be taken away from it. _ 1 will not dwell further upon the position taken by the hon. gentleman ; I will not criticise further his statements.
As I said last night, I have a line of argument to present with relation to this scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific which I propose to enter upon briefly at this stage of my remarks. As to the question whether we need another transcontinental railway, the question has been answered by the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair)) at Vancouver. I can quote him as an authority. According to him, we need the road and we need it quickly. It cannot be proceeded with too soon. He said on that occasion that men were standing in the audience who would live to see three or four transcontinental lines across the continent. I have no doubt he was right. At all events, the construction of this road is not premature. We must bear in mind the fact that we cannot get this road at once. We are taking the initiative steps now towards getting it. We have to proceed with sur-Mr. CHARLTON.
veys, we have to locate the line ; we have to proceed with the construction of a road 3,030 miles long in an air-line, and it cannot be done at once. It will take several years to do it. In the meantime, population is pouring into the North-west, new acreage is being brought into cultivation ; its prolific soil will furnish a large harvest every year, aud at the time this road will be completed, it will be a crying .necessity. We have undertaken its construction none too soon. I estimate that five years from to-day with a continuance of the conditions that exist now, the grain products of the Canadian Northwest will have increasced at least threefold. The present means of transportation will prove utterly inadequate and this road will be imperatively called for. The government, I repeat, are not "acting with undue haste, or proceeding with an ill-matured scheme. They are not entering upon an enterprise which they are not warranted in entering upon ; but on the contrary, they are entering upon a scheme which is called for and called for now.
I pointed out last night that our situation, so far as our great wheat producing region is concerned, and the situation of the United States when it was a young country, are entirely different. The United States had an outlet by the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. There were navigable rivers scattered along the Atlantic coast-the Hudson, the Savannah and other rivers. At an early date a canal was constructed from Albany to Lake Erie, tapping the waters of the Great Lakes. The country was able to get along largely without railways. In 1S50, when the country had 23,000,000 inhabitants, railroads had hardly become a factor in the transportation situation at all. But we are situated differently. We have no Mississippi to convey the products of our western fields to the sea ; we have no Erie canal ; we have no natural outlet, not even by access by navigable rivers to the Hudsoy bay; if we were to have a route, it would have to be provided by artificial means. The whole country, to as far north as the isothermal lines make it possible to produce cereals, must depend on railroads exclusively. For this reason our situation is different from that of the United States. We have to provide our North-west with the means of communication which are absolutely essential to its success and its prosperity. Consequently delay in providing these facili-I ties is inadvisable, and I dismiss the assertion as to the action of the government in proceeding with this railway being premature as totally without foundation, as betraying a lamentable ignorance of the conditions that exist and the probable wants of the near future.
The government proceeded carefully to the consideration of this question. The speech from the Throne contained an allusion to the necessity for a transcontinental line. The government were evidently considering the

propriety first of constituting a transportation commission to examine into this question and to report as to tlie proper course to pursue. But It became evident that there was not time to wait for the slow operation of an investigation by a commission. It became evident that the time for action was now, and that if we could secure such knowledge as would place us in possession of the facts that would warrant us in taking action, we should proceed. Well, what was done? The government proceeded to consider several propositions. They considered a proposition of building a government road, considered it carefully, as I am well aware, and rejected that proposition- the proposition which my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals pins his faith to, the proposition upon which he has gone out of office, because the government did not accept it. I say the government rejected that proposition for what I suppose I may fairly concede were good and sufficient reasons, although I was enamoured of it. The government realized that to make a success of a government road across the continent required the total severance of that scheme from politics. Can that be done in Canada ?


Mr. MACLEAN.: Yes.


John Charlton: The government thought not and so do I. It required, in the second place, honesty in construction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: That would require the possession of expert knowledge in supervising and carrying on that work, which perhaps no gentleman in this House possesses. It required in the third place, honesty of management, capacity for efficient management and an amount of expert railway knowledge which we do not find among men in public life. I doubt whether my hon. friend from East Y'ork would fill the bill. It would require a man like Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy or Mr. Hay, at a salary of $50,000 or $75,000 per year, to manage efficiently such a scheme. Whether the -government were right or wrong, whether their reasons for rejecting the proposition were sound or not, they did reject it.


William Findlay Maclean: Canada does not grow that kind of man ?


John Charlton: 
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: If my hon. friend will allow me, it had been announced in the government organs, over and over again, that a certain policy was to be brought down, and I protested against the House being kept from day to day and week to

week waiting for the government to announce its policy. I was not insisting on the government bringing down a policy, but insisting that, if they had any policy to bring down, they should bring it down at once.


John Charlton: The government were probably in a position in which circumstances were arising that rendered them unable to say definitely how soon they would arrive at a decision. They had announced their intention of bringing down a railway policy, but they may have thought that they would be able to announce it earlier than they did. They took time however to consider and weigh carefully all the conditions before concluding finally an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. That agreement will stand as a monument of their sagacity. And they brought down their policy with celerity and despatch, if we consider all the circumstances attendant upon the case. It was proper that they should take careful action. We were at the parting of the ways. We had, on the one hand, the policy recommended of building a government road. On the other hand, we had the policy recommended of assisting the construction of a road in the old fashioned way of granting subsidies. Between these two policies, the government had one which is better than either, but which required time and careful consideration because there were vast interests at stake; and if, owing to the absence of due care and thorough consideration, mistakes became developed in the future, through the adoption of the scheme recommended by the government, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would not be slow to say that they had acted too quickly and brought down their policy too soon.
In adopting this policy, the primary consideration which the government had in view was the .national interest-the building of a national road to connect our Atlantic with our Pacific ports, and which would pass all the way through Canadian territory. That object they have kept steadily in view. They desired to secure trade from the North-west for our own ocean ports or as large a share of that trade as possible. I do not say this all-rail route will be able to compete successfully with the water route ; but I do say that it will not, unless it be made first-class in every respect. I notice that the ' Mail ' newspaper has an editorial contrasting my position with that which I took on the transportation question in a speech I made on May the 26th last. I took the position then that water transportation was cheaper from the North-west to the seaboard than transportation by rail, under the then existing conditions. I take the same position to-day. If this road from Quebec to Winnipeg is to be a road with fifty feet or sixty feet grades, with light rails, and of inferior construction, if it is to be no better than the other


John Charlton: railways with which it will have to compete. it will be distanced in the race ; and to that extent I endorse the position which I took in my speech of May the 26th.	1
was then discussing water versus railway transportation !n the then existing conditions.
As I said last night, this road from Winnipeg to Quebec, if it is to serve the purpose which it is intended to serve, must Ire a first class road. It must have not more than half per cent grades, and should have four-tenths per cent grades coming east, or twenty-one feet to the mile. It should be laid with 90-pound rails, should have bridges that would carry the heaviest rolling stock in use, with a margin to allow for an increase in the weight of rolling stock ; it should have engines of 100 tons weight without the tender and cars of 50 tons capacity of cargo. The road must toe built with bridges capable of sustaining the weight of cars with a carrying capacity 50 per cent greater than is now required and with corresponding increase in weight of engines. And 'with a road of that kind, considering prospective improvements in railway material, I feel hopeful that the route will be able to compete with the water route. There has been a constant, a regular increase in the efficiency of railway transportation. We have had the introduction of the fish-plate joint, making practically a continuous rail. We have had the introduction of the steel rail in place of the iron rail. We have had the increase in the weight of the rail. We have had the increase in the firmness of the road-bed. We have had a great increase in the weight and hauling capacity of engines, and an increase in the carrying capacity of cars from 10 tons to 50 tons. Trains are run on first-class roads with a capacity of hauling 2,000 tons of cargo to the train without requiring any greater force of engineers, firemen, brake-men and other attaches of the train than were required twenty years ago for trains that carried 250 or 300 tons. And this progress and improvement still goes on ; the efficiency of railways will be still further increased. And with the kind of road that I foreshadow-not the kind of roads that exist now in competition with the water transportation-it is my belief that we can compete with the water route. I know of a road with a maximum grade of 19 feet to the mile running from Buffalo to Detroit through the province of Ontario. The only limit to the size of their trains on that road is the question of their management- whether they are too unwieldy to be managed or not ; they do not like a train that is over half a mile long. They can haul upon that road sixty or seventy loaded freight curs with the utmost ease. Compare that with a road on which the engine is struggling up a grade of sixty or seventy feet to the mile with twelve or fifteen cars, and you can see the difference between a

first-class road and a second-class road. AA'e want a road from AA'innipeg to Quebec thoroughly first-class in its construction and equipment; a road that, in the ordinary way of business, can carry trains with 2,000 tons of freight. If we get that kind of a road, in my opinion we can transport wheat from AYinnipeg to Quebec for less than 12 cents per bushel. Now, the rate to-day from Winnipeg to Port Arthur by the Canadian Pacific Railway is 74 cents per bushel. And, at the rate I have given as a basis of transportation between AVinni-peg and the lakes, the transportation on this line will be cheaper than the present transportation partly by water and partly by rail.


Mr. McCREARY.: The rate from AVinni-peg to Port Arthur is more than 74 cents a bushel ; it is 14 cents a hundred.


John Charlton: They have lately reduced the rate. I was speaking with Sir Thomas Shaughnessy the other day, and he told me they had reduced the rate to 74 cents per bushel. With the kind of road I am talking about, it is my opinion we can carry grain from Winnipeg to Quebec in competition with the partly water and the partly rail routes that pass to the south. And at this point I wish to impress upon the government the absolute necessity of securing the construction of a road of this kind. If because of difficulties of engineering, if because of enhanced cost of the road, we permit ourselves to construct a road with grades of 50 or 60 feet to the anile, we shall defeat our own purpose ; we cannot do what we desire that this road should do -that is, compete with the other routes. But with a road of the kind I speak of, we can in all probability transport freight to Quebec successfully. And 1 say this in the face of the arguments I used on the 26th of May last, comparing water rates with the rates on the now existing roads from the west to the east.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The bon. gentleman's (Mr. Charlton's) argument is the exact reverse of what he said then.


John Charlton: It will be evident that when I am dealing with new conditions, when I am dealing with a road entirely different from the class of road we have now, I am entitled to say that the results probably will be different. An argument based upon the old condition of things will not apply to the new conditions.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Charlton's) estimate of the cost of a road of that character ?


John Charlton: I am coming to that, and


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) was arguing the abstract question of carriage by rail and carriage by water.


John Charlton: It will be conducive, I think, to the object of this debate to allow me to proceed without interruption. If. when I get through, there is anything I have not touched upon, I shall be happy to deal with it. Air. Speaker, It is evident that the government comprehends the magnitude of this issue; for it is an issue of great magnitude ; we have not been confronted with, so great a one since the Canadian Pacific Railway debate. The government comprehends the magnitude of this issue and has conscientiously done its best. And I may be allowed to say to my hon. friends opposite that this is a question that affects the future of this great country, with its three millions of square miles of territory, with its enormous resources and potentialities and with its splendid future. We are considering the best means of subserving the interests of this country. This should not be a party question ; there should not be objections raised for the mere purpose of making party capital ; but we should get down to the consideration of this problem on business .principles, and make up our minds on the basis of the evidence we have, and arrive, if we can, at a reasonable conclusion as to the probable outcome of this policy.
Now, the government has had in view in this matter a two-fold object, and it has not confined its attention to one or to the other. The first abject is to provide an additional outlet for the grain of the Northwest ; the second object is to afford that outlet for the grain of the North-west in such a way as to direct the trade of that country to our own ports. These two objects the government have kept steadily in view in discussing, evolving and consummating the policy which it now places before the country. Now, we could have got over this question a great deal easier. There would have been no trouble about giving an outlet for the trade of the North-west with perhaps the expenditure of no money at all. AVe had only to allow these roads to reach Lake Superior. Perhaps we might have granted a little aid for that purpose. AVe had simply to allow the Jim Hill road and other American roads to come in without let or hindrance, without bonus or aid. and they would have furnished the Northwest with an outlet and carried its grain to Duluth, Minneapolis, and Chicago, and so over American roads to the ocean. This would have been just as good an outlet as any other, so far as the mere interest of the farmer is concerned, but it would not have served a national purpose, it w'ould have diverted the trade from our own ports and would have been a suicidal policy. The government have avoided such a policy. They have not counted a few millions as weighing against the fact that such a settlement of the transportation problem would have taken away from our owrn ports this great trade of to-



day, this trade which is to he so much greater in the future. So, due weight has been given to national considerations ; and when my hon. friends opposite belittle these considerations and make an effort to throw odium upon the government's policy and to show that what is claimed for this route cannot be accomplished. I do not think they are acting a patriotic part in the matter.
Now, 1 wish, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the physical features of the scheme. It designs to make Quebec the great seaport of the Dominion; that is the first great physical feature of this scheme. It will reach Quebec by a direct route from Winnipeg, it will reach the best harbour in the Dominion, or one of the best harbours; and the only drawback to it is that it is closed for some portion of the year. After having given Quebec a business that that port can transact during the season of open navigation, it is designed to carry that trade on during the. winter to ports in the maritime provinces. to the port of Halifax, to the port of St. John. It proposes to give the very best conditions that are attainable for securing that object. It. may be that it cannot be done, but we intend to attempt it, and to attempt it by using the best means in our power to accomplish the purpose. A first-class road from Winnipeg to Quebec and the maritime provinces for the purpose of securing the trade of the North-west for these ports-that is the object had in view by the government, that is the purpose they intend to attempt to attain ;* and if our hon. friends on the opposite side wish to throw obstacles in the way of that purpose, why, I merely say that in that regard they are not patriotic.	.


Mr. BENNETT.: From such a source.


John Charlton: I remember, Mr. Speaker, some twenty-one years ago when the party that I belonged to at that time occupied very much the same attitude that my hon. friends opposite occupy to-day, belittling to some extent, casting aspersions upon, raising objections to, and magnifying the obstacles in the way of the construction of a transcontinental line. Weil, some of our objections were well taken, but the general trend of our policy was not to our advantage. The country believed in a transcontinental line, and wanted it, and got it. We believe now that the country believes in another, and wants it, and is going to get it; and hon. gentlemen who stand in the way of consummation of that purpose will find that they have been poor politicians and still poorer statesmen.
The next physical feature of this road that I shall refer to is the fact that it opens up a vast unsettled area in Ontario and Quebec. It is a colonization road for 1,300 miles. It passes through our hinterland, opens it up, and while opening it up, goes over the best route for a direct line from Winnipeg to Quebec. This road passing through this


John Charlton: hinterland, with a trunk branch running down the valley of the Nottawa river,-I presume some of my hearers have never heard of the Nottawa river, a stream about the size of the Ottawa, with what is supposed to be an extensive and fertile valley. This branch will go to a harbour upon James' bay, and will open up a vast section of country that will be tributary to this road. That is another physical feature. This road, through its connection with the extension of the Temiskaming road being built by the Ontario government will provide access to Ontario centres for all the country tributary to this Grand Trunk Pacific line. But this Temiskaming road will not serve as a line to divert traffic to other ports than the port of Quebec. The road will run from Winnipeg west largely through a new country, a vast unsettled region, a region supposed to contain the richest and most productive land in the North-west. It will open up a region from north of the Saskatchewan to Dunvegan on the Peace river ; and thence up the Peace River valley and through the Peace River pass to Port Sirfip-son on the Pacific ocean. The road will cross the Rockies by easy grades. The summit of the Peace River pass, has an altitude about 1,800 feet above the sea. The construction of the mountain section, as it is termed, will be found to be much less expensive and much less difficult probably than is now anticipated. This western terminus will place the port that is its terminus much nearer to Asiatic ports in north China and Japan than any other port on the Pacific ocean.	While the
length of the road is somewhat greater than to Vancouver, the distance by the ocean to the ports named is very much less, and so this route will have important advantages in the overland and oriental trade over any other line. It will reach Quebec by easy grades, by a direct line, and in this respect will be superior to any other possible route from the west to that city. It will open up the great clay belt of this northern region, a clay belt that is supposed to contain sixteen million acres of arable land now lying unoccupied, not possible of being occupied, because it has no means of communication with the outer world. It will open up that clay belt, and it will open up all the timber resources, all the agricultural resources, and all the mineral resources of that great stretch of country, 1.400 miles in length from Quebec to Winnipeg.
Now, with regard to the route of this road, there were two propositions. The one proposition was to carry the road north of Lake Winnipeg. That was the route that would have been adopted by the Trans-Canada line. A good friend of mine in this House, whom I very highly esteem, thought that this line ought to have been adopted because it was 500 miles shorter than the other. Well, if there had been that differ-

euce iu the distance it would have been a strong argument in favour of adopting that as the nearest route. To find the distances- but of course they are only approximative-
I have calculated them by the map. I converted the geographical miles into statute miles, and made some allowance for deviation from the direct line in estimating the length, and the distances I obtained are as follows : By the Winnipeg route, from Quebec to Winnipeg, 1,380 miles; Winnipeg to Port Simpson, 1,650 miles; total, 3,030 miles. By the Nelson route, Quebec to River Nelson, 1,466 statute miles; from Nelson river to Port Simpson, 1,490 statute miles; total, from Quebec to Port Simpson, 2,956 miles. The difference of distance in favour of the northern route, north of Lake Winnipeg, is 75 miles. Now, I was surprised at -this result myself. The two lines at their furthest points of divergence are three and a half degrees apart. But when you come to lay out, as I did, a sketch to ascertain the difference between the length of the hy-pothenuse and that of the base and the perpendicular of a triangle, it is less than one would naturally suppose. For instance, you lay out a line with a perpendicular of 400 miles and a base of 800 miles, and the hypo-thenuse is but a trifle more than one-fourtli more than the length of the perpendicular line. So that showed this calculation was substantially correct.
Now, there is a reason why the Winnipeg route is preferable to the other. If there had been no such reason, the government would naturally have chosen the shorter line, even though the advantage to be gained was only 75 miles. But the Nelson route has less agricultural land upon it than the other. The distance is greater from Quebec to the River Nelson than it is from Quebec to Winnipeg, by about 70 miles. Then the unproductive country extends from the Nelson river west a long distance; while from Winnipeg, the productive country extends at least to the Peace River pass, and that is the reason for putting the road upon that line. Another reason is that at Quebec the road touches a point where all the business of the North-west converges, a great entrepot for the vast country west and north-west of it. It is so to-day, it will probably continue to be so, and a road reaching that point is in a position to compete for the business furnished by ail these roads ramifying through the North-west in every direction, while if it had gone by the Nelson route it would have reached none of them, and could have competed for none of this business. For these reasons the choice of line by way of Winnipeg was a judicious choice.
I wish next, having dealt with physical aspects of this road, to call attention to its business prospects. We have dealt with the national question, with the necessity from a national standpoint of having a great transcontinental road upon our own soil, and it has been asserted by the hon.
ex-Minister of Railways and Canals and by others, that, leaving out this view of the case, this road has nothing to commend it to us from a commercial standpoint. Well, Sir, the business prospects of this road are, first, that it will furnish an outlet to the North Saskatchewan valley, an enormous extent of country and a fertile and rich region of the Canadian North-west. It will furnish an outlet to the Athabasca valley by means of the navigation of the river bringing its produces down to the point where the road crosses and up the river to that point. It will furnish an outlet to the Peace river valley. These regions are to be peopled in the near future by millions of people, these regions are to be the heart of the productive region of the Canadian Northwest, these regions are to furnish an untold amount of business-business that this one line will be incapable of performing, and the building of this road, as the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals very properly said at Vancouver, through this new and wilderness country is an act of statesmanship, of good policy, and it will open this region to settlement. When this road has been built to Fort Dunvegan on the Peace river, the natural corollary is to extend the line from that point to Dawson City, in the Yukon. The line would be perhaps a thousand miles long. I have not measured the exact distance ; it may be something less than that. It would cross the Hay river, it would follow the Liard river and traverse those fertile regions. Not 300 miles of the length of that road to Dawson would pass through a country incapable of settlement and cultivation, and if we had this road to Dawson we would have done away with this question of the bonding privilege from Skagway over the White Pass. We would have done away with this question of the trouble about the Alaskan boundary so far as reaching the Yukon from the Pacific is concerned. We would have reached through a direct route the very heart of that region, we would have its entire trade and we could afford to place little store upon the Alaskan boundary question when that point was reached. The road will open up, in addition, the regions I have named, to Northern British Columbia. Recent discoveries have been made upon the Skeena river of enormous deposits of coal, of hundreds of millions of tons of coal of superior quality. We are just scratching the surface of the country, we are just learning about its enormous resources. It is a country rich in minerals, rich in coal, rich in iron, rich in precious metals awaiting development, to be penetrated by a railway and to blossom into commercial life. The road will build up a great city at Port Simpson, a city that will command an enormous trade with the Orient, a city that will command, when the Panama canal is completed, an enormous trade with Europe in grain.

Grain from the Peace river valley, when the Panama canal is constructed, can be taken to Simpson by this road, can be shipped to Liverpool from Simpson and shipped at rates that will set at rest the transportation question for that rich country by affording them cheaper rates than can be obtained elsewhere. It will afford an outlet for the grain trade and for the flour trade which is sure to be developed from that great western country with China and Japan. This road will have a great lumber trade. That will be another item in its business prospects. It will have a lumber trade from the forests of Bi-itislx Columbia to the prairies of the West. It will have'a lumber trade from the forests of the hinterland of Ontario and Quebec, which will be traversed for a length of 1,300 miles by this road. Wherever the road crosses a stream every tree standing upon that stream above the line of the railway will be tributary to the railway, and lumber from this section of the country, as I pointed out last night, can be transpoi-ted to the prairies as cheaply as lumber is now transported from Vancouver, where there are two mountain ranges to climb, offering grades of from 120 feet to 200 feet to the mile. This road, when it is completed, will be called upon in all human probability to handle 100 inillion bushels of grain annually by its line west of . Winnipeg. As I have said, it will be the exclusive outlet of the clay belt. By its branch down the Nottawa river, with a good harbour on James bay it will command the business of that great mare clausum of Canada, the Hudsons bay, thousands of square miles larger than the German ocean, a sea with untold resources in fish, with enormous resources in minerals upon its shores, and near whose shore Philadelphia companies have been locating iron mines for the last two years, and I would counsel the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to look closely into this question and see that these people do not obtain enormously valuable properties at a mere fraction of their value. This road would command the business of this great inland sea, with its valuable fisheries, and it would command the trade in minerals that are tributary to it and the Nottawa branch. It will bring back to Quebec-and I am sure this will interest you, Mr. Speaker-its palmy days. Once that was the seat of an empix-e in embryo. Its adventurous explorers reached the far west, planted fortifications and military and trading posts, in the rear of the English colonists, at Fort Duquesne, near Pittsbui-g, at Fort Ivaskaskia, opposite St. Louis, at Mackinaw and various other points in the country, and projected an empire that was to be tributary to France, but by the struggle on the plains of Abraham that dream of empire was shattered. But, with this road Qxiebec will reach out to the future again, Quebec will reach out to the commerce of this vast region with its untold Mr. CHARLTON.
resources, and it will command the trade of that sea and become a queenly city.
This project will practically straighten the Intercolonial Railway. I have dwelt upon that subject already-a necessary step to be taken if we are to furnish the maritime ports in the winter with shipments of grain. I pointed out last night that vast expenditures that have been undertaken by all the principal American lines in betterments of their roads, in reduction of grades, in improvement of alignment, in laying with heavier rails, and in giving better equipment. These vast expenditures were absolutely necessary. The roads could not perform the functions that they were designed to do and desii'ed to do without these expenditures. If one road made these expenditures every rival road had to follow suit, and the result is that the capacity of these roads has been quadrupled by the expenditure of money made in the way I have mentioned. The same necessity rests upon us in regard to the Intercolonial Railway. It was built upon a wrong route, and it is not first-class in the matter of its grades. The straightening of the road, and the impi-ovement of its grades will vastly increase its efficiency and will render it possible to give to the maritime ports a trade which, without this improvement of tin' line, could not be secured. If we seek to divert trade to the maritime provinces we must have the beat tools, the best appliances. We cannot do it with an antiquated system and with an inferior and second-class road. This road will develop an extensive and valuable section of the country in Quebec and New Brunswick.
Another consideration, and a consideration of no mean impoi'tance, is, that it will remove the dread of the abrogation of the bonding privilege. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals scouted the idea that there was any danger of such a thing being done. He told us :	The Americans will never
dream of adopting a course that would result to their own disadvantage ; never wotild think of depriving themselves of the trade that now flows to their own seaports. Well, Sir, I do not know. The Americans have threatened to do this. Their President had power placed in his hands a few years ago to do it by his own proclamation without reference to congress, without being governed by anything except his own supreme will in the matter. It is a dangerous position for us to be in. We have had friction in our relations with the United States. They are pleasant and agreeable now because we nre the spoiled child, and we stand spoiling all right. But the day may come, Sir, when friction may exist again. Our trade relations have got to be readjusted ; we must have from the United States fairer trade conditions or we must apply to the United States the treatment that they apply to us. If we get fairer trade conditions it is all right, and there will be very little

danger of tlie abrogation of the bonding privilege ; if we enter on the other line of policy, I would not guarantee that there would not be friction, I would not guarant-tee that there would not be talk of abrogating what the Americans call a privilege, and I would not be surprised if it were abrogated. And in any event, self respect, care for our own interests, respect for our standing as a country, imperatively demand that [DOT] if we can place ourselves in a position where such a calamity cannot be visited on our heads, it is our duty to do so, and the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific line will do it.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


