1903-09-23

QUESTIONS.


Mr. EARLE asked :: Is it the intention of the government to increase the capacity of the salmon hatcheries in British Columbia, and to establish others on the larger streams of the province ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine).: The department contemplates the extension of fish-breeding operations in the Dominion, but it has not yet been decided as to what particular localities will this year be chosen for new hatcheries.


BONDED WAREHOUSES, P.E.I.
Mr. IIACKETT asked :: 1.	Did the government, through the Department of Customs, receive from J. G. Scrim-geour, of Cardigan, King's county, Prince Edward Island, fees or rent for his bonded warehouse up to the 31st day of December, 1903 ?
2.	Is the said bonded warehouse still open to receive goods as formerly ? If not, what action has been taken by the Department of Customs with respect to the said bonded warehouse, and why ?
3.	Have any petitions been received from residents of King's county with respect to said bonded warehouse ? If so, will the Minister of Customs lay the same upon the Table of this House, together with all correspondence received by the department in connection therewith ?
4.	How many bonded warehouses are now in existence in said county of King's, and who are the persons privileged to have or keep such warehouses ?
5.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Customs to close any of the warehouses last referred to, and which of them ?
4.	There is one bonded warehouse of class 2 at Souris, King's county, granted to It. F. McDonald.
5.	The Question of closing R. F. McDonald's warehouse at Souris lias not been nn-derconsideration.


FREIGHT RATES ON WHEAT.
Mr. STEWART asked :: 1.	Has the government received from the secretary of the Morden Board of Trade the following resolution :-
' That whereas freight rates on wheat from Morden to Port Arthur are 4 cents per hundred greater than from Roland, Rosebank to Port Arthur ; and whereas the farmers living north of Morden are drawing their grain to points on the Northern Canadian Railway, which grain should naturally be shipped from Morden ; and whereas it is well known that these conditions prevail at many other points in the province ; we, the Morden Board of Trade, view with alarm these circumstances, which must necessarily result against Morden and many other points. And we would respectfully request D. A. Stewart, Esq., M.P., to bring this matter to the knowledge of the House of Commons, and secure a release from this intolerable situation.


'C. T. SHARPE,
[Stage Direction]
' Secretary-treasurer.'
2.	If so, can the government give any relief ?
T1)e MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). The government have received the petition which the hon. gentleman refers to. I am not -aware that there is any action that the government can take which could provide the relief desired.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 2351 to provide for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.-The Prime Minister.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There were one or two sections allowed to stand for the purpose of enabling amendments to be drawn, but before we proceed to deal with these amendments I wish to add another section to the Bill. This section will

have reference to the importation of materials and the payment of duties thereon. It is for the purpose of making abundantly clear the point which, as I have already said, is in my opinion quite clear in the contract now. However, in view of the very strong opinion expressed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I thought it well to make the point so clear that no one could have any possible doubt about it.
The clause I intend to move reads as follows :
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to entitle any person to exemption from the payment of customs duties on any goods imported into Canada, and it is hereby declared that the expression ' direct importations of material or supplies by the government,' in clause 17 of said agreement has reference only to such importations by the government for the purposes of betterments of the said eastern division for which money is expended by the government upon capital account under clause 16 of the said agreement. Material or supplies otherwise required for or entering into the construction or betterment of the said railway were not Intended to be and shall not be exempt from the customs duties .ordinarily payable upon imported material or supplies of the same class, and the customs duties thereon when the same are imported shall be included in estimating the cost of construction or the capital of construction account under the said agreement.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I suppose that it would perhaps be better to allow this clause to stand for a little until my hon friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) and other gentlemen on this side of the House shall have an opportunity of considering the amendment


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Quite right.


Robert Laird Borden: It is designed, I understand, to meet the objection raised by my hon. friend from Toronto, and also discussed by some others on this side of the House.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 16-tenders for construction,


Robert Laird Borden: Why did this section stand ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I put that
question to myself this morning, and I have not been able to find a reason for holdiug this section over. I may say that it is a section adopted from the Intercolonial Railway Act, and it is also to be found in the Act respecting the Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not at this moment see any reason why it should stand ; but I would like to say that we have an amendment to propose, which would perhaps be more appropriate to section 8 than to section 16. As a matter of fact, I rather overlooked the matter when section S went through last night. Perhaps Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
under these circumstances, there would be no objection to returning to section 8.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If that is the only objection, we might perhaps let section 16 go through and go back to section 8.


Robert Laird Borden: And then if anything should be overlooked in section 16 we can go back and reconsider that. I move-that section 8 he reconsidered.
Section 16 agreed to, and motion to reconsider section 8 agreed to.
On section 8-Eastern division to be built by government.


Mr. BENNETT.: Before this Bill finally passes, I wish to ask if it is intended to insert a clause relative to the employment on the eastern section of Asiatic or other labour by contractors ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No ; the general Railway Act contains the fair-wage provision, which I think governs the matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the question I ask. is : will contractors or subcontractors on the section east of Winnipeg, which is to be built by the government, be permitted or allowed to employ Chinese labour ? I do-not think such a case as that will he met by the Railway Act. May I ask, is it the intention of the government to provide legislation to that end ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They certainly will not he permitted by virtue of any special legislation. The general law of the country on that question is not altered at all. Whatever can be done to-day will he done under this Bill. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice is taking that under consideration, hut there is nothing special in this legislation touching that question at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: So that there is nothing in this Bill that will preclude or prevent contractors bringing in Chinese, and working them on the construction of this railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Railway contractors under this Bill will he precisely in the same position as railway contractors are to-day, neither better nor worse.


William Humphrey Bennett: In other words, they will he permitted to bring in Chinese labour if they wish ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If that is the law to-day.


Mr. CLARKE.: My hon. friend has brought up a very important matter, and one on which I do not think we have had a perfectly satisfactory assurance from the hon. minister. Is it a fact that contractors can bring in Chinese labour, and can construct the road partly with Chinese labour ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Outside of the regulation respecting Chinese coming

into this country, there is no legislation on the subject.


Mr. CLANCY.: In view of the mountains of information so-called which have been laid on the Table, and the very few days that we have had to devote ourselves to looking into these mountains of information, the Minister of Justice will, I am sure, concede that the amendment I am now about to move is quite timely. I propose to move that section 8 be ameneded by adding thereto the following proviso :
Provided, however, that the surveys and plans showing the most favourable route and the beet practicable grades and curvatures that can he obtained, together with an estimate of the cost based thereon, shall be first submitted to parliament for approval.
If we had the information that the House might reasonably expect, there would possibly be no reason for making a provision of that kind in the Bill.
We had laid upon the Table some six or eight days ago a blue-book containing what is said to be the mountains of information which the government had when they decided on this scheme. It consists of about 180 pages, and begins in the city of Quebec and ends at the westerly portion of Ontario. I am going to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice and the acting Minister of Railways, who have no doubt looked into this matter very carefully, to point out, not a mountain, but even a molehill, in this report which gives any reliable information as to the character of the country. All that I can find is some vague general information, obtained some forty, fifty or sixty years ago. To show you how unreliable the information is let me compare it with a report on the same country issued by the Ontario government. I might add that there is absolutely nothing in the report regarding the character of the country as suitable for railway building. Section 5 of this departmental blue-book corresponds almost exactly with section 1 of the report issued by the Ontario government. This is what is said regarding the timber resources, and the extract I am going to quote was used by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in this House a few weeks ago :
Timber.-White and red pine found over the whole region. On the north side of the height of land pine trees measure from eight to nine feet in circumference. White spruce, yellow birch, cedar, also tolerably abundant. Poplar, canoe birch, banksian pine, elm and ash are also reported, and sugar maple and aspen.
Take precisely the same district, beginning at the boundary line between Quebec and Ontarid, and see what the Ontario report says on that very same subject:
There is a little of white pine timber north*
of the height of land, the trees being scattered and inferior of quality. Some small areas of red pine and some jack pine were met with, nearly all of these varieties found being south of Lake Abitibi. The best areas for puipwood
are on Lo'w Bush and Circle rivers, with their tributaries, where it is estimated that an area of ISO square miles will yield an average of seven cords to the acre or about 800,000 cords. Along Little Abitibi river between Harris lake and the boundary the puipwood is estimated at 750,000 cords. A belt reaching from Lower Abitibi lake along the Abitibi river to Long Sault, eighty miles in length will average seven cords to the acre. There are also considerable puipwood areas to the west and north of Lower Abitibi lake.
I have pointed out that the report of the Ontario surveys examination and this report presented to this House are absolutely contradictory- The one declares that there is no pine north of the Height of land, and the other says that there is an abundance, and that there are trees measuring five to nine feet in circumference. That is a fair sample of the information by which we are asked to be guided. Can the Minister of Justice or the acting Minister of Railways point to a single paragraph in this so-called mountains of information which will give any definite idea of the character of the country. We have had no surveys or information of a recent character. What we have is very contradictory; and if we are going to commit the country to a vast expenditure on such meagre information, we will be certainly very derelict in our duty. Let me give an illustration of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite on a railway which passes through a country concerning which they seemed to think we had very little or no information. I refer to the short line proposed by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to St. John. Let me quote from the speech made by the First Minister, which is very applicable to the present case. Upon that occasion it was not at ail settled in the minds of the opposition, although there were some surveys made then, that the line was properly located and that there was sufficient information to warrant the House granting the sum then asked. In 1884 the First Minister moved :
That the said resolution he not now read a second time, hut that it be referred back to a Committee of the Whole with power to amend the same by providing that the route for the line of railway connecting Montreal with the harbours of St. John and Halifax, for which a subsidy of $170,000 a year for fifteen years is provided, should he subject to the approval of parliament.
Now, what we are asking by this amendment is that the information should he had and that, on the basis of that information the scheme should be approved by parliament. Here is another resolution on the same line and on the same subject, moved by the right hon. Prime Minister in the following year, 1885:
In the opinion of this House additional surveys are requisite in order to a stfund decision of the route of the 'Short line of railway, and it would be premature to adopt any line before ' further surveys have been made.

If liou. gentlemen have any respect for their record, surely they will agree that the motion I have moved is timely and necessary under present conditions. If we had any information of a reliable kind, information that would warrant the House in going on, I would say that such a motion as this that I have presented would not be timely. If we were under the necessity of reaching a conclusion at once, we should be compelled to act upon such information as we have. But lion, gentlemen opposite know that this is not a pressing matter, but that the time to gather the information can well be spared. They know that time devoted to the gaining of information will be well spent in the interests of the country, and that it will be wise to make this scheme subject to the approval of parliament when that information is at hand. I inferred from what the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) said, and also from what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who is acting Minister of Railways, said, that those gentlemen regarded it as possible that the eastern section might be found to be an impracticable work; and that, if, after proper examinations are made, it should turn out to be a scheme not in the interest of Canada, the government of the day would be prepared to consider the matter and prepare a scheme that should be more in the interest of the country. I do not say that the Minister of Justice used those words, but that is what I inferred from what he said, and this is what might be expected from any government, even from a government pressing this measure with the undue haste with which this has been pressed from the commencement. There is plenty of time, for the government have placed themselves in such a position that they are not forced to go on with the construction of the eastern section simultaneously with the construction of the western section. The time that will be required for the construction of the eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton has been variously estimated by lion. gentlemen opposite at from five to seven years. Well, if it is to be seven years before this road will be completed, why should we not have the information necessary to a decision 1 Why should not parliament have the right of reviewing that information when it is before us, and, on the basis of that information, decide whether this is a scheme that should be carried out or not ? I would ask this especially in view of what has been told us by the government's expert. I refer to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who, I am sure will be understood by the country to be the government's expert. Of course, I am not aware, nor is the country aware, that the hon. gentleman ever built a rod pf railway ; they are not aware that he is an engineer ; they are not aware that he has had anything to do, in the larger sense, with the question of trans-


James Clancy: portation. Nevertheless, the hon. gentleman is put up as an expert. If we are to have as an expert one who knows nothing about the matter, I do not know whom it would better suit the purposes of the government to put up than the hon. member for North Norfolk. If we should say that the hon. gentleman is an expert, the government can, with perfect truth, declare that he is not, and they can quote views of his, expressed within the last few months diametrically opposed to those which he now expresses. And, if we urge that he is an expert, the government, if they choose to take the responsibility, can with equal truth quote his views in support of an opposite policy. I do not know any hon. gentleman so handy, so useful for the government. If they want an excuse for anything they are doing, they can always find utterances of his on any side of any question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is a work for the general advantage of Canada.


James Clancy: For the general disadvantage of Canada, but for the general advantage of the government. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is always on his feet, and the government can always find him where they want him. If they should change their mind about this scheme, we should find the hon. gentleman with all apparent candour, voicing their new opinions. He will not even think it worth while to tell us why he changed. But all we need to know, in order to know that when the government changes its mind he will change his mind, is the hon. gentleman's record in the past. And, when he does change his mind neither excuses nor reasons are looked for. Now, we have absolutely no information on the sub.ie .'t of tliis route. And, when I say that, I do not at all forget that we have this volume on the resources of the country between Quebec and Winnipeg, which has been prepared by the government. But, after hon. members have perused, as I am sure, we have perused with great care, every page of this volume, we find ourselves as much in the dark as ever. True, we have some inferences and opinions of the compiler of the book with regard to that country, but these, of course, may lie as worthless as the conclusions of the hon. member for North Norfolk. We find page after page stating where information can be had, but there is not a particle of information disclosed in the report. We are referred to some reports giving vague information about that country. And when I say that that information is vague, I mean that it is vague as regards the building ofi a railway. We know that the building of a railway was not In the minds of those who carried on these explorations. As hon. gentlemen know all these explorations were made by canoe, following the streams that flow into Hudson bay, but the country between the streams is unexplored. Take the reports

[DOT]of the Ontario government, take the reports ol' the Geological Survey, and any lion, gentleman who has taken the trouble to go through these reports will see that, for the purposes of the scheme that we have before us, these surveys are of the most perfunctory character. They merely refer to the streams, whereas the territory between the streams, It may be hundreds of miles across, has never been explored and little [DOT]or nothing is known about it. X am going to ask the Minister of Justice to adopt this amendment. I ask the same thing of the Minister of Finance, who is acting Minister of Railways. I ask the hon. gentleman to lay aside his pride, if pride should come into this case, and to be guided only by the interests of the country. This is not an unreasonable thing. It merely proposes that the plans of the most favourable route and the most practicable grades and curvatures should be in possession of the House-and the hon. member for North Norfolk will certainly support this-together with the estimated cost based thereon.
1 insist, with all due deference to the opinions that have been offered from both sides of the House, that this is a timely amendment, that parliament should expect nothing less than that it should be consulted and all information placed in its possession before it commits itself to such an [DOT]outlay of money. It would not entail any delay in the construction of the railway. It will take some time to complete the surveys, and while these surveys are being prosecuted, we should at least retain the power to say, a year hence or two years hence, as the case may be, whether this scheme should be proceeded with, in view of the information that will then have been placed before parliament. I. therefore, beg to move, as an amendment to this clause", the proviso which I have just read.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am quite certain that my hon. friend moves this amendment with all seriousness. But a moment's reflection will convince him how absolutely impossible it will be for the government to accept it. AVhat would be the effect of the adoption of this amendment ? It would delay the construction of the eastern end of this railway, from Winnipeg to Quebec and Moucton, while the work in connection with the western end, from Winnipeg to the coast, would be proceeded with, and the result would necessarily be to cause that diversion of traffic to American channels for the prevention of which my hon. friends laboured so strenuously all of yesterday. Their whole argument yesterday was that it was very desirable to prevent the diversion to American ports of Canadian trade, and now they deliberately pro pose to stop the work of construction on the eastern section, which would form an. outlet for the products of the -west, while the work of construction on the western end.
would proceed. I do not think my hon. friend seriously thinks that we could in, that way secure the end for which my hon friends laboured so strenuously yesterday My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) made a reference to the report of Dr. Ami, and rather ridiculed that report. He attempts to deal with -this as if it were a complete statement of the information possessed by the government in respect to that part of the country extending from Winnipeg to Quebec. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is a close student of parliamentary matters and of parliamentary reports, and he must see that this particular document is nothing more or less than an index to the mountains of information to which reference has been made. I am sure my hon. friend has not failed to see that, as it is made quite clear in the following words
The following report contains a brief account of some of the resources of the country traversed by the national transcontinental railway between Quebec and Winnipeg.
At the foot of the page we have the fol lowing paragraph :-
The information contained herein is compiled from reports of surveys and explorations made by the Geological Survey of Canada from 1843 to 1903.
That is to say, it is compiled from reports that have been made during sixty years But it is also compiled from the reports of
The Crown Lands Departments of Ontario and Quebec, as well as from some other authentic sources.
Then, my hon. friend at the conclusion of the preface will find :
A list of the principal sources of information cited has been added and the works of reference consulted number in a.ll nearly 10,000 pages.
And then, at the end of the report, you will find four and a quarter pages of refer ences to the different reports that my hon. friend might consult. This was merely' intended as an index to the sources of information there referred1 to. I endeavoured to make myself to some extent familiar with these different sources of information. 1 do not pretend for a moment that I made myself fully familiar with that information, but, as a result of my numerous conferences with Dr. Ami, I suggested tlie compilation of this blue-book. I find that in both northern Ontario and northern Quebec,, in the section that will be reached by the Grand Trunk Pacific, there is a great deal of land fit for settlement. It is estimated that in northern Quebec there are 70 million acres of land capable of settlement which have not been touched. Let us assume that only one-seventh of this will be directly benefited by the building of tlie Grand Trunk Pacific ; that would mean at least 10 million acres, or nearly one-halif the extent of the present cultivated area of

the province. Besides this, there is known to exist along this whole road much valuable timber.
Now, with respect to the great clay belt, which lies partly In Ontario and partly in Quebec, we find that the surveys made in the part of the province of Ontario reveal! the fact that there are 16 million acres of good clay land and of good pine and spruce forests. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) must not overlook the fact that the Ontario reports have been sworn to. I dio not know the gentlemen who were employed by the Ontario government for the purpose of making these exploratory surveys, but I am quite satisfied that no man in Ontario connected with the important profession of surveying would undertake to make a report under oath that would not be true. It seems to me that these Ontario official reports do no more than bear out the testimony of Dr. Robert Bell, of the Geological -Survey. I find in his report for 1875 the following words
In a general way there is ,perhaps a greater proportion of good soil in the plateau region northward than southward of the height of land.
These reports of the Ontario government officials merely corroborate tihs report made by Dr. Bell as far back as 1875. Surely, we cannot disregard all that mass of testimony. Surely we cannot say that Dr. Bell in 1875 was preparing reports in respect of this country that could be used at the present time in connection With this enterprise. Surely, we are entitled to place some credence on the report of Dr. Bell, a reliable authority, who has done good service for this country. If I do not deal with this matter at greater length, my hon. friend will realize that it is not out of discourtesy, but because I do not think it is, possible for me to add anything to what has been said on that subject by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), and to the valuable information which my hon. friend can find by consulting the records to which Dr. Ami refers. But I have in my hand a memo, prepared for me by Mr. Doucet, the engineer of the Trans-Canada Railway Company. Mr. Doucet says :
It lias been asserted that the country through which the -propos-eid transcontinental railway is intended to be run is unknown or where known is a land of rock and muskeg. Prom actual surveys and explorations made it can he stated definitely that such statements are false. More favourable lines than one can he had from Quebec to Winnipeg. From a report and map supplied by a reliable party working for the Trans-Canada Railway, a perfectly feasible route is had from Quebec to Da Tuque and following the St. Maurice river to Its headwaters where the height of land between the St. Lawrence and James bay is crossed at an elevation of 1,350 feet above sea level. This is the highest point between Quebec and Lake Nepigon. The fact of easy gradients being an essential condition of cheap carriage of grain has not been lost sight of in the selection of this route, for Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
on a line explored from Quebec to Winnipeg from actual heights taken with barometers it is ascertained that no grades -opposed to east bound traffic will exceed thirty-two fe-et -to the mile, and -that the maximum grade with -traffic will not be over fifty-two feet to the mile.
This would mean that modern -engines such as are used on all up-to-date railways could Haul loads of 2,000 tons, and it is this favourable condition of levels on our proposed transcontinental railway which will -enable the allrail route to compete on most favourable terms with the rail and water route. From Quebec to the height of land via such a line as described. soil is of good quality until a short distance of the summit, or about -the upper waters of -the St. Maurice river, where the land becomes lighter, of sandy nature, and broken up with small -marshe-s and lakes, but this is a condition attending the -crossing of the height of land between -the St. Lawrence and James bay at any point between Quebec and Winnipeg, and it -is a well known fact that the further south the summit between the great lakes and th-e James bay is crossed the -longer st-reiteh of poor country is encountered, as proved on the Canadian Pacific Railway which runs through a barren, rocky land between North Bay and Rat Portage with slight exceptions, whereas, on a northern route from explorations actually made, nowhere is barren land encountered of more than 130 -miles in length, and this happens in the northern part of the province of Quebec at the headwaters of the St. Maurice river.
Now, we have all these reports to which Dr. Ami refers extending from 1843 down to 1903. We have these reports of the Ontario explorers sent out by the Ontario government. We have, in addition to that, Mr. Doucet's report made from actual surveys by people who went over this territory for the express purpose of locating the Trans-Canada line. The result shows that the country is a good country, that the country contains more arable land north of the height of land than south of it, and that in addition to that, from the railway construction standpoint, on the authority of Mr. Doucet we have it that a most favourable location can be found. That is the information upon which we rely in part. In addition to that there is a mass of available information that the student may find if he wants to pursue his inquiries further.


James Clancy: Mr. Doucet does not profess to have ever made an actual survey or to have gone over the tract of country to be traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It is quite true that Mr. Doucet may have had some information but as far as is disclosed in the reports he had very limited information as to the route of the Trans-Canada Railway. These are the opinions of Mr. Doucet who is no doubt a. very respectable gentleman, but they are unsupported entirely ' by any surveys. I wish to point that out. There is no pretense that Mr. Doucet has made this report from any information obtained by surveys.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I extract from the memorandum prepared by Mr. Doucet the following words :

From actual surveys and explorations made it can be stated definitely that such statements are false.
That is to say that the country is unknown or is known to he a land of rock and muskegs.
More favourable lines than one can be had from Quebec to Winnipeg.
From actual surveys and explorations.


James Clancy: Actual explorations not made by Mr. Doucet, but actual explorations such as we have handed down to this House. 1 desire, Mr. Chairman, to call your attention to the fact that this mountain of information laid on the Table of the House is merely an index to the mountain of information and that the House has not the information, but the index. The hon. gentleman the Minister of Justice made it perfectly clear this morning that such was the fact and there was no pretense that this report of Dr. Ami contained the information. The statement now made is that Dr. Ami's report is a mere index of such information as may be found in the tons of literature upon the subject which are to be found somewhere in the departments at Ottawa. Is that a fair way to treat the House ? Dr. Ami has given his opinions in some cases, but he has given his opinions not from experience, but entirely from his reading of the reports. These may be accurate or inaccurate conclusions. They are not information. In regard to the statement made concerning section 5 in Dr. Ami's report and which is at complete variance with the statement made in the Ontario government report this is not a mere index but it is a statement of supposed fact. There is a very positive and specific statement made in both cases. t>r. Ami says, in giving a summary of the conditions, that there is a very considerable quantity of white pine north of the height of land and the other report states that there is none.
I desire to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the fact that he has made the statement that the reports of the explorers of the Ontario government were all sworn to. If there is anything in that, and I have no objection to laying great stress upon that, I believe they swore to what they saw, but I believe they saw very little and swore to it. I have no doubt as to the truth of the statements that these gentlemen made.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a very polite way of putting it.


James Clancy: Of course, I would not charge these gentlemen with saying what is not true. I believe they are responsible men. I have no idea of casting the slightest reflection upon them but they state themselves in their report that they made a very limited examination in many cases. The hon. Minister of Justice declares that these I
men were under oath. While the men who have recently been on the ground swore that there was no timber there. Dr. Ami says that there is timber there. I am going to ask the hon. Minister of Justice whom he is going to believe, the men who swore to it or the man who knows nothing about it. In introducing this amendment there is no question raised as. to the possibilities or resources of the country. I believe that there are great resources in that country both in Quebec and in Ontario, although they are such that they will not be availed of for many years to come owing to the greater possibilities given in other quarters in Canada. However, this is aside from the question I am discussing now, except that it is involved in the sense that we should have complete information as to the resources and character of the country in which such a large expenditure must be made in constructing a railway. When we say that there are muskegs and rocky tracts of country and when we say that there is good land in that region, we say what is true. I do not know anything that has a greater tendency to becloud the question than to say, if one should read from a report of the Ontario government or the geological survey to show that there are most undesirable tracts of land in that region, that he is decrying the country. Surely there should be no attempt on either side to make any temporary gain in that way. We declare that there are some portions of the country in which there is good land, that there are portions in which there are large quantities of pulp wood and that there are other portions which are unfit for agricultural purposes. Now, a word as to the delay. The hon. gentleman knows that this would not delay the eastern section an hour. Does the Minister of Finance say, that if it were found impracticable to build a railway through that country of the character laid down by the government expert (Mr. Charlton), then no matter what the expense and what the difficulties, the government would construct that road. If that be the policy of the government my amendment is useless ; if, it is not the policy of the government then the amendment is apropos. What has the Minister of Finance to say ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We regret that, whether this information takes the shape of mountains or hills, my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is determined to ignore it. We can only say, that there is sufficient information available to give ns a reasonable assurance that a railway can be built through the country between Quebec and Winnipeg at a reasonable cost. That being the case, and, whether the pine be red. white or blue, the intention of the government is to build the road through the northern part of Canada, believing as we do, that we have Information now which will justify us in going forward.