John Charlton: I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to enter upon a consideration of the financial basis of this scheme. We have government construction from Moncton to Winnipeg. From Moncton to Cliaudi&re Junction according to the best data that can he obtained, would be a distance by the new line of 378 miles, and by the present, line it is 488 miles. The saving in the distance would be 110 miles. Estimates have been made of a saving of distance of from 120 to 140 miles, and I take this estimate of' 110 miles saving, as being a moderate and reasonable one. Then we have from Chan-diere to Winnipeg a distance by air line of 1,380 miles. I add to the air line distance, for deviations, slight deviations going north of Lake Nipigon and so forth, an increase of four per cent, which I believe is sufficient, and this would make the line from Quebec to Moncton 1,435 miles, and the line from Moncton to Winnipeg 1,823 miles. Now, these are approximate estimates. I arrive at them by careful measurement of the map, by ascertaining the number of geographical miles, by turning these into statute miles, by taking 69 miles and 900 feet and making that the width of each degree instead of 60 geographical miles. Now, the cost of this 1,823 miles-and we must bear in mind that this cost does not include the equipment-I estimate the cost of these 1,823 miles at $30,000 a mile. I think that estimate is not too high ; I presume it is not too high for that section of the road, from Moncton to Cliaudiere Junction, but I believe it is too high for the stretch of road through that level country most of the way from Quebec to Winnipeg. But we will allow $30,000 a mile as the cost of a road 1,823 miles in length, or a total of $54,690,000.
Then we guarantee the mountain section and we are to pay interest upon that as well as upon the line from Moncton to Winnipeg. We guarantee the mountain section for not more than $30,000 per mile : the guarantee to be three-fourths of the cost of the line. That I believe is too high. I do not believe the line will cost $40,000 a mile through the Peace .River pass and from that point to Fort Simpson, and I estimate the length of that mountain section at 450 miles. This would be a guarantee of $13,500,000. The total cost of the road, and guarantee of the mountain section which rests upon the same basis as the cost of the road so far as the payment of interest for seven years is concerned, would amount to $6S,190,000. , If we pay upon that sum three per cent interest for seven years that would amount to $14,319,000. Now, 1 have no doubt that the calculation of $13,000,000 by my right hon. friend the Premier is much nearer correct. I believe I have allowed sums in excess of what would be the actual cost of the mountain section apd the actual cost of that stretch of 1,435 miles from Quebec to Winnipeg, but on the basis of this estimate we will pay $14,319,000. This will be equivalent to a bonus. Now, it was represented by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and no doubt it will be represented again, the total cost of the eastern section represents an actual increase of our debt, that the burden that the country assumes is measured by this amount, that that burden is $68,190,000. It is nothing of the kind. After the payment of $14,319,000 we lease this road to a responsible company, we lease this road under guarantees and conditions highly advantageous to ourselves, we lease this road with a reversion of title and ownership in 50 years. We lease this road upon conditions that pay the interest on this sum year after year, and we hold ample security for it. We hold the rolling stock, we hold on the western division their own investments in the road in addition to our guarantee. All these we hold, and to assert that this is in addition to our debt, an increase of the burdens that rest upon the country is absurd. It is not honest ; it is not a truthful honest presentation of the case.
Now, witii regard to the western division from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, 1,051 miles in the air line, I estimate an increase in length of five per cent. Perhaps that is somewhat too little, but it will make the line in statute miles 1,733 miles. The government guarantees the mountain section. I assume that that mountain section will not exceed 450 miles in length. I do not believe that road will cost $40,000 a mile judging by the character of the country, but the guarantee at $30,000 a mile amounts to $13,500,000. Then there will remain 1,283 miles upon which the guarantee will be $13,000 a mile. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals assumed that the road would cost the sum that this guarantee represents only. It is estimated that the road will cost between $17,000 and $18,000 a mile on the prairie section, and the government guarantee upon that will be $13,000 a mile. The mountain section will cost $40,000 per mile, and the government guarantee on that portion will be $30,000 per mile. This amounts to a guarantee of $13,500,000 for the mountain section and $16,679,000 for the

prairie section., a total of $30,179,000 of government guarantee applied to tlie entire line from Winnipeg to Port Simpson. If this estimate of cost is correct, the company's expenditure on this portion of the road will be $10,059,000, in addition to which they have to put on it $15,000,000 wortli of rolling stock. So that the expenditure by the Grand Trunk Pacific of one-fourth the cost, and $15,000,000 on rolling stock, in addition to the guarantee by the government, will represent a value of $55,238,000 which we will hold as absolute security for our guarantee of $30,179,000. Is there anything reckless or prodigal or unbusinesslike in this arrangement ? Why, the more I consider this agreement, the more I analyze its conditions, the better satisfied I am with the bargain. I would suggest that my hon. friends opposite also make a careful study of it, and see if that will not bring them to the same conclusion. The Grand Trunk Pacific leases this road from Moncton to Winnipeg for fifty years, and provides equipment for this eastern division' to the value of $5,000,000. We hold the road, the equipment, and whatever betterments the company may place upon it as security under the lease ; and at the expiration of fifty years the road comes back to us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a bargain that could have been made, with any prospect of its being carried out, in no other way and with no other company in Canada than the one with which it has been made. No private company could take this agreement just as it stands to-day and finance this undertaking. No private company could raise on its second mortgage bonds the balance of the cost of the prairie section, over the amount guaranteed by the government. No private company could provide this road with $20,000,000 of rolling stock. It required the credit of the Grand Trunk Company of Canada, standing behind the Grand Trunk. Pacific, to consummate this bargain. Ill could have been done, in no other way. We have the entire strength, resources and character of the Grand Trunk Company of Canada behind the Grand Trunk Pacific ; the two are united together-a fortunate concurrence of circumstances, a rare opportunity which the government have had the lyisdom to seize upon ; and by seizing upon it they have secured the construction of a transcontinental line upon terms that are, to say the least, surprisingly favourable. The Grand Trunk Company has greater resources and appliances than any other company in Canada-perhaps greater than any other company in America. The Grand Trunk Company is associated with this new company, is in partnership with it. is interested in its success, and Will carry it to a successful conclusion. -
As I said before, the road reverts to the government at the expiration of fifty years. What will it probably be worth then ? How many people will be in Canada fifty years Mr. CHARLTON.
from now ? What amount of business will be done by this road then ? There is a very carefully drawn provision here with regard to betterments find the keeping of the road up to a certain standard. The government have a right to compel this company to keep the road up to the highest standard that exists at any time. If improvements are made in railways, this road must be made to correspond with the character of those improvements. The keeping up of the road is an absolute condition of the contract. When this road reverts to the government at the expiration of fifty years, is it an extravagant calculation to suppose that it will be worth twice its original cost to the government ? It is not. There is something marvellous about the increased value of railroads. Take the New York Central. It fell into the hands of Cornelius Vanderbilt about the year 1860.1 That road's stock was watered, and watered, and watered again, until every dollar of that stock to-day represents a cost of 25 cents ; and yet the great volume of watered stock goes on paying dividends of 6 per cent per annum, due simply to increased value from increase of business. The same conditions apply to all the principal railroads. They will apply to this road. This road will inevitably increase in value. I think it is a very moderate calculation to suppose that this road, at the time it reverts to the government, will be worth twice its original cost. The agreement provides that if the government do not then choose to assume, the road and run it themselves, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company shall have the right to lease it if it offers as good conditions as the government can secure elsewhere. Well, do you suppose that that road will be leased a second time at 3 per cent on its original cost-a road that will be worth twice what it cost 1 Is it unreasonable to suppose that the road will then become a great source of revenue to the government ? It is a moderate calculation to suppose that while the government will continue to carry its bonds at 3 per cent, the company on the second lease will pay at least 0 per cent on the original cost. I do not know but that is a better arrangement than to rush into a scheme of government construction of railroads. At all events, it is an arrangement which will certainly en-gble the government to establish an efficient railroad from ocean to ocean, and leave that road under the absolute control of the government in every essential respect.
Now. I wish to refer to the matter of the management and practical basis of this scheme. The Canadian Pacific Railway distance from Montreal to Winnipeg, is 1.424 miles. The length of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Quebec to Winnipeg, if my calculations are correct, will be 1.435 miles, eleven miles longer from Quebec to Winnipeg than the distance on the Cana-' dian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Winnipeg ; and I doubt if, when the surveys are

made, the difference will be as much in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The length of the entire road is considerably greater than that of the. Canadian Pacific Railway, but that increased length is all but eleven "miles of it west of Winnipeg, and it is a consideration that does not matter much, for every mile of it is developing a rich country, which will afford business to the line.
The government retains running powers on the road, or the right to give running powers over the entire line-over the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, and over the line from Winnipeg to Port Simpson or to Bute Inlet, whichever may be the terminus. The eastern division, from Winnipeg, is made a great artery as an outlet from the west, connecting with every road which comes from the; west into Winnipeg ; and. if it carries grain as cheaply to Quebec as it can be carried to Boston or Portland, it will divert to Quebec and the maritime ports all the traffic it can possibly handle. Was there any wisdom in The government retaining this right, and making these provisions for joint usd" and joint running powers ? Certainly there was, and the question Is, can this right be secured on reasonable terms for other companies ? I answer, beyond question it can.
The criticisms made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals with regard to this matter betrayed an utter ignorance on his part of the conditions surrounding this question. As I said last night, the gauges of the roads in the United States have been made uniform for the purpose of exchange of freight and avoiding the breaking of bulk when one road connects with another. No bulk is broken now. Cars go from where they were billed to their destination over one or two or a dozen roads, and arrangements are made for the division of freight on the basis of mileage. And if a railway does not return the cars it has borrowed promptly, it must pay a certain rate per day for the use of those cars. The whole business is carefully systematized; and even where there is no special arrangement, if one road runs its cars over another, there is no trouble in ascertaining what it should pay. Traffic is carefully exchanged and the flux and flow of business goes on from ocean to ocean over all railway lines on a well recognized system. If the Northern Central or. the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other line wishes to send its cars through to Quebec to be hauled by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, it is the simplest thing in the world to make a division of the freight; and if there should be any disagreement, the government can step in as an arbitrator and decide the dispute on a fair and equitable basis. But if these reads desire to make use of this line practically ns part of their own lines, there will be no difficulty. We know that by
practice already. I pass over a road almost every week which is used by two lines a distance of 229 miles. There is one division from St. Thomas to Detroit 110 miles and another division from St. Thomas to Buffalo 119 miles long. Bach of the lines which uses this road has its own roundhouses, its own appliances, its own engines, and runs its own trains, and there is no friction between them. Their system of train despatching is arranged in the easiest manner. Passenger trains take precedence over freight trains, and stock freight takes precedence of ordinary freight. The whole business is conducted with the utmost sys-. tern and works with the utmost regularity and without friction. If you can run a road where there are two divisions, you can run a road where there are three or four or a dozen divisions. The same system applies to many as it does to a few. The running of pullman cars and passenger cars is reduced to a system on all roads. A pullman starts from New York or Boston and goes to San Francisco, and it makes no difference whether it goes over two roads or half a dozen. The system is perfectly adjusted to the satisfaction of all the roads, and everything goes on smoothly. The same system can be introduced here, and it is absurd to say that it cannot. We have this further assurance in our own case, that while in the United States all these matters are subject to mutual arrangement, so that any road may defeat the working of the system by being too grasping or exacting, here we will have an umpire, the government itself, which can compel the faithful and equitable carrying out of the provision laid down in section 24.
This company, as an assurance of good faith, deposits the sum of $5,000,000 with the government, and that money is to remain in the hands of the government until the company has fulfilled its obligations. But if the company are within $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 of the completion of the work, then the government may allow the company to use the $5,000,000 deposit to complete the work. But the government holds this $5,000,000 in hard cash or convertible securities in addition to all these other conditions. The government controls the rates on this road and it has the right to audit the accounts at any time. At any time it may send its accountant to see whether the accounts of the company are properly kept, whether there is any stuffing of accounts and pay-rolls. It can ascertain exactly what the road is doing, what its earnings are, what its dividends should be, whether its rates can be reduced without injustice with the company. Contrast that with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which we cannot interfere with at all until its dividends are 30 per cent. Then this company is liable to taxation and the Canadian Pacific Railway is not. This company has neither land grants nor cash subsidy, unless



you can call tlie seven years interest on the guarantee on the cost of the mountain section a subsidy. Contrast this with the first proposal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway itself. That company came down to the government with a proposition to build a line from North Bay. It wanted a subsidy of $6,400 and 5,000 acres of land a mile, equivalent in value to at least $15,000. Contrast the present bargain with that demand. I believe that the government have pressed the Grand Trunk Railway to the last point. I believe Mr. Hay was ready to throw up the sponge, if one single concession further had been demanded. I am, I think, in a position to know that the government got the very last concession possible from the managers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; and that it has got a good bargain the future will prove, whether it be admitted now or not.
I give great credit to the government for having refused the land grant and still greater credit for having made that its uniform policy. The government deserves well of the country to a greater degree perhaps in this respect than in any other. Contrast this with the policy of the late government. That government made land grants to railways to the amount of 57,-0S7.000 acres-an empire thrown away recklessly. It threw away our heritage recklessly, with no apparent idea of the ultimate value of that land. It gave away our lands as freely as you would stones from a brook, and of this amount of 57.087.000 acres, 29.986,000 have been earned and have passed out of the hands of the country. Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann have been able to make a $12,000,000 sale of land,
I understand.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Does that include the Yukon River Railway ?


John Charlton: No. The railway is somewhat south of the Yrukon. Our iron, friends opposite may claim all the credit they can extract from that policy. It has been a most wasteful one and I trust that the Liberal government will add the brilliancy of its record in this respect by continuing to enforce the old principle, which we advocated when we were in opposition, of the land for the settler and the settler for the land.
With regard to the question of subsidies, I do not know that I would take the position taken by many persons in Ontario. Subsidies, reasonably granted, are a proper thing. Railroads may be subsidized and their construction secured that could not otherwise be had, railroads that would be of great benefit to the country. And here again with regard to their system of subsidizing railroads, the government has adopted a principle which redounds greatly to their credit. They have adopted the principle that a railroad which is subsidized must carry the mails free, and, I believe,


John Charlton: they must provide a mail car and a mail clerk-the Postmaster General will correct me if I am wrong-they must carry military forces free, in fact, they must perform all government services free to the extent of three per cent interest upon the amount of subsidy granted. Under these conditions, and with these provisions, I believe that subsidies granted within the limit of reason, granted to meritorious enterprises, and in moderate amount may be reasonably granted, nowitlistanding the outcry that has been raised.


Mr. MONK.: Are there any of these conditions in this contract ?


John Charlton: There is no subsidy in this contract. Now, Sir, I desire to refer to the wise provisions in the public interest contained in this agreement. Great care has been taken in this respect. We have not a Minister of Railways and Canals with carte blanche in the construction of a transcontinental line. This would be a very pleasant position, no doubt, for a public official to occupy ; but in the construction of the eastern section, we have a joint supervision provided for on the part of the company and on the part of the government. The company is interested in having the road constructed as cheaply as possible, as it has to pay three per cent interest on the cost. It has joint supervision with the government in the letting of contracts and the construction of the line. This provision will secure-perhaps such a provision would be unnecessary with a government like this-economy of construction to the utmost attainable extent. Then, we have a provision in the public interest that the standard of the road, west of Winnipeg shall be equal to the standard of the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal. That is a much higher standard than that of any road that the west now possess.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


John Charlton: Yes. The Mackenzie & Mann road is laid with 60 pound rails. The Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal is laid with SO pound rails, and in some sections 90 pound rails. It is a first-class road, with the best bridges and with low grades. And, if this provision in the contract is complied with and the Grand Trunk builds a road in the west that shall not be inferior to the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto, It will build a road thirty or forty per cent better than any road now in that western country. Compare these conditions with those that were imposed on the Canadian Pacific Railway when it was built. That company was under obligation to build a road equal to the standard of the Union Pacific when it was first constructed- a road whose rails were laid on cottonwood ties two feet apart, ballasted with frozen dirt in the winter, and with grades as high as 90, or even 100 feet

to the mile. There are other important conditions in this contract. We have a provision in section 16 that the government may improve the eastern section. So, if this road is not kept in condition to answer the purposes of the government, in a condition to secure the trade for the maritime ports and Quebec, the government may step in and put the road in condition necessary for this purpose, and charge the cost to the company.


John Graham Haggart: No, no.


Mr. CLANCY.: The interest.


John Charlton: Yes, to the company. It is capitalized at the cost of the company. The government is adopting provisions with regard to the eastern section, stringent provisions, that insure against the deterioration of the line, that insure its maintenance at the same standard of efficiency as the rest of the road. Then there is the provision I have already referred to with regard to the hauling rights, made in the interest of the shipper of the west and of the whole country, that will be vastly beneficial to the transportation interest of Canada. The government has a mortgage that covers the road-bed and the rolling stock and is ample security for all its advances by way of guarantee. Then there is a clause providing for the purchase of Canadian material. My hon. friends on the other side may say that this does not amount to anything, because the company is not obliged to purchase Canadian materials, unless it can get them advantageously as other materials. But I think this clause secures to us an important advantage. The time will come, and come very soon, unless we get advantageous trade conditions from the United States, when we shall have duties high enough to assure the purchase of materials in Canada ; and this condition that the company shall purchase its materials in Canada will prove a great boon to the manufacturing interest of this country. Then, the government has control of rates, which I have already alluded to. It has provision for, continuous and efficient operation of the road, and it has that condition secured by a provision in the agreement which says that when the lease is drawn the government shall have plenary powers and powers of imposing penalties in the event of this condition not being complied with. This agreement provides that the rates on export trade shall be no greater to Canadian ports than to American ports. The road must absolutely place Canadian seaports on the same basis with regard to advantage as it places other seaports. It was said last night that that company could evade this provision by sending its agents to the west to secure freight routed to American ports. If it did this, it would violate clause 43. which provides that there shall be no discrimination on the part of a railway company in favour of American routes. Then there is a con-267
dition that the company shall provide ample shipping accommodation at Port Simpson, Quebec, Halifax, St. John or any other ocean port that its business reaches. The attempt was made last night to convey the impression that of the $45,000,000 of stock which this company is to issue, $25,000,000 was to be treated in some way so that the manipulators of this contract could put it in their own pockets-confiscate it. Why, the $20,000,000 of preferred stock is Ito secure $20,000,000 of rolling stock for the road. That is the purpose to which it will be devoted. The $25,000,000 of common stock is to be laid aside and put upon the market for the purpose of constructing elevators and other shipping facilities at the end of the route that the government stipulates that it shall furnish and other such purposes. So that we have in this contract ample security for all the stipulations that the agreement contains.
Now, to sum up the matter : Under this arrangement we are about to secure a transcontinental line. We have granted no land for it. We pay interest for seven years on the cost of the eastern section, and upon the guaranteed portion of the mountain section not exceeding $14,500,000. And, at the expiration of fifty years, when the value of this property will be greatly enhanced, it comes back into our possession. That, broadly speaking is the outline of this arrangement. I wish to contrast this bargain with the first bargain for a transcontinental road made in this country. I think there will be food for reflection in this contrast; and while doing this, I wish distinctly to disclaim that I have any reflections to make upon the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I admire the courage, the grasp, the energy, the push that characterized that movement from the outset. I criticise, not the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate, but the government of the day. In 1886 I had a letter from the now Lord Mount Stephen, complimenting me, thanking me, for a speech I made in that year attacking the policy of the government and showing what vast franchises the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had obtained, what an enormous bargain they had from the government. This letter complimented me for having tried to act justly, and I was informed that it had been used quite efficiently in promoting the credit of the company. So I say now, that while I point out the recklessness of the government of that day, I utterly disclaim any intention of casting reflections upon the people that took the government in.
When that contract was made with the syndicate in 1881, it provided for the construction of a line from Calender to Port Moody. Of that line, certain portions were to be built by the government. The ^ake Superior section from Lake Superior to Selkirk, 405 miles in length; the western section from Port Moody to Kamloops, up



through the canyons of the Thompson and the Fraser, 238 miles in length, a total of G43 miles that the government was to build and hand over free of cost or charge to the syndicate. The balance of the road was to be built by the syndicate. It was 1,906 miles long. Now, whatever subsidies, whatever grants of land, whatever gifts of completed railway the syndicate received were applicable to the construction of that 1,906 miles of road only. Let us see what they got. They got a cash bonus of $25,000,000; they got the 643 miles of completed road which cost, with the surveys, in round numbers, $35,000,000; they got 25,000,000 acres of land, worth at the least calculation $3 an acre, or $75,000,000. Their cash subsidy therefore for the 1,906 miles of road amounted to $13,100 a mile; their subsidy from the gift from the government of 643 miles, whicli had cost $35,000,000, amounted to $18,300 a mile; their subsidy from the 25,000,000 acres of land, worth $75,000,000 as the outcome proves, amounted to $38,300 a mile. So the syndicate, for the construction of 1,906 miles, the portion that was constructed by it between Calender and Port Moody, received in cash, in road completed and handed over, and in lands estimated to be worth $3 an acre, a total subsidy of $69,700 a mile. Now, I hope my hon. friends on the opposite side will make a note of that. That was a pretty reasonable subsidy-$13,100 a mile in cash, $18,500 a mile in the value of the road the government built for them, and handed over, and $38,300 in land worth $3 an acre.
Mr. MeCREAItY. What about the taxes V


John Charlton: We will come to that later on.


Mr. COWAN.: Still there's more to follow.


John Charlton: Now, compare that with this scheme that our friends are denouncing to-day. Here is a scheme that will cost us, in interest in lieu of subsidy, $14,500,000, or $4,060 per mile for the entire line, against $69,700 per mile for 1,906 miles. Does not the contrast startle my friends V And can they, in view of their own record, rise in this House and condemn this moderate, judicious scheme, conceived in the interest of the people, and to be carried forward to its consummation at such a slight cost ?
Now, let us have a summary of these subsidies :	Cash bonus to the Canadian
Pacific Railway on 1,906 miles, $25,000,000; cost of road and surveys handed over to the company, $35,000,000; total value of 25,000,000 acres of land-and I may say here that part of that land was bought back at $1.50 an acre, $10,000,000 worth, but the average of the whole may be computed at least at $3 an acre-25,000,000 acres of land at $3 an acre, would be worth $75,000,000; total subsidies applicable to the 1,906 miles built by the Canadian Pacific Railway, $135,000,000. Contrast that with this scheme that is going


John Charlton: to be denounced as extravagant and reckless. Aid to the Grand Trunk Pacific by way of interest, say $14,500,000; balance in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway, $120,500,000. The statement seems incredible, but it is a cold hard fact, and I thought perhaps it would be well just to remind our friends opposite of what they have done in the past as an incentive to them to denounce what we are doing in future, granting about one-seventeenth as much to this line per mile as the Canadian Pacific Railway received from them.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


John Charlton: Mr. Speaker, at the hour of recess I had just completed a comparative statement of the aids granted by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the scheme at present under consideration. I had given the value of the investment of the government in the roads that were handed over to this company, the amount of the cash bonus, and the value of land grant of 25,000,000 acres. It may be argued in regard to the land grant that its value was created by the construction of the road, and that we are not entitled to count this as being in the shape of a bonus in regard to the aids rendered in this line. Leaving that question aside, I may say in this connection, at least, that we grant no land bonus to the present scheme and that the increase in the value of the land consequent upon the construction of the land will be ensured to ourselves as a government and to the country and not to a railway corporation.
I shall now enter into other conditions of contrast between these two schemes as relates to the government's position in the respective cases, and the first one I will refer to, Sir, will be the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation. That exemption is contained in section 16 of the agreement of the company, and is as follows :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, and all stations and station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company, shall be for ever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein.
That exemption, of course, is perpetual. I need not point out that no such condition applies to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme. There is no exemption of its property in this case, and whatever conditions a railway corporation may be liable to under the authority of the Dominion, or of provinces that corporation will be liable to. Then, the next provision that I would refer to in this contrast of conditions is the exemption of the land grant of the Can-nadian Pacific Railway from taxation, which

exemption is also contained in section 16, and is as follows :
And the lands of the company, in the Northwest Territories, until they are either sold or occupied, shall also he free from such taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
These lands were granted more than 20 years ago, no taxes have yet been paid, and the lands still are practically exempt from taxation.
- The next condition and contrast that I would refer to is the transportation monopoly granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway covering the entire North-west Territories. The clause granting that monopoly is No. 15 of the agreement or contract, and is as follows :
For twenty years from the date hereof, no line of railway shall be authorized by the Dominion parliament to be constructed south cf the Canadian Pacific Railway, from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, except such line as shall run south-west or to the westward and south-west ; nor to within fifteen miles of latitude 49. And in the establishment of any new province in the North-west Territories, provision shall be made for continuing such prohibition after such establishment until the expiration of the said period.
Here was a condition which gave the Canadian Pacific Railway an absolute monopoly of transportation in the entire North-west Territories. No line was to be built from the south of that road to within 15 miles of the American boundary line, no connection with any American road was possible under the provisions of this section. The Canadian Pacific Railway, by this provision of its agreement, enjoyed an absolute transportation monopoly in the North-west. Contrast that provision with the provision of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme and we find that no such monopoly is given, that no special privileges are given in regard to transportation, hut that this road has to enter into full and free competition with all other lines without any intervention on the part of any government to aid it in any way in securing business.
The next point of difference is in regard to the admission of material for the construction of the road contained in section 10 of this Act. By this provision it was agreed that the government:
Shall also permit the admission free of duty, of all steel rails, fish plates and other fastenings, spikes, bolts and nuts, wire, timber and all material for bridges, to be used in the original construction of the railway, and of a telegraph line in connection therewith, and all telegraph apparatus required for the first equipment of such telegraph line ; and will convey to the company, at cost price, with interest, all ratls and fastenings bought in or since the year 1879, and other materials for construction in the possession of or purchased by the government, at a valuation,-such rails, fastenings and materials not being required by it for the construction of the said Lake Superior and western sections.
267*	\\	\	tV
Well, Sir, this exemption of material from duty was held later on to apply to the material used In the renewal of bridges years and years after the Canadian Pacific Railway had been constructed. The Grand Trunk Pacific has no such privileges, has no such exemption from the payment of duties ; it must pay duties upon all the materials it imports. That is another contrast between the conditions applicable to the roads.
Then the Canadian Pacific Railway was required to put up a deposit by way or security of $1,000,000. The Grand Trunk Pacific is required to put up a deposit by way of security of $5,000,000-five times as much as that required from the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Then, the Canadian Pacific Railway could not he touched in reference to the adjustment or handling of its freight rates until it was paying a dividend of 10 per cent. No interference on the part of the government could be made with the affairs of the company until it was paying al dividend of 10 per cent. That was provided in section 18 of this Act. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is liable to the intervention of the government in the regulation of its rates at any time at the pleasure and upon the judgment of the government without any reference to the maximum rate of dividends it may he earning.
Then, the Canadian Pacific Railway had three-quarters of the cost of the rails that it imported advanced by the government. This provision is contained in subsection (c) of section 9 of this Act, and it is as follows :
If at any time the company shall cause to be delivered on or near the line of the said railway, at a place satisfactory to the government, steel rails and fastenings to be used in the construction of the railway, but in advance of the requirements for such construction, the government. on the requisition of the company, shall, upon such terms and conditions as shall be determined by the government, advance thereon three-fourths of the value thereof at the place of delivery.
There is no such condition in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific. All these conditions were peculiar in their application to the Canadian Pacific Railway-exemption from taxation, monopoly of transportation, exemption from duties, advances on the cost of rails, all these are special conditions granted to this company in addition to the enormous subventions I have referred to were peculiar to its case, and not applicable to the ease of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then, we have another contrast of the conditions between the two_ roads. When the government had paid this $25,000,000 in money, when it had handed over roads costing $35,000,000, and when it had given these 25,000,000 acres of land for the purpose of aiding in the construction of 1,906 miles of road, the control of the government ceased. The road may at any time

pass beyond tbe control of the government altogether. It may pass into the hands of foreign owners. It may be gathered in by a Morgan syndicate. There is nothing to ensure to this country the possession of the road as a Canadian highway. It may be secured by foreign companies at any time and there is no guarantee to prevent such a consummation. Such is not the case with the Grand Trunk Pacific. The control of the government over the Grand Trunk Pacific is continuous. The Grand Trunk Pacific is bound to remain a Canadian road. It can never be made anything else. It must continue under Canadian control and we ensure to ourselves the control of one transcontinental line at least, which is our line, controlled by ourselves, and which can never pass from our possession. Then, the Canadian Pacific Railway gave no running rights to anybody over any portions of its line-the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway must share its line from ocean to ocean at the dictation of the government, and under the direction of the government with other lines.
I repeat that in all this, no odium attaches to the Canadian Pacific Railway officials. They simply made the best bargain with the government they could. They made a good bargain, they displayed their astuteness in doing it. They have created a property of enormous value; it is the grandest railway speculation that was ever entered into; it is the most brilliant of successes ln_. the railway history of the world. The Canadian Pacific Railway magnates, if I may term them so, the Canadian Pacific Railway managers, were not to blame; the odium, if any, attaches to the government that granted these conditions and failed to safeguard tbe interests of the people in granting them.
Of course, at the time the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate bargain went through, the conditions were different from what they are to-day. The North-west was then largely a wilderness ; the success of a transcontinental road was problematical, and it was useless to suppose that we could then secure terms as favourable as we can to-day when that country is better known, and after the fact has been demonstrated that a transcontinental line can secure business, and business adequate to the payment of dividends upon the cost of construction. Still, it was quite evident at that time, and it was maintained by the then opposition, that the terms which were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway were extravagant. It was pointed out then that we were practically building a road for the Canadian Pacific Railway and handing it over to them, and more than that, in point of fact that we might as well build the road ourselves and own it, and then sell it if necessary. The Mackenzie scheme was to build a road from Lake Superior to Selkirk on the Red river. They


John Charlton: had that road nearly completed when this contract was made. They were proceeding to extend that road to the Yellow Head pass and 100 miles were under construction; they were building a branch line from Selkirk to Pembina to connect with the American lines. We held, in discussing the terms of this contract, that if the Mackenzie road were pushed vigorously to Yellow Head pass we would then be in a position to secure the construction of the entire line, and be able to pass over to the company as a bonus the portion of the road constructed. No doubt this could have been done. If it had been done the cost to the country would not have been one-third what it proved to be under the scheme that was adopted by the Conservative government.
Now, these are contrasts between the policies of the two governments with reference to a transcontinental line, contrasts as to the difference that exists between the subvention granted in the one case and in the other. In the one case $135,000,000, counting the land at less than its market value to-day-in the other case, $14,500,000 in round numbers; the excess in favour of the promoters of the Canadian Pacific Railway being $120,500,000.
Now, it was not necessary to have granted these conditions to the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was not necessary for the reason that we received a better offer. We received an offer at the time this contract was under consideration to build this road for 3,000,000 acres of land less, for $3,000,000 less subsidy, the road to be the standard of the Union Pacific as it then existed, instead of the standard of the Union Pacific as at first constructed, and the difference was very great. That offer asked no exemption from taxation; that offer asked no exemption from duty on materials; that offer left the road subject to the government control of its rates ; that offer left the road subject to the purchase by the' government on conditions favourable to the government. All these conditions in the second offer made it infinitely better for the country than the first offer.