James Clancy: Is that information in the index ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is more information in what the hon. gentleman calls the index than he will ever read, and as to the mountains, I do not believe that my hon. friend will ever attempt to climb them.


Robert Laird Borden: I noticed when the mountains of information -were placed before us, that they came about half way up to the top of the match box which decorates the Table of the House. The Minister of Finance says that the government propose to build a road through that northern country, whether the pine be read, white or blue. That is his mode of expressing his conelus-sion that a railway will be built through that country under any conditions, and at any possible cost. Has not the Minister of Finance heard the calculation made by his own railway expert (Mr. Charlton), who was put up in the first place by the government to answer the ex-Minister of Railways, and who was again put up the other night to talk about a subject which was not at all under the consideration of the House? Does not the Minister of Finance know that the hon. member (Mr. Chariton) has based his whole argument upon the supposition that you can find four-tenths per cent grades through that country, or at the outside six-tenths per cent grades ? Does the Minister of Finance say tiiat lie has any information which will enable him to state to the House within 840,000.000 of what a road of that kind wiiil cost ? I invite the hon. gentleman to make a calculation within even $40,000,000 of the cost ? I venture to say he cannot clo It. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) also pointed out to us the the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, both running from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, are carrying grain at rates very much higher than he estimates for the total cost of carrying grain all the way from Winnipeg to Quebec. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been charging 14 cents per hundred pounds on grain from the vicinity of Winnipeg to Lake Superior ports. The Canadian Northern has been charging 12 cents until it was forced' by the government of Manitoba within the last few days to reduce that rate to 10 cents. If grades can be procured of the character that my horn, friend (Mr. Charlton) suggests, all the way from Winnipeg to Quebec, surely they could be procured much more easily over the comparatively short line from Winnipeg to Port Arthur and Fort William. And if it is advantageous to build a road of that character for 1.875 miles. I would like to know why it is that two pretty shrewd corporations like the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway have not seen fit to build such a road from Winnipeg to the Georgian bay ? Does the hon. member (Mr. Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
Chariton) really suppose that lie understands the railway business better than Sir Thomas Shaughnessy or Mr. C. M. Hays, or Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann ? Although such a contention lias been put forward by the Prime Minister, apparently in a serious manner, I do not suppose that my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton,) really professes to understand the business of building and operating railways better than Sir William Van Horne, better than Mr. Hays, better than Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, better than Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, better than Mr. J. R. Booth, men who have devoted all their lives trying to understand the problems attendant on railway construction and operation. And yet, the Minister of Finance in the most flippant manner, says that through this country the government is prepared to build a railway no matter what the expense may be, and that railway, bear in mind, according to the member for North Norfolk, from Winnipeg to Quebec, and even to Moncton is to have grades of four-tenths or at most six-tenths per cent per mile. The Minister of Justice says there will be delay. Within wlmt period of time does the Minister of Justice think these surveys can be made to find four-tenths grades through that country ? Does he think the work can be commenced before the next session of parliament which must be upon us within a few months ? Does he think that the government can find grades of that kind before next session ? If the government policy is a good one, and if these grades can be found, every one is desirous that this road should be built at the earliest possible date, provided it can be built at a reasonable cost to this country. The proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is that you shall not proceed until you have some information on the subject. When you have found these grades-and yon cannot find them for a considerable time- submit the surveys and plans to the representatives of the people in parliament; and submit also an estimate of whether it will cost 75, 100, 150 or 200 millions to build a road of that kind, with proper grades and curvatures from Winnipeg to Quebec. Does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice suggest that there is anything in that which causes one moment's delay in the carrying out of this project? In what way does It cause delay? Can you make these surveys in less than one year or eighteen months ? Have the government any information as to the time in which they can be made ? And do the government propose to commence the construction of this road while these surveys are incomplete or before they have any accurate knowledege on which an estimate of the cost can be based ? It is not a question of delay ; it is a question of knowing what you are about before you undertake the construction of a road of such a character as the government have announced it to be their policy to construct.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I imagine that as an authority on curves and gradients he ought to be of some value.


Bennett Rosamond: The curves he is an authority on are altogether too sharp for railways. I venture to say that there is not a railway authority in the country, or any man of experience in transportation matters, who will, with any regard to consistency, approve in the slightest degree of the statement made by the hon. member for North Norfolk the other day on the question of the all-rail carrying of grain from Winnipeg to Quebec. The hon. Minister of Justice spoke of the danger of a diversion of traffic to United States ports if this railway were not gone on with at the present time; and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), at an early stage of this debate,
made reference to the same thing. He said that increased railway facilities are a matter of necessity, and that if they are not immediately supplied, we may suffer from our delay by seeing our products finding an outlet through other channels than our own-a misfortune which it might take long years and a vast expenditure of money to overcome. This shows that it is a most serious matter to venture on this enormous expenditure without a further examination of the whole matter by men who are really experts on the question of transportation. Therefore, I think it would be wise for the government to accept this amendment, and go back to their original proposition to appoint a commission of men who have a knowledge of these matters, so that the whole question may be considered before the next session of parliament. I do not think that gentlemen on this side of the House are really opposed to the construction of the railway if we had a proper knowledge of the cost, and if we had an assurance that it would accomplish the object which the government have in view. There is no doubt that it will be a good thing to a certain extent to have the large expenditure of public money which will he involved. That will create a certain amount of fictitious prosperity for the time being, and is a pleasant consideration to those who will derive a certain benefit from the building of the road. But will it accomplish the object which the government have in view, and which we would all like to see accomplished, that is, facilitating the transportation of the North-west products to the markets of the world ? Unless it does that, it will be a coiaaplete failure, while the country will be involved in a further increase of debt. I am not going to say that thei*e is not a good deal of land north of Lake Abitibi; and. by the way, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Jaistiee whether the road is to run north or south of Lake Abitibi ?


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE.: I presume that the surveyors will determine that; but my present information is to the effect that the route north of Lake Abitibi would be the. most desirable.


Bennett Rosamond: I have reason myself to believe that there is good land north of Lake Abitibi. I am told by one who knows something of the country, because he lias travelled over it, that north of Lake Abitibi there is a belt from fifty to one hundred miles wide, starting from a point about fifty miles east of the boundary between Ontario and Quebec, and extending westward for about 300 miles to a point north of Lake Nepigon, in which there is admirable land : clay loam without much pine on it, but with some large trees of poplar and spruce, some of them five or six feet in circumference The land in that belt is said to be very good; but north of that again the

laud is mostly muskeg and rock, and entirely unsuitable for cultivation. But it seems to me that it would be unreasonable to attempt to build this line of railway simply for the purpose of colonizing that country. That is an object which might be accomplished more properly by the Ontario government and the Quebec government. The Ontario government are doing something in that direction. They are building their lines northward so as to tap that good land and bring it into communication with Ottawa, Toronto and other cities of Ontario.
But to build a road that will cost $150,000,000 for the purpose of colonizing that part of the country seems to me an undertaking which this parliament ought not to entertain, more especially when it will not accomplish the object we have in view, namely, the facilitating of the (transport of the produce of the great North-west to the markets of the world. I am perfectly satisfied, from what information I have been able to obtain, that it is impossible to carry by this route the grain of the North-west to the markets of the world at such a rate as will leave to the farmers an adequate return for their labour ; and that is the object the government ought to have in view. The question to determine is whether by this scheme the grain of the Northwest will be carried to the markets of the world at a paying rate, because if not the whole expenditure will be thrown away, so far as the farmers of the North-west are concerned. I have taken some pains to gather information on that point. Some time ago I wrote to a gentleman who has a thorough knowledge of the question, who is interested in the carrying trade, and who besides is a shrewd man of business and connected with railways. The opinion he entertains is a very practical one, and far more to be depended on than any partisan statements made by such meu as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). The gentleman to whom I refer is Mr. Robert Meighen, the president of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, and this is the opinion he has given me :
I have yours of the 13th instant this morning, and should be glad if any feeble effort of mine could in any way place at your disposal any information that would he of use to you in connection with the matter you refer to.
Referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project I, as you know, declined to discuss the question at present, or give my opinion, either for or against the policy now brought forward in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific project. I merely give my opinion from a business standpoint, quite apart from politics, as I always give my opinion on a commercial matter without reference to any political party.
I have put my views on record in the public press nine years ago that but a small portion of the products of Manitoba or the North-west Territories will ever be brought round the north of Lake Superior by an all-rail route to tide water. My opinion has not changed-you will never bring but a small portion of the


Bennett Rosamond: 
ROBERT MEIGHEN.
[Stage Direction]
B. Rosamond, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Mr. CHARLTON.: Who is this authority V


Bennett Rosamond: Mr. Robert Meighen.


John Charlton: Who is he, and what is he ?


Bennett Rosamond: I may say to the hon. .gentleman that not to know Mr. Meighen is to argue himself unknown. He is a shrewd, capable man, thoroughly versed in transportation matters and ajlil questions connected therewith, and I would place a thousand times more dependence on statements lie made in that connection than 1 would on the opinion of the so-called expert of the government. I was astonished the other day when I heard the leader of the House point to the hon. member for North Norfolk as the greatest expert on railways and transportation matters in the Dominion. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard him make such a statement, but we can easily see that the hon. member for North Norfolk is doing his best to live up to that character, because he has been making some of the most remarkable statements, and statements which do not do much credit to his intelligence. Ever since we had that declaration from the leader of the government, I have been expecting to hear of the hon. gentleman's promotion to the vacant Department of Railways and Canals. At a very early hour the other morning, in a speech which I then made, but which was not repoited at the time, I put the question to the Finance Minister whether the hon. member for North Norfolk had been promised the vacant portfolio, but I did not get a very satisfactory answer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I answered.


Bennett Rosamond: But not satisfactorily. INow, Mr. Chairman, this is really a very
serious question. The government propose to add greatly to the very large debt per head resting upon the people. The Prime Minister can see what a bad position the country will be in if, after that money has been expended, we find that the main object in building the railway, the transportation of the products of the west to the seaboard by its means, cannot be accomplished. What he should do, following out the advice contained in this letter is, at present to make use of the means of transportation from Port Arthur to Georgian bay ports, for only then will he be able to head off the possibility spoken of by the ministers of the products of that North-west going by United States ports and so depriving Canada of the benefits of this trade. I do advise the government, with all the energy I have and in all seriousness, to halt in their course and act upon the suggestion of the leader of the opposition and members on this side, advice given in good faith, not as intended to oppose this railway or to oppose expenditure of this kind if it is for the public benefit, but as leading to the careful consideration that is called for by the case and the delay, necessary for that consideration. It is certainly an extraordinary thing for the government to start out, as they did this session, by saying that the question demanded careful consideration and that a commission would be appointed to consider it, and then, without explanation, abandon that idea and launch out in a scheme that will add $125,000,000 to the public debt.


Mr. BOYD.: There is a matter that I think the Premier should take into his consideration. if he desires to have any practical man pay any attention to the statements of his acting Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and of the man who would be Minister of Railways, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Let me read from a speech of the would-be Minister of Railways, delivered the other day :
Of course, it is a question of grades. If this road is built with grades of fifty feet to the mile, or sixty, or seventy feet to the mile, the money is thrown away, and the purpose for which the road is built cannot be achieved. We must get a road of this class ; and we can and will get a road of this class.
The hon. gentleman was speaking, mark you, of a road of 4-10 per cent grade, in other words a rise of about 19 feet to the mile. If you do not get a road like that, the hon. gentleman tells you, the money will be thrown away. And the acting Minister of Railways, within the last few minutes has told ns that they are going to build a reasonable road at a reasonable cost. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister, with all his astuteness in the presentations of his proposals to the country, cannot make any practical man in this conn-

try believe that both these statements can j be well-founded.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Boyd: I say that plainly ; I say it thoughtfully. To build such a road as is proposed by the hon. member for North Norfolk at a reasonable cost, or at anything like the figure estimated here of $28,000 a mile, is impossible. In this speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk that I have quoted, that hon. gentleman says that the engineers of the Grand Trunk Railway now working between Winnipeg and Bake Nepi-gon have found grades of that kind and have so reported. If there are reports of that kind they should be laid before the House. Speaking as a man of some practical experience, I should like to see these reports and also the estimates of what it would cost to build such a road. I would like to see if such a road can be built for such a reasonable amount as stated by the custodian of the finances of this country.
I think that that hon. gentleman speaks with more recklessness than any man I have ever heard in this chamber occupying the same position.


An hon. MEMBER.: Even Foster.


Nathaniel Boyd: We never got anything of that kind out of Foster. If we had, we might have been there yet.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the explanation why these hon. gentlemen are' where they are. They are pursuing the Foster policy now.


Nathaniel Boyd: We are pursuing a policy in the interest of the country. Until we get the reports of which the hon. member for North Norfolk speaks, we should delay reaching a conclusion. Of course, it is easy to get such grades in some places. But hon. gentlemeu must not forget that in building this road you must cross two heights of land, one as you pass from the Red river valley to the James bay slope, and the other when crossing from the James bay slope to the country in which the waters flow towards the St. Lawrence. In view of these plain facts, and in view of that declaration of the hon. member for North Norfolk, who is put up as the mouthpiece of the government, that the money will be thrown away if these easy grades of which he speaks are not obtained, it is most important that we should have the information of which that hon. gentleman speaks. The motion of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is, therefore, quite in order. We should delay until we have that re-iport and an estimate of what it will cost to make a road of the grades spoken of. I spent two years on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the very territory that is spoken of, and, though that road has not such grades as the hon. gentle-


Nathaniel Boyd: man speaks of, it costs $85,000 per mile. And when the leader of the opposition said the goveruinent could not tell within $40,000,000 what* this road would cost, he might have added another $20,000,000 to it. If the government build such a road as the hon. member for North Norfolk speaks of, they cannot tell within $60,000,000 of what it will cost.	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What part of the Canadian Pacific Railway does the hon. member (Mr. Boyd) refer to ?


Nathaniel Boyd: Between Rat Portage and Cross Lake. You will find some parts of that road that cost $100,000 per mile.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART-It cost nearly that to grade some portions of it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the road we are to buy ?
Mi\ BOYD. No. I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am making this speech and not the Minister of Justice. In that connection, I may say that it is not very often that members from Manitoba and the Northwest take part in this debate. But, as I said on a previous occasion if it could be shown to me that this road would afford the best solution of the problem of transportation that faces the people of the Northwest, I would be found supporting it. But it does not. And when hon. gentlemen tell me that such a road, built at such a cost, is to carry the products of the west cheaply to the sea-board, I can only say that the idea is a ridiculous one. I would like to see some of the ministers stand before the farmers of the North-west and make such speeches as they have made in this chamber, and see the reception they would get. The grain of that country will go out by Lake Superior and by Hudson bay. If the government were spending this money in development of the Hudson bay route, in the building of a road to Hudson bay, there would be more reason in their proposition. Even if they had given the territories of the North-west the provincial autonomy they are seeking and begging, we should have had a road to Hudson bay before now. There, mark you, is where the grain is going ; it is not going over this railway proposed by the government; it never will be' carried that way. I think in view of what has been so politely called to the attention of the Minister of Justice and of the House by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) it would be advisable to allow this matter to rest for a day or two until the members of the House have had an opportunity of considering it.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Mr. Chairman. This is the first time that we have had a quasi authoritative statement of the probable route of this railway. We have also had a statement from the Minister of Jus-

tice in reference to the facility with which a railway can he constructed along this route. The hon. minister stated that he did not depend entirely upon Dr. Ami's report in reference to the case of the construction of a railway through this section and he quoted from a report of a Mr. Doucet. 1 notice that the route, as laid down on this plan, goes from Selkirk north of Lake Ne-pigon and north of Lake Temiscamingue and south of Lake Abitibi.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The Minister of Justice said it would go north of Lake Abitibi.


John Graham Haggart: Upon the map the route runs south of Lake Abitibi. It has been stated in the House that we have mountains of information as to the facility with which a railway can be carried along this line from Winnipeg to Quebec. The government could have had the most accurate information in reference to this country. A line of railway was surveyed and located from Selkirk to the north of Lake Nepigon, from the point where their line diverts to the north of Lake Temiscamingue and to the south of Lake Abitibi. The old surveyors left the north part of Lake Nepigon and went down towards Mattawa, going south of Lake Temiscamingue but the government could have had the most accurate, information with reference to the road from Selkirk to Lake Nepigon. The man who surveyed that portion of the road westerly from Lake Nepigon towards Selkirk, Mr. Keating, is at present living in Toronto, and the parties engaged in the survey east of Lake Nepigon, in the direction of Mattatwa where it was to connect with the Brock-ville and Ottawa Railway according to the original intention, are living at the present time. Mr. Camsby, who conducted the survey of the portion west of Lake Nepigon and others who were engaged with him are living. Mr. Doucet has furnished the Minister of Justice with information as to the practicability of this route and the facility of construction but you must remember that on the proposed route as semi-authoritatively given to the House in this plan, yon dip in and out of the height of land eleven times between Winnipeg and Quebec. As I have said the government could have obtained the most accurate information in reference to the line from Selkirk to the north of Lake Nepigon, and I have several times given to the House information which I have received in reference to the nature of that particular portion of the country. You must all remember the enormous amount of money that it cost this country to merely grade the Canadian Pacific Railway road to the north of the Lake of the Woods. The grading of much of that portion of the road cost the government of this country nearly $60,000 per mile. The information furnished to the government when Sir Sandford Fleming was head of the engineering staff of the Railway De-379
partment was that there was no such facile route from Selkirk to the head of Lake Nepigon as we found along the north shore of the Lake of the Woods. That information, I presume, can be obtained from Mr. Keating who will probably have his notes in reference to the survey ; the original information furnished to the government at that time and all these plans were destroyed when the west block was burned. I venture to say, however, that no such gradients as have been suggested can be found unless by making an expense so enormous that it could not be justified at all. To make a commercial road from Selkirk to the head of Lake Nepigon you have first of all to go along a line of road near the English river, as difficult as the line along the shores of the Lake of the Woods. The government have in their possession at the present time full information as to what it cost the country to simply grade that line, without laying the rails. They know that from Selkirk to Lake Nepigon no better gradients can be found than are found along the Lake of the Woods, without an expenditure that could not be justified you could not get a line with gradients not over 26 feet to the mile from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior. The information I have is that the country from a point 26 miles north of Lake Nepigon westerly along the shores or near the shores of English river to Selkirk, where the Canadian Pacific Railway was to terminate when it was intended to cross Lake Nepigon is such a country as the north shore of the Lake of the Woods in which there is no possibility of getting a good gradient. It is a country of granite ridges intersected here and there with muskegs. To secure good grades in that country would cost an enormous sum of money and dipping down from the height of land into the James bay plateau and rising out of it again at Lake Nepigon would prevent the getting of grades that would make it a commercial road. From Lake Nepigon they can get most accurate surveys although not to the north of Lake Temiscamingue, but they have in the department accurate surveys down to Mattawa.
The original intention in building the Canadian Pacific Railway was to go north of Lake Nepigon and from Lake Nepigon over to Selkirk along the shores of Lonely lake and the Lake of the Woods. If you go from the northern part of Lake Nepigon, westerly towards Winnipeg, there is a common line for over 260 miles from Wabigoon to Winnipeg, and if there is a new line built, the existing line will have to be paralleled by the new line, which will have to be located within a few miles of it in order to get to the shores of Lake Nepigon. When the government were getting the report of the Geological Survey in reference to this particular part of the country, why did they not go to the head of the survey- to Dr. Bell 1 He is acquainted with that



country. He lias spent a good deal of Ills life along tlie shores of the Hudson's bay and the plateau to the south of that body of water. He knows the extent of that plateau ; he knows all about that portion of the country and he could have given a most authoritative statement, although he Is not a railway man, as to the character of country that is to be found between the different rivers that run north to James bay. But instead of that we have a report from a Dr. Ami. I suppose he is a gentleman who is one of the head men of the Geo* logical Survey. I never heard of him before. I have no doubt he has given an accurate account of such statements as are in their possession, but you must take into account the method by which a geological survey is made. The exploring party get into a bark canoe at the beginning of the summer, and follow down the rivers for 150 or 200 miles. That is the only way they can do and it is the best way to get an accurate geological description of the country. But, this proposed railway does not follow the lines of rivers : it trends across the rivers, at right angles to them. Long ago I was making inquiries regarding this country, and I obtained some information from the Geological Survey. We were not then considering the construction of a railway in that section of the country, but I was making inquiries as to the character of the country between the stiearns going into Hudson's bay. I found out that for a short distance back from the streams there was a belt of timber sometimes valuable and sometimes not, but that, as a rule, between the rivers and between the branches of the rivers, there were immense morasses stretching from one river to another, not at all cultivable land, and not the kind of land which has been described by non. gentlemen opposite who are advocating this scheme. As I stated before in some observations which I addressed to this House, in order to get to the good lands you have to get into the plateau south of James bay. Immediately south of James bay the plateau commences with a width of 50 miles, and widens out when it gets north of the Lake of the Woods to a width of nearly 150 miles. This railway does not propose to go along that plateau at all. It is far south of it. It goes several miles south of Lake Abitibi, crosses over at the head of Lake '.'emiscamingue, takes an air line to the head of Lake Nepigon, and from there to Winnipeg it follows the height of land nearly all the way, although it dips down from the height of land into the plateau between Winnipeg and Quebec eleven times. As to the possibility of the construction of a line such as the hon. member for North Norfolk ."Mr. Charlton) says it is necessary in these times to have in order to make a commercial railway undertaking a successful one, that is one over which a modern locomotive can carry 50 or 60 car loads of
wheat, it is utterly impossible to get it in that section of the country. If it were possible even in that section of the country my contention is that a road there would be fit only for the purpose of introducing settlement into that country. It could never be made use of as a commercial undertaking, because there is no denying the statement contained in the letter which was read by my hon. friend for North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond), from Mr. Meighen, President of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, to the effect that the only possible way that we can compete with Buffalo in carrying grain to the Atlantic ports is to adopt the scheme proposed by him. The scheme proposed by him is a most practical one, and covers tlie whole transportation question. He proposes that a line from Winnipeg to Lake Superior should be made as facile as possible. The Canadian Pacific Railway are doing that work now. They are reducing all the grades to four-tenths of one per cent. In addition to that, he suggests that we should have cheap transportation on the lakes to the port of Montreal. I need not dwell upon it, because it is more fully stated in the letter of Mr. Meighen than I can possibly state it.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


Mr. BLAIN.: The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) should receive the careful consideration of the government. It is of vast importance to the people of Canada, that before this 1,800 miles of railway from Winnipeg to Moncton shall be constructed, the government should place before us proper surveys and a proper estimate of the cost. Some few weeks ago, the hon. leader of the opposition challenged any member of the government to say, within $10,000,000, what the cost of this railway would be, and from that day to this not one of the ministers or not one of their supporters has attempted to accept that challenge. The hon. member from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has been taking a very particular interest in this discussion. He has been put forward as the chief spokesman of the government, outside the ministers themselves, and in view of his prominence in this debate, it may not be inappropriate to quote these remarks of his :
It is beyond all things necessary that we should make no false step, that we should proceed upon no false hypothesis or basis ; and for that reason it is a wise thing to appoint a commission, composed of men who are capable of examining this question and arriving at correct conclusions. We 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 be appointed upon this commission. Let us wait until we have the decision of these men as to the proper course to pursue.