James Clancy: That was a bluff offer made by the hon. gentleman's friends at the last moment.


John Charlton: This bogus offer from a bogus syndicate was accompanied by a cash deposit of $1,395,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: It was $395,000 more than was required of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the best way to have demonstrated that this was a bogus offer was to have accepted it and swiped in the money if it was bogus.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Who made this offer ?-W. P. Howland, of Toronto ; A. R.

MeMaster, of Toronto ; H. H. Cook, of Toronto.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Yes, a gentleman of wealth and enterprise.


An hon. MEMBER.: All Liberals.


John Charlton: Yes, I am thankful to say they were-James McLaren, of Ottawa, a millionaire; William Heudrie, of Hamilton; John Stuart, of Hamilton; John Walker, of London; D. MacFie, of London; K. Chisholm, of Brampton; John Proctor, of Hamilton; P. S. Stevenson, of Montreal; A. T. Wood, of Hamilton; A. W. Ross, of Winnipeg; George A. Cox, of Peterborough.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear-, hear.


John Charlton: A gentleman of wealth, a gentleman able to sub vent his undertakings to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars at any moment-P. Howland, Toronto; P. Larkin, St. Catharines; Allan Gil-mour, of Ottawa, a millionaire lumberman; John Carruthers, of Kingston; W. D. Lovitt, of Yarmouth; Alexander Gibson, of Fredericton, a millionaire lumberman of New Brunswick; Barnet & McKay, of Renfrew. There were at least five names upon this list of gentlemen who were millionaires. This list of names t;ould have furnished all the security and all the money that was necessary to carry through this project successfully with the aid they asked from the government. As an evidence of good faith they put up $500,000 in the Bank of Ottawa, $500,000 in the Bank of Commerce, and $395,000 in other banks. They put up that money as evidence of good faith, and they put up $395,000 more than the amount required by the government from the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate. And yet, some gentlemen tell us that this was a bogus offer. Well, there is no other way to exonerate themselves from the odium that ought to attach to them for having refused this offer, except to put in that threadbare plea.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the character of this second syndicate, how would it compare with that of the first syndicate. Let us see who were the signers of the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway. There was Charles Tup-per


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Was he a very heavy millionaire at the time ? I suppose he could pay his debts; I do not know how much more he would have had then. There was George Stephen; George Stephen was probably a man of considerable means, connected with the Bank of Montreal. There was Duncan McIntyre; he was a millionaire afterwards, he was not a millionaire at
this time; there was J. S. Kennedy, R. B. Angus, J. J. Hill (per pro George Stephen), Morton, Rose & Co., and Kohn, Reinach & Co. The second offer was made by a number of gentlemen all of whom were Canadians. Here we have in this first offer : Mr. Hill, an American.


Mr. HENDERSON.: A Canadian.


John Charlton: He lives at St. Paul- Morton, Rose & Co., English bankers; Kohn & Reinach, Paris bankers. This second offer was signed by men of greater weight, men of greater responsibility, men who were Canadians. In addition to the other things I have enumerated, that offer would have put this road under Canadian control, it stated that the directors should be British subjects, and it provided to secure the country in every respect with regard to the management of the road. Their offer was millions and millions of dollars better than the offer of the first syndicate. The stipulation that they should not be exempt from taxation would of itself have conferred enormous advantages on the settlers of the west. In every respect that offer was one that it would have been in the country's Interest to accept. It would have left the company under supervision in the matter of rates, which were entirely beyond our control in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
But enough, Mr. Speaker, of comparisons. All! of these serve to prove the superiority of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme over any other scheme that has been put before the people of this country, and to place that superiority in the most striking light. Now, Sir, in their criticism upon the obligations that are to be incurred under this arrangement, I ask my hon. friends, in the first place, to remember that the money expended on a road which is to be leased by a responsible company at a rate of interest that will carry the cost of its construction, is not an addition in the proper sense to our obligations. I ask them to bear in mind hat the guarantee of the bonds on the mountain section of the western division and the cost of the division from Winnipeg to Moncton, are not properly speaking an increase to our debt ; because we have, in the first place, the obligation of a responsible company to pay the interest, and we have at the end of fifty years, when that property reverts to us, a property whose value will be vastly more than the cost of the road or the obligations which the road represents. I ask these gentlemen to bear In mind, in the second place, that this is a country that is to have great expansion of its interests, its property, its population, Its resources, its tax paying power, in the near future. We are providing, not for the present, -but for the future. We are entering now upon obligations which will culminate five years hence, when the road which these obligations create will be great-

ly needed-will be, in point of fact, imperatively necessary ; and when the period of fifty years terminates, what may we reasonably expect will be the population of Canada ? If It increases at the rate of 20 per cent! each decade, it will in 1951 be 15,000,000. If it increases at the rate of 25 per cent in each decade it will be 18,000,000. I see no reason why our population should not increase more rapidly than at the rate of 25 per cent in each decade. During the first four decades of the United States their population increased at the rate of not less than 30 per cent, and yet up to the year 1825 the addition to their population was very small, amounting to 250,000 in a period of two or three decades. We shall have the natural increase of a vigorous population, and in addition an enormous immigration from the British isles, from Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, and a still greater immigration from the middle and western portions of the United States. So that we are building for the future, and we are looking forward to the time when the resources and the population of this country will be three or four times what they are at the present moment.
What may we expect will be the increase of our agricultural productions ? This year the area in wheat amounted to 2,500,000 acres in Manitoba and 750,000 acres in the Territories, and we expect to reap from this land a crop of over 60,000,000 bushels. How much more wheat land have we ? At a most moderate calculation, we have 250,000,000 acres of wheat-land west of Lake Superior. If we produce 60,000,000 bushels this year from 3,250,000 acres of land, how many millions of bushels are we likely to produce when that country is populated and the greater part of the soil is brought under cultivation, and when we increase the cultivable area to sixty or seventy or perhaps a hundred million acres ? Let hon. gentlemen sit down and figure that out. We are confronting great changes in our condition, great expansion in our business. We cannot realize how great that expansion will be, and we are making provision for it in the most moderate manner, instead of recklessly and with undue haste. As I have said, that country is absolutely dependent on railway communication. It has no natural outlet to the sea. For all the productions of that vast region of 250,000,000 acres of wheat-land, we must provide transportation by rail, and if we are going to keep up with the procession, we must provide it pretty fast. I think the ex-Minister of Bailways and Canals was right when he said that there were men in the audience which he addressed at Vancouver who would live to see three and possibly four transcontinental lines in Canada.
As to the question whether this railway will pay, I remember that question was debated when the Canadian Pacific Railway
scheme was under consideration, and very grave doubts were expressed as to whether it would. Well, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company made its annual statement a short time ago. Its total earnings last year were $43,957,000, its expenses $28,120,000, and its net earnings $15,836,000. It has just declared a dividend of 6 per cent. I can remember a few years ago when its stock was worth 40. The day before yesterday, when the 6 per cent dividend was declared, its stock was worth 126, and that at a period when the bottom has been knocked out of stocks, and the best paying stocks are at a lower point than they have been for many years.


Mr. HYMAN.: What was it sold at originally ?


John Charlton: 1 think at 25 cents on the dollar, all but $5,000,000, which was sold at par. So I judge from this that the transcontinental line financially will have an assured success. It will secure the trade of the North-west to our ports, if that can be secured by any railway ; and if it is made essentially a first-class road, with a four-tenths per cent grade, heavy rails and perfect construction, it will be able to compete with the water routes in bringing down grain for shipment to Europe at our own seaports.	[DOT]
The contrast between the policies of the two governments, in relation to the first transcontinental line, and in relation to the transcontinental line now under consideration, is so marked, so striking, that I do not see how any man of dispassionate judgment ean fail to approve of the scheme which we have under consideration. This scheme, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all that may be said in regard to it, has been thoroughly matured. It bears internal evidence of that fact. Let the ablest lawyer in this country scrutinize this agreement and seek to pick flaws in it, and they will be of the,' most infinitesimal character if he finds any at all. The interests of the government are safeguarded in the most perfect and complete manner. The only surprise to me is that a great railway corporation, with the resources which the Grand Trunk possesses, should have consented to be bound in the manner in which it is by the stipulations of this agreement. It is folly to contend that this is not a contract in the interest of the people of Canada. It is folly to conteud that this is not a contract that reflects great credit on the gentlemen, whoever they are, who matured and perfected it. We are told 'that we should have waited for surveys, that we should not have been in a hurry, that we should have known more definitely where the road should go, and so forth. Sir, we have had surveys. We have a knowledge of the country in a general sense, and we know in a general way its character for railway construction. There was no time to lose in going forward. We


John Charlton: have to go on with surveys as it is, there is no doubt about that ; but we have perfected an arrangement which we might not have been able to make twelve months hence.
AVe have got into this arrangement a great company, which perhaps might then see the matter in a different tight, or possibly might not be in a position to take hold of the contract and enter into the stipulations it has done. When you have a good thing take it. Time and tide wait for no man, and if you neglect to take at its flood the tide which will lead you on to fortune, the opportunity may never again present itself. Do not be like the Irishman, who just after he landed in America, saw a dollar on the ground and passed it by with scorn because he was going to a section of the country where money grew on the bushes. I think that the perfection of this contract reflects unquestionably great credit on my right hou. friend the Premier of this Dominion. He may fairly claim, I apprehend, that this is his scheme. I apprehend that he may claim credit to a large extent for the consummation of this bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. If that be the case,
I believe that this will be such a monument as any public man might desire to have to his memory when he passes from this stage of action. The right hon. gentleman considered all the suggestions of the various schemes presented. He considered them courteously, fully and fairly, and I think I may say that in meeting these various presentations of these various schemes or opinions, he has left those who presented them satisfied that he was right, and willing to accept his opinion. This I believe to be the case in every instance except one-the case of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways. The right hon. gentleman has shown throughout his firm belief in a national road. That has been with him the paramount consideration-a road which would serve national purposes, which would give an outlet on Canadian soil through Canadian ports for Canadian productions in the far west. It remains to be seen whether this road will do all that is predicted of it. If it be constructed in a thoroughly first class manner in every respect, I believe it will. And when both the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have to face the alternative that it be not so constructed, it will not accomplish what is expected, I believe they will see that it is built in such a way that it will be capable of producing the results we all hope for. No doubt there are many gentlemen who would throw cold water on our aspirations. We will perhaps have reason to compare these men with the late DeWitt Clinton, who, when in 1817, he was promoting the construction of the Erie canal, which revolutionized the commercial history of New York and made that city a great seaport, was ridiculed and assailed by lampoons and
criticisms about Clinton's ditch from Albany to Buffalo. AArell, Sir, Clinton's ditch was a nation maker. It affected the destinies of a great people in the west, just as the Laurier road will do for great districts of this country.
AAre are incurring, of course, heavy obligations, but they are moderate in view of what will be realized from the expenditure. In the abstract, however, they are heavy obligations, and we will become responsible for a large sum of money. But we will have an asset which will represent something. We will have an asset of great and ever increasing -value in the transcontinental road. It will be money well expended. It will be a judicious investment which will not, after the first seven years, bear upon the resources of the country. The future will unquestionably justify this expenditure. AAre have in the past constantly underrated our potential sources of power. AA'e have failed to realize that we have resources for the creation of a great nation. We have failed to realize that we have the room and the soil to produce food for 100,000,000 people. AVe have not allowed ourselves to rise to the level of the destiny that awaits us and the possibilities within our grasp. Today our conceptions of the future cease to be a dream, hazy, indistinct and, perhaps, fantastic. Conditions confront us, the outcome of which we can measure and determine-conditions as to the extent of our arable land, and mineral resources, and the certain influx of population from abroad. All these conditions we can measure and understand. AA:e know that a judicious expenditure will be cheerfully borne by future generations, and that should we fail to do the work we are called on to perform, the future will blame us for our neglect to grasp the great possibilities of this immense country. Under all these circumstances, with a rosy future expanding before us-and we can look down the vista and see within a century fifty million or sixty million under our government-with this future expanding before us, are we not haggling in a penny-wise pound-foolish manner in standing here and criticising a policy which proposes to give this country a great national road from ocean to ocean-a road which will pass by a direct route from Quebec to the west, a road which will pass through 1,700 miles of rich and undeveloped territory, and from which branch lines will extend to the Yukon and in various directions for the development of this vast country. Shall we not be conscious of what is before us, shall we not realize our future and reach forth our hand to grasp our destiny by carrying out the sound policy now submitted to us ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat introduced some time ago a resolution, the object of which was to diminish the length

of speeches and abolish discursive speeches, even on important subjects, and I was much pleased at the time by the attitude taken by my hon. friend, and expected him to practice what he had preached. But after hearing >my hon. friend far into the night yesterday and during the whole of this morning and a part of this afternoon, I have come to the conclusion that upon this subject, as upon many others, strong as may be the opinions of my hon. friend, they are liable to change.
For my part, I feel impelled to offer a few observations upon this very important matter, as one coming from <jne of the older provinces much interested, from the very foundation of this great commonwealth, in its future, and particularly in the problem of transportation and the settlement of our immense regions. And also, Sir, because the putting into effect of that measure involves this country, and involves the older provinces particularly, in very large expenditure. There is no member of this House who will deny that this subject is presented for our consideration under exceptional circumstances, circumstances embarrassing for us who have to criticise it and. I think I may say, without precedents in this parliament. We have to pronounce upon the merits of a great railway scheme, yet we have no report before us as to the utility, the availability of that scheme to meet the problem which is tormenting us, the problem of transportation and settlement. We had been induced to believe, in fact, we had been told authoritatively that this important subject of transportation would be referred to a special commission. That commission has not even been created, much less have we a report from it. A great part of this railway project is intended to serve the objects of settlement. I believe that in the conception of my right hon. friend-and that idea is expressed in the Bill which he has placed before the House- side by side with the question of transportation is placed the question of settlement. And, in regard to these vast regions for the settlement of which we are called upon to spend such a large amount of money, we have no information whatever of a positive nature. There has been no location of the line. Not one single member of this House, from the Prime Minister to the most humble member, can tell ns with any degree of certainty where this line of railway is going to pass. There has been no survey of this line.
I shall advert in a moment to the discussion that my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) carried on for more than an hour upon the determination of a similar problem made over a quarter of a century ago. But I may say immediately that, before the government of that time entered upon the execution of that project, it had caused surveys to be made, and the members of the House in that respect were not placed in the vastly disadvantageous position in


Frederick Debartzch Monk: which we are placed to-day. Neither have we any estimate before us of the cost of this great construction. This may account, to a certain extent, for the fact that those who have spoken already upon this subject, whatever care they may have devoted to the calculation, have not given figures at all approaching each other as to the amount of this expenditure. And I for one say this, that under the circumstances which i have just referred to and with the disadvantages which I have enumerated, it is eminently unfair for this government to ask this House to pronounce upon the merits of this scheme, brought in as it is at the very end of a long and protracted session.
But, Sir, there are, perhaps, one or two redeeming features to one of which the country at any rate, if not the hon. members opposite, will attach a very considerable importance. That circumstance is that a member of the government, and he the one to whom the charge of railway matters was particularly confided and who should have been adviser in such a project as this, at the last sitting of this House, with the greatest cogency, and with admitted force of argument which my hon. friend from North Norfolk has in no way met, condemned this scheme in its entirety. The objections raised by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) were so obvious, so elementary that I am sure, I may say truthfully that the objections had presented themselves to the mind of each and every one of us upon examination of the contract and of the measure laid before the House. The hollowness of the cry of the danger of our bonding rights; the erroneousness of the right hon. Prime Minister's estimate of an expenditure of ?13,000,000; the duplication of the Intercolonial; the immense cost, and the uncertain cost of the government section; the handing over of the road built by ourselves as soon as it is completed to a private company; and, let me say as a member from the province of Quebec, the impotency of that road as an agency in the settlement of our country; these objections had presented themselves to each one of us even before we had heard the able argument of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. And, after having heard that hon. gentleman, is there any member of this House who will coincide with the observation made by the right hon. Prime Minister that when the late Sir John A. Macdonald consented to the carrying through of the short line from Montreal to St. John through the state of Maine, he did unwisely in listening to the advice of his Minister of Railways and Canals. And will anybody say that in the conception of this scheme and the completion of its details the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid I.aurier) himself would not have done much better had he taken the advice of his Minister of Railways and Canals, his natural adviser in a matter of this kind.

Sir, it seems to me au admitted fact that the chief characteristic of the project submitted to us is haste. The right hon. gentleman himself has declared that this is not a time for us to deliberate. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has confided to the House the fact that this scheme was born scarcely two weeks before the opening of the present session, and that some of its most objectionable features have been added during the present session and even a few days before the introduction of this measure into this House. Is it necessary to go further in order to be satisfied that this project has been essentially marked by haste, and that that haste is, in itself, one of the great reasons why that project should be condemned. Under these circumstances, and after the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals had made to us the exposg which he made last night of the objections which he, in common with many members of this House, entertained as to this project, I ask hon. members if they think it was fair for the government not to have immediately replied to the vigorous invective of that hon. gentleman and set aside, if it was possible to do so, the very strong objections which he had urged against that scheme. Instead of that these hon. gentlemen have put up to answer-with the weakness which we have seen this morning and this afternoon- the objections of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, a gentleman, Sir, who, fifty years hence, will be heard of in this country if for no other reason than for the extraordinarily lofty example he has set us in the public life of this country.
Sir, it is almost incredible to have heard this afternoon the hon. member for Norfolk enter into a very elaborate argument to show the possible superiority of railway carriage of grain over water carriage, in face of his own recent utterances. Allow me to quote the language used not very long ago by the hon. gentleman himself upon this most important question. He has told us to-'day that we have all the data necessary for the purpose of deciding this question ; and yet, Mr. Speaker, not very long ago that hon. gentleman stated the exact contrary of that proposition, when he used these words :
Whether the building of the St. Lawrence canal was a mistake or not. and whether or not a heavy ex-penditure at Port Colborne is necessary. I think we have gone far enough in that direotion until we have more reliable data as to the effect of the improvements in railways and the reduction in cost of transportation by railways in Canada and the United States.
But still more pointed was the statement of the hon. gentleman in regard to the incomparable superiority of water-borne traflic as regards cheapness of freight compared with railway traffic. This is what the hon. gentleman stated :
That trade will seek the waters of the great chain of lakes. Inevitably, during the season
of navigation, that trade will be carried to Lake Superior, and improvements have been made in the construction of lake vessels and the deepening of channels between the head of Lake Superior and Buffalo, which enables forwarders to secure the shipment of wheat from Duluth, or from Port Arthur to Buffalo at a ridiculously low rate, as compared with rates prevalent a few years ago. For a cent and a auarter or a cent and a half per bushel, you can transport your wheat from Duluth or Port Arthur, and1 put it in an elevator at Buffalo.
Then the hon. gentleman added :
So you have the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for three cents a bushel, or at most four cents a bushel. Now these are conditions which render it, in my opinion, impossible at present to compete with that route. It is uselesss to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all-rail route to Quebec or to Halifax at prices such as these I quoted with regard to the American lines.
And further still :
If. after having given to our seaports connections in the form of a railway to Quebec, right through the country, and a railway from Quebec for winter communication with Halifax and St. John, we attempt, in addition to affording facilities, and the best facilities that can be given-roads with low grades and great capacity for hauling heavy loads, such as the loads that can he hauled over the New York Central and Lake Shore of 2,000 tons to a train [DOT]-to force trade over these roads we will make a mistake, because we have to allow this trade to find a natural outlet. We must simply make with care, and make efficiently, provision for securing this trade in our own seaports under circumstances which are possible, having regard to our natural facilities and natural advantages.
The conclusion at which the hon. member arrived is this :
I do not believe that we are in a condition to-day, even if we decided to improve the Ottawa River Valley route, to decide what are the proper conditions upon which to proceed. For this reason I think the appointment of a commission to take this whole question under consideration is in the highest degree desirable- is not only desirable but necessary. We are now confronting conditions that require careful consideration. We are called upon to inaugurate a policy and to proceed in a direction that has for its purpose the affording to the great North-west of transportation facilities. It is beyond all things necessary that we should make no false step, and that we should proceed upon no false hypothesis or basis, and for that reason it is a wise thing to appoint a commission composed of men who are capable of examining this question and arriving at correct conclusions.
No doubt one of these commissioners was to be the hon. gentleman himself.
We cannot do it here in an expert and scientific manner ; we must rely upon the service of *men of the character of those who are to he appointed upon this commission. Let us wait until we have the decision of these men as to the proper course to pursue.
These are some of the contradictions to which my hon. friend, who holds strong opinions as he says, is nevertheless subject. The hon. gentleman has told us himself

that before this scheme was brought to the notice of this parliament he entertained strong opinions, opinions upon which I for one would congratulate him, because these opinions are in consonance with the modern ideas of the twentieth century. He entertained strong opinions as to government ownership, but those opinions, strong as they were, have been contradicted by the explanations which he has given to this House. Mr. Speaker, let us hope that in many other matters my hon. friend will not so easily change his opinion. However, I for one, as a representative from the province of Quebec, am prepared to congratulate him most heartily on the great change of opinion he has undergone within the last few years in regard to the present an'd the future of that great province. Members of this House are aware that not more that three years ago my hon. friend urged strongly, in a public speech, the necessity of placing a garrison in the city of Quebec in order to prevent the people -of that province from rushing into rebellion. To-day it is pleasant for us to hear that hon. gentleman take such a warm interest in that province, and praise as highly as he has done to-day the character, the loyalty and the many laudable qualities of the people of that province.	.


John Charlton: We will give Quebec wheat instead of a garrison.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: in a reduction of rates. But assuming all that to be true, I wish to hear from some member of the government the reason why we do not apply, to that prairie section of the line the principle which we apply to the eastern section. I wish to know why we do not construct that line ourselves, and>
why we confide the construction of it to a private company ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the prairie section is going to be a paying concern, if it will regulate rates, if it is the very best portion of the transcontinental line, why do we not build it ourselves ? It must he evident to every member of this House, it must be evident to even a novice in railway matters, that if we wish to control rates effectively, if we wish to 'resist the almost overpowering influence of great corporations which the exMinister of Railways and Canals described ; the only way to do so is for usi to step in and supply a railway upon which we establish rates which will be beneficial to the people of the North-west Territories. What is our experience in the North-west ? Each and every one of the branch lines which we have constructed there has been absorbed by the main line, and it has been the experience of many countries that the construction of a number of railways does not of itself tend to reduce the rates. New railways will facilitate settlement and open the country, but when it comes to freight rates, these rival lines bind themselves together, and it is impossible to obtain the reduction in rates desired, except where the government intervenes with the object of benefiting the people and fixes a rate which will control the rates charged by existing lines through the same territory. In view of the large extent of line which the government is undertaking to build and the grave doubt as to the paying character of that line, it would have been far better for the government to have undertaken the building of this whole railway, and thus afford to the people of the North-west the undoubted benefits which low freight rates would confer upon them. Let me call the attention of the House to the fact that the theory is rapidly gaining in the American republic, that the time has arrived for governments to cease giving aid to railways, and in the constitution of a great majority of the states there is a provision against granting state aid to any railway. In Canada, where great reasons do not exist as in the present case, for the government intervening, we should refrain entirely from aiding railways in any shape or form.
The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has laid great stress upon the advantages of an all rail route for carrying grain. My information is that the vast bulk of the grain of the North-west is carried out of that country during the season of navigation, and it is an axiom in trans. Mr. MONK.
portation that grain can be carried by water at a far cheaper rate than it can be carried on railways. It is a known fact that to-day grain is carried from the western part of Lake Superior to Depot Harbour, to Midland, in fact to the eastern side of the great lakes, a distance of over 600 miles, for li cents, or, as I am informed, 1 cent a bushel; whereas the cost of carrying grain from Winnipeg to the shores of Lake Superior, a distance of 400 miles, amounts to over 12 cents per hundred weight, although I believe it is to be reduced to 10 cents on the 1st of October next, under the arrangements made by the Roblin government, or six times the cost per bushel of what it is over the waterway. The bulk of the grain being carried out during the season of navigation, and the rates being as they are, it seems to me that it is impossible for any railway, even constructed under the most favourable circumstances, to rival the navigation route; and as a result of that state of things, we find that scarcely 6 per cent of the grain which comes from the North-west is carried by rail. As a matter of fact, almost the whole of that grain avails itself of the water route; and therefore it is evident to me that the government, in the hasty course they have pursued in connection with this scheme, have failed to consider sufficiently the immense importance of the natural route which we have for the conveyance of that grain the moment it reaches the shores of Lake Superior down to the ocean ports within our own territory, whence it may be shipped abroad. I am informed that last year the amount of grain received by water in the city of Buffalo from the city of Chicago, a distance which could easily have been covered by rail, exceeded 74,000,000 bushels; which is proof once more, if any proof were required, that the navigation method of carrying grain will for a very long period in the future be superior to the rail-carrying method. Under these circumstances, after having spent such large sums as we have spent in improving our water routes from the lakes down the St. Lawrence to the city of Montreal, after having spent millions in the construction of canals, with the great question still unsolved-but I hope not entirely abandoned, of a canal along the Ottawa river, that canal known as the Georgian Bay canal-it seems to me that the government have been very hasty in arriving at the conclusion involved in the scheme proposed by the right hon. leader of the House. When we reflect on the large amount we have spent on the Intercolonial Railway, when we recollect what the attitude of this government was in 1897, when that road was extended from Levis to Montreal, the reasons advanced at that time by this government, and the hope entertained by the country generally that that step was only the first towards

carrying out the larger scheme of extending the Intercolonial Railway to the shores of the great lakes, it seems to me that in this project we are launching upon far too great an expenditure, an expenditure which the data at our command and under our observation does not in any sense justify.
Let us for a moment consider what is the cost to which we shall be put by the carrying of the railway through the mountain section. In this connection it is worthy of note-it has been stated already in this House-that there has been no demand in the province of British Columbia for the construction of this transcontinental railway. In regard to that province we have fulfilled every pledge to which we were bound when it entered confederation. We have never heard in this House any demand from that province for anything further in the way of a transcontinental railway ; but we have heard many demands for railways within the province, and any one who knows anything about the condition of affairs there knows that in order to utilize the large mineral wealth which that province possesses, it is necessary to build within the limits of the province railways to which possibly aid may be expected from this government. But taking the project itself, I think we may fairly assume that in connection with the mountain section we shall be obliged to furnish the full extent of the guarantee which is contemplated by the contract, and that section will cover a distance of about 600 miles. Those who have taken the trouble to refer to the very able report made by Sir Sanford Fleming in 1877, will find in that report a reference at length to the pass which it is contemplated that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will cross when entering the province of British Columbia through the Rocky mountains. He will find that Sir Sanford Fleming estimated the cost of the construction of that line at over $50,000 a mile ; and we may safely assume that under the present conditions of labour and the increased cost of materials, that estimate can be in no way reduced. We have, therefore, to furnish a guarantee of $30,000 a mile for a distance of 600 miles, amounting in the aggregate to $18,000,000. The interest upon that sum at 3 per cent for ten years, which is the time limit during which we may be expected to pay the interest, amounts to $540,000 a year, or, for the whole ten years, $5,400,000. That is the extent of our liabilities in regard to the mountain section, and I think the House will easily come to the conclusion by the time this discussion has advanced a little, that the estimate of $13,000,000 as being the total amount of cash payments which this government will have to make in connection with this contract, is far below the true mark. Five million four hundred thousand therefore is the amount which we will have to pay in connection with the regular mountain section, a section of railway for which no cry has been heard from the distant province of British Columbia.
Leaving the section of railway which traverses the prairie and) the Rocky mountains and coming to that portion which the government is to build, what do we find ? My right hon. friend has given us a most attractive picture of the region which that railway is to traverse on its way from Winnipeg to Quebec. Where did he get his information ? Where does he find his proof that this region is rich in agricultural lands, mineral resources, water powers and forests ? I have examined the report of Sir Sanford Fleming, and I do not find in that report anything to corroborate the glowing description given by my right hon. friend. The surveyors and engineers found here and there settlers who had grown vegetables. They found in places some rich agricultural soil, and they found trees in abundance, but we have no evidence whatever that the land is so adapted for settlement and that the climatic conditions are such as will justify our spending over $50,000,000 in the construction of a railway across that country. Nothing in that region, as far as I have been able to find, justifies in any sense the description given by my right hon. friend. And if we turn to later reports, there is one to which I may invite attention. I refer to the report of the survey and exploration of Northern Ontario in the year 1900. Although there is a rather flattering general summing up of the reports of the surveyors, who were deputed by the Ontario government to visit that region north of Lake Superior, it is impossible to go through these reports one by one and come to any other conclusion than that the greatest doubt exists as to the utility of that region as a place of settlement, which will justify the expenditure contemplated. I have no desire to belittle that region any more than I would the corresponding region in my own province, but we have not yet sufficient information to justify us in saying that it is one which should claim our attention at present'in lieu of other regions which we know something about. The same remark will apply to that portion of my own province intended to be traversed by this railway. A very interesting movement has been in progress in the province of Quebec since several years. The exodus of the people of that province to the United States has not diminished in a noticeable degree, but within the past few years a group of patriotic men in the province of Quebec, irrespective of party, men who have no private interest to serve, who have only one object in view, the keeping of our own population within our province, have been at work obtaining the moral assistance and help of the citizens of the province of Quebec. And what have these men achieved ? They have found back of the city of Montreal, in the great region