John Graham Haggart: [DOT]

That was the opinion of the hon. member {Mr. Charlton) on the 26th of May last. He stated then that there was no expert information within the limits of this parliament, and, in the light of his recent actions, that statement is a reflection on himself, because be has been pushed forward by the government as a great expert in railway matters, not only in this House, but in the country. I have been examining this book which the government has presented to us, and which deals with the so-called resources of the country through which this railway will run. The part of the province of Ontario through whicli it is proposed to build this railway is divided into ten districts. The ministers and their supporters have stated that a chief reason for the construction of this road is, that in that territory there are large quantities of timber, which would be made valuable in a commercial sense. Let us see what this book says about the timber. Treating of the timber in district No. 1, it says :
There is little white pine timber north of the height of land, the trees being scattered and inferior in quality. Some small areas of red pine and some jack pine were met with, nearly all of these varieties being found south of Lake Ahitibi.
As to district No. -2, it says :
The prevailing timber is spruce and poplar, there being no pine or hardwood. The spruce, especially along the river banks, attains a size which renders it valuable for square timber, &c.
This timber may be valuable for pulp wood, but it is not the timber which is generally considered of the most valuable kind commercially. Indeed, there is now within reach of our railways and water ways in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario very large quantities of this kind of timber which is yet unused, and it has been often stated in this House that there is sufficient of that kind of timber along the line of our railways and waterways, not only to supply our own wants, but to satisfy tlie demands of the export trade for many years to come. As to district No. 4, it says :
The district is heavily timbered with spruce and tamarack, interspersed with other varieties. Owing to the density of growth, the spruce and tamarack are for the most part, too small for any other commercial use than pulp wood ; their diameter not being proportionate to the height they usually attain.
As to district No. 5 it says :
About one-third of the total area is timber, making 640,000 acres, half of which will, it is estimated, yield good pulp wood or timber. The trees growing along the river banks have usually attained a fair size. Inland the timber is generally small and scrubby.
Of district No. 6 it says :
There are great quantities of excellent pulp wood throughout the district, the principal variety being spruce and jack pine.
379*	,
Of district No. 7 it says :
There is little timber of commercial value, and such tracts as are intrinsically valuable are practically unavailable on account of location.
As to district No. 9, it says :
There is no pine except in isolated clumps. Spruce timber is thickly scattered throughout the territory, hut much of it is too small to be marketable, though on the higher land it reaches a good size.
As to district No. 10, it says :
The timber on the English river and its tributaries is exceedingly valuable.
Now, this is the most favourable statement as to the timber to be found in this book. It is quite clear, that if the government had ' mountains of information ' in respect to the timber limits of northern Ontario and Quebec, even if they had to get it from the library, they would have given it, so as to make a more favourable showing. In no case can we find, from the contents of this book, that the timber to be found in this region is what might be called of a valuable description. I am a believer in the future of Canada and in the splendid resources to be found in Quebec and Ontario, but when the people of this country are asked to expend millions and millions of money in building a railway, it is not unreasonable that we should ask for sufficient information to enable us to vote intelligently as to the expenditure of this money. The amendment should be carried.


Mr. KEMP.: The question involved in the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Clancy) is a most important one. It goes without saying, that any business or any business corporation would lay down as a first proposition, that before they proceeded with the expenditure of $3.25,000,000 to build a railway, they should have some information as to the surveys of the territory, as well as an estimate of the cost. The leader of the opposition well remarked, that the mountains of information, promised by the government, were overshadowed in size by the match box on the Table of the House, and that amongst these mountains of information we could not find any report from competent engineers as to the possibility of building a railway in that territory equal to the standard spoken of by the bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who is the champion of the government's scheme. We have reports from geologists, it is true, but when these geologists travelled the district, it was not in their minds that a railway ever would be built there and in any case, when a railway is to be built, it is not geologists we send out to obtain data, but competent and reliable engineers. It would seem as if tlie government were rushing into this thing headlong. The organs of public opinion in this country have criticised the course of the Prime Minister, and I call his atten-

tion to what was said by one very important newspaper in Toronto, a newspaper which at first sight favoured his railway policy. This .newspaper tried as much as it could to endorse the schemes of the right lion, gentleman, because, as has been stated by one of my colleagues from Toronto, the managing director and editor is also the biographer of the right hon. gentleman, and sets him upon a very high pedestal. So that naturally he feels it incumbent upon him to defend the object of his admiration. The Toronto ' News,' after endorsing his project, after doing all it could to encourage the government in its course, on August 25tli last made a very significant statement, which I would like to read for the benefit of the right hon. gentleman :
In discussing the scheme, the ' News ' steadily has kept prominent the fact that for the project to have a chance of success the road must attain something closely akin to perfection. That means that the gradients must be as easy as those on the New York Central and the Wabash Railways. A convenient standard of excellence is to regard four-tenths of 1 per cen{-21 feet to the mile^as [DOT] our maximum grade. Throughout the discussion the * News ' has assumed that grades of this nature, together with easy 'curves, must be obtained. Unless such conditions are realized, the line will be a disappointment.
The importance of this condition is immense. Hopes are not facts. We say that the line ' must ' be so constructed. Nature may reply that It cannot be so constructed. What then ? If, when the line is located, heavy grades are announced, from that moment the prospects of the project will be of the gloomiest. If the engineers, after patient searching, after exhausting their ingenuity, are forced to report that steep grades cannot be avoided, the scheme will not be worth trying. The best tiling to do then will be to turn to the improvement of the lake and rail route we already possess.
To what extent does the government realize this fact ? We wish we could answer this question. Individual ministers are seized of its importance. Some of Sir Wilfrid Gaurier's supporters outside of the cabinet are aware of the situation. Mr. Charlton, for instance, gave a particularly clear exposition of the value of low grades. But for the authoritative declaration of the government's policy we must search the Bill now before the House, and the contract which, once ratified, will bind the country. Neither in the Bill nor in the contract do we find any satisfactory recognition of the absolute necessity of low grades. If the Bill becomes law. if the contract is signed, the country will be bound to construct the Winnipeg to Moncton section. The engineers may report that 1 per cent grades are unavoidable. The country will know then that it is committed to an unprofitable undertaking.
The country will know that on a road with 1 iper cent grades trains of perhaps twenty cars must he run instead of trains of sixty or seventy cars. The country will know that a railway which can run trains of only twenty cars .cannot compete with American railways which run trains of thrice that length.
The country, in short, will know that its plan of rivalling the American all-rail route with a Canadian all-rail route has failed-failed before an embankment has been built, before


Richard Blain: a tie has been laid. Yet the country will be hound to build that railway. It might possibly build it as cheaply as possible, and hope that it would he of some use as a colonization line. But the government is planning a national outlet, not a colonization railway.
In the Bill is incorporated a section authorizing the Governor In Council at any time to suspend the progress of ithe work upon t.he eastern division until the next session of parliament. The contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific contains no such provision. Under the Bill, the government could, in the event of receiving discouraging reports from the engineers, suspend operations and report to parliament. The country would then be in the position of knowing that the necessary conditions of success were absent, and of being bound by the contract. Negotiations with the Grand Trunk Pacific might follow. In such negotiations the company would have the upper hand. Conceivably, a variation of plan might be adopted, which would result in a railway system strikingly like the original Grand Trunk Pacific proposal. The Grand Trunk engineers have reported that suitable grades can be got from Winnipeg eastward to Abitibi. The eastern division might be made to terminate a.t Abitibi, and connected there with the Temiskamingue and Northern, thus placing the Grand Trunk Pacific in touch with the old Grand Trunk system. All this, however, is conjecture. What is not conjecture is the awkwardness of the position which the government and the country *would occupy.
It is not too lata to guard against such a difficulty. The contract has not been ratified. Bet a clause be inserted in the contract, stipulating that the eastern division must be built to a certain standard, and that, if the engineers ascertain that, by reason of natural obstacles, such a standard cannot be attained, the obligation to construct the eastern division shall lapse.
The resolution which is before the House embodies practically the same ideas as those expressed in this article, and it is a sensible article. If the government find that a modem railway for carrying grain, with four-tenths per cent grades, cannot be obtained, why should this country put itself in a position of being under obligations to tbe Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to continue this scheme, or be subject to damages ? It seems to me that no punishment or criticism could be too severe for a government that goes into a project of this kind in this manner. The hon. member for North Norfolk, in reply to the hon. Minister of Railways, spoke as follows :-
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 be 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 he laid with 90-poumd 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 load, and cars of 50 tons without weight of cargo. The road must be built with a carrying capacity 50 per cent greater than is now required.

The very best evidence can be brought to show that it is a mistake for the government to commit the country to this work, and impose upon the country an obligation to tlie Grand Trunk Pacific Company to complete it without knowing whether the conditions are favourable or unfavourable. Surely the government cannot commence to build this road before another session of parliament. I may mention that the Cana-Pacific Railway Company have been engaged almost continuously for the last three years surveying a line between Toronto and Sudbury. They have located their line once or twice, and have then gone in other directions to see if they could not get better grades or a more economical route. But here the government are proposing to build a line 1,800 or 1,900 miles in length, with four-tenths per cent grades, without having any preliminary surveys at all. They say the road can be built. Of course, engineers can do almost anything; but what will it cost? They will have either to go over the mountains or tunnel them. If they have to tunnel them, the cost will be enormous, and if they go over them, the grades will be too great. The very reasons the government put forward for building this road have been exploded. The bonding question is now never referred to ; and the argument in regard to carrying grain more cheaply over this road than by the rail and water route is also exploded to a great extent. What is the reason of this haste? In a few months we can get some information in regard to the explorations of properly qualified surveyors and engineers who understand locating railways. It seems to me that the Grand Trunk Company will have the upper hand of us if we commit the country to this obligation at the present time. It also seems apparent to me that if the right bon. the Prime Minister could now retrace his steps, he would not take this course.
. It seems to me that he did not anticipate that his Minister of Railways, the man best qualified in the cabinet to speak on this question, would have resigned if this project had been forced on the way it was. It is therefore not too late even now for the government to say : We will try and get as much information' as we can in the next six months and lay it before parliament, and demonstrate that we can get a road which will be able to carry the products of the North-west to the sea-board, and we will have a four-tenths or fifty per cent grade. The resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is not an unreasonable one, and if it cannot be supported by all hon. gentlemen opposite. it should at any rate get the support of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. [DOT]Charlton). I do not see how it is possible for him to vote against it.


Mr. BROCK.: Before you put this motion, Mr. Chairman, I think a little more discussion of it will not be out of place. I shall endeavour to confine myself entirely to the resolution. The resolution is eminently business-like. We are about to plunge into an enormous expenditure through an unknown land, and therefore should obtain all the information possible before we allow this measure to pass. We were told by the Prime Minister that the government had mountains of information, and I am convinced that the right hon. gentleman would not have made that statement unless he really believed that he had such a mass of information as would justify his assertion. But we find that all this information is reduced into the compass of a small blue-book, in which we find a most remarkable compilation leading us through the centuries, but giving us very little information. According to the Minister of Justice, it is merely an index to that great volume of information to which we have been referred, but it certainly is a very meagre accomplishment of what we were promised. It is not even an index. This country, Mr. Chairman, understands what all that means. The Prime Minister was led into a mistake, and his followers, with that loyalty which has always characterized them, are endeavouring to let him down as easily as possible-much more easily than the practical business men of the country will let him down. If an ordinary farmer comes to town to buy a log chain, how does he judge its strength ? By the strength of three or four links ? No ; by the strength of the weakest link, and he will not complete his purchase unless the defect is rectified. The same test should be applied to the case in hand. We are told by the transportation expert of the government that there will be a weak link in this railway, if the grades should be more than four-tenths to the mile. My contention is that, In judging this matter, we should judge it by its weakest link, and not by a few extracts from the reports of geological explorations which were not made with the view of railway building at all. A great portion of the information, if you can call it such, that we get from this hook does not concern the territory through which this railway will run, and therefore the government will be justified in delaying their course. All we ask is delay sufficient to get the information which will justify the building of this road. We will have to wait for that information in any case, because the government are not going on to build their line without any knowledge. They must have surveys made, and it will only he a few months when tills House will be called together again. Why not wait until that information is before the House ? We were told that we should have this road built at once,-as our bonding privileges were in danger of being abrogated. In the course of his remarks the other day, the Minister of Customs put a supposi-

1210S
titious case. He made the remarkable statement that the people in the North-west would be disloyal if they shipped their goods any other way than through Canadian ports, regardless of the expense. But, Sir, they will select the cheapest route, the one which will leave them the most money. Such an argument as my hon. friend the Minister of Customs made would be laughed at in the North-west. This easteru extension of the railway was started very .shrewdly. The company were perfectly satisfied to get a charter from North Bay into the wheat fields of Manitoba and the North-west, but they were jollied on to take a charter to Quebec and then to Moncton. It was never suggested by the company that they wanted to build that eastern division. No, they knew, as practical railway men, that it could not be done profitably, and they threw it at the government. The government snapped at the bait and hold it in their jaws now, and that is why this matter is being rushed through without a particle of the information which the people should have. One of the shrewdest men of the House, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. H-eydj, acknowledged that he had not the Information he required and wanted to get it. That is what we all want. This is not a question of building a branch line a few miles, but of building a great transcontinental railway all through Canadian territory to Canadian ports. That sounds very big, and that is what took. I can understand the Prime Minister, with his lack of knowledge of railway matters, being taken in by such a grand flourish. But although a portion of this country may be fooled all the time, and although the whole of it may be fooled now and again, the whole of it cannot be fooled all the time.
And therefore, I urge, not only upon this House, but upon the country, that we should have a little more out of that mountain of information that the right hon. Prime Minister promised) us. It is said that we are going to do a great injury to the North-west if we do not build this road at once, that if it is not built at once the people of the North-west will ship their grain through the United States. Are they going to ship their grain through the United States at higher rates than they pay for shipping it through Canada ? Not at all. The only way by which the United States can take that traffic is by giving lower figures on it than the Canadian routes can give. How about tlie grain now ? Is it hanking up in the North-west ? No, the grain is coining out every day, and more grain is coming out through Canadian routes and tlie natural Canadian route at tlie present time than ever before in the history of the country. And so good is that route, so desirable is that route, that we do not find the American people preaching to the farmers on that side that they could not send a pound of Mr. BROCK.
grain over Canadian territory. As a matter of fact, American grain is coining over Canadian territory and is being shipped by way of Montreal and Quebec. I wonder that that is not an eye opener to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. Many of them want to he fair. It is not from personal interest that they are pushing this measure through parliament. I can only think that it is on account of the wonderful eloquence that hag captivated them in its flowing periods dealing with the bonding privilege. And yet I should) have thought, had the orator been any other than the right lion. Prime Minister of this Dominion, that he was really not in earnest but was making a statement merely for effect. The effect, I am quite sure, has not been a good one.
Another point that impresses upon me the desirability of going slow in this matter is the fact that we have not a single great railway expert in this country at tire back of this scheme. We have not the opinion of a single one of them favourable to tlie liroject, but quite the contrary. Engineer after engineer, and railway manager after railway manager, has condemned it. Why, they hardly seem to consider it, so clear are they in their opinion that it is impossible to he done. Why should we run our heads against a stone wall of this kind, when by waiting only one year we can find out whether we can or can not build such a railway as the expert of the government, the levelheaded business man who rose in this House to answer the late Minister of Railways, and who, deliberately, and after great preparation, made the statement, which I am bound to say he must have believed, that, unless we could get a railway with such grades as lie described, we should be throwing our money atway by building a railway at all. It seems to me that many hon. members are ready to throw the money away. The Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), the man who above ail should endeavour to safeguard1 the finances of this country, says that we are going to build a road through that country anyway. That is not tlie spirit in which to approach a great business matter of that kind. We have great respect for that hon. gentleman but that respect is not increased by such statements as he made here this morning.
Another thing, I think, should make us pause is that we are not trying an experiment, the result of which we can wipe away to-morrow. If the contract is entered into and carried out, we have that road not only for fifty years, but we have it on our shoulders, like the old man of the mountain, for all time, hampering the progress of this country and making it more difficult for us to improve and get the benefit of, our best means of transportation. To find out wliat our best means of transportation are the government started out right, I believe, when they issued from the council chamber a manifesto that they were going to appoint

a commission expressly for the purpose of considering all the means of transportation.	Carrying out that policy they
appointed a commission composed of most respectable and reputable men, men in whom the country will have confidence.	Before these men we should
bring the evidence to enable them to arrive at a decision. They can call upon the best railway experts, and when they have collected the facts that are available, any recommendations that they make will be received not only by the House but by the country. This is of such importance that I wonder that the Prime Minister does not at once rise in his place and say that he has reconsidered this matter, that the plan suggested from this side of arriving at the proper information is the best one, and allow us to go on with other business, wipe this off the slate andt start anew after we have this information. But it is most difficult to acknowledge that we are in error. We all have in our composition a large amount of pride which, sometimes, will not allow us to do what we know we ought to do. And I can understand that this has actuated many lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House. Having once committted themselves, not only individually but as a party, they would rather face the country and go down to defeat at the poll than acknowledge that they were wrong. I have a certain respect for that feeling. I like to see firmness in the maintenance of a resolution, so long as those who are responsible are to be the only losers. But, in the meantime, as we contend, the country will be the loser. These lion, gentlemen should put the country before themselves and their feelings. If they insist upon pushing this scheme through, they must take upon themselves the blame, as they expect to claim the glory, if there is any. They cannot blame parliament or this side of the House. Therefore, I would strongly urge that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bothwell is a most reasonable and fair amendment, as it is one that we believe will meet the approval of the country.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: go when it left the elevator. The elevator man will choose the route which will save him the most money. I had hoped that the government would postpone the building of the eastern part of this road until they had secured proper information as to where and how it is to be built, and what it will cost. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has told us that the road must have certain grades and certain curvatures or it would he absolutely useless. I do not know what he would call a short curvature on a railway, but I do know what is a short curvature in a man's judgment. It takes him but a few days to curve himself into another frame of mind and to talk in a teetotally different manner from the way in which he had talked a few days before. If he is allowing as short curves in the railway as he permits in himself, I think it will be a mighty twisty Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I would earnestly ask the government to adopt the amendment offered by the member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). That would at least show to the opposition and to the country that they do not intend to bind the country to this enormous expenditure without knowing anything as to where the railway is to be built or what it will cost. There is not a farmer, or a municipality, or any other institution in Canada, except the Dominion government that would propose such a scheme without knowing what it would cost, where it would go, or whether it could be built or not. They talk about wasting the time of this House. It is the government who are wasting the time by bringing down a measure about which they know nothing. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) who, I think, wants to be fair, yesterday acknowledged that he did not know anything about it. I am in the samt boat with my hon. friend ; I do not know anything about where this railway is to go, and I am willing and anxious to know about it because I will be questioned about it when I go home, and I want to be able to answer intelligently. If I cannot answer intelligently I will have to say that the government could not do so. The government cannot say within 40 or 60 millions, what it will cost, and they do not know within 40 or 50 miles where it is to run. They have a starting point and a finishing point and that Is all that I know of it yet.


Mr. SPROULE.: This is perhaps the last opportunity that we will have of pressing on the attention of the government the wisdom of going slowly, and of proceeding along intelligent business lines before they commit the country to this great undertaking. Every intelligent man in Canada will ask himself the question : Were the members of the House justified in supporting the government in this measure.


John Charlton: Three-fourths of them will say yes.


Robert Johnston: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is just about on a par with the expert information which the hon. gentleman has given us on the railway question. He answers the question before he knows what it is to be, and he answers questions upon imperfect knowledge and upon data which a man would not regard as sufficient to justify him in undertaking the expenditure of $1,000 to build a barn ; yet this project means 100 million dollars to the people of Canada. If this is all the information that the hon. gentleman desires, then I congratulate him upon the ease with which the government can satisfy him and his constituents with regard to this great question.


John Charlton: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) takes a pleasantry rather too seriously I fear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the speech that the hon. gentleman made the other day intended as a pleasantry or is this an amusing pastime with which we are dealing ? Is there nothing rational in the conduct of the hon. gentleman when he is committing the country to this great undertaking, and can he not treat it seriously ? He does not look at it from a business standpoint, but regards it as a huge joke and a source of amusement that the government should propose this scheme, that he should assent to it, and that no member of the House should dissent from it.
The advice given by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is timely and important ; advice is always important at the inception of an undertaking. There are important interests involved in this enterprise. It is to be a great transcontinental road which must carry the produce of half a continent either cheaply or dearly, and in proportion to the cheapness or dearness of that carriage it will be for the weal or woe of the people who contribute the money to build it. To the people who raise and ship the grain it is important that it should be a road, as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said, with few curves and low gradients, a standard road-bed of very finished quality. It must be that if it is going to carry the produce at a price, which will pay the farmer of old Canada who puts his money into the construction of the road and the farmer of the west who sends his grain over it.
It must as well be a road of equally high standard to be available for the consumer, because, for the produce that is taken over it the consumer must pay part of the cost as. well as the producer. So, from whichever standpoint you consider it, I say it is an important undertaking and we should give timely advice on this the eve of the government committing itself to it. Who is responsible for this information ? What is the duty of parliament ? We have 213 members in this House who are endeavouring to bring their intelligence to bear upon

an important business proposal to which the government is committing the country. If the government makes a proposition to parliament it is its bounden duty to lay before parliament such intelligent information as will enable parliament to judge whether it is wise or otherwise before committing the country to it. Has the government done that ? We complain that it has not done it. It is! true that we have had the statement made by the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that there are mountains of information, but the mountains of information have not been made available to the members of this House because they have not been placed before the House. If the right hon. gentleman knows where these mountains of information are he and his colleagues are failing in their duty when they do not lay them on the Table of the House so that every hon. member can examine this information for himself and decide whether it is wise or not to go on with this great undertaking. What information have they doled out to us ? We have had certain data laid before us, but when we come to examine it we find that it is made up of the reports of missionaries who passed through that country one hundred years ago, who had no knowledge of what our advanced civilization might require in that country and who directed their attention not to procuring any information which might be valuable to us to-day but to giving information that pertained more particularly to the line of life in which they were engaged and ns to what the country might be in the future. We desire to-day to get such information as will enable us to do our duty as members of this House in assenting to or opposing this proposition. We had some other scraps of information that were given us and which were obtained from travellers, pleasure seekers, hunters, men who were looking for timber, but in. forty-nine cases out of fifty, I am within the mark when 1 say that these men did not give us the class of information that is necessary to enable us to undertake the construction of q. great transcontinental railway. They told us something of the flora of the country, of its beautiful rivers, of its spruce timber, which is to be found within a limited area, but their exanimation of the country was such as to justify us in saying that the reports which they have given afforded us no information whatever. We have no information from surveyors who have_ passed through that country. Have they given us any information regarding the topographical features of the country ? What information do we require to-day ? Is it a mountainous country ? Is it a level country ? Is it a country of rocks or a country of alluvial soil ? It is true that portions of it contain alluvial soil, but a great deal of the territory through which this road will run is a terra incognita to the members of this House. If there is any
further information about this country available why has it not been collated and put before the House so that we could examine it ? The information which the government has put before the House is the merest epitome of knowledge available on the subject and it is not such information as would justify any intelligent man in deciding whether it would be wise or otherwise on his part to support the government on 'this great undertaking. This is a proposition that every intelligent man in Canada ought to give heed to. The government and its friends are supposed to represent at least the average intelligence of the country because they are sent here as representatives of the people. Then it becomes important to them in defence of their own reputations that they should look closely into this undertaking, that they should examine it carefully, and that they should analyse it before they support the government in committing the country to it. The importance of this country demands it. This is a great commercial transcontinental railway designed to handle the produce of half the continent. If it is the right sort of a road it will handle it cheaply and successfully. If we cannot get the right sort of a road without expending too much money and we go on and build it, then we would be doing an unwise thing. But not only for the country we represent, not only for the people who will use the road in the future, whether the farmer in the west, or the consumer in the east, or the manufacturer or others who send their goods over it, it is important that we should make haste slowly and that we should have this information before us before committing ourselves to the project. Its success or failure depends upon the character of the road. What information have we from any intelligent source that enables us to understand whether it is possible to construct such a road as we desire to have in such a manner as to ensure that it shall be a successful commercial railway ? What information have we from experts ? What information have we from railway experts or intelligent engineers who have gone through the country to procure this information ? Practically none. But, we are called upon to give an opinion upon this great undertaking without this information and we are asked to go it blind. We, as representatives of the taxpayers of the country, do not desire to go it blind. We desire to have that information. On behalf of the taxpayers of the country we demand it. On behalf of the people we represent we demand it. On behalf of the people who are to use this road in the future, we demand it so that we may know what we are committing the country to at the present time. If there were nothing beyond the financial importance of the undertaking to consider it would be wise that we should have this information. Any undertaking that involves the country in an

expenditure of from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 iis a very important undertakingand in proportion to its greatness it is necessary that we should act wisely in carrying it out or otherwise. The financial importance of this undertaking demands that we should have this information before we commit the country to this heavy expenditure. What effect will it have in the future ? It is going to attack our credit in the world. It is going to roll up our debt. It is going to put a burden upon every farmer, labouring man, mechanic, and professional man of this country and it is going to put a tax of at least $125 on every family of five members in this country. Considering this, is it not wise that we should proceed slowly and along intelligent lines in considering a matter of such great financial importance ? The country's interests demand that we should have this information. The people whom we represent demand it as well. The taxpayers of Canada demand it and therefore we should have it. The farmers of the west demand it. Why ? Because they are led to believe that when this road is put through it w'dll carry their grain cheaper than it can be carried at the present time. They know what it costs to take their produce out of the country to the markets of the world, but they are deluded into the belief to-day that when this road is built and when we have committed this country to this great expenditure it will take out their grain for from two to three or four cents per bushel cheaper than any other roads are doing to-day.
The government tell us that this road is to be of a high standard, and the question then comes in : Will the financial resources of this country be sufficient to construct a road of such a high standard from Winnipeg to Moncton? We do not know what it will cost; we are absolutely in the dark as to that, and the government refuse us information on which we might intelligently form an opinion. For the last time we ask the government to furnish this information to the House. If this road should turn out as many believe, it wrill be a failure, and if it should strike a fatal blow at the country's credit; if after we have taxed every man, woman and child in Canada it is found that we have acted unwisely ; then. Sir, the government will be held responsible before the great electorate of the country for rushing headlong into this scheme and refusing to take the wise counsel1 given by the opposition in this House. Let the government dissolve the House and face the electors; let them seek justification for their policy at the hands of the people. I challenge them to do that. They dare not. If they accept that challenge we will say no more about information, but we will place the facts before the people to enable them to say whether we are right and the government wrong. It is evident that the government want to commit the country to this Mr. SPROULE.
expenditure before the people can pronounce upon it, and that being so, it is our duty here, to induce them, if we cannot compel them, to furnish the information which the country demands. We appeal to them for the last time. They may not heed the appeal, but the day will come when the electorate of Canada will speak in a voice louder than thunder, condemning the government for its imprudent and improvident policy on this question. For the last time, we ask the government to hasten slowly, before committing the country to this enormous' expenditure.