S539 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
watered by the Saguenay river and Lake St. John and the rivers flowing into that lake, millions of acres which are unoccupied at present. But that region, to which we should at present devote all our attention, is not the region to be traversed by this railway. The region which this railway will cross is one unknown to us and unknown also to the right hon. gentleman. It is impossible for him or any member of the government to give us any precise information regarding the country where this railway is to pass, far beyond the height of land in the province of Quebec, over 200 miles from Montreal and 80 miles from the most distant settlements, such as St. Gerard de Montarville and St. Michel des Saints. This road will run fifty miles away from that region, and therefore will be of no help whatever to these men who are ready to lay before the government clear and precise information regarding this vast and unsettled region in the province of Quebec, to which they are seeking to attract our compatriots and prevent them from going to the States. That is the position with regard to the province of Quebec. There is not a man in the province of Quebec who has taken any interest in that great and noble movement inaugurated there some years ago for the purpose of settling the northern portion of that province and that portion from the shores of Lake Temiscamlngue down to the centre of the peniusula of Gaspe, who would not stand dumfounded if you proposed to him, as a help towards the carrying out of that patriotic scheme, a line of railway passing over one hundred miles from any known region in that province. And upon that score, if upon no other, I, for my part, do condemn that part of the railway which it is alleged is intended to help us towards these settlements of the province of Quebec, but which can be of no help whatever. Mr. Speaker, that movement to which I have referred, which perhaps exists in some degree in the province of Ontario, but I think not in the same degree as it exists in our province, for the same conditions do not present themselves -that scheme of settlement of our province covers the whole valley of the Ottawa, it extends throughout the entire valley of the St. Lawrence, north and south, and, as I stated a moment ago, it extends down to the county of my hon. friend from Gaspe, where, as I was informed when I visited that region, a few miles from the coast in the interior of that great peninsula, there is a fertile plateau in which there is room for over fifty parishes of settlers. This being so, what aTe the present needs of the province of Quebec if we wish to stem that tide of emigration to the United States which has been flowing so long? What we need in our province is colonization roads to afford easy access to those regions which are known to us, and the only obstacle to the settlement of which is the want of Mr. MONK.
proper means of communication. And I venture to say here that we do not need great expenditure. Let the government take this scheme to heart, not only in the province of Quebec, but in all the older provinces, which have done a great deal, and are ready to do still more, to help the settlement of the regions of the west. Help the west, but do not forget that something must be done for ourselves also. Let the government consider that by aiding roads in the province of Quebec, not to the extent of giving money, but by guaranteeing bonds for from thirty to forty years upon the many branch lines which are necessary if we wish to utilize our country, the country would incur less expense and would do a more patriotic and more legitimate work for the province than they are doing by spending over $50,000,000 in running a trunk line through a region with regard to which we know nothing, and which we are not ready to penetrate, because we must first cover the intervening ground. If I am right in my judgment that, as long as we have our natural facilities, as long as we have these splendid waterways which help to convey the products of the west to _ the sea and the merchandise of the east to the settlement of the west, we cannot compete by rail. ' Oppo-suit natura '-we cannot do it. We are driven to the conclusion then that it is the second part of this which is applicable in these regions, it is for the purpose of settling that we are opening them. Is it not the part of wisdom, then, before we spend-speaking more particularly for the province of Quebec-over $50,000,000 (over $65,000,000, I say) to build this line from Winnipeg to Quebec, to consider, if it' is the settlement of the province that we want, whether it would not be better for us to incur a far smaller liability and a liability which we shall never be called upon to pay any more than we shall be called upon to pay our guarantee upon the prairie section. to afford facilities for this legitimate policy of colonization which has been inaugurated in our province, and which must be carried out if we wish immediately to contend against the flow of emigration to the United States. Holding as I do-I frankly declare it-that it would have been far better for us to take our own valuable property, the Intercolonial, and extend it immediately to the great lakes, believing that that could be done at a cost of less than $15,000,000, at a cost far less than will be necessary to construct the eastern section under this scheme, I must say I view with regret the determination of the government to spend such a large sum as $50,000,000 in constructing a line where, as I said before, looking at it as a member from the province of Quebec, it will not be half as useful as would have been the construction of branch lines within the limits of that province. Take up a map of

the province of Quebec, and you will find that on the south shore of the province the counties extending south are settled in the northern parts. Means of communication are required to reach fertile regions in the extreme portions of those counties. Take the northern shore, and the same condition is found. At the present moment, in the vicinity of Montreal, we have counties the northern parts of which are fertile, are known to be fertile, which have a few struggling settlements, but which require merely railway communication in order to become as productive, as rich and as prosperous as other parts of those counties. It would have been wise, it seems to me, to turn our attention in that direction rather than do what the government has done. And I have no doubt that, when we come before the electors of that province, and particularly those of regions that have a just right to ask at the present moment that something should be done to put them on the same footing as other citizens of this great country, that consideration will have some weight with these people, even if it has not the weight it deserves to have before this House.
Now, as regards the cost of that road, the eastern 'section from Winnipeg to Quebec, my hon. friend from North Norfolk . has laid down the condition that it should be a perfect road, a road that should be able to haul something like forty or fifty cars, in fact it should be a road comparing favourably with the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto. Well, if that is to be the standard of construction, I venture to say that the cost of that road from Winnipeg to Quebec will far exceed any of the calculations so far offered to this House. I venture to say that after you have given the necessary allowance for curvature-and there is a good deal of curvature, not only in this projected road but in the policy itself-after you have given the proper allowance of curvature, and all we know of that region is that it is filled with lakes, mountains and waterways, you will find that the distance covered by that line over which trains will run from Winnipeg to Quebec, will be no less than 1,600 miles. Now, if we are to make that road ,of the character that is to be required for it by my hon. friend, would it be possible to build it for less than $35,000 a mile ? The Intercolonial itself cost us more than that, and if it is to cost us $35,000 a mile for 1,600 miles, then the amount we will have to pay as regards interest upon expenditure will amount to $16,800,000. That is the amount which we will have to pay in interest during those ten years, if I am correct in the statement that the road covers 1.600 miles and that it will cost $35,000 a mile to construct it. If we add that interest to the amount we will be called upon to pay in connection with the mountain section. $5,400,000, we arrive at a total expenditure
from which we cannot escape of $22,200,000, instead of the sum of $13,000,000 which was mentioned as the utmost expenditure to which we were liable according to the right hon. gentleman when he introduced this measure.
Now, Sir, no mention has been made of the expenditure which would meet us as soon as we arrive at the city of Quebec ; no mention has been made of the way in which we are to cross the river St. Lawrence. Poetic as was the flight of my right hon. friend, he did not go so far as to say that these trains of 50 cars would be able to cross the St. Lawrence with the help of the wind. We will require a bridge, and no mention has been made of that bridge so far, yet I think it has been thought of by those who projected this great scheme. What are we to do in regard to that bridge, Mr. Speaker ? What will it cost us ? So far that bridge has cost about $1,000,000. The city of Quebec has given, if I mistake not, $500,000, the province of Quebec has given, I think, a similar sum, or perhaps more. Are we going to buy that bridge the construction of which has been begun but has ceased, if I mistake not, through want of funds, I believe the bonds of the Bridge Company, the president of which is the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec and the friend of my right hon. friend-the bonds, if I mistake not, have been handed over at 60 to the contractor of the bridge in order to satisfy him to a certain extent for the amount of work done.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: Does my hon. friend know that this bridge at Quebec was promised several years ago by Sir Charles Tupper V


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend seems to assume that I am opposed to that bridge. He forgets that I took quite a different position when the question of voting money for a bridge at Quebec came up. I am very glad to see a bridge there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thank you.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At the same time, I think my hon. friend will admit that we have some claim for a bridge at Montreal also. He will not deny that, and I am sure he would be favourable to any project by which we could get a bridge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You have one already, but I would object to any Armstrong scheme.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have no bridge, but I hope we shall get one. Now, Sir, in my opinion, before we cross the St. Lawrence and touch the Moncton section, we will have to spend a very large amount of money upon the bridge at Quebec, and that item of expenditure has not been considered. I will not be rash, I think, when I say that before we have communication from the north to the south shore of the St. Lawrence at Que-

bee, we will be about $5,000,000 out of tbe treasury. If I am exaggerating, I will be be glad to admit it when that part of tbe transaction is carried through which regards the bridge at Quebec. I am not opposed to the bridge, I will be glad to see it finished, because at the present moment it is not being finished. But it will cost a good deal to finish it, and when we are considering a scheme of this kind, though we may neglect the consideration of hundreds of thousands of dollars, we cannot afford to neglect the consideration of millions.
Well, Sir, we cross the St. Lawrence and we come to the Moncton section. That part of the scheme has been fully treated by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and therefore I shall not take up much time with it. But let me give to the House the distances that I find over that very expensive section of road which the government contemplates constructing. I have not found out these distances myself, but they are furnished to me by men who are not only conversant with that section of the country, but are railway men of experience. At present, as has been said, the distance from L6vis to Moncton is 488 miles. Now I assert, subject to contradiction by members of this House, that the distance from L6vis to Edmundston via the Temiscouata district, is 196 miles ; and from Edmundston to Moncton via Chipman, it is no less than 204 miles. Therefore it is apparent that we are building this branch, which at no portion of its line is more than 50 miles distant from the Intercolonial, over the whole 400 miles-we are building it to save 88 miles. By the projected line of my hon. friend the distance is 400 miles, and by the Intercolonial at present it is 488 miles. Now I am informed that by building what is called a cut-off, or an air line from Riviere du Loup to Matapedia, we would save 65 miles, -and from Matapedia to Moncton the line is not very straight, and can be shortened a good deal. Therefore, in building from Riviere du Loup via Matapedia we have a total distance from Levis to Moncton, with the cut-off, of 423 miles ; the distance from RiviSre du Loup to Matapedia being 110 miles as against 177 by the existing line from. Riviere du Loup to Matapedia. We have therefore a distance with this cut-off of 110 miles, passing through a country which is most desirable for settlement, a country through which my hon. friend from Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) obtained a charter to construct a railway from the legislature of Quebec during the last session and here also at Ottawa. So necessary did my hon. friend think that line to be that he obtained two charters, one at Quebec and one at Ottawa, to reach that fertile region and where the construction is easy the line covering a distance of 110 miles, from which I am led to the conclusion that in order to save these 23 miles, because that is what it means by the cut-off, we are building a railway Mr. MONK.
which is going to cost us at the very least $37,500 a mile for over four hundred miles of territory and we are going to do incalculable injury to our own property, the Intercolonial Railway. Whatever may be the expenditure of the government upon the new line, whether that expenditure amounts to $15,000,000 or not it would be better to grant a sufficient sum to improve the grades and the construction of the road by which we will be able to save these 23 miles in time. In other words we are expending $15,000,000 perfectly uselessly on the construction of a line and the effect of that construction, view it as you may, cannot but be a cause of injury to the Intercolonial Railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension as to the charter obtained for a railway In the county of Gaspe. The line for which a Charter was obtained will run from Causapscal to Gaspfi Basin, but I think he refers to another charter which was obtained from the Quebec legislature during last session for a line running from Fraserville to Paspebiac. If he refers to that charter I can tell him that I am not interested in it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say my hon. friend was interested in it, but I am strongly of the impression that there are special charters given for a line running from Riviere du Loup or Fraserville-these places are very close to one another-and covering this country, because this is an admirable country for settlement and it requires a railway. By building that cut-off of 110 miles the distance will be shortened by 60 miles even if we left in Moncton. But we are building 400 miles of railway at a cost of $15,000,000 just to save 23 miles. Our own road is a good road. The road from Levis to Matapedia and even to Moncton is a very much improved road as compared with former days and can carry very great loads of freight. I fail to see what can possibly justify us in rushing hurriedly into the construction of a line as to which we have no information. It is not located, we have no survey, we have no estimate, but we are safe in saying that line cannot cost less than $37,500 per mile. It crosses, I believe, three watersheds, a great number of hills, a range of mountains and it passes through a country where construction is very difficult; in fact, even with this expenditure, I question very much if it will be possible to give to that line the easy grades and solid road-bed that our own Intercolonial Railway has for 423 miles between Levis and Moncton with the cut-off at Rivi6re du Loup. Now, I have promised to be short and I wish to conform to the precepts so well laid down and so ill-observed by the hon. member for North Norfolk, but I wish to say that it seems to me under these circumstances to be an immense expenditure. It seems to me that with an expenditure of $65,000,000 on the eastern

section of the road from Winnipeg to Quebec, say what you like as to our receiving interest upon that amount, we are borrowing the amount, we are increasing the public debt, and, although we own the property-property as to the value of which I have grave doubts-still, we owe that amount and therefore I think it is right to continuously bring the attention of the House and of the country generally to this enormous expenditure.
I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that since the expenditure is to he incurred we have not reserved unto ourselves not only the ownership but the management of the whole line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The ideas which my hon friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) expressed so often when I was first in this House, have gained ground to an extraordinary degree. They are occupying the public mind throughout the world and I have no doubt that before many years we will regret this transaction by which we have alienated from our control this transcontinental line for at least fifty years. I therefore view with regret that part of the contract. And, Sir, corporations have no souls. This road is passing under the control of a company whose capital is not in this country; it' is English capital and that capital as employed in this country is entirely under the control of American management. X make no imputation whatever against the men who are leading in the management of the Grand Trunk Railway, but there is no doubt that the Grand Trunk Railway will control this corporation and certain it is that ultimately the control of this line will be in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway and that management is American. They have vast interests in lines in the United States. They own lines in the United States and they have spent millions in improving their terminals at Portland and it would be very difficult for people who know something of that company to believe that they are ready to abandon these terminals. I believe myself that with the facility of outlet that they have they will find means of escape from the elastic clause in the contract in regard to Canadian commerce, Canadian ports, and a Canadian highway, and under these circumstances and knowing with the limited experience at my command how difficult it is to control the operations of these great railway corporations I say it is a matter of regret for me that the control has been given to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and I believe that before long a very strong conviction will exist throughout this country, at any rate in my own province, that we would have done better if we had determined to take up our Intercolonial Railway where it is and to bring it at a cost of less than fifteen million dollars to the shores of Lake Superior, to improve our waterways, to improve our ports, to im-268
prove the St. Lawrence route, and spend the rest of the money which I claim we are going to waste in an unknown country, there instead of spending it in a region as to which we have insufficient data.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker. There is one ground upon which this great project may be opposed with some appearance of reason, and I congratulate my hon. friend (Mr! Monk) on having discovered it. We are submitting to parliament a proposal for the construction of a great transcontinental railway stretching from ocean to ocean through British territory, and about 3,500 miles in length. A portion of that line will run' through the prairie lands of Manitoba and the North-west; a country which nobody questions is in need of railways. These Prairie lands are fertile and fruitful, and we all recognize that they will supply traffic to a railway. But after all, that is only a small part of the scheme. This line starting from the very heart of the settled districts of the lower provinces, after leaving the city of Moncton will plunge into the unsettled interior of New Brunswick; thence, turning the corner of American territory, it passes through the settled lands of the province of Quebec, reaches the St. Lawrence at Levis, and crossing the new bridge will pass through the historic ancient capital of Canada, and thence once more plunge into new and undeveloped territory. Again in the far west, it will touch Winnipeg, and once more plunge into new territory, and so on and on, always touching far as practicable at the large centres on the way, but always striking out again into new and yet undeveloped Canadian lands.
Now, Sir, if we were to believe that this vast area of Canadian territory is a miserable, worthless and God forsaken country ; if we were to believe that such are the . conditions prevailing in 3,500 miles across this Canada of ours, then hon. gentlemen opposite are right in opposing this measure. But, if on the other hand, we believe that this line will open up new districts valuable for agriculture, if we believe that it will open up valuable tracts of timber-more valuable to-day than ever before when we consider the fast diminishing forest areas of this continent-if we believe that it will open up rich mineral districts - in Ontario, and Quebec, and through tbe mountains of British Columbia which are known to teem with mineral wealth; if we believe that it will bring into industrial use the vast water-powers of this Dominion which become more and more valuable every day as science advances; if we believe that throughout this 3,500 miles of country we have a territory worth owning, then we must believe that this is a good scheme, and, Sir, we are proud to proclaim ourselves as supporters of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we are approaching this project without information, and we are asked if there are any surveys. Let me ask these gentlemen : Dffi they require surveys when in the year 1871 the Conservative party accepted the responsibility of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, and of making it a part of the treaty with British Columbia 1 We have more information concerning this proposal to-day than Canada had in 1871 when she accepted the responsibility of that treaty. If there be any difficulty to be met with in this case, it is not because of lack of information, for there is abundance of information. The greatest difficulty which gentlemen opposite will experience will be in digesting the great mass of matter bearing on this question which can be found in the archives of the public library.
The eastern part of the line was surveyed many years ago; the country between Winnipeg and Quebec has been examined and reported upon to a very large extent by competent explorers. The prairies are no longer an unknown land. The mountain passes of British Columbia have been examined and their character is well known and understood. Though we may have no locateu line to assist us, yet as the Prime Minister said, there are mountains of information available to those who will take the trouble to seek it. To state that we have no information on this subject is absolutely unjustified by the facts.
I suppose, Sir, that if there is one part of this scheme which is being more strongly opposed than another, it is that part of the railway which it is proposed shall run from Moncton to Quebec. I have no doubt that in the western part of the Dominion we shall hear that talked of more frequently than any other section, but at the same time I have no doubt that down in the eastern provinces we shall hear a great deal about this worthless country in Ontario which we are going to build a railway through. And, notwithstanding the speech of my honourable friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, I do not think we shall hear much in the maritime provinces against this project of a railway from Moncton to Quebec. However, I fully expect that when the time comes when we have to meet our opponents on the platform in the lower provinces, we shall hear a great deal about the wild country in Ontario in which we are to squander money. Be that as it may, we have to ask our friends in the east and in the west to give and take in this matter, and to believe that in both cases the country is not so worthless as it is represented to be, but that it is a country worth owning and worth developing. One would think from what has been said about this Moneton-Queliee section that it was absolutely new and unheard of, a mad and a crazy scheme. We are asked, who


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: shall be so mad as to ask that another railway should be built from the waters of the St. Lawrence down to the lower provinces ? Well, Sir, so far as this part of the scheme is concerned, the line upon which it is proposed to build this road today, is practically one of the three main lines that were examined, and reported upon, and recommended by the surveyors for the Intercolonial Railway as far back as 1864. And yet, gentlemen opposite seem to treat this project to-day as something new and unheard of. We have some information about it in the report of Sir Sanford Fleming, made nearly forty years ago. We are told to-day that this road will be of no value. At that time Sir Sanford Fleming pointed out that the shortest line and the most direct line for through-freight that can be obtained from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the lower provinces, is by what was called the frontier line running close to the state of Maine, and then he said, that next to that there was the ' central line,' and the ' central line ' of Sir Sanford Fleming's report is substantially and practically the line on which it is now proposed to build the railway. These are Sir Sanford Fleming's words :
The central route would, next to the frontier line, be the best for the transportation of through-freight, and as a means of colonizing the country and developing its natural resources it would stand in the first position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And, Sir Sanford Fleming also reported ;
The settlement of the province has naturally enough followed its navigable waters ; on the south by the Bay of Fundy and its inlets ; on the east by the coast and bays of the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; on the west by the river St. John which extends and to some extent is navigable almost to the extreme north-westerly angle of the province. In consequence, New Brunswick may be said to be populated as yet only along its outskirts. There is a vast area in the interior unoccupied, not because the soil is so much more uncultivable than elsewhere, but because it has hitherto been, and is still, inaccessible.
That condition of affairs to a very large extent prevails to-day, although a great many years have passed since that report was prepared. In the lower part of the province the Canada Eastern line stretches from the River St. John across to the gulf, and there are here and there one or two small branch lines; but practically the great part of the Interior of the province of New Brunswick described in Sir Sanford Fleming's report of that day is still inaccessible and not open to settlement; and the reason why it lias not been settled has been, to use Sir Sanford Fleming's own words, ' not because the soil is so much uncultivable than elsewhere, but because it has hitherto been and still is inaccessible.'


James Clancy: That does not mean that the soil is not inferior by comparison.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: By comparison with what ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has just read that it is not by reason of it being so much more uncultivable, but by being inaccessible, which, of course, means that it is not as cultivable as other land.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, Mr. Speaker, all the lands of Canada are not equally fertile or valuable to the farmer ; but even if they are not all equal to the lands of the prairies, there are millions of acres in Canada which we expect to be occupied by settlers, millions which are to-day occupied .by settlers, even though they may not be what the hon. gentleman would call the superior lands. I will quote further from Sir Sanford Fleming's report of 1S64. I may say that there are three routes described-the frontier route near the state of Maine, the central route, which is the subject of the present discussion, and the route along the Baie des Chaleurs, which was afterwards adopted for the Intercolonial Railway. Sir Sanford Fleming says :
The central route will have the least population to accommodate Immediately along the line. Indeed, between the Mirarmichi and St. Lawrence there is only one settlement, which consists of a few families on the Tobique river. By opening roads, however, to the east and west, the county of Restigouche and the valley of the St. John *would be easily reached and a considerable portion of the trade of these sections brought within the influence of the railway. A line through the centre of New Brunswick would take the supplies for the lumber trade and would rapidly settle up the large tracts of cultivable land in this district.
You see, he considered it quite cultivable.
A railway so situated would, as a line of communication, have similar effects on the trade and progress of New Brunswick as the River St. John has had, with this additional advantage, it would be open all the year instead of half of it.	'
In much less time, it is believed, than has been occupied in settling and improving the lands which nature made accessible by the river, would the artificial means of communication result in populating the interior of the country through the greater part of its length, and thus develop and foster a traffic which does not now exist.
Such was the view held by Sir Sanford Fleming as far back as the year to which I have referred.
The cry lias been raised that this line should be objected to because it parallels the Intercolonial Railway. We claim that it does not parallel the Intercolonial Railway ; but for the sake of argument, we will assume that it does. Is that a conclusive argument against its construction ? I>o we refuse to parallel lines in this country ? Have we not granted parallel charters and parallel subsidies all over Canada? Have we not, during this very session, laid down the policy in the Railway Committee 268*
that charters may be granted for parallel railways so long as they are thirty miles from other railways ? Where has this parliament laid down the principle that we shall not grant charters or subsidies or assistance of any kind to parallel lines ? If we are prepared to grant parallel charters and subsidies in other cases, why not in the case of tlip Intercolonial Railway V What reason is there for treating the Intercolonial Railway in a different way from other railways in that respect ? Am I to be told that it is a good thing to parallel company roads, but a bad thing to parallel the Intercolonial Railway ? Am 1 to be told that because this is a government road we must nurse and protect it, and give it freedom from competition which private capital has to submit to ? Are we to tell investors in the railways of this country that they shall have their capital imperilled by charters and subsidies to other railways, but that we shall take care that our own road shall not be subjected to any such competition ? Surely we are not prepared to take that ground. Surely, if we grant charters and subsidies for parallel lines in which private capital is invested, there is no reason why the Intercolonial Railway, because it happens to be a government road, should be free from the competition which other roads have to submit to.
Suppose that instead of having built the Intercolonial Railway around the north shore, this favourable report of Sir Sanford Fleming had been adopted, and the Intercolonial Railway bad been built by this central route, what would have been the position to-day ? Undoubtedly the towns on the north shore would always be of some consequence, on account of their accessibility to the ocean ; but without railway communication they would not be in the flourishing condition that they are in today. Some of the prosperity that has come to them by reason of the railway communication they enjoy would have come to the people who would have settled along the central route, and that country would have been opened up and developed in the manner suggested in Sir Sanford Fleming's report. What then ? If the people of the north shore were coming to this House today and asking for a government grant of subsidy, or for government construction, or for some other means of giving them the benefit of railway communication, would we be able to meet them with the statement :	' Oh, no, we cannot give you a
railway, because it will parallel the Intercolonial ' ? Surely we would have been bound to extend to that section of country in the course of time the benefits of railway construction. And as in the beginning we built the Intercolonial Railway by the north shore and gave the people there the benefit of railway construction, surely the time lias come, whether it will parallel the Intercolonial Railway or not-and I want to

deal with the worst view of the case- when we would be justified in building a railway through that unsettled country which has been described so well in the report of Sir Sanford Fleming.
Well, Sir, does the proposed railway parallel the Intercolonial Railway 1 That question has been dealt with by my right lion, friend the premier, and there Is no need of my dwelling upon it. From the way in which this expression, paralleling the Intercolonial Railway, has been used, one would think that because two roads start from a common point and end at a common point, they may be said to parallel each other, even though they go around the opposite sides of a circle. There is no paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway by this road. After it leaves L6vis it is out of the way of the Intercolonial Railway at once. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says that it never gets farther away from the Intercolonial Railway than fifty miles. I am advised by competent authorities that there are places where it will be S8 miles from the Intercolonial Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will it not take a large share of the trade which now goes over the Intercolonial Railway to Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am prepared to say that even if it does, that is no argument against the construction of the railway. When the Canada Atlantic Railway was the only line running directly from Montreal to Ottawa, and we were asked to aid the Canadian Pacific Railway to construct a line between these two cities, we did not consider whether the two roads paralleled each other or not ; and after the Canadian Pacific Railway line was built, the company proceeded to parallel their own line with another one. To-day you have four railways between Ottawa and Montreal, if I may include the road running to Prescott, all aided hy the government of Canada, and nobody seems to be very much aggrieved over the question of any of them being paralleled. Whether the Intercolonial Railway is paralleled or not, and whether this new road will take traffic from it or not, affords no argument against building the new line, opening up a new section of country, and doing something towards settling the unoccupied lands of the province of New Brunswick. If a road starts from Montreal or Quebec and runs to a point in the maritime provinces, and another railway which it is proposed to construct between those points is to be regarded as a case of paralleling, what happened when the Intercolonial Railway was paralleled in that sense by the construction of the short line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Did toe hon. gentleman stop to see whether it took any traffic away from the Intercolonial Railway ? No, that question did not count for anything then. There was no question then about paralleling


William Stevens Fielding: the Intercolonial Railway, or about competition with the Intercolonial Railway. Nobody cared anything then about the rights of the Intercolonial Railway, and our hon. friends in opposition were prepared to spend money liberally in building another line, which was not even a line completely on British territory.
There was another phase to that scheme. When it was adopted by the Conservative government, it included a branch which was to run from Harvey to Salisbury. Salisbury is a station close to Moncton, so that the Harvey and Salisbury line was of the same character as the one we are proposing to build now. The only [DOT]difference is that ours is to start in Quebec and go direct to Moncton, and the other was to start at a point further down on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and cross from Harvey to Salisbury. Why ? To serve the very purpose for which our projected road is intended to-day, namely, give another short line to the maritime provinces. There was no talk then about paralleling the Intercolonial Railway.


James Clancy: Was that a trunk line ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see that that makes any difference. It was a line which was going to carry freight, and might have taken freight from the Intercolonial Railway, but that never worried the souls of the hon. gentlemen who sat behind the government of that day. There is another view of the case. This so-called Har-vey-Salisbury line was deemed to be of so much importance to the maritime provinces that I believe I am justified in saying that but for the putting of that section into the scheme the Bill would have never been carried through parliament. I am assured of that by people who were familiar witli the facts at the time, and I do not believe that you would have had a member from the eastern part of New Brunswick or from the province of Nova Scotia, on either side of politics, who would have voted for that scheme at that time had they not the assurance that that line was to be built. Well, as in many other cases, the expectations created by hon. gentlemen opposite were not realized. The Harvey-Salisbury line was not built by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then the maritime province members began to complain to the government of that day that faith had not been kept with them, that they had been misled, humbugged and deceived ; and in the efforts to conciliate, the government of,that day brought forward a Bill to construct the Harvey-Salisbury line ns a government work. That line was to reach the very point we are now reaching, because Salisbury is a station but a short distance from Moncton. Although the starting point was not the same the object was the same, namely, to get a short line to Moncton. What followed ? The Bill passed this House, but by some misfortune

it failed to pass the Senate, and there the matter ended. The good people of the maritime provinces were humbugged. They were humbugged first by putting the building of this line into the Canadian Pacific Railway arrangement, and afterwards by putting it into a special Bill, which was quietly so managed that the Senate threw it out. Is it surprising that from that day to this there has been, in a large portion of the maritime provinces, deep discontent on this question of the short line ? The maritime provinces have not been content with the short line which runs through the state of Maine. We have no objection to that line. We have no quarrel with the Canadian Pacific Railway. But we say that it would have been a wise policy to have had a short line on British territory. That which the government of the party opposite intended to give but failed to give, a short line on British territory, this government, after the lapse of these years, has undertaken to provide as a part of a great national scheme and to make amends for the wrong done to the maritime provinces in the manner I have described.
If we were to judge from what was said yesterday by lion, gentlemen opposite and repeated to-day, this is a very mad Scheme, and one that was never thought of before. No engineer would ever contemplate such a line. No sensible person would ever dream of it. But I have already shown that it was recommended as a good line by Sir Sanford Fleming in the early days, and that the government of Sir John. Macdonald deemed a short line to Moncton so important that they incorporated it first in their arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and afterwards made it the object of a special Bill. But that is not the whole history of this matter. Later on there were other negotiations respecting this road. After the government arrangement fell through, the Grand Trunk Railway came forward, in association with the people connected with the Temiscouata road. They asked for a subsidy for the building of a line from Edmundston, which is on the Temiscouata road, down to this very place, the city of Moncton. Yet we are told that the scheme was a mad one. One would imagine, to hear lion, gentlemen opposite, that no sane man would ever dream of such a thing. Well, the Grand Trunk Railway, under the management of Sir Joseph Hickson, believed so much in that scheme that they entered into negotiation with the government. in association with the Temiscouata Railway Company, to construct it over the very route we propose to-day, only they proposed to begin at Edmundston instead of at Levis. They came here and sought a subsidy. I have information, on which I can rely, that Sir John Macdonald personally approved of that scheme and was willing to grant a subsidy of $10,000 per mile to the company to build that road. I
have reason to believe that my statement is well founded, and the men to whom the promise was made can be found, if it be disputed. I do not say the government as a whole made the promise, because in the final settlement influences were brought to bear which led to the scheme being abandoned. But why was it abandoned ? Was it because it would parallel the Intercolonial Railway ? Not a bit of it. It was abandoned, not because it would parallel the Intercolonial Railway, but because it would compete with the new Canadian Pacific Railway short line. That was why the government of that day refused to grant the desired aid. I am not making any accusation against the government of that day, nor am I finding fault with the Canadian Pacific Railway. That company had recently built a short line to the maritime provinces, and thought it a little too much that it should be met immediately by an opposing line. We can make some allowance for. the stand then taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway, but many things have passed since then, and I think the Canadian Pacific Railway have no reason to-day to view this scheme W'itli disfavour. Any anxiety which they had in the beginning of the enterprise no longer exists, and we have no reason to suppose that they are hostile to this scheme. We are told that it is a mad scheme, one which nobody has ever thought of. Well, the board of trade of the city of Quebec passed unanimously resolutions in favour of that scheme and calling upon the government to aid it. The board of trade of Halifax also passed resolutions calling on the government to support that scheme with the public money. The board of trade of Truro passed similar resolutions. Were all these people mad? I happen to have under my hand the resolutions of the board of trade of Truro, which I may quote as a sample of the public opinion which existed in the maritime provinces then in favour of the very enterprise which the government propose to-day. On the 14th of February, 1890, the board of Truro passed the following resolution :


Mr. FRASER.: On what day ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On the 14th of February, 1890, St. Valentine's day. They passed this valentine and sent it to their representative at Ottawa :
Resolved, That the Truro Board of Trade learns with interest of the proposed extension of the Grand Trunk Railway system to the maritime provinces connecting with the Intercolonial Railway at or near Moncton, thus giving a competing line to the west as well as a short line and one on all British territory, and hereby requests the Dominion government to afford all possible aid to promote the success of the undertaking ; and further .
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to our Dominion representative at Ottawa for presentation to the government.
G. CLISH, President.
G. A. HALL, Secretary.

No wonder my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley), whenever he stands up here, sounds a loyal note. He comes from a loyal town and tliis Is a loyal resolution. As I had the pleasure of knowing both gentlemen, I desire to say in fairness to them that they are both good, staunch Conservatives of the town of Truro.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No doubt, that will add materially to the scheme that was outlined by the Tories first.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: It was outlined by the government of Sir John Macdonald, but like too many outlines these outlines faded away as time passed on. The lines were obliterated. They lasted long enough for the scheme to serve in one or two elections in the maritime provinces, but the promises made were never realized. What I wished to call your attention to, Mr. Speaker, is that in all these negotiations to which I have referred, the same thing is seen. In the negotiations with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the beginning they were to have a line which was to include a line from Harvey to Salisbury, which is near Moncton, and the Bill was carried through this House to build the line from Harvey to Salisbury, near Moncton. And the Grand Trunk scheme that I have referred to was to build from Edmundston to Moncton. In all these negotiations Moncton was the objective point, as it is to-day. Why is Moncton the objective point ? Some lion, gentlemen talk ns if the great object, and the only object was to build the shortest and most direct line to the ocean. And my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) asked yesterday if this government were going to build this Eastern line, why did they not build it by the shortest line to St. John. There was applause on the other side of the House. There are n number of reasons why Moncton is the right point. One of the reasons is that if you want to get the shortest line from the waters of the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean, you will not go to St. John, because that is not the shortest line. My hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganoiig) will endorse this, because the shortest line from the waters of the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic is to the port of St. Andrews. Therefore, the idea that you must go to St. John, because it is the shortest line is an entire delusion. I know that some hon. gentlemen have been influenced by that. The shortest line to the ocean is an important consideration, but it is not the only question involved. Other interests are entitled to receive consideration, and they did receive consideration in making this arrangement. There are various reasons why we should go to Moncton. In the first place, it is the centre of the maritime provinces, as near as we can get it. The actual centre of population is further east, probably in the


William Stevens Fielding: county of my hon. friend from Cumberland, possibly further east in the county represented by my hon. friend from Colchester. But, to reach that centre you would have to parallel the Intercolonial; it would be an actual parallelling, and we do not propose to do that. Moncton is the most convenient centre of connection for the million of people in the maritime provinces. Now, important as the grain traffic is, and we all recognize its importance, it is only one object to be considered in the making of a national transcontinental railway. We may believe, we are bound to believe, that this million of people in the maritime provinces will have something to send back to the west, and besides, there is the passenger traffic which must be considered. We do not think it wise to single out one port and give it a monopoly. Moncton is the most convenient point, and from it all the ports in the maritime provinces are most easily accessible. It is convenient to St. John. It is nearer to St. John than it is to Halifax. So far as the ocean port is concerned, St. John Is placed on at least equal terms; as I say, it is nearer to Moncton than Halifax is. We must leave the two harbours to argue the question as to their respective merits: but Moncton is chosen because it is the central point of all the maritime provinces. There are other harbours besides Halifax and St. John that are entitled to consideration. Those who had the pleasure and advantage of hearing the discussion of the Grand Trunk Bill in the Railway Committee will remember that Mi-. Hays, the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, when asked about the use of the harbours of the maritime provinces, said that if the western country developed at its present rate, as we have no doubt it will, the time is close at hand when we should need, not one, but three or four harbours to serve the traffic coming from the west. We are not building for to-day, we are building for the future as well as for to-day; and it was sound policy on the part of the government to take as their objective point a point on the Intercolonial Railway in the very heart' of the maritime provinces, which gives easy access to St. John on the one hand and Halifax on the other, as well as to Sydney and Louisburg, both of which are oit the line of railway communication, and to Country Harbour, w-hich is the objective point of a line of railway now under charter, and to Whitehaven, one of the harbours in the lower provinces which will take its place some day as one of our prominent Eastern harbours. The policy of the government is not to select one port, but to select a central point from which access may be had to all the harbours in the lower provinces. I think our friends in St. John have no reason to regret this; I am sure that St. John will profit largely by the construction of this line. As I have said, it is nearer to Moncton than Halifax is, and when the trains come down

from tlie west they are as likely, if they want to go to St. John, to go over this road as they would be to go over the Intercolonial, which is much longer. The people of St. John have shown great enterprise in the past. They have invested their own money in providing harbour facilities for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I rejoice to know that they are reaping the reward of their enterprise. But they are dependent wholly upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. They have connection with the Intercolonial, but we know that the Intercolonial and its connection, the present Grand Trunk, have no connection with the great west, and therefore the Intercolonial is not in a position to deliver at St. John the traffic of the western country. With this road built, instead of being dependent on the Canadian Pacific Railway only, St. John will have two strings to its bow. Not a pound of traffic that goes to St. John now will be taken away, and St. John will stand its chance of getting a fair share of the new traffic to be created by this road. Halifax, with its peerless harbour, will have advantages which it has not hitherto enjoyed. Surely, Sir, the time has come, after years of deception, humbugging and trickery about the lines to the maritime provinces, that faith should be kept with these people, and they should have a through line running on Canadian territory from ocean to ocean.
' I have given you so much with regard to the history of the past. Perhaps, before six o'clock I may have time to say a word with regard to what is going on at present. We are told that this is a mad scheme, a wild scheme, that nobody would place faith in it, that no business man would believe in it. Bet me read a resolution passed on the 23rd day of July last, relating to this scheme :-
Whereas, objection having been taken to that part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme which provides for,the building of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton, N.B., this board desires most emphatically to reaffirm its previous declaration (appended hereto) that no scheme of government transcontinental transportation will be either adequate or equitable to each province of the Dominion which does not ensure the carriage of Canadian products through Canadian ports in winter as well as in summer, and regards it as imperative that stringent guarantees to carry out that policy should be exacted by the government.
We further maintain that the construction of the road west of Quebec without ensuring its continuance east through Canadian territory would be manifestly unjust to the maritime provinces.
This board is also of the opinion that the building of the shortest possible line through Canadian territory from Quebec to Moncton, N.B., would be of immense advantage to the maritime provinces, as well as to the rest of Canada, and would secure for the road a large share of through freight and passenger business,
which at present is done through United States ports.
(Sgd.) JAMBS HALL, Vice President.
CHARLES M. CREED, Secretary,
This resolution was passed unanimously a few days ago by the Halifax Board of Trade.
I noticed that when my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways was referring yesterday to the danger of this scheme dismantling the Intercolonial Railway, doing harm to the Intercolonial 'Railway, his words were received with wild applause on the other side of the House. They were pained, I suppose, to hear that there was any danger of the Intercolonial Railway being starved or interfered with. My hon. friend the ex-minister must have experienced a new sensation when he received these cheers from the other side, for he must have remembered that session after session, and year after year, the efforts that he made to benefit the Intercolonial Railway, the efforts which this government authorized him to make and supported him in making, for building up the Intercolonial Railway, were opposed by the hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. the ex-Minister of Railways said that we had better spend this money in equipping our harbours with elevators and terminal facilities ; an<l again the applause came from the other side. I think, Sir, if we could have read the mind of the ex-Minister of Railways at that moment we would have seen that he recollected the fact that when this government made a moderate provision for terminal facilities in his own city of St. John, when they put up a modest elevator in St. John, and another modest elevator in Halifax, instead of hon. gentlemen opposite supporting us and asking us to give further terminal facilities and equipment in the way of elevators, they declared that the money was wasted. Then my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways was very much disturbed by the fear that the workshops at Moncton were going to suffer, that the workmen were not going to be employed, that there was not going to be money enough spent down there. Again, Sir, the applause came from hon. gentlemen opposite, and the ex-minister must have thought to himself, why did I not have these cheers when I was providing the money for these workshops ? Why was it that for seven long years when this government was pouring out money liberally, and as hon. gentlemen opposite said, lavishly, for the upbuilding of the Intercolonial Railway, why was it that we had nothing but flouts, and jeers and sneers from the men who were cheering him yesterday ? Sir, I can assure the ex-Minister of Railways that he need not worry about the Intercolonial Railway, for it is safe In the hands of its friends, the present gov-

eminent; and may Heaven preserve it if the time ever comes when it has to depend upon the tender mercies of the hon. gentlemen who cheered him yesterday, and who for seven years have done everything they could to tie his hands and to prevent the development of the Intercolonial Railway.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 244) respecting the Western Assurance Company-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to ratify the agreement bet ween the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the construction of a national transcontinental ra ilway.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Speaker, when the House suspended its sitting at six o'clock I was making' some reference to what is called the Moncton section of this proposed road-the road from Moncton to the city of Quebec, I endeavoured to point out that this road would serve a good purpose in opening up a country, the development of which is desirable and necessary. I endeavoured to point out that there were no particular difficulties in the way of construction and that while opening up a country which is capable of development we would at the same time obtain a shorter line through the province of New Brunswick which certainly is not a disadvantage, but in regard to which we may all agree in saying, I think, Sa much the better. I pointed out that Moncton had been chosen as the objective point because of its central position, because it affords by means of the Intercolonial Railway easy access to all of the important harbours of the maritime provinces. Moncton is in the eastern portion of the province of New Brunswick within a short distance, comparatively speaking, of the Nova Scotia boundary. It is very close to the point of communication with Prince Edward Island. There are two principal channels of communication between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. One is from Pictou in the province of Nova Scotia to Charlottetown and the other is from Point de Chene in the province of New Brunswick across to Suinmerside. The crossing from Point de Chene to Summerside is at a point quite near to Moncton. The traveller going down there and desiring to cross to Prince Edward Island would leave the Intercolonial Railway at a point a very short distance from Moncton. So, in locating Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
Moncton as the central point we have a point in the eastern portion of New Brunswick, near the Nova Scotia boundary, in close touch with the communication with Prince Edward Island. In that way in so far as any one point can serve the purpose, Moncton seems to fill the bill better than any other place we could have named. I do not say in this connection that 1 agree with all that has been said with regard to the original location of the Intercolonial Railway. It is sometimes spoken of as a political location. I suppose that term may be used in a good sense or in a sense of reproach. I am inclined to think though that there were high political reasons which could be and were urged in favour of that location. For myself I do not hesitate to say that if to-day we could have only one line of communication between the upper and lower provinces, I should prefer to have the lino of the Intercolonial Railway around the north shore. If you could have only one line then that line should be chosen not purely for commercial reasons but for larger national reasons, and I may say even for imperial reasons. The selection of the north shore route for the Intercolonial Railway at the time of confederation was to some extent based upon national reasons and to some extent based upon imperial reasons. It was deemed desirable that the line should afford a channel of communication between the east and the west and that it should be a sufficient distance away from the American boundary to make it what we sometimes call a military line. I think that is a reason which the whole country will sympathize with. Then, there was an imperial reason in connection with finance. Owing to Canada's splendid position to-day her credit is of such high standing that we need not look for a guarantor or endorser when we go into any transaction ; our position is so good that we need not seek for an imperial guarantee or attach much importance to it. But, while that is the condition to-day with the magnificent prosperity which our country has enjoyed for a number of years, that was not the condition at the time of the union, and the imperial guarantee was then deemed of sufficient importance to play an important part in the transaction. It was deemed desirable that the imperial government should give a guarantee to assist the Intercolonial Railway. While I do not go so far as to say that they would have refused to give the guarantee if another location had been adopted, it is probably not too much to say that when the government did determine to locate that road around the north shore they knew it was agreeable to the imperial authorities who for imperial reasons favoured it. However, I take the position that if we could have only one line to the maritime provinces that one line should be practically the location near the north shore

of New Brunswick, and I do not join in the opinion of those who think now that a mistake was made.
My right lion, friend the leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in his reference to this Moncton line, dwelt for some time on what he regarded as an important feature in connection with the bonding privilege. He said that this line would make us more independent of our American neighbours. That view has been scoffed at by some hon. gentlemen who point out that we are not really dependent on our American neighbours because we have access to our own seaports by our Intercolonial Railway, and that there is also another line by which we can get down to the sea. Though we may be independent in a limited degree of our American friends, 1 think we ought to make it plain to them that we are determined to be even more independent than we are. There was no part of the eloquent speech of my hon. friend that I admired more than his statement to the effect that the best possible way to live on friendly terms with our brothers to the south of us is to have them understand that we are determined to be absolutely independent of them. It is true that in some respects that we have been more independent of them as respects the bonding privilege than perhaps they were aware of. But we have been told that, because the bonding privilege is a mutual one and because it is of advantage to American railways as well as to the railways of Canada, we need not be alarmed that any change will take place. I believe that the fact that a thing is of advantage to one set of people in the United States is not always conclusive evidence that that condition of affairs will continue. I have no doubt the high tariff of the United States is a burden to many people living in certain sections of the country, but; while the tariff operates with particular severity upon the people of this section, it is regarded with favour by the people of other sections and I have no doubt by the majority at large. So the people of any particular section are obliged to bear the burden for the common good, and I have no doubt that if it suited the policy of our American friends to carry out the threats they have repeatedly made of the abolition of the bonding privilege, the fact that such action would be injurious to one particular set of men or to certain railway companies would not prevent them from carrying out that policy. Therefore, I say it is desirable that we should give our American brethren to understand that Canada is resolved to work out her independence in these things, that the present proposal will promote this object, and that even if still another railway should be necessary we shall be prepared to construct it. The attitude that the government has taken upon this subject and the speech which my right hon. friend has
addressed to the House on the subject has already attracted much attention across the border, and there is a much keener appreciation of Canada's independence than ever before. I read to-day in one of the great journals of the United States, the ' New York Journal of Commerce,' not a political journal, but a commercial journal:
What more particularly interests and concerns us now is the determination of Canada, at whatever cost, to be independent of the United States for the means of reaching the eastern and western seas with the products of her territory	Our policy has been anything
but liberal, though a liberal policy would have been as much to our advantage as to that of Canada. If we exclude or restrict her trade, keeping it from passing freely into and over our territory, we must expect her to provide for it elsewhere and ought to admire the spirit and determination with which she does it.
That, Sir, is a specimen of what is being said in the journals of the United States to-day. I agree with the hon. gentlemen opposite when they say that we have not been wholly dependent upon the United States for the bonding privileges. I believe we had some levers, but I am strongly convinced that these levers would not be powerful in the event of a great movement arising in the United States which might take the form of hostility to our country. Therefore in the interest of Canada to-day, as well as in the future, it is well that we should let our friends across the border understand, that whatever measure of independence of them we have now we shall maintain, and that we shall increase that measure of independence by the line that we are now proposing, and should the necessity arise, we shall not shrink from providing another.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no idea, Sir, that I shall be able to settle the dispute as to the saving in mileage between Quebec and \Mtpnctou. Whenever a line is not absolutely laid down there is always room for discussion on that point, but I shall assume for the present that the mileage between Quebec and Moncton is somewhat longer than it has been supposed to be by some hon. gentlemen. I am advised on good authority that an air-line from Moncton to Quebec-that is, if I may .use the expression air-line, where you have to go down to the point where you turn the American territory, and then take another air-line to Moncton-taking the shortest air-line you have from Quebec, or rather from Chaudiere, to Moncton, would be 351 miles, and to this you have to add for curvature 10 per cent, making it 386 miles. I do not fail to remember that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) said there was a great deal of curvature in this road, and a great deal of curvature in the policy. I accept the compliment which my hon. friend of course

did not intend, because no doubt he forgot the fact that from the point of view of the artist and designer, the curve is the line of beauty..


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Taking an air-line and allowing 35 miles for curvature, we would have 386 miles as against 496, which is the mileage from the Chau-diere to Moncton by way of the Intercolonial Railway. That would give a saving of 110 miles. That is a little less than the saving claimed by some hon. gentlemen on this side, and a good deal more than the saving claimed by hon. gentlemen opposite. But while I give these figures upon competent authority, I am not disposed to stand strictly by them, and for the purpose of the calculation that I shall make later, I propose to treat the mileage of that road as being in round figures, 400 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: Having regard to the natural obstacles, what does the hon. gentleman say the saving is ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised that a line of about 400 miles will probably accomplish the distance. Taking an air-line and adding 10 per cent, as engineers do in an ordinary country, it would give 386 miles, but I am going to treat it for the purpose of my financial calculation as a mileage of 400, because I wish to be absolutely fair in any argument I shall make.
The section from Quebec to Winnipeg has also been the subject of much discussion, and efforts have been made to show that the country through which this road is to run, is a country unworthy of our consideration. I stated this afternoon that the only ground on which I think hon. gentlemen opposite could fairly oppose this road with some show of reason, would be upon the assumption that this vast territory is absolutely worthless. We differ from that opinion, and we think that the territory is deserving of 'development. We think also that the representations that have been made, as to the very expensive character of this section for railway building, are entirely mistaken. We believe that the information which is available justifies us in saying that that portion of the country, speaking generally of it, is not one of great difficulty for railway building, but is one through which a railway may be built at a very moderate expense, and that it has resources which we ought to develop in order that we may build up the Dominion at large.
In the course of the surveys that were made for the Canadian Pacific Railway, it was found that a railway north of Lake Nipigon could be built at a very moderate cost, but it served the purposes of the company to go along the shore of the lake, Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
where the construction was very expensive. I believe that the records will show that the Canadian Pacific Railway could have been built at a much less expense if it had been built on the elevated plateau which lies behind Lake Superior and Lake Huron. The information we have on that subject is very clear. There is no difficulty whatever so far as we can learn, in obtaining a good location there, and the only reason that location was not adopted by the Canadian Pacific Railway was, that they wanted to avoid building a long branch down to Lake Superior. The reports all go to show that while on the lake shore the country is rough, rugged, and unsuitable for railway construction, when you go back a short distance into the country the conditions are much more favourable. In Sir Sanford, Fleming's report of 1S74, he says :
Although the general aspect of the country-east of Lake Nipigon as seen from Lakes Superior and Huron, is precipitous and rugged, to the rear of this wild and rugged frontier the surface descends northerly in easy slopes. So much is this found to he the case that in passing from Lake Nipissing to Lake Nipigon through the entire country the ascent to the summit level will actually he less than that which is experienced in passing through Toronto across the peninsula of western Ontario, by either the Great Western, the Grand Trunk, the Grey and Bruce, or the Northern railways.
That region was surveyed by Mr. James II. Rowan, in connection with the government survey of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and this is what he says of the condition of that country :
The principal physical difficulties to be contended with in the construction of a railway throughout the whole section of country under consideration, are the great extent of water encountered on the route, its rocky character and inaccessibility It is nevertheless believed that a very direct line could be obtained with quantities of excavation and embankment not exceeding the average of railways already constructed in other parts of the Dominon. The last difficulty could be overcome to a considerable extent by means of the knowledge of the country already obtained. There are not many large rivers to he crossed on the line proposed, and of these not more than three or four will require bridges of 200 feet span. Timber of good quality and in sufficient quantity fcr the various purposes of a railway can be obtained either upon the line or in its neighbourhood. The gradients will be favourable too, in no case exceeding one foot per hundred, or 52'80 per mile. Of these maximum gradients the percentage will be small.
That is not so good a line as my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) hopes we will get, but it is as good as a number of the lines we have in Canada to-day. Again Mr. Rowan says:
It is not a mountain range but merely an elevated plateau, and one remarkable peculiarity connected with it is in the numbers of lakes which occupy its summit, whose waters can easily be diverted and made to flow either the one side or the other.

Further on Mr. Rowan says :
The character of the country is very similar in the neighbourhood of either side of this elevated plateau, but outside that margin the difference as regards its adaptability for railway construction is very marked ; for while to the south it is broken up by hills of considerable altitude, with lakes intervening, of all shapes, sizes, and some of great depth, to the north it is comparatively level and swampy.
The greater portion of the country explored is covered with a dense growth of moderate sized timber, consisting of balsam, spruce, poplar, white birch, some tamarack, and occasional groves of white, but principally red pine, while at many points there are indications of valuable mineral deposits.
And in a foot note concerning mineral deposits, the report says :
Iron, copper, lead and gypsum in large quantities : silver also has been found ; and the Indians say there is coal or lignite, which statement is borne out to some extent by a remark of Mr. Bell's in a geological report on the Albany river.
Now, if I wish to dwell a little further on the condition of the country between Winnipeg and Quebec, I do so because I am satisfied that by and by, in certain sections of the Dominion, we shall bear not so much about the Moncton section, but we shall he told, as we were virtually told today by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that that country is a subArctic country, that it is not fit for settlement, and that we should not attempt to build a railway through it.
'Mr. MONK. I do not think that my hon. friend is quite fair. I said that we knew nothing-about the country, and that there was nothing in the reports to confirm the statements of the Prime Minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is mistaken. We know a lot about the country. I have been giving him- information from the reports of the explorers and surveyors, who tell us what they know about it; and I am going to give him some more. The hon. gentleman says we know nothing about the country. Why, the whole country has been explored and surveyed for several years by parties sent out by the Ontario government, and here we have their published report. I shall not inflict a great deal of it on the House, but in order that those who have not access to it may know what they say about the country, I shall read some extracts from it :
The results of these extensive explorations, as detailed in the elaborate reports sent in by the surveyors, the land and timber estimators and the geologists, have fully justified the most sanguine expectations in regard to the natural wealth and fertility of northern Ontario and demonstrated the wisdom of the action taken, whereby some accurate knowledge of the character and extent of its enormous undeveloped resources has been acquired'. It has been established beyond controversy that in the eastern part of the territory north of the height of land
there is an immense area of excellent agriculture land, apparently equal in fertility to any in older Ontario, with an equable and temperato climate and an abundance of wood and water, which render the inducements it presents to those in search of homesteads as good as those offered anywhere else on the continent. The apprehension entertained by some that our forest resources were very limited has been contradicted by the exploration and estimation of extensive pine areas on the southern slope, as well as the location of great forests of spruce and other varieties of pulpwood north of the height of land, which will enable this province to take a leading position in the commercial -world as regards the growing and remunerative pulp and paper-making industry. While the geological examinations have not resulted in any new discoveries of economic minerals (and it was scarcely expected they would), they have been of -material service in identifying and establishing the character of the different rock formations and locating promising indications as a guide to closer investigations in the future. Analyses of the peat taken from the extensive deposits in Nipisslng have conclusively shown its high qualities and economic utility, and established the value of this great natural store of fuel, which will probably make it useful in the industrial development of the country.
Then, under the head of Agricultural Lands, the report says :
The great clay belt running from the Quebec boundary west through Nipissing and Algoma districts and into1 the district of Thunder bay comprises an area of at least 24,500 square miles, or 15,680,000 acres, nearly all of which is well adapted for cultivation. This almost unbroken stretch of good farming land is nearly three-quarters as great in extent as the whole settled portion of the province south of Lake Nipisslng and the French and Mattawa rivers. It is larger that the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware combined, and; one-half besides of the state of New York. The region is watered by the Moose river, flowing into James hay, and its tributaries, the Abbittibbi. Mattagami and Missinahie, and by the Albany and its tributaries, the Kenogami and Ogoke. Each of these rivers is over 300 miles in length, and they range in width from 300 or 400 yards to a mile. They are fed by numerous smaller streams, and these in turn drain numberless lakes of larger or smaller size, so that the whole country is one net-work of waterways, affording easy means of communications with long stretches fit for navigation'. The great area of water surface also assures the country against the protracted droughts so often experienced in other countries. The southern boundary of this great tract of fertile land is less than forty miles from Missinahie station on the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and the country north of the height of land being one immense level plateau sloping off towards James bay, the construction of railways and wagon roads through every part of it would he a comparatively easy matter.
Under the head of Climate the report
says :
Another important fact established by the explorations is that the climate in this northern district presents no obstacle to successful agricultural settlement. The information obtained completely dispels the erroneous impression that its winters are of Arctic severity

and its summers too short to enable crops to mature. The absence of summer frosts noted by the explorers and the growth of all the common vegetables at the Hudson bay posts must disabuse the public mind of this erroneous impression. The 50th parallel of latitude passes through the centre of the agricultural belt, and the climate is not much different from that of the province of Manitoba, lying along the same parallel, with this exception, of course, that the winter js tempered by the great spruce forests and the presence of so large a proportion of water surface. The country, too, has an abundance of wood for fuel, building and commercial purposes, and plenty of pure water every where.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend allow me ? I specially referred to that introduction to the reports, and I said that I had read the ten reports, and that it seemed to me that the very fine impression made by the introduction was not borne out by the reports themselves.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to leave my hearers and readers to judge what is borne out by that which I have read from the official report issued by the government of Ontario.	.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman say who that is signed by ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is published by the government of Ontario.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will find that there is no signature to it. It is a mere comment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not expect that criticism. This is a document issued by the printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for the province of Ontario.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: From Mr. Stratton's department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not a blue book, but it is what is called a blue book, though in colour it is somewhat different from our blue books, and it is headed :	' Report of the Survey and Exploration of Northern Ontario, 1900; printed by order of the legislative assembly of Ontario.'