Mr. LOGAN.: If we were to judge by the tone of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) one would hardly imagine that fifteen years ago, the hon. gentleman took an entirely different position In this House, from that which he advocates so strenuously to-day. Fifteen years ago, it was proposed to spend four million dollars of the public money to buildi a road from1 Harvey to Salisbury or Moncton, and a resolution was then' moved setting forth that no surveys had been made, that nothing was known of the country through which it was proposed to build the railway ; that an engineer had never traversed that territory, and that consequently it was premature to saddle the country with the expenditure for that line. When that resolution was moved, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) stood up and voted against it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Voted against it or for It, which ?


Hance James Logan: Voted against the amendment in favour of delay until information was obtained. That amendment was moved by Mr. Weldon, then member for St. John, asking that there should be delay until surveys had been made, and the hon. member for East Grey voted against it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman justify that vote ?


Hance James Logan: I am not here to Justify the votes of the lion* gentleman, but I am here to hold up to the Plouse and to the country, his inconsistency.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman say it was wise or unwise to do so ?


Hance James Logan: I will leave it to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) to say whether it was wise or unwise, but I can say that I have the evidence here that the hon. gentleman is inconsistent. There was no great demand for that railway at the time ; there to no crisis of whatsoever kind, but the hon. member for East Grey voted that amendment down, and so far as he was concerned would rush into the construction of the Harvey and Salisbury branch, without surveys or estimates of cost. The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) sat in this House when

tlie Canadian Pacific Railway charter was passed, and I would like to ask him if the government of that day had any more information with reference to the western line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, than the government of to-day has with reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific ? He knows as well as I do that they had not; he knows as well as I do that the Conservative government had not as much information a'uout the Canadian Pacific Railway at that time as we have about the Grand Trunk Pacific now. I believe that my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) is honest in his convictions, and for that reason I always like to hear him speaking in this House. Today, he told us that if you are buying a chain you should be guided in your purchase by the strength of the weakest link in the chain. I admit that. Let us apply that principle to the case we are now discussing, and let us see how it works out. We have information galore as to the eastern section of the country between Quebec and Winnipeg. We saw the Minister of the Interior present to this House a map showing that that country had been covfered with surveys. The most ample information has been obtained from engineers and others


Mr. CASGRAIN.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) is correct in what he says, why cannot the government give us some estimate as to the probable cost of this railway ?


Hance James Logan: My hon. friend (Mr. Cas-graiu) got an estimate from the Minister of Finance as to the probable cost of this railway, and he should be satisfied with that.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Oh, no.


Hance James Logan: I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) was not here at the time, but he can refer back to the speech of the Minister of Finance for the information. As I was going on to say ; we have information as to the country from Quebec westward to Winnipeg and that information enables us to say that the weakest link in the chain, is that link which extends from North Bay to Winnipeg. And yet, Sir, my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) and his whole party were perfectly willing to assist the Grand Trunk to build from North Bay to Winnipeg, across the very weakest link in that whole chain. Our information shows that from Quebec to within 400 miles of Winnipeg, we have in the country a magnificent heritage, rich in agriculture and mineral and lumber resources. But from that point westward, there is no doubt that the country is not so good. However, it was through this least valuable of all the territory from North Bay to Winnipeg, that the member from Toronto (Mr. Brock) was willing to assist in building a railway. And what would happen if he had his way in this regard ? Why, Sir, the trade of this country, instead of being kept in Canadian channels, would
have been diverted to the ports of the United States. Sir, our information as to the country leads us to believe that we would not be true to Canada or true to ourselves, if we hesitated to give that country such means of transportation as will tend to develop its resources in minerals, In lumber, and in agriculture. I am surprised that a gentleman representing the progressive city of Toronto should stand up in this House and say : to-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow. We want men of action in Canada. The day of delaying action until to-morrow is gone by. This project must be viewed from a broad national standpoint. This road does not come very near to my own province but we are looking on it, not as Nova Scotians, but as Canadians. We believe that the day for inaction has ceased in Canada, and that day has come when we should develop our resources with energy and with promptitude. That is why we favour this Bill. I was speaking, not over an hour ago, with a very prominent Conservative from Western Canada and he told me he regretted that his friends in the House of Commons were objecting to this railway, because, as he said, any man who knows the western country, realizes that we want not only one transcontinental line, but three or four transcontinental lines for the development of our western country alone, without taking into account at ail the development of northern Ontario and Quebec. I am surprised, Sir, that men who endorsed the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, should be so inconsistent as to now oppose the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.	[DOT]
My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) spoke about the shipper in the wrest going to the agent of the Grand Trunk Pacific to find out the cheapest route by which to ship his grain. We admit that the shippers of the North-west desire to ship their grain by the cheapest route. But does my hon. friend not know that by the contract we have made, not only is the grain to be carried to a Canadian port at the same cost as to an American port, but that, more than that, it must be carried to the point of destination. whether Liverpool, Manchester, Southampton or anywhere else on the other side of the water, at the same cost as via United States ports ? If that is a condition of the contract by which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are bound, does my hon. friend mean to insult the patriotism "of the farmers of the North-west Territories by saying that they are going to send their grain by American ports to Liverpool when they can send it by Canadian ports at the same cost ? Surely he does not know the spirit of loyalty and patriotism that animates the farmers of the North-west when he makes that suggestion. That is in the Contract, and that part of the contract will be carried out. My hon. friend has said that we have not any engineer's report, and

lie asks, why don't we wait until we get some eminent engineer to report on the line from Quebec to Winnipeg ? Mr. Chairman, the most eminent engineer of Canada is Sir Sandford Fleming. He was the chief engineer of construction of the Intercolonial Railway and the chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and has probably more knowledge than any other man in the Dominion of Canada of the engineering features of this country ; and he has endorsed this railway from Quebec to Winnipeg.


William Rees Brock: Put that on the Table.


Hance James Logan: The hon. gentleman has no doubt seen his interviews published in the newspapers of this country, which some of the papers on his own side of politics have attacked, in which he states that this road is practicable and that the engineering difficulties are not serious. What more do we want when we have the authority of the best engineer in Canada ? When this road has the endorsation of the most experienced engineer, why shouldi we ask the opinion of minor engineers in reference to its location ? My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said that we are afraid to go to the country upon this issue of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I do not think myself that we are going to the country very soon. But we could have gone to the country without the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill at all. It does not look like cowardice on our part to submit this Bill to parliament, when we could have gone to the country on the record of the best government we have ever had in the Dominion of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Your chance(s would have been much better without this part of the record than with it.


William Humphrey Bennett: They would not have had the stuff.


Hance James Logan: We have not acted as cowards in submitting this proposition to the people of Canada. The government have asked the people of Canada to have faith in their country and to assist in opening up this great Dominion to the north. And what have our hon. friends opposite replied ? The leader of the party from the province of Quebec has referred to that country as a sub-Arctic region ; and other hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to it as the land of the stunted pine and poplar. We have referred to it, from the reports of engineers and geologists, as a land of wealth, a land of great potentialities, a land which will in the future become as great a part of the Dominion of Canada as the province of Ontario is at the present day. When we do go to the country, we will go with confidence in this issue of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto has said that if we would only swallow his pride of partisanship, we Mr. LOGAN.
would drop the Bill. If that hon. gentleman would only swallow his pride of partisanship, he would be cheering this government at the present time on the proposition they have put before the country. My hon. friend, representing the people of the city of Toronto, should not be a narrow politician; he should have breadth of view, and if he has, he should be supporting this proposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the expense that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to be to every family in the province of Ontario. Suppose it were ; is it not worth the sacrifice for the sake of what we are going to gain ? If the present proposition is going to involve a tax on every farmer of the province of Ontario, how much more would the tax be if the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition were carried out; and what would we have then ? From the Atlantic ocean to the city of Winnipeg not one extra mile of railway, not one additional acre of undeveloped land opened up, no additional population, no additional resources ; but Canada would continue to be charged, as it is to-day, with being only a fringe on the American border. When we go to the country, Mr. Chairman, we will go with the pride of a good measure, believing that we have behind us the loyal hearts of Canadians, who believe that we should develop the northern part of this country, where we have a magnificent territory instead of leaving it to be roamed over by wild men and wild beasts. When we do appeal to the people of Canada, they are going to send us back with an increased majority ; and our friends of the opposition, if they continue this little Canada spirit, will find themselves :
Scattered like dust and leaves when the mighty winds of October Seize them and whirl them aloft and fling them far o'er the ocean.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Cumberland twits the member for East Grey of inconsistency. If there has ever been a class of men in the Dominion of Canada who should refrain from mentioning the word consistency, it is the hon. gentlemen opposite. Has not their whole life been one of inconsistency from the cradle to the grave ? There is not a milestone on the way that does not bear an epitaph to the principles that they have buried in the past You talk about their policy ; but their principles before the people are not the principles which they carry out here. There has never been a class of people in the world who are more saturated from the head to the feet with inconsistency than hon. gentlemen opposite. But was there any inconsistency in my conduct in supporting what is called the Salisbury branch ? That line had not been surveyed from .end to end ; but we had knowledge of every portion of the country ; the whole line of railway was not 100 miles long.


Hance James Logan: 113.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was not fully surveyed, Out the country through which it ran was as well known as any portion of Ontario or Quebec. Was it inconsistent that I should support a scheme that involved an outlay, as he says, of $4,000,000, but which was estimated at the time to cost between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 ? If it was wrong to do that, with the knowledge at my disposal, how much worse is it to commit the country to an expenditure of $150,000,000 to build 3,000 miles of railway without any of the information that we ought to have before we undertake such a project ? The hon. gentlemen says I supported the Canadian Pacific Railway. He forgets that before I did so, over $3,000,000 were spent on surveys to obtain the very information.with regard to that railway that we should have, but have not, with regard to this railway.1 Was it inconsistent that I should support the Canadian Pacific Railway after we had the knowledge which was collected by eminent engineers and railway experts during several years, and for which the country paid somewhere between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000 ?
Nearly $3,000,000 were expended on sur-' veys before the construction of that railway was determined, But even though it were undertaken before all information was available, compare the situation which then existed with the present situation. The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was part and parcel of the agreement of confederation. It was one of the conditions on which Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia joined the confederacy. Whether the task was an onerous one or not,we had to carry it out. But even under these circumstances, the government of tliat day took the precaution of having surveys made before beginning the construction of that line. That line had to be constructed without delay. Not only had it to be constructed1 in order to carry out the terms of confederation, but in order to give us a Canadian road into our own north-west. The only road we had at the time was through the United States, and everybody knows that when, in 1885, we desired to send some of our soldiers into our North-west to quell rebellion, we could not take our men, material, equipment and supplies through the Sault Ste. Marie canal, because to do so would involve their going through American territory. There was, therefore, great urgency for the construction of that road. Besides this, the trade of that country was flowing down to Minneapolis, St. Paul and Chicago, and tee eastern portion of Canada was being deprived of tee benefits of that trade. Our immigrants were beset by American immigration agents as they went through American territory, and in many cases induced to settle in the American north-west instead of ours. Was it not, therefore, of urgent necessity that the government of that day should push on that road ? Yet they took the precaution of spending over $2,000,000 on surveys before starting to build it. We on this side were doing our best to keep Canada for the Canadians, while hon. gentlemen opposite were preaching blue ruin, and telling the world that every country under the sun was better than Canada. They were acting as immigration agents for the United States. Why, even the photographs of the leaders of the opposition of that day were used as frontispieces in American ini-migration pamphlets. Of that there can he no doubt. I saw a photograph of the Hon. Edward Blake and a speech lie made against Canada being used in these pamphlets to induce immigrants to go to the United States instead of to the Canadian North-west. While we on this side were doing everything possible to have that railway built, all gentlemen opposite were doing all they could to impede its construction and decry their own country. But is there any such urgency to-day as then existed V We have not one but two Canadian routes to the North-west. Our people can go into that country through our own Canadian territory. We need fear no American interference. The tide of immigration is turning our way. There is none of teat urgency in the situation to-day which then existed, and we are not justified in making that haste which lion, gentlemen opposite are urging us to make. The government is in a position to make haste slowly and act on intelligent lines, and it is because they are not acting on those lines that we are endeavouring to prevail upon them, in the interests of Canada and their own, not to rush blindly into this vast expenditure without counting the cost, but to get every possible information and take every possible precaution before coming to a final decision.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) tried to convince this House and the country that Sir Sand-ford Fleming had given his complete en-dorsation to the scheme now submitted to the House. It is only right that we should read the opinion of that eminent engineer in order to see whether the statement of my hon. friend is really borne out by the facts. And I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I read a few extracts from that opinion which bears immediately upon the question we are discussing.


John Charlton: What paper is that from ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: From the Toronto 'News' of last evening, which reproduces the interview which Sir Sandford Fleming gave some time ago to the Montreal ' Herald.' Here is tvhat Sir Sandford says :
The project is one of great magnitude, affecting the prosperity of the whole country, and the

well-being ol tens of millions of people, who in coming generations are to occupy the vast habitable regions in the interior. It is not surprising that I listened to Sir Wilfrid with Intense interest. The subject generally is not new to me. I have given the best years of my life as a public servant to public works, which go to the opening up of vacant lands in nearly all the provinces. Forty-one years ago I asked myself much the same questions as are now being considered by parliament, and I answered them in a little book edited by Professor H. Y Hind, of Trinity University, Toronto, published by Seobie and Balfour. Toronto, 1862. My theme was : ' The opening of a highway from Canada to the Pacific ocean on British territory.' You will bear in mind that in those days Canada was bounded on the western side practically by Lake Huron, and as I ventured to look beyond the great lakes I am afraid some good people regarded me as a visionary. In less than ten years thereafter the first Canadian transcontinental railway was determined on, and soon thereafter Principal Grant's well read book, ' Ocean to Ocean,' revealed to the Canadian people a first glimpse .of their new a.nd vast inheritance. In another 'decade it was my unique good fortune to lead the first expedition continuously through the mountains on the present line, and two years thereafter I witnessed the laying of the last rail to connect the two oceans by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Such recollections passing through my mind, it may be imagined that it was with peculiar interest and satisfaction I heard, from the gallery of the House of Commons, the Canadian Prime Minister* unfolding the great scheme of the government for the .establishment of a second transcontinental line.
There is not much in that to commend the scheme to the confidence of this House or country.
Sir Wilfrid Laurler made a strong argument in favour of a road connecting the prairie wheat fields with the sea coast, transporting wheat through Canadian .territory. Mr. Charlton, subsequently, on behalf of the government, amplified the scheme and pointed out that the new national highway was to be no ordinary railway, bust one of the highest class with low grades, or no grades, and thoroughly first-class in its construction and equipment, according to modern requirements.
Sir Sanford Fleming, as the committee will see, took for granted what the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) stated in the House the other day, but he does not give his opinion, as an engineer of experience and reputation, that what the hon. member for North Norfolk said was correct.
I do not think he endorses any of the opinions given to the House the other day by the hon. member for North Norfolk. After saying what I have just read, he proceeded :
This appealed to my warmest commendation

That is, if the hon. member for North Norfolk was correct in the statements he made and the figures he gave to the House.
-believing as I do that if such a railway be established between the prairie region and tide water at Quebec, it will proVe of inestim-


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: able value to the Dominion for all time to come.
That is, if it were possible to build a railway with low grades or no grades at all, a thoroughly first-class railway in construction and equipment, then Sir Sandford Fleming and everybody in this country, would Immediately say they were in favour of such an undertaking. But Sir Sandford Fleming does not commit himself upon that. That is, probably, because he was looking to his reputation. It was, pi'ohahly, because he was afraid to say anything that would hurt his reputation, that he did not endorse the statements made by the hon. member for North Norfolk.


John Charlton: Is my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) aware that, in an interview published in the Halifax ' Chronicle,' Sir Sandford Fleming fully endorsed the scheme ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: This is the same interview. I see my hon. friend from North Norfolk has gone off at a tangent, like so many others. On first glancing over the interview, I myself thought that Sir Sandford Fleming fully endorsed the scheme. But when you read the interview, as I am reading it, you will see that it gives no such endorsation. This interview was really got up iu a very captious manner


John Charlton: My hon. friend does not understand me. I asked him if he was aware that Sir Sandford Fleming had endorsed that position in an interview given by him to the Halifax ' Chronicle,' which is corroborative of the position I took in the matter. I have sent for the paper and will quote it to my hon. friend, when I receive it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I answered the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Charlton's) question by saying that the interview I am reading is a reproduction of the interview given by Sir Sandford Fleming to the Halifax 'Chronicle.' My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) informs me that Sir Sandford Fleming told him that it was he himself that sent this very interview to the Toronto ' News,' after having revised and corrected it. So, I am giving to the House exactly the views and opinions of Sir Sandford F.'eming. And again I say that Sir Sandford Fleming does not endorse the statements, figures and opinions given the other day by the hon. member for North Norfolk. I was saying that, at the first glance over this interview, I thought that Sir Sandford Fleming endorsed completely the scheme of the government. I naturally asked myself what had come over the spirit of his dream, for, if I remember rightly, and if I am correctly informed, when the scheme was first put before the country, he condemned it from the begining.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) is not correctly informed.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not know ; my information is pretty good. However, 1 think I am showing the Committee, and convincing the Committee, that Sir Sandford Fleming has never endorsed the scheme as laid down by the government. He has simply taken a proposal laid down by the hou. member for North Norfolk, and which has been proved abundantly in this House to be not correct. Let me continue:
Such a railway will be the means of conveying products as cheap as, or cheaper than, by the present mixed route, part rail and part water and its operation will not be suspended for half the year, as the lake route is, but will claim the advantage of being open for traffic every month in the twelve. I must not be considered, however, as unqualifiedly in favour- of the scheme precisely as propounded. (1.) I do not think there is any urgency for a new rail-way from Quebec to Moncton. (2.) I do not think there is any pressing need for the western section, that is the section through the mountains to Port Simpson.
I hear my right horn, friend say, ' Hear, hear.' Because Sir Sandford Fleming says that on certain specified points he differs completely from the government, the right lion, gentleman Infers that he must be at one with the government on the other part of the line. But take the interview as it is, and lion, gentlemen will see that lie does not give it as his own opinion as an engineer of repute, hut advances the opinions, statements and figures of the hon. member for North Norfolk, without saying that he approves them.
There are reasons for desiring a better line, a first class line, such as Mr. Charlton, describes, from Quebec to St. John and Halifax. Even if it can be had, which I doubt, the Intercolonial, it must be acknowledged, can accommodate all the traffic which may for some years present itself. Again, I am unable to see any urgent necessity for the immediate construction of the mountain section. What concerns us, is not so much the opening of an additional route between Asia and Europe, as the establishment of the best possible means of communication between the interior of Canada and our tidal ports, which command the British market. All sections of the new transcontinental line are not of equal importance. It is of the very first importance to provide a highway to transport cheaply all the products of the prairie to a Canadian seaport. What concerns us chiefly is the middle section, extending from Quebec to the interior, and, until that section be completed, I have the strongest reasons for believing that it would be in the pbblic interest to defer work on the two ends of the project. The knowledge which I possess satisfies me beyond any doubt whatever that any other course will lead to grave disappointment. I do not think I need trouble you now with my reasons at length.
Then, after explaining the needs of the North-west and discussing Die alternative policy-and I am free to say that he is not in favour of the policy laid down by the leader of the opposition-Sir Sandford Fleming proceeds :
It is surely wise policy in the establishment of a new national railway to tap directly the centre of the wheat district not already exploited by railways, and to make the new line fully up to the highest standard. Any other standard would defeat the purposes of the government.
Now, has it been stated by anybody here that any engineer of repute has put before this House any data upon which we could say that the railway could be built, such a road as Sir Sandford Fleming speaks of, a railway of the highest standard-for that is the condition upon which he bases the belief that this line will be of use ? Sir Sandford Fleming says it must be a railway of the highest standard, going even further than the hon. member for North Norfolk ; and he says that if the railway is not of 'the higest standard, you cannot count upon it as giving to this country the advantages which the hon. gentlemen on the other side say it will give.
The cost, of transportation by rail is governed by the gradients and other conditions explained in parliament by the member for North Norfolk. Every railway man throughly understands that in the transportation problem, the length of a road is not of so much Importance as the gradients. Every foot added to the grade per mile increases by a percentage the expense of haulage. With the necessary conditions secured the transportation of wheat to the sea-board by rail in competition with water (in part) is in this instance quite practicable. If it be practicable to carry wheat by rail from Chicago to New York for seven or eight cents a bushel, it must be possible under like conditions to transport it from our prairies to Quebec at proportionate rates. Of course some allowance would be made for difference in climate and fuel.
Now, what does the amendment before the committee ask for ? Perhaps the committee will allow me to read it, because in the discussion it has been somewhat lost sight of :
Provided, however, that the said surveys and plans, showing the most favourable route and the best practicable grades and curvatures that can be obtained, together with an estimate of the cost, based thereon, shall be first submitted to the parliament for approval.
That is all the amendment asks. And is it not fair and reasonable, with such a vast undertaking as this, that the plans and the route should be submitted to parliament before we are called upon to go into this enormous expenditure ? My bon. friend (Mr. Logan), in answer to a question I put, said that the Minister of Finance had given this House sufficient information as to the probable cost of the railway. I have a great deal of respect for the Finance Minister and a great deal of respect for his opinion, especially when he speaks' on subjects which particularly concern his department. I had not the advantage, as has been pointed out, of hearing my hon. friends discuss the question at any length owing to my long ab-

sence but I have read, as far as I could the speeches made in the course of this debate. No man reading the speeches on both sides can avoid coming to the conclusion that the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) made a most egregious mistake when lie said this road would cost only about $13,000,000. Let hon. gentlemen on the other side give one example of a railway of such magnitude as this which cost only that sum of money. If it were not for the respect I bear to the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) I would say that his estimate of the cost of this railway is simply ridiculous. It is contrary to past experience in the building of railways on this continent, in England or on the continent of Europe. We are about to commit this country to an enormous expenditure, for I would rather take the estimate given by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) than the estimate given by the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals had naturally, for the last seven or eight years, been obliged to study railway matters and had become an expert on them. He was chosen bv the right hon. the leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as the best man who could be found in this country to take charge of that department, and it must; be remembered that in 1896 he was not a member of this House, he had not been elected, but the right hon. the premier took him from New Brunswick as the best man in the country to conduct the Department of Railways and Canals. That gentleman did not give the low estimate of this railway given by the Minister of Finance. If we had to choose between these two estimates it seems to me that any member of this House would say that the estimate of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was more likely to be correct. What is done in ordinary cases ? I will take the case of an ordinary railway for the construction of which a company is incorporated by parliament. Before this railway can be constructed the company have to submit plans, profiles and locations to the Governor General in Council, so that the Governor General in Council may examine the plans and the location of the line and decide whether or not, in the interests of the country, the location is a proper one for the line to run, and here we are with a tremendous railway running from Winnipeg through Quebec to Moncton, 1,500 miles, which at a low estimate will cost from 80 to 100 million dollars. All1 we ask is that when the plans a yd locations for this railway have been decided upon the government shall submit them to parliament so that parliament may be in a better position to judge whether the location which has been chosen is the location which is most advantageous to the country ? Let parliament be the judge of' the location in this instance as the Governor in Mr. CASGRAIN.
Council is the judge, in the case of an ordinary railway.
There are two ways of looking at this line. Some say that it is going to be simply a colonization line, that it is to be built solely for the prrrpose of opening up new lands in Canada, which are not yet settled upon and which it will be to the advantage of this country to people by immigration. Then it will be a colonization road. Others say it is not to be a colonization road but will be a road by which the great traffic of the west will be conveyed to the east and to the Atlantic ports. One great question which has to be decided and which will be decided, is as to whether we are going to build a colonization railway or a railway which will bring the traffic of the west to the Atlantic sea-board. This question is so important that the government should not hesitate for an instant to relieve itself of the responsibility of choosing between two policies and to put that responsibility upon parliament assembled. The only answer we have heard from the other side of the House as to the appropriateness of the amendment now before the Committee is that given by the Minister of Justice who said that we are losing time. Would we lose time by having these plans and locations placed before parliament ? Let us take things as they are, let us be practical. I do not believe that the surveys will be completed within eighteen months and it would be of no importance if we should lose two. or three or four months, for these plans, if they could not be submitted in the next session could be submitted in the session after that, and parliament could pronounce on the advisability of the route and on the plans as located by the surveyors. We would lose probably one, two, three or four months, but I leave it to the committee if the loss of three or four months would be a sufficient answer to those who say : You are going into an enormous undertaking, an undertaking the like of which this country has never seen before-because we have never before gone into such an enormous expenditure for the construction of a railway by the government-just stay your hand for one, two, or three months and submit the location of the line to parliament so that parliament can decide whether it is a colonization road which will promote settlement in unsettled districts or a commercial road which will bring down traffic from the west towards the east and towards our seaport towns.
I think that the government are straining constitutional principles in this Bill. What do we read in section 25 of the Bill ?
The commissioners shall from time to time as moneys are required for payment for work or services in the construction of the said eastern division issue tand deposit with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General a debenture of the commissioners in an amount sufficient, to cover such payments, which debenture shall hear date the day on which it was issued and

shall be repayable in fifty years from the 1st day of July, 1903, and in the meantime shall bear interest at the rate of three per centum per annum payable half yearly on the first days of January and July in each year.
-Section 26 says :
The debentures so issued shall be in such form as the Governor in Council approves, and the commissioners -are hereby' authorized to issue the same as provided by the next preceding section, and such debentures when issued, and the interest thereon, shall be and form a first lien and charge upon the said eastern^ division, and upon all revenue and income derivable therefrom by the government or by the commissioners, after payment of all necessary charges by the government or toy the commissioners.
In another section it will be seen that while tlie commissioners build the line they are appointed by the government to execute contracts with contractors for its construction and they are to pay for it. It is true that in section 32 it ds said that moneys may be paid by the Minister of Railways anil Canals from time to time, provided, however, that no money shall be so'paid until a sufficient appropriation has been made by parliament for the purpose. But it seems to me that this Bill takes from parliament the effective control which it should have over the expenditure of the money of this country. I would ask if any House in England ever gave, or ever would give to a department, the Admiralty Department for instance, a blanc-seign, as it were, to build any number of ships for the admiralty they might Choose to build.
Why, Sir, they are so jealous in England of the control of parliament over the expenditure of money that they almost go so far as to name the ships that it is possible for the Admiralty to build during any one year. Here we are authorizing the government to build this railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, we are giving them a blanc-seign, an unlimited power of attorney.
We are giving them full authority to do it. We are giving them authority to execute contracts for any amount of money, for $100,000.000 probably, upon the only condition that from time to time the government shall come to this parliament and ask that a certain amount of money he voted to pay the sums which have been contracted for beforehand. I say that is taking out of the hands of this parliament the proper control that this parliament should have upon the expenditure of the money of this country. What will happen ? The government will come down to the majority which they have at their command and simply say : We have executed these contracts, we have contracted for these works, $500,000 is due, $1,000,000 is due, $5,000,000, $10,000,000, $20,000,000 is due, and we ask you to vote that this money shall be paid. That will be taking away from this House the control of spending the money of this country which this House should be most jeal-380
ous of. Before committing the country to the fulfilment of such heavy obligations, let us impose upon the government the duty of at least consulting parliament upon the proper location of the line. For these reasons, it seems to me that this is an amendment which should commend itself to the practical sense of this House, and I am sure it will commend itself, at all events, to the practical sense of the electors ot this country.


John Charlton: My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) has presented his view of this case in a very temperate and very courteous way and his argument from his own standopint is a fair one, but. I think the hon. gentleman has neglected to inform himself fully upon the various points which have been dealt with in the argument, and among others as to what the position of that eminent engineer, Sir Sandford Fleming, is. If I understand the drift of the hon. gentleman's remarks in regard to Sir Sandford Fleming's position, it was that he did not endorse the construction of this line of railway through the hinterland of Quebec and Ontario. Now, the hon. gentleman, in support of that position, read copious extracts from an interview furnished by Sir Sandford Fleming to the Toronto 'News.' Sir Sandford Fleming had furnished, previous to this, an interview to the Halifax 'Chronicle,' a more elaborate interview, one in which he went more fully into the question than that furnished to the ' News,' and I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention to a couple of extracts in that particular interview. It is not necessary to trouble the committee with the whole of it. I will simply read the filial conclusions drawn by Sir Sandford Fleming, and will read what he says in regard to tlie alternative project furnished by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to the government. I shall read the conclusion of his interview first :
Faith in the Policy.
You have asked me to speak unreservedly and I have acc-edeid to your request. I again express the great satisfaction I have in kno.v-ing that the policy of -the government is to establish a great railway, to open up for settlement and human industry the utilized and unoccupied habitable lands of the Dominion. I have faith in the wisdom of the policy. 1 have faith in an all-rail means -of conveying the products of the farm to the sea-board. ' If asked what course s-hould toe followed I would answer ' make haste, tout make has-te slowly and wisely.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Mr. CHARLTON-(reading).
Do not lose a day in proceeding with the cation of such a railway as that specified Mr. Charlton in his speech on the subject the 12th of August last

loby
Oil


William Rees Brock: Good advice that



Mr. CHARLTON-(reading).
-a railway that would carry grain trom the distant prairie fields to Quebec cheaper than by any other route. Having secured a location and not till then, employ every man, bend every back, strain every nerve to complete the middle section of the line so much needed. This done, and not tall bheai, proceed as it may seem best to complete from sea to sea the national trunk transcontinental railway.
That is the conclusion of Sir Sandford Fleming's interview with the ' Chronicle.'


William Rees Brock: If he were here he would vote for this amendment.


John Charlton: Not much. In speaking of the alternative proposition, Sir Sand-ford Fleming says :
In parliament, an alternative to the government scheme has been proposed and it is supported by a large and influential party. Its chief features are to double track tile Canadian Pacific Railway from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, to expropriate the Can(11 ail Pacific Railway from Fort William to North Bay, to build a new line from Sudbury to Depot Harbour, to expropriate the railway from Depot Harbour on Lake Huron to Montreal, &c., (the object being practically to adhere to the present system of conveying heavy products by a mixed route, rail and water.
This alternative dees not commend itself to my mind for a number of strong reasons. Notwithstanding the great initial cost it would prove totally inadequate for the half year. It could in no way be compared with an all-rail line established especially for cheap grain carrying from the heart of the prairie region on the main Saskatchewan district to Quebec. Tihe latter would prove in all respects a national communication. If a map be examined it will be seen that this northern route would add breadth to the Dominion, would develop industries and promote settlement in the great hinterland of Ontario and Quebec while the alternative proposal *would not have the same tendency. Taken by Itself, the alternative would distinctly leave the Dominion two separate halves connected merely by two rails along the shores of the lakes, a connection which at any time could easily be severed. Obviously, it is, of political importance in the highest sense that the unity of Canada should not be absolutely dependent on so slender a ligament for hundreds of miles along the frontier. No doubt the lakes will always be used as they are now in conjunction with railways east and west, but there is every reason for establishing a new route inland.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What is the date of the interview, and what paper is the hon. gentleman quoting from ?


John Charlton: I am quoting from the Halifax * Chronicle ' of September 17.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Mine is dated September 18.


John Charlton: In conversation with Sir Sandford Fleming in reference to this matter, he has expressed most fully and unreservedly his approval of the policy adopted by the government. He has stated that he endorsed the position taken, that with


William Rees Brock: a first-class road, a road with the grades that are required from Moncton to Win-peg, no other mode of communication or transportation can compete from the prairies of the west to the sea-board, and these quotations from this interview given by Sir Sandford Fleming to the Halifax ' Chronicle ' fully bear out the assertion that he entirely approves of the government policy now before the House of Commons.


William Rees Brock: You will have to take that back.


John Charlton: I will not take it back, and I will never be required to. The facts of the case warrant me in making that assertion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Read what Sir Sandford Fleming says about the project of constructing a road from Quebec to Moncton.


John Charlton: I am not dealing with that question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is part of the government scheme.


John Charlton: I am dealing with the question of reaching Quebec.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does not the government's scheme contemplate the construction of a line eastward from Quebec to Moncton ?


John Charlton: Certainly it does, but the important feature of this scheme is the building of a line from the prairies to a Canadian seaport. The essential feature of the scheme is to reach Quebec, and going on to Moncton is a subordinate consideration. Sir Sandford Fleming does not question the propriety of building to Moncton if proper grades can be secured, and if grades of the proper kind cannot be secured, then it is for the government to consider what will be done. But with regard to building the road from Quebec to the west, through the hinterland. Sir Sandford Fleming fully endorses the scheme. Sir Sandford Fleming is quoted in the pamphlet issued by the Trans-Canada Company as having said in October last, with regard to this transcontinental road :
It should extend from Quebec by the most direct route to Port Simpson on the Pacific. From what I know of the general character of the *greater part of the intervening districts, I believe a line with splendid engineering features could with ordinary care he secured from Quebec to Fort Simpson.
My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) sometimes expresses opinions that are inconsistent with those previously announced by him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Charges of inconsistency seem to be chiefly directed against me, and when I say that I do not pay much attention to the inconsistency of my friend (Mr. Brock), I mean that a man is at liberty to revise his opinions, and if the hon. gen-

tleman sees fit to revise or modify his opinions, I accept his doing so without question, I may, however, legitimately quote what he may have said upon isome previous occasion, and let it carry such weight as it may be entitled to. On the tenth of March 1902, in the debate upon the propriety of making a grant for constructing a canal by French river to Lake Nipissing, the hon. member (Mr. Brock) used the following language :
It would be better for the country it the government could see its way to securing an increase in the number of tracks in our railway system. This is an all-year-round country. We cannot bring our grain that is grown in the North-west, if we work only in the summer time. We must hold out inducements to the railway companies and great transportation companies to move the grain all the year round-and it will take the whole year to move it. In the interest not only of the farmers of the North-west, but of the great financial institutions that are putting their money into moving the grain crop, it must be kept moving continually, and not only for the few months of canal navigation. I would therefore ask the government before they commit themselves, to this expenditure of $5,000,000-which may be regarded as a small thing, but, like other small expenditures may be the entering wedge to another of the unfortunate investments which this country has already made in the shape of canals-to consider this whole question very carefully.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not that sound advice ?


John Charlton: Sound advice.
Hon. members from the North-west seem to wish to gather in a great deal of prosperity at once. They want to make the North-west an enormously wealthy country in a few years. But the only solid prosperity that has ever been known in commerce is that kind that is slowly and steadily built up.
We have fairly established the fact that Sir Sandford Fleming approves of this scheme ; that he gives the weight of his opinion in favour of the belief that a good railway line can be secured from Quebec to Fort Simpson, passing through the hinterland of Quebec and Ontario, for the purpose of giving breadth to this country ; for the purpose of opening up lands that are not now inhabited ; for the purpose of giving communication to great areas of wilderness that are capable of supporting a large population. Sir Sandford Fleming is a statesman ; his views in reference to this matter are sound, and I repeat that his views coincide exactly with the policy which the government has promulgated. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) tells us in the quotation, that this is an ail the year round country, and that a system of transportation which is closed six months in the year, via the lakes, will not answer the purpose. He tells us that we have got to have more railway lines in order to provide facilities for the business of the country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) was then speaking without bias. He was not 3S01
then supporting an o ^position that had got to find fault with a pc licy and make political capital out of it, right or wrong. On that occasion he gave us his unbiased opinion as a sound business man, and as I have shown, the government is acting according to the views laid down by the hon. member (Mr. Brock) in March, 1892.


William Rees Brock: Then they may make me Minister of Railways.


John Charlton: Of course, in September, 1903, the opposition had concluded that there was a little political capital to he made out of the government scheme, and so the hon. member (Mr. Brock) modifies his views. Now, these gentlemen opposite have placed before the country an alternative scheme of the most absurd character, as Sir Sandford Fleming tells us. If they had refrained from that, and had confined themselves to growling, and fault-finding, and carping, and criticising, they would have been in a stronger position ; but unfortunately for themselves they did lay down an alternative proposition. It is an easy thing to find fault. It requires perhaps as little exercise of intellectual power to find fault or to ridicule as to do anything except to eat.


Mr. COCHRANE.: You were finding fault for eighteen years.


John Charlton: And I had reasons to. I always found it an easy thing to find fault, when there was reason to do so, and our friends opposite would have found it wise to confine themselves to the same policy. Now, Mr. Chairman, while I admire the character of the leader of the opposition ; while I admire his courtesy and his fine parliamentary form, I am sometimes obliged to contrast it with the exhibition given by some of his followers. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) wants to know why the roads to the Georgian hay from the west, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, had heavier grades than four-tenths per cent per mile. He wanted to know why these roads had failed to answer the standard now laid down as being necessary for the economic and successful carriage of freight. Well, the Canadian Pacific Railway was built twenty years ago, and it was then thought that a one per cent grade would give a good line. The American lines were built on the same principle, but for ten or fifteen years past, the American trunk lines, and the Grand Trunk Railway as well, have been unostentatiously spending millions and millions in straightening their lines, in reducing their grades, and in bringing their roads to the standard at which they can carry freight for the lowest possible cost. The Canadian Pacific Railway and other railroads will he obliged to do that in the future, and it is no argument against the construction of a new line up to this high standard, that these

1213<J
roads have not accomplished that desideratum up to the present.
It simply amounts to a confession of the fact that a road was built in such a way as to be unable to compete with roads of a better character built on modern principles. A great deal has been said about the four-tenths per- cent grade, and some ridicule has been poured upon me as an expert. I have never claimed1 to be an expert. I have merely stated my belief that a road that would perform its functions between Winnipeg and Quebec, and that would carry grain to the sea-board cheaper than any other road, must be a road of a certain character. That is an assertion which can be examined into and criticised and exploded, If it is found to be unfounded, No such attempt has been made ; but any amount of ridicule has been heaped upon me for assuming to myself the position of a railway critic, for simply suggesting' what every railway man in the country to-day knows to be a primary condition of success; and the fact that this has not been generally understood does not militate in the slightest degree against the fact that It is a necessary condition. Then, my hon. friend says that the government cannot get such a grade, and my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) nods assent.


William Rees Brock: You cannot get it.


John Charlton: Well, we will have to wait and see.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear ; that is what we want you to do.


John Charlton: We cannot afford to wait and suspend operations until parliament meets again, because, as Sir Sand-ford Fleming says, it is a case of necessity, and we must make haste.


William Rees Brock: Make haste slowly.


John Charlton: No ; make haste in carrying into operation what you know you can do on the right lines. We shall have a vastly increased population waiting, for transportation facilities from the Northwest to the sea-board before this road can be built; and the difference of one year's time in the opening of this road will be a matter of vast consequence to that population and to this country. My language with reference to a commission has been quoted here-language which I uttered last May. The idea of a commission was all right last. May ; the idea of a commission would he all right now ; but if, upon a consideration of the conditions that surrounded this question, it was found that the government were in possession of more Information than they had at the time a commission was talked of; if, at the same time, it was found, on consideration, that, the necessity of proceeding with the work was greater than it was thought to be at that time, and Mr. CHARLTON.
that the amount of information which we possessed was sufficient to warrant us as to the course we should adopt, the right policy was to strike ahead. If there was a necessity for prompt action, if there was a great transportation crisis to meet, the proper course to pursue, if we knew our premises, was to go on. We have had a great deal of talk about this northern country. In that respect I notice some weakening on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am glad to notice it. A statement was made this morning by the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) that there was a strip of country north of Lake Abitibi, from 100 to 150 miles wide and 300 miles long, with excellent soil, and lie advised running the road north of that lake in order to get into that magnificent country. That is an admission. We had the statement made by hon. gentlemen opposite that it was a worthless country, that there was no good land in it.


William Rees Brock: Who said so V


John Charlton: The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) said' there was nothing good in the country.


William Rees Brock: No ; I said that if there was, we did not know it.


John Charlton: That was throwing discredit on every statement that had been made in regard, to the country having any value. The course pursued by the opposition throughout this matter has been unpatriotic. They have cried down that country, denied the existence of these great resources, and evidently sought to convey the impression that building a railway through that country was a sheer act of folly and a waste of money. They kept out of view the fact that there is a necessity for the road for the purpose of carrying the productions of the west to the sea-board, whether it will have any local business along the line or not. My hon. friend from North Lanark, after making the admission that we had that great stretch of country-and I do not suppose that he knows all about it, for there is likely more of it-went on to object to the government setting up tlie claim that this road could profitably carry wheat from the prairies of the North-west to the sea-hoard. He says that it never could be done ; that it could not. compete with the part rail and part water route : that if tliis road were built it might serve a good purpose as a colonization road ; that it would naturally secure the business of the country throngh which it would pass, but that the claim made on behalf of this road as one that could carry the productions of the great wheat fields of the North-west to the sea-board was not well founded. Well, that is a question to be deliberated upon and decided. Now, I placed certain information before the House with

regard to this question the night before last, and the hon. gentleman dismissed that information with a pooh-pooh, as preposterous-no such thing could be done. He did not say why it could not be done ; he adduced no reason ; he simply denied the statement I made. I was told that my figures would be criticised. I am waiting for the criticism. I was told that no railway authority would bear me out in ithe position I took. Well, Sir, at the time that position was taken it was taken on the authority of railway authorities, not upon my own authority at all. I merely took statements made by railway men as to the capacity of a certain kind of railway for moving freight, as to the train cost per mile, as to other elements that entered into the problem, as to what would be the cost of moving grain from the west to Quebec, and I drew deductions from that information. It was not my theory. I did not create the statements ; but I found that it was claimed that on a road of a certain character, with a four-tenths per cent grade, loads of a certain weight could be hauled. According to Mr. Ledyard, from 2,400 to 2,800 tons of grain could be hauled by one locomotive. I assumed that 2,000 tons could be hauled on a road of similar character.
I had the statement of Mr. Scott, of the Great Northern Railway, as to the capacity of a road with a six-tenths per cent grade, on which he stated they were hauling loads of 2,000 tons, which was equivalent to a weight of freight of 1,350 tons, or 45,000 bushels of wheat.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. What was the size of the locomotive ?


John Charlton: Seventy-five tons, without the tender. I put down the cost of hauling at $1 per train mile, which was from 10 to 11 cents more than the return made by the Grand Trunk, the Great Northern, the Canada Atlantic or the Canada Southern. If that was a false premise, show it, and it will vary the result of the calculation. It is the simplest sum in arithmetic imaginable. We have a train costing a dollar a mile. It is 1,475 miles from Winnipeg to Quebec. You have on a four-tenths grade a capacity of 66,000 bushels. You divide $1,475 by 66,000, and you have the cost of moving a bushel of wheat that distance. Then, I add 50 per cent for net earnings and one-half the cost of moving the train down for taking the empties back. That is the calculation I submitted to the House. If the data are wrong, the deduction is wrong, but if the data are correct, the result is correct. Whether the data be slightly varied or not, the result will be substantially the same. And the result will be that such a railway will defy competition in the carriage of the products of the west to the sea-board. We were told by the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) that a Mr. Meighen, of
Montreal, had made a certain statement, and that Mr. Meighen knew more about this question than Mr. Ledyard, who gave the actual results of operation on the Canada Southern, or Mr. Scott, wTho gave the actual result of operations on the Great Northern Railway. Mr. Meighen assumed, and I supposed he judged by his experience with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which can haul about one-fourth what the Canada Southern can, that all the information I had given was bosh, and that this new road could not become a successful grain carrier. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) nods his head.


William Rees Brock: I take Mr. Meighen's word, at any rate, in preference to the hon. gentleman's.


John Charlton: Mr. Meighen's word will not haul a load of wheat, it will not transport a train. If his word is based upon his experience with the Canadian Pacific Railway, it is not worth one farthing as regards the problem of moving grain on a road with a four-tenths grade. The broad facts are that a certain amount of freight can be hauled on a road with a certain grade. Month by month the railway returns show that the haulage cost per mile on all the roads in Canada is less than a dollar. If you can haul at that rate and you have the correct train mileage, you can arrive exactly at the cost of hauling grain. I do not say that this cost, with 50 per cent added, will be sufficient to pay interest on the investment. It may be necessary to increase the rate beyond six cents a bushel by 50 per cent. But even then we will have a line of communication which will defy competition. We have had here all kinds of assertions and opinions 'belittling the country, denying what is an axiomatic fact with regard to the capacity of railways and casting discredit on anything and everything-and all for political effect. We had denials as to the possibility of joint railway operation, we have had anything and everything denied by the opposition, and not in one case out of ten have their assertions been well-founded. Even when we cite an authority like Sir Sandford Fleming, who has stated explicitly and directly and as clearly as human language can. that he approves of the road, that it will serve the purposes intended, if the grades are what we propose them to be, we have even that denied. It is a campaign of denial and misrepresentation, in the broadest sense of the word, from the beginning to the end.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend should have read the begining of the interiew to which I alluded a moment ago. Sir Sand-ford Fleming begins in this way :
I am very -willing to give my opinions for two reasons. First, because somewhat contradictory statements have appeared in the

press as to my statements, and secondly, having heen a servant of the people for many years, I deem it a duty to them to furnish any special information that I may possess affecting the public interests. I am, therefore, glad to give expression to my views, whether the same are of little or no value. I am not all unfriendly to the present administration. I heard Sir Wilfrid Laurier expound the government policy with respect to this new railway and I was fascinated with his presentation of true case.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It seems to me that lie was so fascinated with the presentation of the case made by the very eloquent leader of the House that he did not go into the matter and give his opinion as an engineer of repute and experience. I have known men to have heen carried away by an eloquent presentation of a case and to have expressed opinions under the influence of that presentation, which they would not have given on calm reflection. Sir Sandford Fleming did not express any opinion based on personal knowledge, but simply on the data furnished by the hon. member for North Norfolk, which he accepted to a certain extent as correct. But I find a distinct difference between the interview which my hon. friend read a minute ago and the interview which I have read from the Toronto ' News,' and this interview* from the Toronto ' News ' was revised by Sir Sandford Fleming, as is stated by my hon. friend from West Toronto.


Mr. TALBOT.: Read a few lines further where Sir Sandford explains why he was carried away by the statement of the First Minister.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am reading from the ' Morning Chronicle ' the interview which was given on the 17tli. The interview which I read, and which was revised and corrected by Sir Sandford Fleming, was the interview which was published in the Toronto ' News ' last evening, and dated the 18th of September. Sir Sandford went on to say :
The subject is one of great magnitude, affecting the, prosperity of the whole country and the well being of tens of millions of people, <vho in coming generations are to occupy the *ast habitable regions in ithe interior. It is aoit surprising that I listened to Sir Wilfrid with intense interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That is not an approval of the scheme. Is there anything in those words which can lead my hon. friend to say that Mr. Fleming gave his opinion as an engineer that this was even a feasible scheme ? The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) says that the opposition are doing an unpatriotic thing in criticising, as they have done, the scheme before us. I resent that statement. It appears to me to come with very bad grace from that hon. gentleman. We all know


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: what his patriotism is, and nobody on this side is likely to take any lessons in patriotism from him.