Mr. BROCK.: Absolutely cooked.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Wc< can stand tlie condemnation of that country from my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, hut we do not expect it from the member for Centre Toronto.


William Rees Brock: I did not condemn that country. I condemned the report which the hon. gentleman was palming off on this House as a report from either the government or an individual. It is not a report. It is merely cooked up for political purposes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, well, well. This report is three years of age. It was issued in the year 1900, and, although I have not followed the affairs of Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
the province of Ontario perhaps as closely as my hon. friend has, I have never before heard any question raised as to the good faith of this report. It would he a marvel to me if an official document


Mr. HEYD.: Was there any objection made to this report by the opposition in the legislative assembly ?


William Rees Brock: The whole thing is a humbug.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot answer my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Heyd), but I am bound to say that when I find this report issued as an official report of -tlie government of Ontario I give it the same faith and credence that I would give an official report issued by the government of any British colony. I hold in my hand a volume of the Geological Survey Reports for 1877-8. This particular report is by Dr. Robert Bell. It is headed ' The soil of the country between Lake Superior and James Bay.' :
In my report for 1875, I gave a general account of the soil, &c., in the region between the great lakes and James' bay. Following the canoe route from Michipicoten to Moose factory, the country is more or less1 rocky as far as Missinabie lake, yet even in this . seotion the proportion of rock-surface to the whole area may be comparatively small. But after passing the ' Swampy Grounds ' north of Missinabie lake, the traveller cannot fail to he struck by the abundance and the general fertility of the soil exposed in the banks of the Missinabie and Moose rivers all the way to Moose factory. It consists mostly of a brownish, somewhat gravelly loam or earth, resting upon ' till ' and sometimes upon stratified clays or the solid rock, which, however, is seldom seen, except at the principal rapids and falls. But in the central third of the section between Lake Superior and James' bay, or from the Brunswick to the Long Portage, a light-coloured clay usually forms the surface. I examined the country for a mile or two back from the river in several places for the special purpose of ascertaining the nature of the soil, and found it excellent In all cases, but tending to become more swampy in receding from the river in the Devonian region below the Long Portage. Samples of the soil were collected in a few places for subsequent examination. In traversing such a great extent of almost unbroken wilderness. one is apt to forget the possible value of this vast region for agricultural purposes. But the examples of the farms at New Brunswick house and Moose factory show, upon a small scale, what might be extended over a great part of the country. I have no doubt that at some future time this territory will support a large population.
It is a quarter of a century and more since that report was issued, and we think the time has come when that territory, capable of supporting a large, population, might well be opened up by the construction through it of a transcontinental line.
As to the method whereby this road is to be constructed, although it may be a repetition, let me state what the plan of the government is. We propose that a railway

shall be built from Moncton to Winnipeg by way of the city of Quebec as a government work, and be leased for a term of fifty years to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. We propose that the western portion, from Winnipeg to the Pacific, shall be built by the company itself. We propose that guarantees be given to the extent of $30,000 per mile for the mountain section and $13,000 per mile for the prairie section. With respect to the construction of the eastern division, we propose that that shall be brought about by the government through the agency of a commission, and that this commission be composed of three members, who will have full Charge of the construction. These commissioners will have large and ample powers, but there will be proper supervision by the government and parliament, as should be the case wherever public money is to be expended. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) called attention to what he calls an extraordinary clause in this arrangement. He said that there is a clause which enables the government to suspend operations on the eastern division. If that be an objection, he might as well have called attention to the clause which says that no money shall be spent until voted by parliament. Such an objection would be just as reasonable as the one he did make. It is the policy of the government to have the work done by the commissioners, but also to have the operations of this commission subject to reasonable parliamentary control. We provide that not a dollar shall be expended until the appropriations are voted by parliament from year to year. We provide further that in case anything unforeseen shall happen- which we do not anticipate-in case the operations of the commission be not carried on to the satisfaction of the government and parliament, the government shall have power to suspend operations until parliament meets and determines what further action will be taken. Yet this is the clause which my hon. friend says is a remarkable one, put in for the purpose of preventing the construction of the road.
What we regard as a very strong feature of the project is that it is to be carried out by practically the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. In an editorial published recently in a Conservative paper, allusion was made to the old Grand Trunk Railway, with its $150,000,000 of assets. I have not stopped to ascertain whether the figures are correct, and am willing to accept the statement that the old Grand Trunk Railway is one of the solid institutions of this Dominion, with its assets of $150,000,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, whatever may be the solidity, strength and power of the Grand Trunk, we have it all in the undertaking we are now submitting to parliament. Hon. gentlemen who have attended the meetings of the Railway Committee may remember that when Sir Rivers Wilson addressed that committee he made the
remark that the old Grand Trunk Railway would stand behind this enterprise. We have not been content that they shall stand behind it. We have required, and they have readily consented, that they shall be in it and of it and form the whole thing. We think it is to the advantage of this country to have the Grand Trunk Railway extended both east and -west, and we think it is far better that this enterprise should be in the hands of the old Grand Trunk Railway than of promoters who could be characterized as irresponsibles. It is only within the last few days that we have had the views of hou. gentlemen opposite themselves, but we have been led to believe by criticisms in the opposition press that the ground upon which they expected to attack this scheme was that some promoters would make a great deal of money out of it. Well, if. there be any means by which a promoter can make money out of this enterprise, I have yet to discern it in the Bill. Never was there a railway contract submitted to this parliament behind which there were men in a better position to undertake the work, and who gave better guarantees of their good faith and ability to carry it out.
We have required that the Grand Trunk Railway shall not only be behind this undertaking, but in it and of it. Every joint stock corporation is controlled by those who hold the common stock. So long as the interest on the bonds is paid, no one can take that control from them. We have provided that practically the common stock of this company to the full extent of $25,000,000, shall be held, not by promoters, not even by the old Grand Trunk Railway officials individually, but by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada itself. There are 250,000 shares of commons stock, of which 249,000 will be held by the Grand Trunk Railway, in its corporate capacity, and 1,000 only are available for distribution among those who may be qualified as directors. I want to know where there is a chance for promoters when they can only hold 1,000 shares against 249,000?
AVe are not much concerned as to what price the Grand Trunk Railway pays for the stock. That has been a subject of discussion, but I do not attach great importance to it. If the Grand Trunk Railway acquired that stock at a comparatively small sum and afterwards floated it on the market at a higher sum, that -would be a proceeding which might be open to objection. But the Grand Trunk Company must not only take this stock, but hold it for all time : they cannot put a dollar of it in the market. It is absolutely impossible to buy a share of that stock ; it must be held by the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself and no person can buy or sell a share. Where, then, comes in the chance of speculation ? We are not so much concerned, I say, as to what the Grand Trunk pays for it. They have to make some arrangements, and this stock will be one of the elements of the

transaction, one of the elements by which they must make some arrangements to raise a large sum of money. Be it noted that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company must pay at least one-quarter of tlxe cost of the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific. We do not guarantee the cost of that road. We do not pay for that road, as some seem to imply ; we do not guarantee the cost of that road. We do not even guarantee a portion without limit. With' respect to the western division, we guarantee three-quarters of the cost, not exceeding a certain sum. Our guarantee-not the cost of the road, but our guarantee-is limited to $13,000 per mile on the prairie section and $30,000 per mile on the mountain section. If the road costs less than the figures on which these guarantees are based, we only guarantee three-quarters of that cost, but if the road costs more-and some hon. gentlemen argue that it will be very expensive -we do not increase our proportion, but the company must provide the increased cost without limit so that the road may be finished. The Grand Trunk Pacific agrees to do these things. The next point to be considered, is how are they going to do this ? The old company-Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is to obligate itself, it is to guarantee the bonds of the new company in order to accomplish these purposes-the old Grand Trunk with its $150,000,000 of assets, quoting again from the opposition paper, guarantees the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific for whatever is necessary to make up one-quarter of the cost of construction. They afford this assurance for the new undertaking. It is a new company nominally, but the more you look into it, the more you see that it is one company. I do not object to the statement made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he said that these two companies were all 'the same red-headed boy.' We are rejoicing in the fact that these two companies are practically one, and that when we submit this project to the people of Canada, we are not submitting a project of irresponsible promoters, but a project endorsed not only by the good will and pious resolve of the Grand Trunk, but the Grand Trunk put their guarantee and all their resources at the back of the undertaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific. And every dollar they put into the enterprise in that way becomes mortgaged to the government as its own security ; and every man who puts a dollar into it in that way does it upon a second mortgage and with the full knowledge that the government holds the first mortgage. When you have a man proposing to invest some money in an enterprise on a first mortgage and when he is hesitating to do it another comes along and says :	If
you put in $15,000 on the first mortgage. I will put in $5,000 more on a second mortgage, that is a pretty good guarantee that the property is solid and reliable. Every-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
body connected with the Grand Trunk fully realizes that the government has the first mortgage on the whole undertaking, and every dollar put into the enterprise in the way of guarantee by the Grand Trunk in any way, is subject to the first mortgage of the government. Not only must the Grand Trunk, through this stock or by the issue of guarantee bonds, or in some other way- not only must this company, with the cooperation of the old company, provide one-quarter of the cost of the western division of the road from Winnipeg to the ocean, but it must provide $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock at its own cost. Not a penny of the guarantee of the government goes into this. The Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific by their association must not only provide the money for one-quarter of the cost of the western road, or more if the cost of the road is higher, but they must provide at their own cost, raising the money as they may, $20,000,000 for rolling stock. We have heard a question raised with regard to the position of the rolling stock. When the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) spoke of it the other day and referred to this $20,000,000 of rolling stock, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said it was a remarkable thing that only $5,000,000 of this was assigned to the eastern division, which would have the greater length, while $15,000,000 went to the other portion of the road. I think the hon. member rather missed the purpose of the assignment. It is not an assignment for operation ; it is not that only $5,000,000 of stock will be operated on the eastern division. The eastern division is in close touch with the existing Grand Trunk Railway, and, no doubt, the rolling stock of the two will move freely to and fro; the rolling stock of the old Grand Trunk will be used on the new line more freely on the eastern than on the western portion. There is no limitation to the use of the whole $20,000,000 of the rolling stock-it may be used over the whole road. But this $5,000,000 of rolling stock is ear-marked for the eastern division, as special security for the rental and operation of the (eastern division. It becomes liable with the other $15,000,000 worth as security to the country for the guarantee given, but beyond that this $5,000,000 becomes a special security for the operation of the eastern portion of the road. That is, we especially assigned this $5,000,000 worth .of rolling stock to the eastern section, not because there is expectation that it will be used only there, but because, whether it is used on that section or goes elsewhere, it will be ear-marked practically as the property of the government of Canada, mortgaged to the government not only for the general obligation of the company under this contract, but particularly for the operation of the eastern division. I think. Sir. that in these transactions the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the old Grand Trunk Company have given us

ample evidence of their good faith. And when I add that, in addition to all this, the government will have one director on the board during the time that this arrangement continues, I think it will be seen that all reasonable precautions have been taken to protect the government's interests.
I come now to the question of the standard of the road. As to the eastern division, no special standard is made, because that is practically under the control of the government. They have to build the road and they can make it any standard they please, if they agree with the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk and the government will have a common object. The government will desire to build as cheaply as possible in order to save money, and the Grand Trunk will want to build cheaply, because they have to pay the interest. But the Grand Trunk will desire it to be built substantially and there is no reason to doubt that the government and the company will come to an understanding as to the standard of the eastern division. As to the western division, the standard is to be remarkably high. It is to be that of the old Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto. Now, I regard that, upon the information I have received, as one of the very highest standards of railway construction on the continent of America. I do not think we could have selected in the Dominion a better standard than this. In a railway contract there are two ways of dealing with the character of the road. One is to make out elaborate specifications providing exactly how it is to be constructed. That may be conveniently done in the case of a short line. But, in the case of a long line, like this, it is better to have a standard accepted, and let the construction be tried by that. When the Prime Minister read from the contract that the standard was to be that of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto so far as that was practicable in the case of a new road, hon. gentlemen opposite laughed as if the qualifying words materially altered the condition. I am sure that on reflection those of the hon. gentlemen who have special knowledge of railroads will see that those qualifying words are absolutely necessary. It would be quite impossible by the expenditure of any money to produce a railroad equal to the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto within the space of five years. There are some things that can come only with the maturity of time, and a fully completed railroad is one of them. All you can do is to create a standard to which you will move up all the time ; you seek to get a railway which, on final completion will conform to the standard. It is in the case of a landlord renting his house. The house is finished and the tenant occupies it. In a year or two the house becomes seasoned, and the landlord can do things that he could not do in the beginning.
Now, we know that in the construction cf a road, in the anxiety to get a railroad built, some things are done which may be regarded almost of a temporary character. In one place you put in a trestle which, five or six years later you will fill up and make a permanent road. In another place you put in a small wooden bridge; in time when it commences to weaken you put in a steel structure, and so on. The road is not finished when its nominal completion takes place, but it may be finished as time progresses. The qualification which is put in in that respect does not differ from the condition made in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We had a standard there which was the standard of the Union Pacific Railway of the United States, but not of the Union Pacific Railway as it stood at that time. It was the standard of the Union Pacific as it was first constructed. I understand that the standard maintained between Montreal and Toronto is a higher standard than that which was required in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway. At all events, any railroad man will recognize that you cannot, in the construction of a new road, provide that it shall come up to the condition of an old and matured railroad; but you can lay out your plans and do all that it is possible to do to that end, and as time goes on you gradually bring the road up to that standard.
Well, we hear some hon. gentlemen opposite say that the government would have to maintain the eastern section-coming back to that for a moment. Sir, that is not correct at all. The government provide that the company shall not only maintain the western division which they are to build, but they shall maintain the road which we lease to them in the east. We will give them a completed road so far as any new road can be made so; but as years roll on, if the government, being in the same position as the landlord to whom I referred, desired to make improvements on that road, if they desired, having regard to the permanency of the road, to take out a wooden bridge and put in a steel structure, if they desired to fill up a trestle, or do one of the many things which hon. gentlemen opposite^ who are familiar with railways will understand better than I do, then the government will have the right to do that in the way of betterment; but it is entirely a matter of discretion for the government, and if they do that the cost of it is added to the capital of tlie road, and the Grand Trunk Company have to pay interest on that capital.
A point of some importance will be the dividing line between these several sections. The point of division between the eastern and western portions of this road is of course clearly defined. The government will build from the city of Moncton to the city of Quebec and then on to Winnipeg. From Winnipeg the western division of the

road to be built by the company begins, and runs out to the Pacific ocean. But there is to be a susdivision of the line, because the guarantee is only to be $13,000 per mile on what is called the prairie section, while on the mountain section the guarantee is to be $30,000 per mile. Now, the point at which the prairie section ends and the mountain section begins is not determined in this contract. It did not seem possible to determine it, but the contract sets forth the principle upon which it is to be determined in the event of any dispute. The point of division will depend to some extent upon the location of the road. We think, and I am going to assume for the purpose of the remainder of my speech, that that road will enter the mountains through the Pine River pass. If it should enter by any other pass the effect would be a difference or variation in the distance as respects the mountain section and the prairie section. The point becomes of some importance, as I have said, because we only guarantee $13,000 a mile on the prairie section, and the $30,000 a mile begins with the mountain section. The provision is made that engineers should determine the point at which the facilities of easy construction incident to the prairie road should end and those of the more difficult section of the mountain section shall begin. That is to be determined by the engineers, and in the event of a dispute, it will be a matter of arbitration. But it is purely an engineering question, and therefore we do not think we can do more than refer it to the engineers.
Much has been said in the" discussion regarding the running powers that are given to the government, as respects the Intercolonial, and to other companies. I think we may fairly claim that by this proposal we practically extend the Intercolonial Railway from tile city of Quebec to the city of Winnipeg. W'e provide that the government, as the owners of the Intercolonial, shall have the right to run its trains over this road which shall be leased to the Grand Trunk Company, and we may, if we wish, run our trains out to Winnipeg. We may even run them further than that, because even over the company's western line there are running powers. But inasmuch as the company will be our lessee as respects the road from Quebec to Winnipeg, we can provide for the running of Intercolonial trains, if we so desire, from the city of Halifax or the city of St. John out to the city of Winnipeg. Now, it has been said by some that there can be no such running powers as are there described ; other gentlemen have said there can be. To my mind it becomes largely a question of economy. I do not think there is any difficulty in doing it, it is a question of whether it will pay to do it. The Intercolonial will have a perfect right to apply to the controllers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and say :	We want


William Stevens Fielding: 

cific Railway Company in one of these sections, has stipulated that all the traffic that occurs on that road and on its brandies shall be, when not specifically routed elsewhere, carried through Canadian territory or by Canadian inland ports or to a Canadian port on the scean. My hon. friends on the other side of the House have rather scoffed at this. They have asked what guarantee we have that they will do this. Well, I grant you that it is somewhat difficult at times to bind a railway company. I have not more confidence than most people in corporations; still, I do not believe that gentlemen connected with corporations generally are pirates, and I do not believe that the people connected with this company have deliberately entered into this obligation with any intention of evading it or deceiving the government. I believe that the obligation they have given to us was given to us in good faith, that they have accepted the national responsibility which this condition involves, and that they mean to live up to the contract, and I am satisfied that we eau find means if necessary to make them live up to it. We may be told that we have not provided enough. Fortunately, we have a good test. We have the pleasure of knowing what hon. gentlemen opposite consider is a sufficient provision to make of that kind. While this matter was still occupying the attention of the government, while we were working out the details of this measure, there was before the Railway Committee a Bill respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific charter, and when it came from the committee to this House we had the pleasure of listening to a resolution moved by an hon. gentlemen opposite setting forth what kind of guarantee would be necessary to secure the national character of this road, what kind of a guarantee would be necessary to secure the shipment of this trade through a Canadian outlet. The hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) moved a resolution in this House and it was voted upon. This is what hon. gentlemen opposite have declared is a proper way to obtain this safeguard. They say : Put this clause, not in the government contract, but put it in the Grand Trunk Pacific charter, and all will be well. Here is the clause:
That the orde:1 for the third reading of Bill No. 64 be cancelled, and the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, in order that the following section may be added to the said Bill -'All freight originating in Canada, and received along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, intended for export across the Atlantic, shall be shipped through Canadian ports, when the route is not otherwise specially indicated by the shipper ; and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall carry all such freight to the eastern Canadian seaboard as cheaply as to any American port on the Atlantic seaboard.'
That is what hon. gentlemen opposite said should be done. Well, at the very time Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
that these hon. gentlemen were preparing' this as the embodiment of what was necessary to secure that purpose, we were placing not In the charter, but in the contract itself a clause to serve tbe same purpose, and there is not a line, or a sentiment, or a word in it that Is not expressed, and better expressed, In tlie contract we have made.
I have read tbe proposal of the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), and I have no doubt tbe House has carefully taken In its purpose. Permit me to quote the provision in section 42 of tbe contract and tbe section following :
42. 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 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 porta, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Here is an absolute undertaking on tbe part of this company that they will do everything that any reasonable man would ask in this connection. Ah, but we are told, they may dodge and evade this, you will allow them to ship traffic through American ports which is (specifically routed ; you don't prevent that. Neither does tlie motion of my bon. friend (Mr. Fowler). He recognized that tbe shipper can route his traffic as he pleases. The suggestion is thrown out that this company will humbug us and deceive us, and will take care that tbe freight is specifically routed so that it will not come to Canadian ports. That is tbe suggestion which has been made by some hon. gentlemen, but what does section 43 say ? :
43. 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 upon1 which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
In this we have the fullest possible guarantee that can be given, we have every guarantee that was included in tbe resolution that hon. gentlemen opposite voted for, but expressed more fully, more thoroughly, and more effectively. In the first piace, the company guarantee in good faith to do this thing ; In the second place they guarantee that they will not evade it in the way suggested, and in the third place, they put away temptation to *divert

the traffic by providing that the rates via Canadian ports shall be as low as the rates by any American port. I admit, Sir, that if the rates were not to be the same there might be a temptation, for in this export business I have no doubt that men will shape their actons on business principles ; but here we distinctly provide that no temptation shall arise for diverting this traffic, and -we say th*ut the rates via Quebec or Montreal, or St. John, or Halifax, shall not be greater than the rates which are charged at the same time by that company for export by way of the United States. I venture to say that in no contract that has ever been submitted to parliament have there been such guarantees given in respect to the handling of this export traffic.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked : What penalty was there provided 1 Well, there are all the penalties that there were in the opposition clause. These gentlemen opposite had thought this tiling out, and they did not think penalties were necessary. But in this agreement there are penalties, and my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) who is n lawyer, knows perfectly well that where the company have agreed to do this thing, if they deliberately violated their agreement, or if they evaded it in the way that has been suggested, there would be methods found to compel them to carry it out. My hon. friend could find these methods very readily, and I am sure that he could bring the company to justice. I say that they could be so worried and harassed by legal proceedings for the evasion of that agreement, that it would not pay them to do it, even if we could believe that they were deliberately resolving to break faith with the country. I would like to have my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) employed to punish the company, for I am quite sure that he would find a way to do it.
Now, some comparisons have been made between this contract and the contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I certainly shall not refer to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract with the intention of casting any reproach upon the policy of the previous government, but by way of illustration, I may make some comparisons in order that the public may more clearly understand the nature of the contract we have made. In the first place, it is worth remembering that the contract that was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was not a contract for a transcontinental railway at all. It was a contract for a railway which began about miles from the Atlantic tide water. This is a contract from ocean to ocean ; tliis is a contract which begins at the ocean at Moncton-because, although Moncton is not a deep water port it is an Atlantic port, and the men who start from Moncton on the
269J	1
trains will hear the murmurs of the ocean as the Bore comes in from the Bay of Fundy. This, Sir, is an ocean to ocean contract ; a contract for a truly transcontinental railway, and the other was only a contract for part of a transcontinental railway. Let us remember that.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a pro-Boer contract.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no. My hon. friend must not cast any reflection upon that Bore of Moncton. It is one of the things which recommend it, and under this contract we will take thousands of people there to see the marvellous waters of the Bay of Fundy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINSTER OF FINANCE.: Under this contract, let us bear in mind that we are giving nothing like the grants and exemptions that were given in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. In the Canadian Pacific Railway contract you gave 25,000,000 acres of land, the value of which I shall not enter into now. You gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in cash or by way of completed railways $62,000,000. It is worth while remembering, and it is a very important point, that we are giving no exemptions whatever from taxation to this company. We are not giving them an acre of land except for the purposes of the railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company not only got the laud necessary for railway purposes, but great tracts of land were donated to them besides. I am not arguing whether that was wise or unwise, but I am pointing out that under this contract we do not give an acre of land to this company except that we give them - the right of way through any government lands, and also whatever lands that may be necessary for railway purposes. Then the Conservative government gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption of taxation in the way of customs for a large portion of the things they needed for the construction of the road. Fox- many years after the Canadian Pacific Railway was consti-ucted, under the term of ' original construction,' the Canadian Pacific Railway received either free admission of goods at the customs, or they received what was still more, bonuses to compensate them for the goods that were made in Canada. We give no exemption of any sort in this contract. In the case of the Eastern road, the government will build it themselves and it will stand in that x-espect exactly like any other government work. If the government imports materials for the Intei-colonial Railway to-day the government do not go through the form of paying money into the customs house. If the government find it necessai-y to import any materials for the construction of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton, they would, in accordance with

the practice, not go tlirougli the form of entering the goods at the customs house. But, Sir, as this road is to be built by contractors, and the contractors will have to tender for the work, they will receive no exemption whatever. Therefore any man who has anything to 'do with the construc-. tiou of that road, if he imports materials, he will have to pay the duty, and if he buys the goods in Canada the Canadian manufacturer will have the benefit of the duty in so far as that is of any advantage to him. If you could imagine such a thing as the government bulding this road themselves, and if the government were importing materials, they would, as in the case of the Intercolonial Railway, not enter these goods at the customs house. They would be for the government service. But I say that even there we do not, as respects the eastern division, take any advantage of that, because we provide that it shall be built by tender and contract, and the contractors will not have any exemption, bul will have to buy the goods in Canada or else pay the 'duties if they see fit to Import them. When we come to the western division, we deal with the company. They will build the road, and will not have any exemption in any shape or form. They will not be at liberty to import a penny's worth of goods without paying the same duty that is paid by any private individual. The grant in the way of exemption from customs duties in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was a vast privilege. 1 do not attempt to compute it in money, but I am sure that it would run into a vast sum. We do not give any exemptions of any sort.
Now, I come to the financial side of this question. We propose to build, by the government, through the intervention of a commission, from Moncton to Quebec, a distance which I have estimated at 400 miles. You will remember that I showed that an air-line, with an ordinary allowance for curvatures, would make a distance 368 miles ; but in order to be on the safe side, I have put it at 400 miles. I am advised by competent authorities that, from the general knowledge possessed of that country, that road can be built at a very moderate cost. Prom Quebec or E6vis to near the point where the railway will leave the province of Quebec it can be built at a comparatively low cost. There is some expensive work in passing from the province of Quebec into the province of New Brunswick, and as you get into the province of New Brunswick, there are some portions which are moderately expensive. But I am informed that you can build a line through that country with maximum grades no less favourable than those on the Intercolonial Railway-though that is not as good a road as my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) wants-for $25,000 per mile. On 400 miles that would be $10,000,000.
From Quebec to Winnipeg I estimate the


William Stevens Fielding: distance to be 1,475 miles.. That is a larger mileage than some of my hon. friends have given. I am not trying in these cases to make the mileage small. I am advised by an engineer who has measured the distance, that in putting it at 1,475 miles, I am making a liberal allowance. I put that down at $28,000 per mile, which I am advised is a fair estimate. Remember that in both cases we are speaking of the road only, without equipment. That would make the cost of that section $41,300,000. Taking these two together, we have the estimated cost of the eastern division at $51,300,000.
Now, according to the principle which is laid down in the Railway Act, the interest paid during construction is a part of the capital. Every railway company constructs its road in that way. Therefore any money that we may pay during the course of construction is of course chargeable to the capital account, and the interest thereon is also added to capital. So that when the road is completed, it will represent in capital, not only the actual money which we have put into it, but also the interest wThich has accumulated in the meantime.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART, You have not got the interest during construction separate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The difficulty there, as my hon. friend will see, is that you can hardly tell what amount will be expended in each year. I have had a rough estimate of that made, and it can only be a rough estimate. In the first year, we would spend only a very small sum. After that the expense would increase very rapidly. We would spend $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 a year. Distributing the amounts over the period of construction in that way, I estimate that at the end of the period, instead of the capital of the road standing at $51,300,000, it would stand at $54,609,076. The annual interest on that sum would be $1,638,290.30. We would be out of pocket that interest for seven years. There is another period of three years to be considered during which the company has to pay us interest if the road earns the interest. If the road does not earn the interest, then any deficiency that may arise is an addition to capital account. Although we lose our interest on that portion for the time being, in the ultimate adjustment we get it back in the shape of addition to the capital account on .which the company would pay interest. Therefore what we are out of pocket is just seven years' interest on the amount of the capital as it would stand on the completion of the road.
My hon. friend the Prime Minister in the course of his speech said that we could meet the responsibilities of this contract bv setting aside the present year's surplus which is roundly stated at $13,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite have thought that was a rash statement. I am convinced that the figures I shall be able to give to the House

will show that my hon. friend's statement is substantially correct. If at the close of the year, when we are making up the accounts, we lay aside the surplus which will have accrued as stated in the budget speech, and subject to the improvement which we hope will take place in the final adjustment of the - accounts, and if, instead of using that surplus to build railways elsewhere, to reduce our debt, or in the many other ways in which we could use it, we place that $13,000,000 in the hands of financial managers, I hope to show the House that that money would meet every financial responsibility which the government of Canada have assumed under this contract. How is this brought about ? We have to consider not the mere multiplication of interest for seven years. What we have to consider is what use we could make of that $13,000,000. You have to consider the present value, as ascertained by actuarial calculation, of seven years' interest on the money we invest or the guarantee we give. In the case of this sum of $54,609,676, which will represent the capital account of the eastern division at the time of its completion, the annual interest is $1,638,290, and we will be out of pocket that interest for seven years. Now, if you apply to any actuary of repute in the Dominion and ask him what sum of money it will be necessary to provide to-day to meet the seven years' interest as it shall accrue, he will tell you that for the sum of $8,853,502 you can provide for those seven years of interest. That is to say, if, instead of managing our money ourselves, we turned it over to an insurance company or a trust company, or any other company which deals in annuities, and it invested the money on the basis of three per cent interest halfyearly, it would provide for that seven years' interest if we would give them now the sum of $8,853,504. Whether the calculation be right or not, hon. gentlemen can have it submitted to the test of any actuary. What X state is-talking of what we might do with our surplus of to-day-that we might out of that surplus take $8,853,000, and managed in the way I have described, pav our seven years' interest, as it shall accrue from time to time on the construction of the eastern division of this road.


John Graham Haggart: You are leaving out the Quebec bridge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am coming to that. I am speaking of things which are more definite. There is an indefiniteness about the Quebec bridge, but I propose referring to that later on.
The western division is divided into two sections-the prairie section and the mountain section. As respects the prairie section, we assume no obligation whatever, except the guaranteeing of the bonds, but my arguments are based upon the assumption
that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will' carry out its undertaking, and I think that it has given a sufficient guarantee of its ability and good faith in the large sums it is putting into the enterprise. Assuming that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company fulfils its obligations under the contract, and that we shall only be called upon to do exactly what we have agreed to, we assume no obligation in respect of the prairie section, because the Grand Trunk Pacific Company agree that, from beginning to the end, they will pay the interest oh that section. Then, Sir, we come to the question of the mountain section. Here we meet the difficulty of determining precisely where the mountain section begins. It is necessarily an indefinite point. It is a point where the easy methods of the prairie construction end and the difficult methods of the mountain section begin. That can be only determined later on by the engineer, but from the best information we can receive, it is probable that the easy facilities of construction which are afforded by the Pine River pass will lead to the railway being constructed through that pass. Assuming that the road will go through that pass, we are able to form a correct estimate as to what will be the particular point where the prairie construction would end and the mountain section begin. I am advised that should the road be constructed through the Pine River pass, the mileage on the mountain section will be 480 miles, on which we will provide a guarantee to the extent of 75 per cent on the cost of its construction, but no matter what the road may cost, our guarantee is not to exceed $30,000 per mile. We only guarantee our three-fourth, which may be less than $30,000 per mile ; but if it costs more the company must pay the difference. We do not guarantee at the outside more than $30,000 a mile, and, estimating the length at 4S0 miles, our guarantee cannot exceed $14,400,000. On that sum the interest during seven years is to be paid by the government, and during another period of three years it is dealt with in the way I have already described. All we are under obligation to pay is seven years of that interest. At the expiration of the seven years, the company will pay its own interest, so that we will be out of pocket seven years' interest on the mountain section, or interest on a total of $14,400,000, being 480 miles at $30,000 per mile. We have now to ascertain, by the same process as I applied in the other case, how much money we would need to provide out of our surplus to meet this seven years' interest on the mountain section. I find, by actuarial calculation, obtained from an actuary, that the present value of that is $2,334,575.90. That is to say, if we take $2,334,575.90 and lay it aside now out of our surplus. under the same process as I explained before, that will provide for the payment of seven years' interest on the mountain

section, as that interest shall accrue from year to year.
My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) lias referred to the Quebec bridge. At present that bridge is in the hands of a corporation which intends to constitute a bridge and terminal company. They expect that the traffic over it will enable it to pay a fair interest on the capital invested. We have already assisted it to the extent of $1,000,000, and I assume we will have to grant further aid. Whether the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had made a contract or not, whether we ever should build a transcontinental railway or not, the Quebec bridge has become a national undertaking, and in one form or other this government lias to see it through. As to what the government may do later, I am not in a position to say. Whether it would be wise to buy the bridge outright and make it part of the government system, or let the bridge company continue to manage it, will have to be arranged later on. But some part of the cost of that bridge is properly chargeable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Five or six companies will use it-tlie Intercolonial Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, the Quebec Central, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Quebec and Lake St. John, and there are other railways the crossings and approaches, will cost it. I understand that the bridge proper, the crossings and approaches, will cost about $4,500,000. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) makes the cost $5,000,000, so that we are not very far apart. But his estimate would probably include some of the terminal facilities in the city of Quebec, which may be important as part of the general scheme, but are not essential as part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme. What proportion of that would be fairly chargeable to this enterprise ? I am going to assume that out of what it may cost we may fairly charge the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $2,000,000. I think that is a liberal allowance-too liberal in fact. I would not like the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to come and say that we have pledged ourselves to this figure ; but for the purposes of my present argument, we may assume that to be a fair amount. That is to say, that we will be obliged to give to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, if they demand it, a crossing on that bridge, and that in connection with the general arrangement to provide a crossing $2,000,000 will be the outside obligation which we should charge to this scheme. Our $2,000,000 will stand as part of the cost of the railway upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will ultimately pay interest in the same manner as on any other portion of the railway. For seven years we would be out of pocket the interest on that $2,000,000. Applying the same principle of actuarial calculation, we could provide seven years' interest on that bridge by the sum of $324.-24(1. We have not exhausted our surplus Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
yet. We have only provided some $8,000,000 for one portion and $2,000,000 for another, and there is plenty still left. If we provide further out of our surplus the sum of $324,240, we can make provision for the payment of interest on that $2,000,000 for seven years.
I add these items together. The present, value, by actuarial calculation, of the cost of the seven years' interest on the eastern division is $8,S53.502.47. Seven years' interest on the Quebec bridge represented by the present value, $324,240.65. Seven years' interest guaranteed bonds, mountain section, represented by $2,334,575.90. These sums making a total of $11,512,325.02. Why, we have some millions of a surplus left yet. Well, it was stated to-day in the argument that the eastern road that the government are obliged to build will be very costly. Of course, regarding the mountain section there is no possibility of increase, for our limit of $30,000 per mile is fixed and definite-but as regards the eastern section, whatever it costs we have, to pay, there is no question about that. I have made an estimate of $25,000 per mile for one part, and $28,000 a mile for the other part, which estimate is backed by the reputation of an engineer of standing. But, if we are to have the high grade-perhaps I should say the low grade-road called for by my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) perhaps these estimates are not high enough. I am prepared that the millions of a balance should be devoted to the improvement of that road. I propose to add 25 per cent to the first estimate of the cost of construction of the eastern division, and so add 25 per cent to the present value of the seven years' interest of that portion of the road. That is an equivalent to an advance on the cost of from $25,000 per mile to $31,250 per mile for one part, and from $28,000 to $35,000 for the other part. That is a pretty liberal estimate, and ought to build even the fine road called for by my hon. friend from Norfolk.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) allow me a word ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. oh.


James Clancy: Hon. gentlemen opposite ought to have a little civility and good manners. I merely wished to ask the hon. gentleman a question. He has spoken of estimates. Has he made the estimates out of his own mind, or from some data which he is prepared to lay before the House V


Mahlon K. Cowan: A pretty good mind to make them out of.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, with all my presumption. I would not venture to make these estimates without proper information from reputable quarters. I did

not make these estimates out of my own mind. They are worth more than if they had been made in that way. Now, I submit these figures for discussion. I think there is no mistake in them. Of course, there is a possibility of mistake, but 1 can say with perfect certainty that they are made in good faith, and made by capable people. Adding all the various sums together-the present value of seven years' interest on the eastern section, first on the basis of 825,000 and $28,000 per mile, which is the way the figures are made up ; seven years' interest on the Quebec bridge represented by its present value; seven years interest on the guaranteed bonds in the mountain section represented by its present value; and then 25 per cent addition for the cost of the eastern section to meet the views of my hon. friend from - North Norfolk, and I reach this conclusion, so far as figures can _prove anything :	If we had a surplus of
$13,725,706-and we have it and more-and if, instead of investing that in the various purposes of government, if, instead of doing the various things which the House has authorized, if, instead of reducing the debt of the Dominion as we shall do during the present year-though I do not make any great boast of that-if, instead of applying this money in any of these ways, yofi take that sum and give it to a trust company or insurance company accustomed to dealing with annuities, to invest it at three per cent per annum payable half-yearly, I undertake to say, on the authority of an actuary, that they could pay every cent of obligation we assume under that contract._J


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Except the redemption of the bonds at the end of the fifty years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course at the end of fifty years if we pay the bonds we take over the road. But I am dealing with the interest. What we pay is seven years' interest, and that is provided for as I have described. And as a pledge of their good faith in this matter, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company agree, within thirty days of the passing of this Act, to place in the treasury of Canada $5,000,000. When was such a sum ever before offered to the government of Canada as a pledge of good faith ? When the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was made, the company provided $1,000,000, and it was thought to be a large sum. And. so it was. Sir, the Grand Trunk Railway Company multiplies the pledge of the Canadian Pacific Railway by five, and the amount so pledged will be in the treasury of Canada within a month of the passing of this Act.


Mr. BRODER.: Will that be in actual cash or in bonds ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be in actual cash, or government bonds, as
good as cash. And, while the government holds the money, we will pay the company 3 per cent interest if it is in cash, and if they deposit bonds-they must be government bonds approved by this government, bonds of some recognized government, and not of private corporations-whatever rate of interest they may bear will be paid to the company so long as that deposit remains. That money will remain until the completion of the western division-save and except $5,000,000 worth of final work on the western portion of the road-and also the full equipment of the whole road to the amount of $20,000,000. When they have so far advanced their road that $5,000,000 more will finish it, and when they make a satisfactory arrangement with the government of Canada, then this $5,000,000 that is in the hands of the government will be paid over, from time to' time, as satisfactory evidence is given that the money is being put into the road for the completion of the contract. How could we ask for a better guarantee for the carrying out of a contract of this sort? I believe the announcement of this contract has been a surprise to the country. I believe it has been a surprise, above all, to hon. gentlemen opposite. They are surprised indeed that the government of to-day is able to make a contract with a great railway company like practically the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada with its $150,000,000 of assets, to quote again the Conservative paper. Hon. gentlemen opposite are surprised, and no wonder they are surprised when they compare what is being accomplished by this contract with anything ever accomplished before in the history of Canada. The very mention of a transcontinental road is calculated to give persons an idea of a work of great magnitude, and well it may. Even if we had had no experience in the responsibilities involved in such an undertaking, the mere mention of the work brings to our minds the thought of large responsibilities. When we think of the great sums of money paid out before to get part of a transcontinental road compared with what we are paying to-day to get a real transcontinental road from ocean to ocean, it is no wonder that there is surprise in the country. But, Sir, we give them this contract, made in good faith, not with empty promoters, not with people who are irresponsible, but with men who are the most capable railway men in Canada, with men who have given every guarantee of good faith, with men who are prepared to back their undertaking in a manner no company ever did before.
And how .is it received by hon. gentlemen opposite ? I am afraid the tables are to be turned. I am afraid that in the clear light of 1909 these gentlemen are going to make some of the mistakes which may have been excused in the

early dawn of twenty years ago. We have made some comparisons with the contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I do not do that with a view of casting reproach upon anybody. No doubt some things occurred in the early history of that great enterprise, before the contract was made with the syndicate, which we ail desire to remember, if at all, only with regret, for they were not creditable to the government, to the parliament, or to the people of Canada. But let that pass. When we come to the actual contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, I think it will be admitted even to-day that perhaps some mistakes were made. Perhaps there were some mistakes of location, perhaps some mistakes in the land policy, and in the clearer light of to-day we may be able to see that things were done then which had better been left undone. I am disposed to think that perhaps those things may after all have been only incidental to the difficulties of the time and to rapid construction. I for one do not hesitate to say, in the light of experience, that the Liberal party did entertain alarm and anxiety, which have been proved in the end not to have been fully justified. I for one have no disposition unfairly to criticise to-day. I frankly admit, as one who was then a young man, that I was led to entertain alarm and anxiety. To-day I say that the policy of the Conservative party, subject to these qualifications which I have mentioned, has been justified, and in that respect the Conservative party has made a record which they can look back to with pride.
But while there was some excuse for doubt and hesitation in 1871 and 1887 there is none to-day. Are these gentlemen to learn nothing ? We Liberals have learned something by experience. Are these gen. tlemen to be as the Bourbons, who learn nothing and forget nothing ? Are they to take up the role of carping criticism which they complain the Liberals took up in 1881? No, they should not do that. They should go on with us in this great movement, they should remember that the Canada of today is different from the Canada even of 1871 or 1881. In 1871, when the Conservative party made the treaty with British Columbia and accepted the responsibility of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, what was the condition of Canada? In 1871 the population of Canada was 3,517,000; in 1881, when the contract with the syndicate was made, the population was 4,324,000. To-day the population of Canada is put down at 5,500,000. Things which we should hesitate to do in 1871 we can undertake with confidence with the larger resources and in the clearer light we have to-day. In 1871, when they assumed the responsibility of building a railway to British Columbia, the revenue of the country stood at $19,250,000; in 1881, when they made the contract with Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
the syndicate, the revenue stood at $29,500,000. This year the revenue will be $66,500,000. In 1871, when the contract with British Columbia was made, the total trade of Canada whs $170,000,000; in 1881, when the contract with the syndicate was made, the total trade was $203,000,000; in this present year, the year just closed, the total trade of Canada was $467,000,000. In 1871, the bank deposits, including the savings banks of Canada, stood at $62,250,000 ; in 1881, when the contract was made with the syndicate, they stood at $99,500,000.. In 1903, the bank deposits, including the savings banks, stand at $439,000,000. With these statistics^ showing the growth and progress of the country, why should we fear ? Why should not hon. gentlemen opposite feel as confident as we feel in this matter ? I am glad to know that all the Conservatives are not going to take that narrow view which I am afraid some of my hon. friends are being tempted to take. I am glad to know that this policy is going to be supported by the great mass of the Liberal party, and I believe by many Conservatives as well. I have in my hands a public letter from one of the most respected Conservative merchants of the city of Montreal, Mr. Robert Reford, which I ask permission to read. Mr. Reford, a citizen and merchant of Montreal, does not propose to be drawn away by the cry that Montreal is to he side-tracked and not have a branch. He knows that all these branches will come as a natural consequence of the construction of this road. Mr. Reford writes as follows ;-
As a Canadian, hopeful that the Dominion of Canada will one day be the peer of the United States in papulation, prosperity and power, I highly approve of the action of the Dominion government in introducing the Railway Act, whereby the Grand Trunk will be enabled to extend its great system through the unopened portion of our great west, now without a railway, and badly in need of one, opening up fertile farming and rich mineral districts, a new port on the Pacific for promotion of trade with Asia and Australia, and a short and much needed new route to the Atlantic and the important ports of Halifax and St. John, which should greatly benefit them, and give them a summer as well as a winter trade. The Grand Trunk has in1 the past done much for Canada, and that at a time when Canada badly needed it. and was not in a position to do much in the way of railway building for herself. It has not been a bonanza for its shareholders ; the bulk of the original ones, I think, died without seeing a turn of a penny for their investment, consequently I think that the Grand Trunk is well entitled to liberal terms in the present contract. Why the Act should he opposed I am at a loss to understand, seeing that the opening up of such new territories and the investment of so much capital must he for the benefit of the country. It is possible that disappointment may arise in the working, building or earning power of parts of the road, but that is to be expected in such a gigantic enterprise, and should not for a moment be allowed to discourage its projection. Nothing could have been more dis-

couraging than the prospects of the Canadian Pacific at its inception, many well-informed railway people saying that it would never pay for the grease used on the axles of its cars ; and yet that railway now stands almost at the head cf the earning railways of the world. From all reports the Grand Trunk projected railway runs through a much more easily built and possibly richer section of country, and there is little reason to doubt that it will prove as good a paying railway as the Canadian Pacific is, and do much in the development of Canada. Had the Launder government ignored the claims which the Grand Trunk has upon the country, refused1 to listen to them, or unduly delayed the building of this great transcontinental railway, future generations would, X feel sure, have branded them as men unworthy their position as rulers of Canada, and rightly so.
I am sure that that opinion of one of the merchant princes of the city of Montreal, a life-long Conservative, is likely to be only a specimen of the opinions which many of the most broad-minded and enlightened members of the Conservative party will have when they come to study this contract and learn all that is provided in it.
I feel sure that we have reason to submit this contract to the country with the fullest confidence that it will meet with public approval. Some one has said, - Let the country make the railways and the railways will make the country. That is the doctrine we are proposing to carry out now.
I regret that we cannot have in a larger degree the co-operation of hon. gentlemen opposite in it. I regret we have had again to-day, from an acknowledged leader of the Conservative party, a declaration that they will not support any form of subsidies. We have had that from the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr. Osier) two or three years ago in his reply to the budget speech. We have it renewed to-day. Sir, we take issue wiih those hon. gentlemen. There are times when subsidies are proper, there are times when guarantees are proper. In this instance, we have no subsidies to propose, we propose a guarantee. There are other parts of the country in which the Grand Trunk is not prepared to come forward with its great resources and take up railway construction; those sections of the country have claims upon us, and we must be prepared from time to time to deal with every one of those sections on their merits, and even to grant subsidies in proper cases. However that may be, we recognize the position the hon. gentlemen take. We say we are prepared to go before the people to-day with this policy in the fullest confidence that it is a poTicy which has been wisely considered, that its provisions will stand investigation, that the cost to the country is very moderate, and that we firmly believe we will be able to give to the Dominion of Canada one of the greatest achievements in its history.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, I was not present when the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
made his speech, but, I understand that he made some reference to running powers and sought to refute the statement made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) yesterday on that subject. The hon. Minister 'of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has alluded to the same matter this evening, and I desire to say that I think the hon. member for North Norfolk has hardly been candid with the House in the reference he made to certain railways which are exercising running powers in Ontario. The hon. gentleman alluded particularly to the Wabash, a railway exercising running powers for a couple of hundred miles over the Grand Trunk Railway, but the hon. gentleman neglected to tell the House that while the Wabash is exercising running powers it does not do and it is not allowed to do local traffic. All that the company has power to do is to carry through traffic from the Detroit river to the Niagara river and if the hon. gentleman in his county wanted to send a ton of traffic to any point in Canada he could not send it by the Wabash although this road is exercising running powers.


John Charlton: I beg to correct the statement which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has made that the Wabash is not allowed to do any local business while running between Detroit and Buffalo. It does local business. I have shipped by that line myself local freight and it is perfectly untrammelled in picking up business upon this line and thus competing with the Grand Trunk Railway and all other lines for local business.


Mr. INGRAM.: I would like to differ from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton). I know that what he says is not a fact.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I also know it is not a fact.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do know that Wabash tickets are for sale 'in every ticket office on the line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


David Tisdale: A Grand Trunk Railway ticket is not good on a Wabash train.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Nor is a Michigan Central ticket good on a Wabash train.


David Tisdale: You can buy a 'Wabash ticket but you cannot use it on any train.


Samuel Barker: I referred to freight. I said that the hon. member for North Norfolk could not send a ton of freight in any direction by the Wabash.


John Charlton: I have done it. I have shipped lumber by the Wabash road to Buffalo.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking of what can be done generally by people along the

line. If the bon. gentleman has on some exceptional occasion or under exceptional influences obtained the privilege of doing that he knows that the public cannot do it. Take tlie Canadian Pacific Railway running between Hamilton and Toronto, they must run through trains and they cannot do local business, and the line over which they have running powers is only 40 miles long. Take for instance the Canadian Pacific Railway running to North Bay; they cannot do local business. I would ask the hon. gentleman what earthly good running powers over the 1,400 miles between Quebec and Winnipeg would be, if the various companies alluded to by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals which were attempting to use this railway as a common highway, as it was put in the contract, could do nothing but through business. What advantage would it be to say that a railway using this common highway could pick up a passenger anywhere ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: The Wabash can pick up passengers.


Samuel Barker: They have a special arrangement, but has been stopped at times owing to quarrelling about it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Wabash tickets are on sale in every Grand Trunk Railway ticket office on the road over which the Wabash runs.


Samuel Barker: I am perfectly aware of that and when it dees not work well the arrangement is stopped. They do it by the favour of the owning line. I would ask what value that would be over the 1,400 miles which is to be subjected to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. This is a freight line that we are talking about. Passengers are not going away north of the height of land when we have routes through more settled portions of the country for passengers. We are now talking about freight.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is that not a question of agreement V


Samuel Barker: I suppose the hou. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) will be addressing us presently and if he will reserve his arguments until we get through, I think the debate would proceed more satisfactorily.
I am simply referring to the question which was raised by the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals yesterday. There is not a railway man in the whole of America who would contradict his statement that it would be utterly impracticable to exercise running powers over a long line such as this. The Minister of Finance to-day has tried to put it in a different light by saying that there may be haulage, that practically one company will haul the whole of the traffic but that is a different thing from making a common highway free to all companies and I have simply referred to the matter, because it was made a point of, that Mr. BARKER.
this railway could serve every company in the land. The hon. Minister of Finance dwelt at some length on the western portion, or what is called the mountain section of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The hon. gentleman did what his leader did the other day ; he dwelt very fully upon all the characteristics of that portion of the line. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for ns to criticise anything that has been said or that may be said about that section. That section will not be constructed by the government but by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and judging by the successful manner in which its representatives negotiated this contract with the government I think we may safely entrust them with looking after their own interests in building that part of the road. What we are anxious to know now is what information the government has as to what is called the eastern division which they have undertaken to build. We want some information about that, and I noticed to-day that the hon. Minister of Finance, like his leader the other day, in dwelling upon the portion of the road between Winnipeg and Quebec passed very lightly over many hundreds of miles, using general words and expressions and giving as little information as is possible. The hon. Minister of Finance to-day alluded to some surveys in the Nepigon district'; and as to the section from Abbittibbi to Quebec we had from him some vague reference to explorations which have been going on for the last two hundred years, the result of which seems to be very meagre because a few years ago the province of Quebec caused further explorations to be made. It is quite clear that none of them have any information that would justify defining where a track could be put. The hon. gentleman dealt with the Moncton end of the line, with which, of course, he is more familiar, and he tells us that that line was practically surveyed in 1864 by Sir Sanford Fleming. He says there was a survey made in these days of the frontier line ; the centre line-which he says is practically the one they are adopting to-day-and the north line. Now, it is quite true that Sir Sanford Fleming in 1864 did survey that central line, but is there a gentleman in this House or in this country who supposes for one moment, that any company proposing to build a railway would contract to lay it in a particular line based entirely upon a survey thirty-nine years old. Why, Sir, the information that was obtained by surveyors in these days was for an entirely different purpose than for the construction of the railway that is necessary to-day. Who, in 1864. supposed that the railway they were contemplating would ever be carrying the grain of the great North-west to Halifax or St. John. No such thing was ever thought of then. That cheap kind of traffic, the necessities of it. that were comtemplated at that
AUGUST 12, 190i>
time, and a line that might have been considered satisfactory then would not be accepted for a moment to-day.
The hon. gentleman refers to Sir Sanford Fleming's reports. I have had the advantage of talking to Sir Sanford Fleming within a week, and that gentleman assured me, that it is not possible to obtain a line suitable for old grain traffic where the Minister of Finance says this line is to be put.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: Sir Sanford Fleming at that time reported that the best line was near to the frontier, and that the next best line in view of matters as they stood in 1864, was over the heights through the centre of New Brunswick. Sir Sanford Fleming told me tha/t that line through the centre of New Brunswick would perhaps shorten the distance seventy miles, or perhaps a little less, as against the present line of the Intercolonial Railway, but he added that the high gradients and the curves would more than compensate for the shortening. It would be far better, he said, to continue the traffic over the present line than to attempt to send it through the centre of New Brunswick over the height of land. He said also, that if you want another line ; utilize the existing lines from Edmuudson to Fredericton, or to some point in that section, and thence on east and south. These lines, he said, will give you ais good a road, practically as short a road as the government is proposing to build, and it will be the best line obtainable. Why then undertake to build railways when we have them in existence to-day ? Why do we want to duplicate our railway line simply in order to run a track, as the Minister of Finance says, in an air-line to Moncton. He takes the map I suppose and runs a pencil across it and enters into a contract to build a railway. That is practically what the government is doing in this case. And yet, the Minister of Finance is astonished that any criticism should be made of such a line. He even,1 says it is extraordinary that any objection should be made to building a line competing with the present Intercolonial Railway. Surely, if the duplicating line is not going to be an improvement on the existing line, we are more than justified in our criticism, and so far as we know and so far as the minister knows the present line is better than the one which he proposes. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) told us that it is a common thing, and that we every day see a company building a railway to compete with the railway of another company. Yes, but you never heard of a company building a line to compete with its own line, and that is what the government is doing in this case. They have an excellent line now, but they want to build another one to compete with it. If they want to go south to St. John, and east by Chipman, they have roads in existence,
and surely they don't want to build new x-oads where ample railway accommodation already exists. The hon. gentleman cites as an instance supporting his contention, that the Canadian Pacific Railway some years ago proposed to build a line from Harvey to Salisbury near Moncton, and he thinks that because they proposed thus to get to Moncton it is an excellent reason why the government should get to Moncton. But when the Canadian Pacific Railway proposed to get from Harvey to Moncton it was because they had no connection with Moncton. The government have got a line to Moncton, but they are not content with one, they want another, and they tell us that the two cases are analogous, and that it is an excellent argument for the building of two lines by the government where ond is necessary. Then the Finance Minister jumps off into what lie calls the objection of the opposition to the improvement of the Intercolonial Railway, as if that, even if it were true, would have any bearing upon the question we are debating. Suppose that we most unjustly and most unfairly oppose improvements on the Intercolonial Railway, what on earth has that got to do with the question whether they are going to build another line or not ? We are treated to a long dissertation on that subject, as if the country were to be affected by such an argument. I deny that there lias been any criticism or any such objection on the part of the opposition. I have been in this House three years, and I have heard all the criticisms relating to the Intercolonial Railway, and I have never heard a gentleman on this side say one word in opposition to any improvements that could properly be made on the Intercolonial Railway. No gentleman on this side of the House has ever objected to the strengthening of bridges, to the increased weight of rails, or to works of that character. But the Finance Minister thinks that because we have not swallowed everything that has been done we were objecting to improvements on the line. The truth is that the objection we were making was to the way in which the hon. gentleman was adding to liis surpluses by creating pretended profits that never existed. The government instead of maintaining their line in the ordinary manner were putting down new rails and charging them to capital, when maintenance should have borne nearly all the charge. By that means the Minister was showing what a lot of money he was making and how prosperous the country was under the management of this government. Surely we had a right to point out that the hon. gentleman was not making the surpluses he was claiming. That had nothing to do with the legitimate improvement of the Intercolonial Railway. We are all glad to see* the Intercolonial Railway improved and we never raised a question about it. The Finance Minister speaks of our criticism of