William Rees Brock: get this through, that this was a specially good time to raise money, and that they had to have this Bill passed in order to raise money at once. They know very well that they will have to wait before they can raise money. What was the effect of the Ontario government going into the financial market to raise money on the bonds of the Temiskamingue Railway ? Did they manage to dispose of those bonds ? No, they had to take them back and revise their scheme, as this government will have to do with theirs. And, even at four per cent they are afraid to issue them. This is a very serious matter in proposing a scheme of this kind. And not only for this scheme, but for other purposes we have to borrow enormous sums of money. We will have to borrow hundreds of millions before we are through with this scheme. I am sorry the Finance Minister is not here. I am sure he knows these things, but I would like to have made this statement in his presence. The hon. gentleman talks of raising this money at three per cent. One should suppose that an army of men with picks and shovels were ready at once to start on this railway. But when this Bill is passed, the government will have to do the very thing we are asking them to do-employ engineers and survey the line. They cannot commence the construction until the surveys are made; and we are only asking them to wait until the surveys have given us the information necessary for deciding upon this scheme. 1 am astonished at the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), when he says that we are going to delay this matter. The hon. gentleman must know that that is not the case. Where is the delay ? You are not going on with the pick and shovel work on this road to-morrow morning. The government must get the commissioners at work ; they must get their engineers out in that country and have the surveys made. We on this side are not causing any delay. The government can go to work to-morrow and make the surveys. Surely this must show the hollowness of the excuse given by the government. X pay little attention to what is said by the government's railway expert, because what he says to-day he may have to take back to-morrow. X do not want to say anything about that hon. gentleman's talk about patriotism-we can afford to leave that unconsidered. I wish to emphasize the fact that in 1901 and 1902 I thought it my duty to call the attention of this House to the desirability of appointing a transportation commission. I never spoke of thrusting the unformed opinions of this House upon the government. I wished them to get expert advice; and I advocated the appointment of a commission, the very thing that is being done now. I am proud that the hon. gentlemen who are hunting up my utterances dirl not venture to give that part. Is there anything unreasonable in suggesting that, having
appointed such a commission, we should get its advice before acting ? At the very least, before deciding upon a scheme like this, we should wait for the surveys which will have to be made in any case before the work can be begun. We want surveys not based upon information given by somebody who went through the country duck shooting, or of somebody who saw a large fish caught up there. That is the kind of information given in this blue-book that the government have brought down. If it were not such a very serious matter the thing would be too ridiculous to talk about-the information that has been brought before this House. I have not attempted, as I say, to answer all that the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk has said. He has spoken without knowledge, as he himself has admitted, so, there is nothing to meet. All his remarks depend upon the engineers being able to find a route with the grades and curves that he himself says are absolutely necessary ; and all we ask is that the engineers should be set at work to find whether we can get those grades and curves or not. Why, the government is wasting time pushing this through without information. I am sure the country will not think it unreasonable that we should ask that, before spending $100,000,000, you should learn that those things can be done which the hon. gentleman who is called a transportation expert says are absolutely necessary. The hon. gentleman says that certain grades and curves are necessary. Remember, this must apply to the whole 1,800 miles. It will not do to show that these grades can be had for a hundred miles, or that they can be had here and there. As I said, you must measure the efficiency of this railway as you must measure the strength of a chain-by its weakest link. I am told that in building this road you must cross the height of land nine times, every time by heavy grades. You must go through great stretches of rock, granite in many cases, and you must fill in immense stretches of quagmire. If you do not cut through the rock, you must tunnel. It will probably be decided that it is better to tunnel, because your deep cuttings are apt to be jammed with snow. And where will you be, with a train jammed in a drift, two or three or four hundred miles from a habitation ?
That road will cost sixty or seventy thousand dollars a mile, but when it is built your troubles are only commencing, you will have to operate it. Are not these considerations sufficiently strong to induce the government to postpone the scheme not for a year, but until they obtain the information wdiieh this country is demanding. The suggestions that have been made from this side of the House during the last few days have not been fully answered by the gentleman from whom we expect a great deal in matters of this kind, the Minister of Justice. The hon. minister said that by accepting this suggestion we

would lose time, that we lose a whole year if we did not push this Bill through parliament. Has the Minister of Justice an army of men with picks and shovels ready to go to work on that railway to-morrow ? If we push this Bill through parliament,' what will he do ? He will do as we ask him, put engineers on the road-and we will not hamper him in doing so, we will give him a vote to put engineers on to-morrow morning-and wait until he gets the report. He will have in any case to get the reports before he can put a single navvy to work on that road. I cannot understand, possibly because I have not sufficient political astuteness, why the hon. minister will not give us a better reason than he has done. We all know he has a better reason, that he can tell us who won't wait. I think some members of the government should give us a really candid statement of the cause of this unhealthy haste. I am sure that the hon. gentleman from whom we in Ontario expected a great deal, the Minister of Customs, has not told us ; probably he does not know. We believe that this railway project was put through without some members of the cabinet knowing about it. We know that one member of the cabinet stated that he was not consulted although he was a very important member, and the one of all others who should have been consulted and who could have explained this project to the people of this country. Why was he shunted out of the government ? The greatest blow that this scheme has received came from the government benches and I do not know that that gentleman is in the habit of changing his mind. The hon. gentleman who has been put up to answer gentlemen on this side is very pliable so far as his expressed public convictions are concerned. As the Minister of Justice is in the House I will make way for him. He stated that the reason for not accepting the amendment now proposed was that it would delay the carrying out of this scheme. I think he should tell us whether he has these navvies outside the door with picks and shovels ready to start to work tomorrow. The reason be has not put them to work is that there are no surveys and we are not preventing him from sending his engineers out to-morrow morning, in fact we ask this delay that he may do so, and obtain the necessary information not only for his own benefit but for the benefit of the country. I think that on all grounds we should get a better reason from the Minister of Justice than that just given.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Perhaps I really ought to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) that the navvies are not waiting outside the door.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I foe permitted to read for the information of the committee a statement made, not a great many moons ago, by the gentleman who now appears to Mr. BROCK.
be the expert from whom we are to receive information on railway matters :
It is beyond all things necessary that we should make no false step, that we should proceed upon no false hypothesis or basis ; and for that reason it lis a wise thing to appoint a commission, composed of men who are capable of examining this question and arriving at correct conclusions. 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 be appointed upon this commission. Let us wait until we have the decision of these men as to the proper coarse to pursue.
That is the statement made on the 26tli of May last, not four months ago, by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who is now championing this railway project and who is presented to the people of Canada as an expert upon railway construction. We are asked to except his advice to-day, notwithstanding this statement made by him in this Chamber not four months ago. If this statement of the hon. member for North Norfolk Is worthy of any consideration, the conditions being the same today as they were four months ago, why in the name of all that is fair and reasonable and just do we not accept the advice offered by that expert and wait until we have the opinion of practical scientific men and engineers as to the difficulties1 to be overcome, before we involve this country in the enormous expenditure the government scheme will entail? The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) attacked the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) for something which that hon. gentleman said In March of last year. On an examination of the speech which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) made in March of last year I find that it does him Infinite credit. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) did not quote the salient points of that speech. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) strongly urged deliberate, comprehensive action and pointed out the importance to the farming community of the North-west of having the pro-dubts of the soil of that part of our Dominion placed in the markets of Europe at as low and as favourable rates as those enjoyed by the farmers of Minnesota and Dakota. That is the essence of his speech ; it is an appeal for a comprehensive transportation policy in order to secure that great desideratum. What value can be placed on the opinions which the hon. member for North Norfolk has presented to us ? We might expect to obtain from him reliable data, but when we can quote the hon. gentleman himself giving one opinion on a subject to-day and an entirely contrary opinion to-morrow, I do not think it is necessary to discuss him at any greater length. All we have to do, if we want to ascertain his opinions on any given subject, is to look at the index to ' Hansard,' and we will find that as political

exigencies demand, as the party caucus asks, the hon. gentleman is prepared to change his opinion twenty-four times every day if necessary. And yet he is the gentleman to whom we are directed to obtain reliable information to justify us in voting through parliament this scheme which the government has presented to the people of this country. They have not the slightest possible reliable data on which to base an intelligent opinion. For my part I am strongly qnd heartily in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bothwell. I think that the intelligent people of this country have a right to ask for full, definite and reliable information before they and the country are committed to such an enormous expenditure as that which the government propose.


Mr. OLIVER.: I wish to say a word as to the facts which appeal to me in regard to the necessity for the early construction of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway In the interests not of western Canada, but of eastern Canada. Toronto and Montreal are 1,400 miles form Winnipeg by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Chicago is 800 miles and the twin cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis 400 miles from Winni-! peg. Chicago and the twin cities are greater centres of manufactures and commerce than Toronto and Montreal. They are much more conveniently situated as to distance from the Canadian west than are Montreal and Toronto, and their manufactures are specially adapted to the western trade. Given the same freight rates per mile and the Uniteed States manufacturers and commercial houses are in a position to close the Canadian dealer and manufacturers out of tile North-west market. The duties help to balance the difference on freight against Canadian trade; but in the case of all heavy goods the difference in freight largely or altogether destroys the advantage which the duty gives.
The Canadian Pacific Railway has a monopoly of the traffic. It is capitalized for $64,700 a mile. Suc-h a heavy capitalization compels it to take the last cent out of the traffic that it will bear. By a special provision in its charter its rates cannot 'be brought under government control. The only possible way of placing the trade and manufactures of eastern Canada on an equality with those of the United States in western Canada is by the construction of another line of railway, which shall give direct connection between all points of trade and manufacture in eastern Canada and all points of requirement in the west, with a minimum capitalization and government control of rates.
During the past few years the imports of agricultural machinery and other farm requirements, chiefly from Chicago and the twin cities, into the North-west has increased much more rapidly than those
from eastern Canada, chiefly because of lower freights. By the time the new transcontinental railway can be completed, the manufacturing and commercial interests of eastern Canada will have suffered a loss of trade greater than the cost of the railway unless in the meantime freight rates are reduced far below their present standard.
Steam threshers made in Minneapolis are placed in Winnipeg for less than one-third of the freight rate charged from Toronto. This rate may be fair enough, based on the mileage, but it does not permit the makers of Canadian threshers to sell in the west at a price to compete with the United States maker. What is true regarding threshers is true to a greater or less degree of every item of trade or manufactures.
That the rate from eastern Canada to North-west points would admit of a substantial reduction is shown by the fact that the rate on binders from Toronto to Vancouver is practically the same as to Calgary, although Calgary has a shorter haul by 642 miles. On buggies the rate to Calgary is $2.97, and to Vancouver $2.41 per hundred pounds.
This handicap of 'high freight rates must be removed or eastern Canada cannot benefit from the development of western Canada as it is the wish of all Canadians that it should. It cannot be removed too soon, and under the circumstances as they exist to-day, it cannot be removed soon enough.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 236) for the relief of Harford Ashley.-Mr. Porter.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 235) to provide for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.-The Prime Minister.
Mr. GOURLEY.: We discussed before diu-ner the amendment which asks for the postponement of this measure, so that we may be in a position later to pass legislation Which will be in the highest interests of all Canada, rather than a mere local, provincial measure such as this. I have great repect for the opinion of Sir Sandford Fleming and I was delighted to hear him quoted, in order that we might hear what he really believed in reference to this project, because newspaper reports of interviews are apt to distort opinions ; it may not be done intentionally, but the opinions of the person interviewed are often more or less coloured by the medium through which they

reach the public. Sir Sandford Fleming was connected with the exploitation of all our railways in the maritime provinces. He was a very strong man ; he was not an ordinary engineer as we soon learned. I agree with the member for North Norfolk when he says, that Sir Sandford Fleming is not only a great engineer, but also a statesman. He has fine imagination, great outlook, great generosity of soul; he is far above the ordinary engineer or the ordinary professional man, in that he possesses these qualities of a statesman. We often looked to him for advice in the maritime provinces, and he gave the best years of his life, when he was full of energy and power, in helping us develop the trade routes of Nova Scolia. I would be prepared, for my part, to modify to a considerable degree any views I might entertain, by the views of Sir Sandford Fleming with regard to any great railway policy. It is very proper that Sir Sandford should be deeply interested in this matter. From the earliest time of railroads in our country, he has been a great railway pioneer. Away back in 1862, he foresaw, not one transcontinental railway, but two or three transcontinental railways, and of course all the little people in Canada then pooh-poohed the thing, and thought he was visionary. With his wide experience, with his great study, with his knowledge of transcontinental railways, probably Sir Sandford Fleming is more competent to speak on the question than any other man. He has trodden over more miles of Canada than any other person ; the maps of Canada are familiar to him ; he knows the trend of the geography of this country ; he knows our rivers and the lessons they teach, and he is better able to tell us as to the trade routes of Canada than any man in this parliament, or out of it. That comes to him not so much as an engineer, as' by virtue of the information which he obtained as an engineer, and by virtue of his wide outlook as a statesman. Sir Sandford Fleming comes forward to debate this question, and I will accept his opinion as a guiding opinion in connection with this road. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) says, that Sir Sandford says, that, this is a great railway policy. Of course it is. Any policy proposing to expend 8200,000,000 for the development of Canada is a great policy. I have no objection to call it a great railway policy, but, is it the wisest and best policy we could adopt? Sir Sandford Fleming says:	Select
the best line and then bend every force to construct it. Well, that is the position we all take. The difference between us is, that we say that the government has been precipitate and has not waited for the necessary information to select that best route. But, when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) leaving generalities, comes down to say, that Sir Sandford Fleming has endorsed this road in toto, I am here to say, that it surprises me, that the member for North Mr. GOURLEY.
Norfolk should make such a statement. When I came to this House, I had great respect for the learning of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton).


John Charlton: My statement was that Sir Sandford Fleming approved the general policy of a road through the hinterland.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) is a good deal like Gladstone, for Gladstone never used a word-intending you to take the plain meaning of it, and he was always able to say : Didn't you notice that other little word I put in there ; you misunderstood what I said. I do not propose that the hon. number for North Norfolk shall treat me in that way. I will take his meaning from the ordinary interpretation of the language he used ; and I shall hold him down to-night strictly to What I believe to be his meaning. I really cannot understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton). I listen to him with the greatest respect, as I do to every honourable member, hoping that I will gain information which wall aid me in discharging my duty here; but I cannot understand the member for North Norfolk. I cannot understand why he should be talking about transcontinental lines at all. What has he got to do with transcontinental lines ? He says that Canada is an annex of the Mississippi valley. What under heaven, has any man who thinks that, got to do with a Canadian transcontinental railway ?
I really think that hon. gentleman is wasting his time bothering about a transconti-.neutal railway. If I had his opinion, I would say. put Canada up at auction, sell the blessed thing out for what it will bring, because Canada is unfit to exploit a national line, if it is an annex of the Mississippi valley. Why, the hon. gentleman is at war with the whole geography of the country. The Mississippi valley is as distinctly divided from the great valley of the Hudson bay and the Arctic ocean as the Atlantic is from the Pacific. There are two lakes in the northern part of Minnesota, from one of which the Mississippi runs south and from the other the Red river runs north. There are the most marked physical distinctions, on this continent that are to be found anywhere in the world. So that when the hon. gentleman talks of Canada being a part of the Mississippi valley, he talks about what cannot be sustained for a moment. If it is, why is he talking about building a transcontinental railway? Do we want to build a railway to connect Canada with the valley of the Mississippi? I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman, with has breadth of information, would not prefer to be sincere, so that when he rises in this House to speak, everybody would be benefited and strengthened by his argument. I do not think he should bother his mind at all about the discussion of a transcontnental railway. He

takes a great interest in this transcontinental railway, and if by that he means he has become converted and has changed his mind about Canada being an annex, then I am very pleased, and I welcome him to the fold of patriotic Canadians. The hon. gentleman appears to be within the philosophy of that old saw :
When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be ;	.
When the devil got well, the devil a monk was he.
When the hon. gentleman is supporting the government he is a patriotic citizen ; when he was opposing the government for eighteen years, he was one of the most unpatriotic Canadians that ever breathed the air of Canada. However, I will take him in his new capacity. I am delighted. He has had half a dozen voices-one for Canada, one for North Norfolk, one for New York, one for Quebec. Every man in Canada should have only one voice-the same voice for Nova Scotia, British Columbia and North Norfolk. I hope that that hon. gentleman will come to the conclusion that one voice is enough for any public man in this country; and he must use his one voice with great caution, or he will get into such trouble as I fear the hon. gentleman has got into tonight. The point I wish to make against the hon. member for North Norfolk is that he did not treat this House fairly this afternoon. I sat here listening to him, and the impression he left on my mind by reading this paper, and I venture to say on the mind of every other man who heard him, was that Sir Sandford Fleming had generally endorsed this scheme. I undertake to say, after reading this paper, that Sir Sand-ford Fleming has made the most severe and destructive criticism of this measure that has yet been made. If the hon. member for North Norfolk cannot summon any better evidence than this interview, he has a hopeless case. For I have learned that that hon. gentleman is very ingenious in suborning testimony-I do not use the word in an offensive sense; for any hon. gentleman who can read this interview as supporting this scheme, suborns it-pulls it away from truth and right. I agree with Sir Sandford Fleming; I want a railway built; I want two or three transcontinental railways built, only I want to select the best route; and I support the amendment of the hon. member for Bothwell. It does not mean delay. If parliament had been treated with proper respect, we could have had a report on the Table of the House to-day from the men best acquainted with the trade routes of this country. If the government had pursued the intention they originally announced of submitting this question to experts, we could have had a report from these experts to-day, and we would now be considering and settling upon the best route. We do not ask for delay; by delay I mean putting off the scheme for three or four years. All
we ask is that it should be put off for six or nine months, in order that we may realize the best hopes of the people of Canada. Those of us who are from Nova Scotia are deeply interested in the selection of this route. For thirty-five years we have been waiting for the fulfilment of pledges which were given to us in that regard; and the action of this government is to destroy our hopes for the next forty years. And when I hear the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) and other hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia defending this scheme, I long to see them endorsing and defending it before the people. I for my part declare that I will give no party any support against the interests of my province or against the interests of the maritime provinces. Let us come back to this interview. If Cox would wait, I have no doubt the government could employ Sir Sandford Fleming as a consulting engineer. If they did, I venture to say that he would tell us, your route is all wrong. The selection of the route south of Lake Winnipeg is a most cruel disappointment to the people of Canada. Lake Winnipeg dominates the whole trade routes of Canada, and the sooner we realize that the better. Here we have a lake 200 miles long, running north and south, with only a strip of teritory 65 miles wide between that and the United States border. Are you going to crowd all the trade routes of this continent into that strip of territory? You have already two transcontinental railways there. Do not let any man from the west think that I would deny him a mile of railway. If any other railways are needed to relieve the congestion, let branches be built to the lines already existing. A short railway of 400 or 500 miles would be a trifling thing to relieve the congestion. We are not dealing with that. We are dealing with a great transcontinental railway that ought to determine the future of Canada on this continent for all time, and I ask hon. gentlemen in this parliament, is it not time to forget little party questions in the presence of a great question like this ? It strikes me that the appeals to party made by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister is rather an insult to their supporters. Their supporters should see that at this time in the history of Canada there should be no party appeals in the settlement of a great question like this, but we should sit down, as the great Council of Canada, and confer together and get all the information possible before deciding. I would rather sit here another three months than come to a premature decision. Let us vote $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 to bring out experts from England, Germany and France, who will go over the country, and let us wait for their report before committing ourselves to a false policy. Sir Sandford Fleming condemns the policy of the government from beginning to end. In condemning the east-

era wing, I think he is unwise, for if this railway is to be built, the eastern wing should be constructed as well as the other, but there is room for differences of opinion. On this side we have our differences, but we are all united in oppositi m to this scheme. We approach your citadel from different roads but will overthrow you in the end. I was very much amused at the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) asking my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) to read some lines further in the ' Chronicle's ' report of the interview with Sir Sandford Fleming. I expected to find that Sir Sandford had made some very powerful declaration, but what do you suppose it was ? It was simply that he had admired the presentation of the case by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Why, I can endorse that sentiment. I myself was charmed w'itli the First Minister when he made his statement. I am delighted to hear any oratory which arouses national feeling and pride in our country. What we have lacked in Canada is the cultivation of national sentiment, and that is what has made the Dominion weak to the outside world. Sir Sandford Fleming was only showing his politeness and courtesy, when he said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had made a graceful speech.
But in saying that 'he did not commit himself to any approval of the scheme. I have heard the most brilliant speeches made in defence of the most rascally propositions, but while one might admire the speech, it does not follow that he endorses the propositions. But in order that there should be no mistake, Sir Sandford Fleming immediately commenced to analyse the scheme. He had shown his politeness. He was bred down in Nova Scotia, where men learn politeness and courtesy, and cannot exhibit anything else except when the time comes for action, and they are prepared for action at the right moment. Sir Sandford Fleming, with the courtesy of a gentleman, said that he admired the speech. Well, so do I. But then he went on to criticise the policy, and showed that he was deadly opposed to every line of it from beginning to end. He is opposed to it at this vital point. He says that the southern portion of this great western country is already served sufficiently by railways, but that we have no breadth to our country. Look, he says, at the little fringe along the shore of Nova Scotia and the St. Lawrence and the lakes, and along the Canadian Pacific Railway- a stretch of country 3,000 miles long and about 40 miles deep. He says that this contemplated railway, if it is to be a national railway, should give us depth of country, and we can only get depth, by running the line back 300 miles of Winnipeg. Instead, however, we are taking this line along the height of land. These gentlemen have not the first notions of the geography of the country. Some hon. gentlemen say that Mr. GOURLEY.
it passes and repasses the height of land. It is only a high plateau, a little sloping and rising plateau, and the height of land is the worst part of the country. The alluvial soil is carried down on both sides, and if you go wthin a hundred miles of James bay, you will find splendid alluvial territory, made up in a large measure by the soil carried down from the height of land. It is a isoil some eight or ten feet deep, which no doubt will be the homes of millions of people. I have no doubt of the capacities of that part of the country. If your railway were to start at the mouth of the Saguenay and proceed west until a hundred miles south of James bay, and then go north of Winnipeg and through the Peace River valley, you would have a direct line almost as the crow' flies, and that line would shorten the trade routes of Canada by 350 miles. But what are we doing in this case ? We are going away up the Peace river, and then bringing the railway down 600 miles to Winnipeg, and then taking it away north again, and hope to get the grain down to Nova Scotia. You are lengthening this road beyond all measure, and then you ask the people of Nova Scotia to believe that when you lengthen the trade route of the country 300 or 400 miles, you will get the trade of the west down to the maritime provinces. You are going in the face of the geography of the country and its physical features, and are bound to fail. Stronger men have failed in less difficult Ijroblems. Sir Sandford Fleming asks you now to stop, and I think that your organ in Halifax must feel that public sentiment is growing against this line, otherwise it would never have published this interview'. The Minister of Finance had better take this as a warning. That still small voice, which our ecclesiastical friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked the minister to heed, has been heard by the ' Morning Chronicle ' and that paper has been endeavouring to make the Minister of Finance give it heed.
1 wish to call the attention of the House to this interview with Sir Sandford Fleming, w'hich has been relied upon by the hon. member for North Norfolk to support this policy. Sir Sandford Fleming says :
There is one point which appears to have, to a large extent escaped the attention of parliament.
And I must say that I waited until late in this debate,-hoping that some gentleman, especially some gentleman on the government side, would rise and grapple with this question of the geography of this continent, and the effect of Lake Winnipeg in dominating the trade routes of this country. I was in hopes that some member of the government would rise and say : We know the influence of Lake Winnipeg on' the trade routes of the continent of America, and we know that ultimately we must grapple with the questions it involves. We have located this road improvidently and improperly,

because there were reasons which prevented our locating it properly at this time. The government should have grappled with this geographical -question, for it is the determining question in, the problem of the trade routes of this country. The government should have recognized that there are already two trams continental lines running south of L-alte Winnipeg, and -the Northern Pacific is also entering tbei'-e. It is unreasonable that there should be four transcontinental railways in that -strip of territory. Sir Sandford Fleming deals with this at once, as I knew he fiad to. When the horn, mem-ber for N-ort.h Norfolk was reading that interview of the 17th of September, I knew there was something wrong, because Sir Sandford Fleming, on the 4th of October last, long before he knew this matter was to be made the football of parties but giving his views as a citizen of Canada, as a man of knowledge, capable of directing us and giving -us information with regard to the trade routes, spoke upon this point. I remembered what Sir Sand-ford Fleming had said, and when the hon. member for North Norfolk was reading from the ' Morning Chronicle ' I wondered that a gentleman like -Sir Sandford Fleming could give two conflicting interviews. Pet us see What he said last October, when this question was not a political one, and everybody could see that Sir Sandford Fleming was speaking simply as a Canadian, whose knowledge and position gave him the right to give advice to the iieople of Canada :
A new national railway, should, in ray judgment, begin a-t the Quebec bridge

You can understand why be should say that this railway should- begin at the Quebec bridge. He was the father of the Intercolonial, and wanted to connect the Trans-Canada wi-t-h -his own child. In my opinion, this road should go -below Quebec and run to the mouth of the Saguenay, which would give us the shortest and straightest route to Europe.
A new national railway, -should, in my judgment, begin at the Quebec bridge, now building, where it would form a direct connection with the Intercolonial and it should ex-tend from Quebec by the mos-t direct route to Port Simpson on the Pacific. From wha-t I know of the general character of the greater part of the intervening -distance, I believe a line with-splendid engineering features could, with ordinary care be secured. It would pass aw-ay to the north of the rugged shores -of Lakes Huron, Superior, Napigon, and Winnipeg, through a vast region reported generally of alluvial soil, with abundance of wood and water.
Away to the north of Take Winnipeg it should run, says Sir Sandford Fleming.
I have always expressed my doubts as to the ,wisdom and expediency of preceding in a haphazard way.
What has this government d-on-e but proceeded in a bap-hazard way ? They attempt to establish a national transcontinental highway without the slightest precaution. I want new railways, but if the government took a year, in deciding about this matter, they would have been perfectly justified. The country would -have justified them, and would have s-aid that they were proceeding with all necessary haste. A year would be hut a moment in the useful life of a line of railway of this character if properly laid- out.
I regard the shortest line -obtainable-
Now, listen to this

I regard the shortest line obtainable between the tide-waiters of the two oceans as quite long enough. For that reason -and other -cogent reasons I would advocate the mos-t favourable route wh-iich can be had between the port of Quebec a-n-d Port Simpson for a new Dominion Grand Trunk line, and at the same tim-e to have in view the establishment of railway service wi-th all desirable points by branches judiciously laid out.
Now, listen to the outlook Sir Sandford Fleming had with regard to a railway properly laid out in this country :
When the day arrives to open the railway as a through route it will be found to possess advantages, in respect to distances, as compared with t-he r-oute via San Francisco and New York. From Yokohama to Liverpool the passage across the Pacific ocean would be 60a and across the Atlaniti-e 195 nautical miles less. While the land distance would be 502 statute miles less, making a total saving on the whole distance of abou-t 1,423 statute miles.
Sir Sandford Fleming tells you that if you had located yo-ur line north of Lake Winnipeg, and had made it straight as the crow files, you could have saved 1,423 miles on the route between Yokohama and Liverpool. This is the road that the hon. member for North Norfolk should have advocated. He should have told the government : When Canada built the Canadian Pacific Railway she was not strong financially, and had to locate the line where she could. When Canada built the Intercolonial She was necessarily dominated by the military idea, and had to locate the line with a view to self-defence. But to-day Canada is strong, and can locate a railway where she pleases. We should take a year, and spend a million dollars if necessary, in order to find out where that railway should be located. Surely, the government will see that if we had ail advantage of 1,423 miles in our trade routes over San Francisco and New York, these cities are simply out of the race. I have been attempting in this House, ever since I came here, to arouse the national feeling of the people of Canada, by telling them that the people of the United -States are not in -the race for trade if we play the game properly. I value this debate : it is the most important that lias occurred in this House for many years. In past years, if, instead of the debates about table napkins and wine glasses, which were the great questions of public policy, that occupied the time of -hon. gentlemen for many years, they had devoted attention to


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I beg to move the resolution with respect to customs duties on importation of materials, which I read this morning.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it moved as an independent clause ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Montmorency has been considering this amendment, and he will speak on it in a moment, when he returns to the Chamber.


Mr. OSLER.: I am very glad indeed, that after long and persistent denials by the government, and after questioning ray own opinion, endorsed as it was by the opinions 381
of eminent counsel, the Minister of Justice has at last to some extent fallen in with my views. So far as the amendment covers the expenditure on original construction, it would seem to be full enough to cover the point which I raised, that on all supplies imported for the building of the eastern section, customs duties are to be paid and the duties added to the cost of construction upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific are to pay 3 per cent interest. Having conceded so much, I hope the Minister of Justice will go a little further, and make the resolution include all the materials and supplies which are to be used in the betterment of this railway during the 43 years under which it is to be controlled and rent paid for it by the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is only fair to the manufacturers of Canada. We all know that after a railway has been constructed, ail expenditure on capital account equal to from 50 to 100 per cent of the cost will be made upon that road within ten years. If this road is to fulfil in any shape or way, the expectations of the government, branches will have to be built ; bridges will have to be rebuilt, and extensions will have to be provided which will double the capital within ten or fifteen years. It is not fair to the manufacturers of Canada, that the material used in the betterments of a railway, which ' is to all intents and purposes a private railway and not a government railway, should be admitted free of duty to the detriment of our Canadian manufacturing industries.
It is not as if the road were a government road, as the Intercolonial is. The government have not the excuse that in admitting materials free, they are admitting them for a government railway. In this case they are admitting them for what is to all intents and purposes a private railway, which is leased by the government for a period of forty-three years at a very low interest on its cost, and from which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are to derive all the benefit. I think it would be only fair and just to our manufacturing interests that all material used in betterment of this eastern division of the road should be made to pay duty, and that that duty should be added to the capital accountupon which the Grand Trunk Pacific should pay interest.
To show that my contention was correct as to the effect of the clause in the Bill as it stood, I read from a government organ, the Toronto ' Daily Star ' of the 16th of September, which criticising my remarks said :
Mr. Osier, in parliament yesterday, returned to the question of the payment of customs duties on materials entering into the construction of the government portion of the transcontinental railway. Reinforced by the opinions of a couple of lawyers, he repeated his statement that under the Grand Trunk Pacific agreement no duty could be collected upon materials and that, consequently, a great injustice'would be done the manufacturing interests of Canada. The facts were made plain by Mr. Fitzpatrick. The clause in the agreement reads : ' No ad-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When I introduced this amendment I said Jt was intended merely for the purpose of making superabundantly clear what was already absolutely clear under the contract. In my opinion, no one could construe this contract as meaning that any one could import goods free of duty; hut out of deference to the earnest opinion expressed by lion, gentlemen opposite I introduced this amendment. When my hon. friend talks about extending the operation of this section with respect to

betterments, I cannot quite understand bis object. It be is opposed to the idea of tbe government importing goods free of duty, be is opposed to tbe legislation we have had since 1886. The law we have now is what we have had since 1886 and has never been departed from.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I take the point that the road under lease ceases to he a government road, and is a private road, to all intents and purposes, and is not, therefore, in the same position as the Intercolonial Railway. Under this agreement, the Grand Trunk Railway can force the government to import all its materials for betterment during forty-three years free of duty, and will be only bound to pay interest on the net cost. That would be a most serious blow to our manufacturers. To show the Minister of Justice that his own friends interpret this clause as we do, let me point out that the Toronto ' Star ' takes the position, as a matter of course, that on the original construction the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will not have to pay 3 per cent on the duties collected by the government. The provision cannot therefore be so clear as the hon. minister thinks it is, or the government organ in Ontario would hardly have published an editorial showing that tile contract was so plainly in the opposite direction. If the government refuse to provide protection for the materials to be used in con* nection with the betterment of this road, they will do the manufacturers an injury which cannot be over-estimated.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that the law has been the same since 1886 and that we cannot change it now. Let me quote the law from the remarks delivered -by my hon. friend in this House on the 15th of September. He said :
I do not know whether it would convince anybody or not, but I want to satisfy myself. Section 5 of the Customs Act provides : ,
Subject to the same provisions and to the further conditions contained in schedule B to this Act, all goods enumerated in this schedule B may be imported into Canada or may be taken out of warehouse for consumption in Canada without the payment of any duties of customs the-reon.
Then he goes on to say :
Then article 50 of schedule B reads as follows :
Articles imported by or for the use at the Dominion government, or of any of the departments thereof, or by and for the Senate or House of Commons, including the follow-iug articles when imported by the said government or through any of the departments thereof for the use of the Canadian militia : military clothing, musical instruments for military bands, military stores and munitions of war.
It is plain from that quotation that it was never contemplated, when this section was passed in 1886, that such enormous importations would be made as are contemplated by the present agreement. The enumeration
381J
made in this section shows that. It comprises articles for use in the House of Commons and the Senate, and a special mention is made of what is required for the Militia Department. This shows it was never contemplated, when this section was passed, that such enormous importations would be made as will be necessary to improve the road after it is leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. We are face to face with this fact, that in fifteen years, according to railway experts, the capital account of the railway will be double. Therefore, if this road is to cost $100,000,000, you will have importations, within the next fifteen years, which will probably amount to $60,000,000 or $70,000,000. When this section was enacted, which my hon. friend quoted the other day, it could not have been in the contemplation of parliament that such enormous importations would be made free of duty to the detriment of our manufacturers. I understand the argument which my hon. friend put before the House the other day to be that, as to the original cost of construction, as defined in section- 15, there can be no -difficulty ; that on any material imported for the original construction of -the road by contractors acting for the government, under the terms of the agreement between the parties, the customs duties would have to be paid on these importations. So far, so good. But my hou. and l-eamed friend -says that when it comes to the betterments no customs duties are to be paid, because the importations are to -be made directly by the government, and they would fall under section 50 of the Customs Act, which he quoted and which I have just referred to. Whether my hon. friend was right or not in the construction of this section the other day would be a merely academic question to be -discussed, because he has made it dear by this amendment. But what we say is that he does not go far enough. We say that mot only should customs duties be paid on materials used in the construction of the road through contractors, but on the immense importations that will be made for improvements, and betterments duties should be paid and that the company, which, in point of fact, is to he the real owner of the road, should pay the interest upon the cost of these betterments plus the customs duty. My hon. friend says himself that it does not go that far. Therefore, we have it plain now that, so far as the cost of construction goes, that i-s the original cost of building the road, the customs duties will be added to the cost of construction. But -for the betterments that are made, from now to any time in the future while this road is in possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, importations will be made by the government and so no customs duties will be levied, but the government will import the material free of duty under the ordinary clause of the Customs Act. But, as my

bon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) lias pointed out, this is not an ordinary case. It is not a case like the Intercolonial. I quite understand that in the case of the Intercolonial, although it seems to me this clause in the Customs Act never was intended to cover that case ; yet, to a certain extent, the rule should prevail, and that everything imported, either for the construction or the improvement of the road, is regarded as imported directly by the government for its own use. But the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific is entirely different. In that case the road is leased to the company for fifty years. Practically the company becomes the owner of the road. It will he a great favour from the government to the Grand Trunk Pacific to allow the importation of material without any charge for customs duty. Now, if it is true-and I have no doubt it is-that within the next fifteen yeans the cost of construction will be doubled, we are making a very considerable present to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in exempting them from the payment of the three per cent rental upon the customs duties upon the enormous quantity of manufactures that will be imported for betterments upon the road. And, on the other hand, it will be the greatest disadvantage to our manufacturers if this policy is carried out. I do not mean to say for a moment that the present government has adopted all our ideas on the subject of a national policy. We know very well that, although deputation after deputation has waited upon them asking for a revision of the tariff and telling them that because the tariff is not high enough a great many of our industries are suffering, up to this date the government has constantly refused to do anything to come to the relief of those industries. On the other.hand, there is no doubt that, in 1897, a certain part of the policy of the late government was adopted by lion, gentlemen opposite. They introduced at least a measure of protection to the industries of this country. Is it possible, in this great enterprise, which is going to cost so much money, and for which such immense quantities of material and supplies will be required for fifty years, they are going to strike a blow at the manufacturing industries of Canada in the way proposed ? I take it that the amendment my hop. friend (Mr. Osier) suggested to the committee the other evening should he adopted, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should move his amendment as an amendment to that of the hon. Minister of Justice, so as to put the policy of both parties frankly before the committee and before the country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) should not urge us too strougly to adopt the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, if he is really in earnest in his desire to protect our industries, because we might go the extreme limit Mr. CASGRAIN.
to which his party went in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and extend the terms of this proposal to the whole line extending to the Pacific ocean. But I do not think we shall follow that policy. The hon. gentleman said that the Act relating to the customs had not in contemplation importa-1 tions to the extent that are likely to take place under this agreement, and said that what was in contemplation was simply military clothing, musical instruments, military stores and munitions of war. But what is the provision of the Act under which all the material employed in connection with the Intercolonial comes in ? Surely the importations in connection with the Intercolonial are fully as large as they can be in connection with this enterprise. They can come in under the section my hon. friend says had not in contemplation importations of that sort.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I did not deny that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend must bear in mind that if we are to remedy this it is not a question of dealing with a contract, but it will be necessary to say that the government should not enjoy that exemption from the payment of duties which it has enjoyed up to the present time. My hon. friend says that, so far as this road is concerned, this is practically for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He must bear in mind that all this money, which is expended for the importation of materials, will remain the property of the government. Of course my friends will deny that-they appear to have denied everything, even that the sun is shining at midday-and if they read the contract, If they have not yet done so, they will see that what I say is correct, that it is merely intended to lease this road for fifty years, that at the end of that time it will revert to the government, and that all of this material- will remain the property of the government in the same way as if it were material for the Intercolonial Railway. I may add that personally I think all of "these exemptions should be abolished ; I would go in for the payment of duty with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial Railway.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Canadian Pacific Railway has no exemption now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They had up to a recent date, they had after the original construction was completed.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It was limited to a very small amount, to rails and one or two supplies, rails, rail fastenings, fish plates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And bridge material.


Edmund Boyd Osler: And material for bridges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What is left.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Tile Minister of Justice claims that at the end of fifty years this road will belong to the government, so that it must not be loaded with heavier expenses; he forgets that the duty which should be paid in this matter will go to the government, and that therefore the government will not be loaded with any additional expense at all. What we want is that the duty should not be rebated to the Grand Trunk Pacific to the detriment of our manufacturers, that the full duty should be paid, particularly as these duties go to the government and do not in any way increase the cost to the government. In this way we would be protecting our manufacturers and that is the sole reason for introducing this clause. The very amendment which the Minister of Justice now proposes, shows that there is reason in that. Why should you enforce the payment of duty upon the first cost of this road and not upon the betterments ? Why should you, during construction, insist upon the duty being paid and the Grand Trunk Pacific paying interest on it at three per cent, although it does not cost the government anything, and then say that from the termination of the period of construction, the materials should be imported free of duty and that the three per cent should not be charged to the Grand Trunk on the amount of that duty.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) says that the contract provides that after the completion of the road, duty should not be paid on materials imported for betterments. The contract does not say that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The contract does not say that, but the Grand Trunk will say that the government having the right to admit these things free of duty and having bound themselves to construct this road at ns low a cost as possible, having the Grand Trunk Pacific officers joint officers with the officers of the government to see that it is constructed cheaply, will be bound to admit these things free of duty. I do not see why the government do not accept the suggestion and make the amendment which the Minister of Justice has proposed to apply to the original construction, apply also to the betterments, which within fifteen or twenty years after the construction of the road will amount to as much as the original cost of construction. I do not see why he should apply the principle in one case and not in the other, having recognized that our manufacturers ought to be protected. I move that all the words after the word ' that ' in the amendment be struck out and that the following be substituted :
Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in section 17 of the said contract all materials or supplies of any kind which are not the products of Canadian labour and which are imported for the purpose of the construction of the said eastern division by or on
behalf of the said commissioners or by or on behalf of any contractors, workmen, agents or servants for the construction of the said eastern division or for the improvement, replacement of structures or otherwise upon capital account for betterment of the said eastern division a'.s in clause 16 of the said contract provided shall be liable to the usual customs duties provided by the statutes in that behalf and should be included in and form part of the ' cost of construction ' mentioned in section 15 of the said agreement, or of the capital account or betterments mentioned in section 16 of the said agreemnt as the case may be.
I hope still that the Minister of Justice will see the importance of accepting this amendment or of adding to his own amendment words which will cover the expenditure on the capital account during the continuance of this proposed lease.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Osier) has stated that this road varies from a government constructed aud government-owned road, like the Intercolonial ; that there is some danger to the manufacturing industries of this country and that in future they will not have protection under the clause contained in this agreement, if the government should determine and order that certain betterments should be made upon the road and that such betterments and material for such betterments might come in free of duty. I am glad to see that my hon. friend has had his mind quieted upon another point which seemed to disconcert him a good deal. His argument in the past has been that the Grand Trunk Company would not operate this road at all ; that they would give it up, that there was no chance for their operating it, that the road would not pay and the complaint has been made that there is enough security for the government in the five million dollars of equipment.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Surely that has nothing to do with this argument; we are dealing with the contract and we must assume that it will be carried out and that the expectation of the government will he realized. We do not believe it will be realized, but at the same time we must assume that it will be, and make provision, accordingly.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Then I am correct. If the Grand Trunk Pacific do not operate it and it comes back to us it will be a government road and we will have the power to operate it; we have the power to operate it even if the terms of the lease are carried out. My hon. friend professes the greatest solicitude for the manufacturers of this country in this matter because if the government briug in materials for the betterment of this road it may injure them. The hon. gentleman assumes that some credit is due to him because the Minister of Justice introduced this resolution. The Minister of Justice tells us that it is liis judgment and the judgment of able

lawyers that this was understood and intended by the parties to this agreement, to be the meaning of the contract, but to satisfy the fears of the hon. gentlemen opposite he has introduced this amendment.
Now that this has been introduced the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) would fain claim credit, as if he had brought to the notice of the government something that had been entirely lost sight of. The hon. gentleman assured us in his statement and in the words of the resolution that he would expect that it was only to apply to the betterments of the road and only when the government ordered these betterments. This is not a question of this company bringing in these materials at their own will and pleasure and bringing them in free. If the government order this company to make betterments and this company consent and the material is brought in free, then they are not to be charged interest upon the duty that would accrue upon that. As far as the company are concerned, what does the agreement say :
The lease of the said eastern division shall contain all necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing, during the entire term of the said lease, "the efficient maintenance and operation of the said division, including all repairs and renewals, and the maintenance and renewal of its rolling stock and equipment, so as to keep the said division, in all respects, up to the standard of modern and efficient railway practice and operation, as the same shall be advanced and improved from time to time, during the whole term of said lease, it being the intention of this agreement that the said lease shall provide, in all respects, for the upkeeping of the said eastern division and of the equipment thereof (otherwise than by expenditure upon construction account under paragraph sixteen hereof) to the satisfaction of the government, at the expense of the company, after the same shall he completed and handed over by the government to the company for operation.
The lease contains all proper provisions that this company shall maintain and keep up the road and make all renewals and repairs during the time that the lease continues. They are to make these repairs and renewals and the road is to be kept up to the standard of the efficiency of other roads as they are at that time. If a case should arise in which the government, in addition to that, shall determine that they shall have some betterment made, then we have the power to have that improvement made, and if it is made from imported material and duty is paid upon it, the interest upon that duty shall not he charged to that company. But the government cannot do this unless they have the consent of the company in doing it. If the company are bound to maintain and keep up the efficiency of the road, including renewals and repairs during all the time of the lease, I do not see that there will be very many cases where the government will ask the company to make any betterments that the company Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
under the lease are not required to make. But if they did and the company should say to them : Well, if you insist upon our doing this, we will agree to do it, we will agree to make the structures stronger than we think is necessary, but if this material has to come in from a foreign country you must not charge us interest upon the duty. That is the position, as I understand it, and I think there is very little justification for the view of the hon. gentleman who endeavours to see danger to the industrial interests of the country about which lie talks, in this provision. As far as the industrial interests are concerned, that need not be a matter of consequence. If there were to be a great expenditure in this way, if the government were voluntarily to require sometning more than the efficient maintenance and upkeeping of the road, it would not be a very grave charge upon the country. That would be the worst that would occur. The Tariff Act says that articles and goods imported for the use of the government may come in free of duty. When supplies come in for the Intercolonial Railway from foreign countries they are exempt from customs duties. Whether you approve of it or do not, that has been the law of the country for many years. I suppose it was based upon the idea tnat it would be taking the money out of one pocket and putting it in the other as far as the government is concerned. The payment is being made out of the public treasury if duties are paid the money goes back again into the public treasury. Whether it is wise or not it has been the law for many years. I do not know how far back it goes. It must have been in operation for years and years following from one tariff after another under both governments. While that has been the case, what has been the action of the government in reference to the industrial interests of the country ? In securing supplies for the Intercolonial Railway which we could have brought in free, many of the supplies have been purchased from our own manufacturers at prices higher than the government could have bought them for in foreign countries. That has been done by the government, I take it, with the approval of their followers on this side of the House, and I may say also with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. All the locomotives that this country could produce and sell to the Intercolonial Railway have been purchased in this country. If the government should see fit to order any betterments, of which I do not think there will be many, and the articles necessary cannot be had in this country, if your factories are so over-tcrowded with orders, as they are at the present time, that they cannot take any orders from yon, or fulfil them at the proper time, then you will go elsewhere and bring in the material, and bringing in the material, the company will not have to pay

interest on the customs duties that might or might not at that time be leviable upon (this material. Who is going to say -what the customs tariff will be in 20 or 30 years from now ? Who is going to say, under the changing conditions among all nations, what it may be ? This provision was asked for and it was conceded on the part of the government that if the government should insist upon this company making any betterments the least the government could do was to agree that if materials are imported the company should not be called upon to pay interest on the customs duties provided there are customs duties at the time when these betterments are made.


James Clancy: What is the object of inserting such a provision in the clause if the railway company are to keep up the road to a first-class standard ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the difference between maintenance and betterment. That stipulates the kind of a road they will be bound to keep up under this lease.


James Clancy: And the hon. gentleman expects that it shall be kept up as a first-class road ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Certainly. The clause says :
The lease of the said eastern division shall contain all necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing, during the entire term of the said lease, the efficient maintenance and operation of the said division, including all repairs and renewals, and the maintenance and renewal of its rolling stock and equipment, s:o as to keep the said division, in all respects, up to the standard of modern and efficient railway practice and operation, as the same shall be advanced and improved from tdm'e to time, during the whole term of said lease, it being the intention of this agreement that the said lease shall provide, /in all respects, for the upkeeping of the said eastern division and of the equipment thereof (otherwise than by expenditure upon construction account under paragraph sixteen hereof) to the satisfaction of the government, at the expense of the company, after the same shall be completed and handed over by the government to the company for operation.


James Clancy: What provision does the hon. gentleman require if that contract is valid ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My idea is that you may not require any, and therefore I say, that gentlemen opposite are getting themselves into a state of unrest and tearfulness without necessity. This lease runs for fifty years, and who can tell what may happen fifty years hence ? If this road is built up to the standard required, as it will be, hon. gentlemen must agree with me, that the government will not have to require much work to be done in the way of betterments over and above what the provisions of the lease demand. Notwithstanding what gentlemen opposite say, this is intended to be a through Canadian route, and we all hope that even if in the future it should not be able to compete with the route by rail and water, it will at least give a comparatively low rate of freight in affording an outlet for the grain shipments of the west during the winter season when lake navigation is closed. Hon. gentlemen opposite must have anticipated that a first-class high standard road would be constructed, when they put its cost at what' I consider the extravagant amount of $125,000,000. I don't suppose they think it is going to be a tramway, when they allege it will cost such a large sum. This section was introduced by the Minister of Justice,
I may say, to allay the fears of gentlemen opposite, although I have an idea that their fears are not so great as they would have us believe. I am willing to take the opinion of the Minister of Justice and the other legal gentlemen who agreed with him, that the existing clause explains fully what was meant between the parties, but if this makes it plainer, there can be no objection to it. The hon. member (Mr. Osier) thinks he is going to terrify the manufacturers of Canada by the statement that tor fifty years there may he any amount of material brought in by the government and no duty charged on it. I ask the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgraiu) if he sees any great danger to the industries of this country in that clause ? If it be the policy of future governments, as it is the policy of this government, to give a preference to Canadian manufacturers, even if a higher price be paid for them, all that enter can enter into the question would be that this company should be absolved from paying the duty on the importations of such goods as cannot he obtained here. This is a provision in the contract which looks forward to a period 50 years hence. It may be asked, why do we need to insert this clause at all, because there is no doubt that under the existing law the government can import materials free of duty. If that law continues on the statute-book, it would he sufli-cient without this clause, hut parliament can repeal that clause in the tariff Act at any time, and the company simply takes precautions here, that even if it should be repealed, th,e law in that respect shall remain as it is at present, so far as they are concerned.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Minister of Customs has taken on a new roll just now. He has assumed the part of a lawyer, and lie is interpreting this agreement contrary to the meaning which leading lawyers give it. I have heard him in this House disclaim having any knowledge of law ; saying that he was simply a business man. He apparently has as little knowledge of railway matters as he has of law.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Let me ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) if it is.

possible for him to make any remarks in this House without trying to be personally offensive ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) is not a lawyer himself. I have given my views, I think, in a manner that was not offensive to any one. Of course, I cannot control the conduct of the hon. gentleman, but I can tell him that he must not attempt to lecture me-


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would not think of such a thing.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS-or make himself personally offensive, because I am not disposed to submit to it, nor do 1 think it conducive to the dignity of the debate.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Minister of Customs has told us that he is not a lawyer, and to-night lie is assuming the role of a lawyer.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) never rose yet, but he tried to insult some one.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Don't leave.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am not going away ; don't be afraid.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Minister of Customs apparently knows as little about railway matters as he does about law. He states, that it would be absurd to suppose that after this road has been constructed, there will be any betterments, and any additions to capital account. Now, under this contract the road when constructed will be simply a backbone ; simply two lines of rails running from one end of Canada to the other. If there is to be any such development as the government contemplates, and if the territory through which the railway runs, develops as we are told it will, then there will be sidings to be put in.
There will be branches to be put in, and a continual expenditure on capital account. If this is not the case, if this road does not, within ten or fifteen years after the backbone is constructed, require a series of roads to be sent out as ribs, it will be of no value. These roads, which will be put out as sidings and spurs here and there, are additions to the capital account of the company, and in no sense part of the working expenses. These additions, if this railway is to be a success, will come to quite the amount I am stating, that is, double the amount of the original capital within ten or fifteen years. The materials for bridges, rails and other supplies for those additions, if they come in free of duty, -will be a very serious menace to our manufacturers.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Why should they come in free of duty ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will tell the hon. Minister why. I was glad to hear him say that the government do not exercise their power to the fullest extent to bring in supplies free Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
of duty for the Intercolonial Railway. But I will tell him why these should come in free of duty. There is an agreement that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company shall pay interest only on the net cost of this road. The net cost is the lowest cost at which the materials can be had in the lowest markets of the world. That is my contention, backed up by legal opinions. I am afraid that the minister must feel that his cause is weak.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It was only the Minister of Justice saying that there was no such thing in the contract, that is all.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I cannot make the minister agree with that interpretation of the clause. The government, in dealing witii the Intercolonial Railway, have the right to admit materials free of duty or to pay duty. When they are dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific, they have made a contract that they are not to charge that company interest except on the lowest cost of the materials wherever they can be got. That Is a very serious difference between the two cases, and it is one reason why the provision kliould now be made that duty should be charged and interest paid upon it. The hon. Minister of Customs says that during the long period of the lease the customs duties may be changed or they may be abolished altogether. Some of us on this side of the House hope they will be increased. But that is all the more reason why we should understand now' that duties will be charged against the Grand Trunk Pacific on whatever materials may be used for the betterment of the road, and will be added to capital. I think the interpretation which I have put upon that is the correct one. If the hon. Minister of Customs will W'ork it out, he will see that I am correct. I am very sorry indeed if any words I said were applied personally to the hon. Minister of Customs. I would not have him think I intended it for a moment.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would not if it were not your usual liabiit.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am sorry if I have offended the hon. minister. I would not willingly offend him in any way, for there is no member of the government for whom I have a higher respect than the hon. Minister of Customs.
Mr. CAiSGRAIN. I hope I shall not have the misfortune of making my hon. friend the Minister of Customs angry ; but I want to show the difference between clause 23 and clause 16 of the agreement. I do not know whether the same distinction exists in the English law that exists in the French law\ In the French law there are certain repairs and renewals w'hich the lessee is ob-iged to make ; and certain repairs which the lessor is oblige to make, the same distinction seems to be carried out in this

contract. The repairs, renewals and maintenance of the road, andi the maintenance and renewal of the rolling stock and equipment as defined in clause 23, are the ordinary renewals and repairs which the lessee is to make. This clause by the parenthesis ' otherwise than by expenditure upon construction under paragraph sixteen thereof,' refers us back to clause 16, which applies to a different kind of repairs, renewals and maintenance altogether. It refers to betterments chargeable to capital account. So that I take it that under this agreement if the government wishes to 'better this road, to improve it up to the standard for the time being, or to introduce into it more modern structures, upon the materials for that work no duty will be charged, because that will be done by the government themselves. Then we have simply the promise in section 23 that the lease shall contain these stipulations. When the government and the company come together to execute this lease, we do not know whether or not the promise which is made to the committee this evening will be carried out. In the event of any betterment or improvement being required by the necessities'of the time, we do not know whether or not the company will not say to the government, it is your bounden duty and obligation under this agreement to make these betterments and renewals yourselves. If I am correct in the interpretation I give to this contract, all these betterments and improvements which in the course of time will have to be made to the railway, will be made by the government, and not by the company, and therefore the government will import these materials itself and not pay any duty on them. It is the same difference between the parties that has always existed. We wish our manufacturers to be protected as much as possible. If this road is to be renewed in the manner stipulated in paragraph 16, if materials are to be imported, our manufacturers should be protected against importations coming from the United States, Germany, Belgium or any other country. It is not fair to our manufacturers that these materials should be importel to their detriment and disadvantage. Something has been said about the ownership of the road and the termination of the lease,
Under this agreement the lease was to be made for fifty years. But paragraph 21 goes further and says :
If, upon the termination of the said lease, the government shall determine not to undertake the operation of the said eastern division, the company, provided the terms offered by it are as favourable to the government as those offered by any other railway company equally competent to perform and fulfil the obligations required by the government to be assumed by the lessees thereof, shall have the right to an extension or renewal of the said lease for a further period of fifty years, upon such terms as may be agreed upon. Notices of the intention of the parties shall be given as may in such lease be provided.
Now, it seems to me, this is practically a lease to that Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for one hundred years. For, after that company has operated this railway for fifty years, it is not at all probable that any other company will step in and offer tlie government better terms than can be offered by the company that has had the railway under its control for so long a time. This is a different case from that of the Intercolonial. The Intercolonial belongs to the government, and by stretching-I say it advisedly, by stretching-the terms of the Customs Act, anything imported for the railway is held to be imported for tlie government. But in tlie case of tlie Grand Trunk Pacific anything imported is imported for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and not for the government.