$1,000,000 being expended at St. John in connection with elevators and other things in order that the grain traffic should be carried to that port. But our criticism was this, that although they had spent $1,000,000 on that work, they had never carried a bushel of grain there, although the money had been expended for the very purpose of promoting the grain traffic in that direction. That is the nature of the criticism, and that is what the hon. gentleman thinks indicates a desire on our part to crush the Intercolonial Railway. 1 think the Intercolonial, if it could speak, would say, save me from my friends.
Then, the hon. gentleman took up that awful bugbear, the bonding privilege, which his leader dwelt upon so eloquently the other day. The hon.'gentleman must know that the question of the bonding privilege has been hammered this way and that way for years, and we are just where we always were in that respect. The bonding privilege does not stay for our good. It does not exist to-day, any more than it has existed at any time, for our convenience. It does not exist because the United States are afraid of us or are friendly to us. It remains there because the New England states insist upon it, and the United States government cannot remove it without hurting their own people far more than they would hurt Canada. That is the truth of it, and the hon. gentleman knows it. What do people who understand the question show by their conduct ? Take the Grand Trunk Railway Company of which we hear so much. The Grand Trunk Railway Company owns a railway in the States from Port Huron to Chicago. It owns besides several hundred miles in Michigan. It owns a long railway in the state of Maine. In Vermont it controls, practically owns, the Central Vermont from the boundary line to Long Island Sound. Some of these lines it has acquired recently. Would the Grand Trunk Company risk all that if they thought there was any danger of the bonding privilege being taken away ? Are they afraid ? Are they shutting off business or building* other lines through fear of it ? Not at all. Within two or three years they have actually taken the ownership of the Chicago and Grand Trunk into their own hands, and it is now the Grand Trunk Western. They are not afraid, and why should the hon. gentleman be afraid ? Suppose the bonding privilege were stopped to-morrow, what would be the result ? Would the grain traffic that is now going by Portland go that way, or would it go over the Intercolonial ? Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not consider that. If the bonding privilege were stopped to-morrow, it might hurt the Grand Trunk, the Canada Southern and some other lines; but what hon. gentlemen opposite have been seeking, that the grain traffic of the country should go over the Canadian route, would be the inevitable result. It would have to
go to Halifax and St. John by the Intercolonial Railway. And yet the bon. gentlemen are going to build another line through fear that that would happen. That is the argument of the hon. gentlemen. They are actually going to spend millions now; they will not wait an hour or a minute. Now is the time-we cannot wait, because this bonding privilege may be stopped at any moment, and we must be independent of the United States. If the bonding privilege were stopped to-morrow morning, would it prejudice the Dominion of Canada as regards the ports of Halifax and St. John ? Not one iota. It would send the traffic that way. It is an argument against what , the hon. gentlemen propose; and yet it has been bravely imt forward by the First Minister and the Minister of Finance, as if it supported their view of the question. Now,
I beg to say, that even if there was anything in that, it would be far better for us to stand as we are, and take the chance of having to haul the grain for a few years over that sixty or seventy or one hundred extra miles, whatever it may be, around the Intercolonial and for the country to pay the extra expense of that, and so cheapen the rates to the public,' rather than go into enormous expenditures now, and pay inte-est in anticipation of a trouble that will perhaps never come. The hon. gentleman wants to spend: this money now lest some day or other the bonding privilege will be stopped. Why not wait, if that is the point ? We can afford for a time to carry the traffic over those sixty or seventy miles without charging for it much more easily than we can pay interest on the railway from Quebec to Moncton. Surely there cannot be any question about that, and I think the bon. gentleman must know it. I have never met anybody who seriously; looked on that bonding privilege question as a factor in the matter.
The hon. Finance Minister tells us, with a great deal of satisfaction to himself, that the Grand Trunk, with all its assets, is behind this scheme. I do not wish to say one word against the Grand Trunk. I do not think it is in the interest of the country to say anything against any corporation such as the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway in the country. I believe in backing them up and saying a good word for them at all times. But when the Finance Minister uses the arguments we heard him use to-day about the Grand Trunk being behind this project, all I can say is that the Grand Trunk is behind it by getting $25,000,000 of common stock for nothing. That is the only way it is behind it that I can see. The Grand Trunk will guarantee something on the prairie section. That section I think it would be very easy to get anybody to guarantee.
There is a peculiarity about the argument of the Finance Minister contrasted with the argument advanced by the First Min-


Samuel Barker: ister the other day. The Finance Minister told us this evening that the Grand Trunk are paying one-fourth of the cost of the western section. Well, the Grand Trunk, as I understand it, are guaranteeing twenty-live per cent of the cost, and the country is guaranteeing seventy-five per cent. The other day the First Minister told us that the country was not paying one cent. If the country, in guaranteeing the seventy-five per cent, is not paying one cent for the road, how can the Grand Trunk be paying one-fourth of the whole cost ? I leave the hon. gentleman to explain that. Then, as to the eastern section, the First Minister told us that we are not paying anything for that. I have always been under the impression that if I borrowed say $10,000 to buy a piece of property and build a house on it, I incurred a debt of $10,000, and added that to my obligations even if I was going to rent the house. And when this country expends $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 or more on that eastern section, and gives its own securities for fifty years for it, and contracts with the public to pay both the principal and the interest, it does seem to me that we shall be paying something for that road. If not, I shall like to pay my debts and obligations in a similar way. ,
Let me say further that the Grand Trunk Railway guarantee comes after its bonds and debentures. These amount to $100,000,000, and they are all ahead of this guarantee. Within four or five years, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Grand Trunk Railway came to this House for a Bill authorizing it to charge up to capital a portion of the interest on its securities which it had been unable to pay. That was only five years ago. I do not mean to say that it has not improved since then. It has Improved, and will go on improving, but it is idle to talk of a company like the Grand Trunk Railway as being of such material value as a guarantor. Whether the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be able to sell its bonds on the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway at par, and at three per cent interest, I do not know, but I very much doubt it, I think it will have to submit to considerable discount, which will add to its obligations, and which the public will have to pay interest on, just as they will have to pay sooner or later dividends on that $25,000,000 of common stock to be held by the Grand Trunk Railway, though the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway may never have received a cent for it.
As regards the rolling stock, section 22 provides that the company shall equip both divisions with modern and complete rolling stock and that the first equipment shall be of the value of at least $20,000,000, of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be supplied for the operation of the eastern division of the said railway, and the said $5,000.000 worth of rolling stock, together with all renewals thereof and additions thereto, shall be marked as assigned to the said
eastern division. I take it that that covenant will be sufficiently complied with by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway hiring the rolling stock. I am quite aware that there is another section concerning the purchase of supplies and equipment in Canada, but that section will be sufficiently' complied with if they hire the rolling stock in Canada. Let me refer to section 14 :
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 and all such tolls, rents or annual sums as are paid in respect of the hire of rolling stock let to the company as part of the equipment of the said eastern division.
There are two aspects of that. One is how careful the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is to have everything charged to maintenance, so that the government will not have much chance in the ten years of getting any profit. There will not be any profits on that line when all these charges are so carefully heaped up against the gross receipts. And i think you will find that probably all the rolling stock that will go on that line will be old rolling stock of the Grand Trunk Railway, made in Canada, of course, but sent up there on terms profitable to the Grand Trunk Railway, and that the company will make quite sure that the government will not get interest in the three years, any more than they will in the first seven.
Then the hon. gentleman made out his $13,000,000 as the actual cost to the country in respect of interest, &c., during construction. It is quite true that the ex-Minister of Railways yesterday made up to some $19,000,000 or $20,000,000 ; but the Minister of Finance cuts it down to $13,000,000. He works it out, with the help of an actuary, thus : He takes the items spread over seven years. These he says represent a present cash value, being discounted, of only $13,000,000, which he therefore claims to be the whole cost to us. But if we should advance that $13,000,000 in cash now, and receive nothing in return for seven years, we would have to take into account interest for the seven years. And if you take other items into account, as well, I fancy that the exMinister of Railways was not far out in his little computation of $19,000,000. as the sum .we are paying in the way of interest.
When I was referring to the Moncton end of the road, I omitted to remind the House how cocksure my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was about this line. It was practically an air-line, right from somewhere near a point where they turned down along the Maine frontier, to Moncton. He knew all about it. He had been reading in the archives, and he had plans and repoi'ts, and it was all right. However, he was less cautious than his leader, who in his speech, said :
From the town of Edmundston the railway will proceed eastward to the town of Moncton;

it is impossible to say at this moment by what route, perhaps by Chipman, or in the vicinity of Chipman. At all events, from this point it is impossible to exactly locate any precise line, or to say where it will be ultimately. Suffice it to say that we desire to have the best and shortest line between Levis and Moncton.
That was all the First Minister could say.


An hon. MEMBER.: That was three or four days ago.


Samuel Barker: Yes, they get light very quickly on the treasury benches, and I am not astonished that my hon. friend the Finance Minister should now know exactly where the road is to be.
But I think it is perhaps desirable that we should have a little inquiry as to how it has come to pass that this government has glided into this tremendous natioal and transcontinental railway scheme. Now, Sir, it appears fairly certain that up to the opening of the session the government had no thought of anything of this kind. That appears very clear, if you take the speech that the government deliberately put into the mouth of His Excellency at the opening of the session :
The great influx of population into our Northwestern 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.
This is the very subject we are discussing. And this is how the government proceeded, in March last, to deal with it:
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 was exactly five months ago-this subject was continuing to occupy attention, and the government were immediately to appoint experienced men to report. -What followed ? On the 6th of April the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) brought In a very carefully prepared report -another department you see; they had two of them at it. And that report-after careful consideration by the cabinet, of course- was approved by the Governor General on the 19th of May last, less than three mouths ago. And what did that report say? It Is a very important report, and I will take the liberty of reading it, because it conveys a great deal to the public :
On a report dated April 6, 1903, from the Minister of Public Works, stating that he has under consideration questions affecting the transportation of Canadian products to the markets of the world through and by Canadian ports with a view of placing the Canadian producer in a position to compete, and compete successfully, through all Canadian channels with the producers and exporters of other countries.


Samuel Barker: The minister submits that it may be assumed that grain and other products will naturally seek their markets by the cheapest routes, and therefore the method of attaining the object desired should be to make the Canadian routes cheaper and more convenient than competing routes.
That the development of North-western Canada has manifested the inability of existing Canadian transportation agencies to take care of Canadian products.
That our agricultural exports can only command the prices over seas to which their natural excellence entitles them when they cease to be confounded and confused with the inferior and often adulterated articles produced elsewhere; and to preserve their separate identity they must go through Canadian channels.
The minister further states that the ques tions 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
From place of production to Canadian seaports.
From place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
From Canadian seaports to Europe.
From place of production through Canadian ports on the Pacific.
As it affects the products of the eastern provinces of Canada it Involves their movement :-
To the seaports.
From the seaports to Europe.
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can 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 affecting the moire economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.
The minister further states that in making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but, if necessary, new surveys should be made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely:-
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ;
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be Investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by our competitors should 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 111 of the Rivised Statutes of Canada.
Then the Order in Council goes on and names the commissioners. Now, this is all within three months of the present time. Yet, what a change ! This commission has been sidetracked; it has gone no one knows whither; and instead, these hon. gentlemen opposite have constituted themselves the experts. They have even set aside the Railway Department ; the Prime Minister lias become the 'competent expert,' and they have decided upon the expenditure of something like seventy millions of money without a moment's hesitation and with the absolute confidence which was attributed to Lord John Russell, who, it was said, would, at a moment's notice, take command of the channel fleet. Surely the government, when they made that report and put it in His Excellency's hands, could not have had under consideration any such project as this. If they had had such a scheme under consideration, the Order in Council appointing a commission would have been an absolute farce. What possible use could there be in such a commission when the government had determined not merely to send out surveyors and survey a line, but actually to enter into a contract with a number of gentlemen and bind the country as to where the line shall be ? And this we are asked to confirm. The country is asked to commit itself to this, although we are told that tiie ' inquiry must be thorough and comprehensive ' into the ' complicated and involved question,' and that 'it should be made by competent and experienced experts.'
I think I may call attention here to the way in which, as it appears to me, the government tumbled in to this affair. It would not be accurate to say they drifted into it, they seem to have tumbled into it headlong. In January last, several railway officials and other gentlemen intimately connected with the Grand Trunk Railway published a notice in the ' Canada Gazette ' that they were about to apply for a charter authorizing them to construct a railway from the Pacific ccean either to North Bay or Gravenliurst. At that time they proposed to build a branch from their main line to Winnipeg, but shortly afterwards they altered that to make the main line run through Winnipeg. To appreciate the significance of that notice, which seems to be the very beginning of this contract, it must be borne in mind that the Grand Trunk Railway to-day connects _ all the more important centres of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces with Gravenhurst and North Bay. That company has also two ports on the Georgian bay, Collingwood and Midland ; and the project for which notice was given
was to bring the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from the Pacific ocean to connect at those points and ports with the Grand Trunk s eastern system. Now, there we had a project devised by experienced railroad men, men thoroughly competent, none more so in this country. Those gentlemen, understanding thoroughlv the requirements of the country, and' how the best line of railway could be constructed to afford transportation facilities, determined that the point where the eastern and western divisions should meet was at Gravenhurst or North Bay, coupled with their own ports of Collingwood and Midland. Gravenliust is a point from which they would be able to run their railway south of Lake Nipisslng across the French river, and thereby make some saving of mileage as against' the route by North Bay. The importance of that point is shown by the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has already made several surveys between Gravenhurst and Sudbury, for the purpose of getting the very best line. I may say that the Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of moving as rapidly and rashly as hon. gentlemen opposite have done, have, 1 believe, surveyed that line at least six times in order to get the best route, and that has been going on for two or three years.
Now these are very significant indications, as they strike my mind, showing what competent and experienced men regard as the real points for the connection between the western system and the east.
Well, these Grand Trunk gentlemen went on with their application for a charter, and unfortunately for themselves they soon found that there was an agitation at Quebec for a trans-Canada line, and to meet that they apparently were obliged to say they would extend their line to Quebec.
I do not believe they ever intended to build it, but they put that in their Bill, and their line was to go on from Gravenhurst or North Bay to Quebec. Then, as the Bill got into committee, some hon. gentlemen, seeing how easily Quebec got a line to the city of Quebec, said to themselves we must have one to Moncton. And so they pressed, and they fought, in those sultry days, and Mr. Hays, in the blandest manner, said, Oh, yes, we will go to Moncton. Why, he would have promised to go to Newfoundland and build a tunnel to get there, provided he could get his charter. That is what he was after, and he promised them whatever they wanted. W ell, while this was going on, and while the members in the Railway Committee were fighting day after day, and week after week, over the clauses of that Bill, what was going on in the closet ? What was going on between the First Minister and Mr. Hays ? All the morning the Railway Committee and Mr. Hays were fighting over the Bill, and at night those two gentlemen were down below, closeted together,


Samuel Barker: turing interests and millions of people to furnish the road with business and to fill up the trains. Furthermore he is going to have a line without return traffic. What traffic does lie expect to carry back over this line from the sea to the prairies V
An lion. MEMBER. Lumber.


Samuel Barker: Lumber ! Does he know that he will find a tree bigger than a man's leg in that country for 1,400 miles of the route. He may get pulpwood, but there is enough pulpwood below the height of land to supply the wants of the country for fifty years. We do not need to spend $80,000,000 to get into the pulpwood north of the height of land.
The line that is proposed would have to compete with railways further south which enjoy traffic both ways, both freight and passengers and which have the great advantage of a water-route. It is impossible for a line to be successful unless it has the very best grades and the most satisfactory curves, and can hon. gentlemen say that there is any evidence that it is possible between Quebec and Winnipeg to get such a line ? I admit that it is possible to make any grade you like if you only spend millions enough but you will not get it even with such an expenditure as the hon. Minister of Finance has spoken of to-night. There is not the slightest shadow of evidence that it is possible to get that line with grades of 21 feet or thereabouts per mile. Without that, what use is the line ? The fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway unloads all its traffic at Port Arthur leaving it to vessels to carry it by the water route to the ports of Georgian bay is the strongest evidence you could get that the all rail route must have favourable grades before the traffic can be profitably carried. The line to the north must have favourable grades or it cannot hope, even with all other conditions equal, to compete. I have taken some notes from the speech of the right hon. leader of the government as it appeared in ' Hansard ' and I will quote them here. I do not give his exact words, but the substance of what he said. He says as to the district west of Lake Abbittibbi that twelve or thirteen years ago the Ontario government sent a party of gentlemen into that district. Their report is the one that the hon. Minister of Finance read from to-night. They were a few members of the local legislature and some others. One of them was Mr. Charlton, a brother of the hon. member for North Norfolk, and, I think it is understood that that gentleman had a good deal to do with the writing of
the report. These were the________explorers
of that unknown land. They said in the report, as quoted by the hon. Minister of Finance, that they were not expected to make a thorough exploration. In a modest way they reported that there were 24,500 square miles of good fertile land. They were up there for a few weeks. What 270
travellers they must have been, and what travellers' tales were told ! The wonder is that these gentlemen who wrote that nice report did not get up a syndicate on their return to Toronto and buy the whole thing, but I can assure hon. members of the House that every acre of it is still open to purchase. Pine timber is commercially valuable but that pine will be floated down to the Canadian Pacific Railway, it lies to the south of the height of land. Really all that the hon. gentleman has beyond the height of land is spruce, jack pine and poplar. That is what these gentlemen reported, and the hard facts about the timber are of more use to us than their very general remarks which were read by the Finance Minister.	Such general observations are
no doubt eminently satisfactory to the first minister, but that a great railway line should be forced upon the country upon such evidence is simply astounding. I can hardly believe that the government is seriously intending to build that line. I think there must be more in that clause 21 than the Finance Minister would lead us to believe. The government have put that in as a safety-valve. They have thought perhaps that after all they are a little premature about this thing, and although they have entered into this contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, they put in the Act a clause to enable them to suspend operations.
There is another feature of this line that I would call attention to. Suppose the line is constructed through this section, where does the government hope to get its supplies, say of fuel. The First Minister is not going to burn spruce or poplar on his engines. He must haul coal a very long way into that country, over 1,000 miles, to get fuel for his locomotives. I do not suppose the right hon. gentleman is going to turn the muskegs into coke or peat. He will find authority for that in some of his reports perhaps, but I do not think that any practical railway man would recommend the adoption of that system. The line is going to run through stunted woods; there will be a little black birch or white birch and much poplar and spruce, but that would be a sad sort of fuel to run a railway with. So the hon. gentleman must take coal up there to run a line from Winnipeg to Quebec, a distance of 1,400 miles. It is a pretty serious undertaking, and the right hon. gentleman should have asked some of these experts to consider that feature before he committed himself to a contract binding him to build a railway through such a district._________________
And there is another feature that I wish to call attention to, it strikes me as a very important one. The Grand Trunk Pacific will be able to construct and complete hundreds of miles of the prairie section long before, perhaps years before, the government can complete



tlie 1,800 miles of the eastern section. It must be apparent to everybody that before that 1,800 miles is fully completed from end to end, there will be hundreds of miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in operation on the prairie section. The hon. gentleman cannot compel the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to take over one mile of the
1.800	miles until every inch of it is completed ? What is he going to do with the portions that are completed from time to time. Is he going to work them ? If so, there will be a handsome loss. There will be no through traffic and certainly no local traffic. If he does not work them, he will have to spend large sums of money In maintaining the portions built, because" nothing goes to pieces so quickly as an unused railway. There will be an enormous amount of money, which the Finance Minister has not taken into his calculation with his actuary. to spend year after year in that way, while the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the west is enjoying the fat of the land, and the government is struggling to finish its
1.800	miles through the muskegs. That is the position. But what then ? What is the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway going to do with all this grain at Winnipeg that will come over the prairie section that it has in operation ? What does the Prime Minister suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will do ? Does he know that the Grand Trunk has a line from Chicago, running to Buffalo, and running also to Portland, Maine. Does the hon. gentleman suppose that the Grand Trunk will
- not send its grain down to Chicago, and over its Chicago line and Its line in Ontario to Buffalo for the grain that is going that way, and to Portland for the grain that is going in that direction. The government can hardly insist that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway must send its grain by this great continental line until they have completed their 1,800 miles. Therefore, by these ill-digested arrangements the country will assist the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in making a route for traffic by way of Chicago.	That will be
the result of this contract, the inevitable result of it. The right hon. gentleman may remember that last summer there were rumours that the Grand Trunk Railway was negotiating for a line from Chicago up to the boundary. But whether that be true or not, there are plenty of American lines who would be delighted to carry that traffic down to Chicago, and the Grand Trunk Railway will probably make more money on its traffic going that way than it will in any other. The west-bound traffic, merchandise and manufactures will go back through Chicago up to the North-west, and you will establish a trade there that it may take years to reverse. That is the result of the government's undertaking. But the Grand Trunk Railway will have another opening, and if they choose they can send Mr. BARKER.
their traffic from Winnipeg to Port Arthur That will be the way to do it, probably in the interest of Canada. They can send it thence by water to their port at Midland, anl carry it from Midland to Niagara and Buffalo, - or Portland. There is nothing in the contract that can prevent them until the government has completed the 1,800 miles, and even after that, as I think I will show presently, they cannot be prevented from sending the grain by what route they please, even to American ports. And yet the right hon. gentleman cannot wait a day or an hour, because he is afraid that traffic will go to the United States.
At this point I wish to say a few words upon clause 42 of the contract. This is the wonderful clause that the Finance Minister referred to, by which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway agrees to forward its traffic through Canadian ports. Mr. Hays was perfectly frank when he was asked by the Railway Committee if he would bind himself absolutely to do that. He said : ' No ; would you have me ignore the wishes of the shipper ? ' That was a frank and proper thing for him to say, and the committee understood perfectly what it meant. What is the clause here ? Let us see what it is : It is limited to ' all freight originating on the line of the railway or its branches.' In the course of ten or fifteen years from now, I presume there will be a great many railways in that country, if it fills up as we expect it to do, and there will perhaps be Grand Trunk branches or branches bought up by it, quite apart from the Grand Trunk Pacific. It can by such means get plenty of traffic that will not originate on this Grand Trunk Pacific line, and the clause is limited in that respect. But it agrees ' that all freight originating on the line of 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 all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.'
Now I do not pretend that there is any deliberate intention to evade that clause or to act in bad faith. But does the hon. gentleman seriously suppose that on a railway, either the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk or any other, a station agent is going to wait for orders, or that he does not know what the interests of the company are ? Why, the youngest billing clerk on a railway knows perfectly to what destination traffic should go so that the company he serves shall make the most money. If he does not know that, he had better seek some other vocation, because he will not remain long in that service. They do not want a boy or a man who does not thoroughly understand the interests of his company. And let the president or the vice-president of the Grand Trunk send printed orders out once a week

to every station master and billing clerk on the line that they must send freight through Canadian ports, that they must not send it to Portland, and the agent will send it to Portland just the same. He will understand. If he were to begin shipping say to Halifax for money which the Grand Trunk could get for carrying the shorter distance to Portland, that young fellow would know he was not acting in the best interests of his company ; and does any lion, gentleman in the House, who is accustomed to shipping goods or grain, believe that oue man in a hundred who ships goods cares what is written on the bill ? If the billing clerk says : 'This can go most quickly, I think, on such a road,' the shipper would say, ' send it that way.' If he is shipping to an ocean port, and he wants to send his goods to Halifax, the billing clerk may perhaps say : ' Certainly, sir, we will send them to Halifax. There is not a steamer there this week, but there will be one at Portland, and you can take your choice.' The man says : ' Then my choice is Portland.' There is not a person in the country who does not know that. Mr. Hays could not prevent it. The boys would take the risk of being discharged for acting in the true interest of the company.
This is a very good clause, and very nicely! drawn. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said, in complimenting the legal gentlemen, the contract is drawn in a manner to do them credit. I am sure they would be extremely gratified with the commendation of the hon. gentleman. He is a good judge of legal work and I hope the hon. Minister of Justice will convey to them the approbation of the hon. member for North Norfolk in that respect. It would be very much more satisfactory to the House and the country, however, if the hon. member for North Norfolk could point to the work of some surveyors on this line. The mode in which the legal gentlemen do their work is not the important thing. It is not that we are discussing. The objections we are raising are that the government have not the information that is necessary before we determine the location of the railway ; and as to this routing clause, however drawn up, that it will be of no practical benefit- that it will not be of the slightest advantage to the government or the country. Take a practical case. I am not sure whether the right hon. gentleman understands it; but in any train that goes into Winnipeg, or Brandon, or any of the towns in the west, there will perhaps be cars of ten different companies. The cars lie empty at a station. A man comes along and wants five or six of them. The.station agent says:
' All these cars have come from Chicago, and they have to go back that way ; the companies that own them do not wish them to go to Halifax. If you wait till next week, we will have cars that will be going to Halifax.' The man will sav : ' No, let them go as you please.' They* will send them 2704
where the interest of the company requires, the grain will be routed that way and by the order of the shipper. There is no question about that, and you need not inpute anv dishonesty to Mr. Hays, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson or anybody else. It will be inevitable, and it cannot be helped. That is all I have to say on that.
Clause 44 is a significant clause. It provides that through rates shall be apportioned in percentages between the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk Pacific-a very proper provision. But what about the percentage division of through rates to be taken by tiie Grand Trunk ? The Grand Trunk can make arrangements to take the lion's share of the rates, leaving the lean share to be divided between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Intercolonial.
Then it must be obvious to the hon. gentleman that while he has clauses in this Bill enabling the government to see all the books and papers of the Grand Trunk Pacific in order to ascertain the net earnings, charges, tolls and rates, it would have been far more serviceable to have a provision entitling the government to inspect the books, papers, and rate bills of the Grand Trunk itself. The Grand Trunk Pacific will not be heard of a month after the whole thing will be completed. It will be the Grand Trunk, so far as business is concerned. No one hears of anything but the Grand Trunk on the Atlantic and the St. Lawrence, which runs to Portland. It is the Grand Trunk that gives the orders from Montreal to Chicago, and so will it be with traffic for our Northwest. It is impossible to make any thorough investigation or to find out anything that is going wrong in these matters unless the government have power and authority to examine not only the books of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the books of the Grand Trunk Company. The whole thing will be conducted in the name of the Grand Trunk Company from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
In conclusion I can only say had the government taken time to deliberate instead of acting in this impulsive way, had it submitted this question to a commission of experts, it would have been able to devise a scheme far more serviceable to the country and more beneficial to the Grand Trunk. It could have arranged to carry the traffic from the North-west by the water route in summer and by a land route in the winter, when the lake harbours are not open. It could have done all that and besides have provided for every need in the way of development. Had the government taken this course, it would have saved millions which it proposes to spend and I think waste now. It would have done more good to the North-west, it would have done more for our undeveloped territories and the whole Dominion than can be done by this wild and reckless scheme. I say that advisedly. I do not wish to use rash language, but I

firmly believe that this scheme will never be *practicable. It is an experiment on which millions are to be spent. The government has no information, it has not attempted to get any information that would justify what it is doing. I would impress on hon. gentlemen opposite, but I am afraid they have committed themselves too deeply, the necessity of withdrawing from this scheme. My hon. friend the Finance Minister spoke of the murmurs heard at Moncton from the sea, but he will hear more murmurs throughout the Dominion than he imagines if he attempts to carry out this project. The right hon. the First Minister has lost, I consider, the finest opportunity of his life, in not having proceeded with that commission which he advised His Excellency to appoint and submitted to it this whole question of transportation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I hoped that I would be able to make the remarks which I have to make on this Bill this evening, but in view of the fact that it is now twenty minutes to twelve, and that we have been listening to a continuous flow of oratory since eleven this morning, I think the House will appreciate the suggestion that we should adjourn. I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thubsday, August 13, 1903.