James Clancy: I confess that I am unable to understand the interpretation the Minister of Customs gives to that portion of the contract under which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is bound to keep the road as it receives tlie road, in first-class condition. If the hon. gentleman assumes that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will keep this road in first-class condition as a modern road must be kept, there would be in his opinion, absolutely no need for such a provision in the contract. But, if there is any suspicion that the company may not d<o this, I can understand that the government should be given power to keep the road in first-class condition. That being tlie ease, of course, the government would import material for this work. I take it that there is nothing in the contract to allow the government to insist on the company going further than that. But, in case of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company not keeping the road up to first-class condition, the government may step in and do that work. Under such conditions, as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) points out, the materials for tlie work would come in without paying duty. There is another view of the question. The road is taken over by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in what may be called its infant condition. It probably will have not half the terminals which will be required. Wliat will be the position of the government in relation to the vast sums that will have to he spent on the road in five, ten, fifteen or twenty years ? As I understand it, the Grand Trunk Pacific only undertake to maintain such road as they receive, not new portions not yet built, by way of terminals and not even yet determined upon-for instance extended terminals and other constructions necessary to make the road " efficient. As I understand it, the government are not bound to build terminals, but it may lie in tlie interest of the road that they should do so. Suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific constructed these terminals and the government re-

fused to renew the lease at the end of fifty years, whose property would the terminals be ? Will the Minister of Customs tell us that ? They would necessarily he the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. But the essence of the contract is that the property shall be all built by the government, and the ownership is in the government, though the lease makes the road the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific for fifty years. At the end of fifty years, if the government refused to construct the necessary terminals, a great portion would be owned by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and not by the government. Therefore, there would be the same necessity that these terminals should be constructed by the government that there is that the betterments should be the work of the government. The suggestion of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) would simply mean that, under the present condition of this contract and of the law, materials for these works would come in without paying duty. I ask the Minister of Chstoms if that is not a fair statement of the case, and if, under these conditions, material for these purposes would not come in free of duty ?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: My hon. friend had better ask a lawyer. Some of his friends have told me that my opinion as a lawyer is not of much value. Let the hon. gentleman ask lawyer Osier.


James Clancy: I will ask the Minister of Customs to give us his opinion. Though he is not posing as a lawyer, yet, we laymen sometimes state very good law. It may be unconsciously or by mistake or through accident. I will ask the minister, who has given this question some thought, to give us his interpretation of the Customs Act on this point. I place great reliance on his views on a matter of that kind. What is his view as to such materials as I have referred to coming in free of duty ?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I may say this, that as a minister I have never been seriously charged with letting in free of duty goods that are dutiable.


James Clancy: I expected a better answer. I thought the hon. minister would have been strong enough and willing enough to say that under such conditions they would or would not have come in free oi duty, or that I had not fairly presented the state of things which would obtain under the conditions I have related.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: The intention was that the goods would have to pay the duty; and if there has been any doubt, it ought to be removed by the amendment which the Minister of Justice has just made.


James Clancy: Including the betterment?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: No, not when the government order the betterment and import them directly.


James Clancy: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is not a line which says that the government will have to import the articles.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That will be a necessity under the agreement.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: There is not a line that says that any article shall be imported free of duty, and no legal opinion has been quoted which says so.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Minister of Customs says that the reasons why the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway wanted this clause inserted were because of the uncertainty of our tariff within the next fifty years.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: No, but I said that such a reason might have been in their minds. It would have been unwise to frame a contract which would hamper this government in dealing with tariff legislation as they saw fit, and it is quite possible that, in looking forward, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway might have thought that there would be changes in the tariff.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think that the hon. minister has fairly interpreted wlmt was in the minds of the Grand Trunk Pacific people when making the contract. Evidently they wished to have the clause inserted, and it was inserted, in face of the facts stated by the Minister of Finance that the duties are estimated and added to materials imported for the Intercolonial, so as to give the advantage to Canadian workmen. In the face of that principle, they allow the Grand Trunk Railway lawyers to put in a clause in the agreement. I say it is a small piece of business. I say that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway who, according to the government, are obtaining a great franchise, should have been willing to have come under whatever laws we have, including the Customs Act, from time to time. If it should be deemed fit to put articles on the dutiable list which are now ou the free list, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway should be wining to come under that law, just as, in the contrary case, they will get the benefit. At this stage of the development of our Canadian industries it is a small piece of business to put that clause in the contract.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Why should the Grand Trunk Railway be expected to be more generous than the Canadian Pacific Railway? Nobody complained when the Canadian Pacific Railway asked privileges vastly greater than this, but when the Grand Trunk Railway asks something of the sort we are told it is very bad, and we are told that by an hon. gentleman who happens to be closely associated with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Do not let us imagine that the manufacturing interests of Canada have only begun to exist in the past seven years. True, they have made good progress under good government, but there were manufacturing industries before this government

came into power. When the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was made that company asked and received very valuable exemptions, and I am not blaming them; but it is very strange that when the Grand Trunk Railway get very insignificant exemptions, even according to the contentions of my bon. friend, that is if they get them at all, which I do not admit, as we are told that it is a small piece of business for them to seek it.


Albert Edward Kemp: That point has been raised several times before. Because the Canadian Pacific Railway were allowed certain privileges, we are asked why the Grand Trunk should not be placed on the same basis.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are not put on the same basis and nobody says that they should be.


Albert Edward Kemp: The condition of our industries about the year 1880, when the contract was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway, was entirely different from what it is to-day. Where we then made one article we are to-day making twenty. The National Policy came into effect In 1879, and it was only a year or two later that the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway was made. Since then we have been developing rapidly, so that the conditions to-day are entirely different and there :s no parallel. I	remember	at a banquet	a few years	ago	the	Prime Minister	stating that	he	had	received atelegram from the Minister of Finance informing him that a contract had been	made for a	fast	Atlantic service,
and he further stated that this country had become a nation during (lie time he was in England. Well, we became a nation many years ago, and have continued to develop ever since the national policy came into effect, and nearly all these articles which this railway will require in the next fifty years are being made in Canada to-day, but were not in 1880.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman argues himself out of court. He says that when the concessions were given the Canadian Pacific Railway, which are ten times greater than any possible concessions given under this contract, our manufacturing industries were in their infancy and weak. But surely that was the time when they most needed help. Surely that was the time when they should get the help of all the business the Canadian Pacific Railway was going to bring in. But to-day our manufacturers are stronger than they ever were, and there never was a time when they had less need of consideration. When they were young and needed help, they were sacrificed to the Canadian Pacific Railway. What the Grand Trunk Railway would have desired, and might reasonably have [DOT]expected, was that they would be given not less favourable terms than were extended to the other great company. But when they had to deal with a Liberal government, they found that the manufacturing industries of Canada were given consideration, and they were refused the concessions which had been granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is going back somewhat to the tone in which he indulged in his Budget speech, when he told us that the only difficulty about the manufacturers in Canada at present was that they could not fill their orders and that their warehouses were not large enough to hold their products. Yet within four or five weeks afterwards, we had the manufacturers asking help from the government to prevent a great industry from closing down, and a few weeks later he came down with a measure devised to remedy a difficulty which he could not see, when he made his Budget speech, although it was pointed out to him by hon. members on both sides. He talks about the flourishing industries of the present time, but we all regret to know that a great industry has just closed its doors in western Ontario, that there are many hundreds out of employment, an event which I believe would not have happened if this government had had a proper realization of the interests of this country.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: It is a good thing that the concern is closed up. It will now be put on a solid foundation and will go ahead.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad we have the views of my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell), who believes it is an excellent thing that this industry should be closed and the people should leave the country.


Archibald Campbell: My opinion is as good as yours.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend desires to interrupt me, will he be good enough to stand up in his place. ? Otherwise, I shall be glad to have him control himself.


Archibald Campbell: Oh, no ; go on.
Ml". BORDEN (Halifax). I am very glad indeed to have that permission, but I should have thought that a member of the House of the standing of my hon. friend might observe a little, better decorum, such as most gentlemen in this House observe, instead of sitting in his seat and indulging in remarks of the character he has just enunciated. The rules of the House require that when, a gentleman desires to interrupt another, he must rise in liis place and ask permission. My hon. friend does not see fit to observe the rule which is observed by most gentlemen in this House, and of course he will have to exercise his own good judgment in regard to matters of the kind. I am glad that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) has enunciated his views in this

matter. He has told us that he regards it as a desirable thing, in the interests of this country, that that industry should be closed up and hundreds of people should be driven from Canada. If that is the view he takes, he is welcome to it. The country will no doubt appreciate tois position, and will know to some extent, from the remark of my bon. friend, who is a prominent supporter of the government, the views which actuate the government with regard to the industries of Canada.
The Minister of Finance congratulated himself on the condition of affairs in this country. He referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, not once but twice, and to the connection of my bon. friend (Mr. Osier) with that railway. Does my hon. friend know that ins own colleague, the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), has pointed out in this House most emphatically that the conditions under which the Canadian Pacific Railway was built and the conditions under which this railway is being built are absolutely different. The Minister of the Interior pointed out that the proposition of the Canadian Pacific Railway was a difficult business proposition, while the proposition which is presented to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is one of the best propositions ever presented in any country. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs seemed to think that this was a very small affair, and lie suggested that nothing of any gf'eat magnitude in the way of importations for betterments for this railway, after it was once completed, would be required. Let me point out to the Minister of Customs the expenditure on capital account for the Intercolonial proposed for the present year by the government of which he is a member. The expenditure on capital account will be $4,058,950. This expenditure is to be incurred some thirty years after the Intercolonial was put in operation, and many years after the Intercolonial was first regarded as having one of the best roadbeds, and as Tieing one of the best equipped railways in Canada.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the documents before me, but is not that vote largely for equipment and rolling stock 1


Robert Laird Borden: One item is to increase the accommodation at Sydney.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is enlargement of the operations of the road.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I am arguing.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Exactly ; it is not exactly a betterment, it is an enlargement ; it is not simply a betterment of the existing facilities.


Robert Laird Borden: Under this contract, it would be a betterment of this road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Possibly.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the Minister of Justice will be prepared to concur with me in this. Other items of expenditure on capital account are :
To strengthen bridges	$225,000	00
To increase accommodation at Levis 22,000	00
Air brakes to freight cars	
10,000	00Rolling stock	
845,000	00Increased accommodation at Stellariton	
32,000	00
New superstructure for Restigouche
bridge	  102,000	00
New superstructure for North-west
Miramichi bridge	
123,000	00Improvements at Point Tupper .. ..	30,000	00
Yard for freight business at Rividre
du Loup	
25,000	00To change air brakes of passenger cars to quick action brakes and apply air signals	
20,000	00'Co extend freight car repair shop at Moncton	
25,000	00
My hon. .friend the Minister of Customs will see that a large part of this vote is for betterments of tbe very character proposed here. Let us take a concrete example to show the object of our suggestion. Suppose that you required material which would cost in the United States $100,000 ; suppose the duty on that Is $30,000, and that you could buy that same material in Canada for $120,000. It might be open to argument, under the terms of this contract, having regard to sections 7, 10, 17 and 23, that the Grand Trunk would have power to insist that these betterments should be made at the lowest possible price, and therefore that tlie material should be brought in free of duty, because it would cost $20,000 less in a foreign country than in Canada. If that argument is a legitimate one, the Canadian manufacturer would he deprived of business to the extent of $120,000. The hon. Minister of Customs was good enough to cast some doubt upon the credit which all of us on this side of the House are ready to give to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) for bringing this matter to the attention of the government. I would like to ask the Minister of Customs who did bring this matter to the attention of the government, and who was instrumental in securing the very amendment we now have ? It was the toon, member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who brought this matter to the attention of the House, who supported his position by the opinions of three of the ablest lawyers in Canada, and the Minister of Justice thought it better to meet the views advanced by [DOT]the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), sustained as they were, and be accordingly decided to introduce the amendment now before the House. The only objection we have to that amendment is that it does not go far enough but still permits tbe importation of tlie betterments, which, in the future, may amount to an enormous sum, on exactly the same terms as before, and may deprive Canadian manufacturers of the protection they would

otherwise enjoy under the Acts relating to customs duties.


Archibald Campbell: I do net want the leader of the opposition to misinterpret what I said in reference to the works about the Soo. While we all, of course, regret that the men are out of employment and will be put to considerable inconvenience and a good deal of loss, yet my opinion is that the trouble will end in the benefit of the very men who are now thrown out of employment, amid in a manner which will promote the best interests of the country. From what we can learn, the expenditure on these works has been very much larger than it should have been.
There has either been a good deal of miscalculation, or a good deal of money has been wasted and squandered. The capital expenditure on these works is very much larger than it should have been. I believe that when an adjustment is made-and I hope it will be made at an early day-that the company will fall into good hands, the capital will be reduced as it ought to be reduced, the concern will be put upon a sound financial basis, and I believe it will go on and prosper to a greater degree than it ever did before. While it is to be regretted that there is an immediate loss to the men who are employed, I think that on the whole the results will be in the best interests of the country. I want to say one word in reference to this Bill. We discussed this Bill for sixteten days on the second reading. Every mortal thing that could be said in opposition to the Bill was said, I suppose, twenty times over. Yet, now that we have gone into Committee of the Whole on this Bill, all these old arguments have to be taken up. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has made the same speech twenty-five times in this House upon this question. He seems to think that it is his duty to keep the members' here seven months. Yet, we have this old chestnut up again and we must go over the same arguments on every single clause that we discussed thoroughly for sixteen days upon the second reading of the Bill. If a man expresses his personal opinion, lie must be lectured by the hon. leader of the opposition as to what is his duty in this House. I think I have been here quite as long as he has, and I think I know my position about as well as he does his. For my own part, I feel that we are supposed to be sensible business men, carrying on this parliament at an enormous expense to the people, and I do think it is time that we should drop this wrangling and discussing over and over and over again, and get down to the business of the House. If the Bill is a bad Bill, as the hon. leader of the opposition thinks it is, what is his duty- to protest against it, to throw the responsibility upon the government and let the country decide. He is not responsible for the legislation that is going on. The government
are. If they are prepared to assume the responsibility he ought to be satisfied. The worse the legislation of the government is the better it ought to suit him. I must protest against this everlasting discussion that is going on.


Robert Laird Borden: We will give all due regard to my hon. friend's protest.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Osier) negatived.


Mr. LAVELL.: Before the amendment proposed by the hon. Minister of Justice is put I would like to ask whether it is liis intention to make any change in the clauses of the coutract consequent upon this amendment of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, because I think it is entirely unnecessary. This section simply states wliat the contract already contains.	*


John Reeve Lavell: I submit that if that is the case the amendment is entirely unnecessary, and if it is unnecessary, why should the lion. Minister of Justice come before the committee with a proposition that is not required under any circumstances ? Tile question under discussion involves two different points ; one is whether the contractors shall pay duty on goods imported, and the other is whether the cost of construction- using the words incorporated in the agreement-shall be increased by the duties and as a consequence whether the annual re-' venue shall be increased. This amendment may cover the case of the contractors paying the duty, but I submit, that, in view of section 5 and section 17 of the contract, it does not touch in any way the question of the cost of construction, nor can any clause put into the Bill in any way interfere witli the legal rights of the parties to the contract. I do not want to go into the question, but I only desire to say in view of the admission made by the hon. Minister of Justice, that this amendment appears to be put in simply in the way of playing to the gallery. The amendment, according to the statement of the lion. Minister of Justice, means nothing. The contract speaks for itself. This amendment, unless the wording of the contract is changed, cannot effect the contract ill any way. With all due deference to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) if the members on this side of the House have not been able to get some information about this Bill through his head during the sixteen days of the debate, we still think it may be possible to reach the electorate. Section 5 and section 17 of the contract show clearly that the question of the cost of construction is not to be affected in any sense by the wording of that amendment, and I submit that the amendment, unless the words of the contract are changed, is practically meaningless.
I Amendment (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.

Oil section 2-agreement in schedule confirmed.


Mr. BARKER.: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the lion. Minister of Justice to section 42 of the agreement in which I think there has been an omission. That clause provides that the aid is given upon certain conditions as to the routing of traffic and as to rates. It provides first for all traffic from one Canadian point to another Canadian point, and then it provides for export traffic. In regard to export traffic, it provides for rates, but there has apparently been an omission to provide in a corresponding way for rates upon local Canadian traffic. The clause reads thus :
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.
It will be observed that there is not a word said about rates as to that traffic.
And that the through-rate on export traffic from the pioint of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that ail such traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall he carried through Canadian ocean ports.
It will be seen that as to export traffic the routing is provided for through a Canadian port, and provision is also made that the rates shall not be greater than via a United States port. But when dealing with the traffic from point to point in Canada, there is no provision that the rates from one point in Canada to another, shall not be greater than the rates upon traffic between the same points by any other route. I therefore move:	*
That all freight originating on the line of the said railway or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, if destined for points in Canada, shall be carried entirely on Canadian territory or between Canadian Inland points

I propose to add these words that are not in the contract:
-and that the rate for such carriage shall not be greater than the rate charged between the same points by any route not wholly Canadian.
Then I go on with the other words just as they are in the contract. There can be no doubt that there has been an oversight with regard to the local rates. There could he no object in providing that the rates on export traffic should not be greater via Canadian than via United States ports, and yet that there should lie an omission with reference to the rates for what might be called local traffic, so as to afford protection against lower rates by some United States route.
An lion.' MEMBER. Lost.


John Reeve Lavell: 


Samuel Barker: Gentlemen opposite cry ' lost,' and I doubt if they understand what the provision is. I think they say ' lost ' simply because it is moved from this side of the House, without considering for a moment whether there is any reason for the amendment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I regret that we are not able to accept this amendment. Having regard to the Grand Trunk's connection with Portland, there were special reasons why we should guard against the temptation to divert the export traffic of that western country to an American port, and therefore, we were not content to rest upon the general regulations in this matter, but we made a special provision for that purpose. Section 39 provides :
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company upon any part of the said railway, shall be under the control of the Governor in Council, or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada, for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
There is therefore unlimited control of the rates in the hands of the Governor in Council. For the special reason I have mentioned it was thought well to make a provision regarding export traffic, to make assurance doubly sure. The purpose my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) has in view, is fully covered by the power which is reserved by the Governor in Council under section 39.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman is very anxious to make assurance douldy sure with regard to the export traffic, but he is not equally careful about the other. If the railway commissioners fix a rate between Winnipeg and Montreal, of course that will bind the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk, but it will not prevent them sending traffic by way of Chicago at a lower rate. I simply want to provide in this clause, that whatever rate may be fixed by the commissioners, these companies shall not charge by the Canadian route, a higher rate than they will carry the like traffic for by an American route.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The answer to that is, that the moment such a thing occurs the railway commissioners w ill naturally reduce the rate.


Robert Laird Borden: If the control to which the Minister of Finance refers is so effective, why is there any necessity for section 42 and 43 of the contract ? If it is effective in one case it is effective in the other, but the Minister of Finance evidently thought it was not effective, because he has provided the stipulations in -sections 42 and 43.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If sections 42 and 43 were not included in the contract the railway commissioners might

not insist on having the same rate by way of Canadian ports as by way of American ports, because there is a difference in the length of the haul. I can see that the railway commissioners, judging by the ordinary rules of railroading, might say that the rates by Canadian ports should be higher than by American ports, and as we decided to guard against that, we limited the powers of the railway commissioners in that respect. As to the rest, the railway commissioners have all the power necessary to carry out the wishes of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker).


Samuel Barker: Does the Minister of Finance say that the railway commissioners will have no power over export rates ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I do not say so. I say that the power of the railway commissioners over export rates, in that particular matter, is limited by the terms of the Act. In all the other matters their power is unlimited.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the Minister of Finance understands clearly the position in which this wiill put the Canadian traffic. It is one of the very questions we have been discussing so much in this House- and I do not intend to repeat the arguments -that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk combined can allow a lower rate to shippers vlia Chicago or D|uluth than the rates they will charge under the commissioners' tariff by the all-Canadian route.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the railway commissioners will deal with that.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Minister of Finance said that the reason why sections 42 and 43 were required was because the Grand Trunk Railway had a terminus at Portland, and might otherwise carry freight to that port. Where is there anything in sections 42 and 43 to prevent them doing so ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing to prevent them, but they must charge no higher rate for traffic to Canadian ports than they charge for traffic to American ports.


Robert Laird Borden: And Portland being so much nearer than St. John or Halifax, they would necessarily carry it to Portland.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They might carry it to Portland if they were perfectly free ; but under the present contract they are obliged to give the same rate to St. John or Halifax as to Portland.


Robert Laird Borden: They will give the same rate, but it will be to their Interest to carry it to Portland.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Undoubtedly they would make more money by carrying it to Portland, but we do not Intend to permit them to carry it there.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the restriction to prevent them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: By the fact that the Canadian rate is not greater than the American rate, and we will trust to the patriotism of the Canadian shipper that when the rate to a Canadian port is not greater than to an American port, he will ship by the Canadian port.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, it is not sections 42 and 43 that the hon. Minister of Finance relies on to prevent them, but the patriotism of the Canadian shipper ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Both to-, getlier.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the Minister of Justice show how sections 42 and 43 restrict them ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I take it that section 42 provides that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company agree to the statement contained in this contract, that they accept the aid of the western division on the express condition that iu the case of silence on the part of the shipper, they will carry his traffic to a Canadian port; and if they fail in the performance of that, they are in a very precarious position as to their contract.


Robert Laird Borden: 'My hon. friend the Minister of Finance was not referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific, which has no terminal at Portland. He was referring to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is not bound by sections 42 and 43 at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The traffic will originate on the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the rates of export will have to be as low by some Canadian port as by American ports.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so ; but when I ask what is to prevent the Grand Trunk Company from carrying the traffic to Portland, my hon. friend says he relies on the patriotism of the Canadian shipper. Then he does not invoke sections 42 and 43 as his security, but Canadian patriotism.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The appeal to his patriotism need not be very strong ; when to it is added the fact that he gets as low a rate to a Canadian port, as to an American port, he will respond to it very quickly.


Robert Laird Borden: The one thing, however, that we have to remember is that Canadian patriotism is not created by sections 42 and 43, that it exists without it ; therefore the argument of my hon. friend has not much force.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend thinks Canadian patriotism will not

exist with it, because he says the traffic will go to an American port.


Robert Laird Borden: My argument was not to that effect; at all. It was that Canadian patriotism existed long before the Minister of Finance entered public life. It existed notwithstanding some of his efforts to detach his own province from the Dominion ; when he said that Nova Scotia could get along without Canada. My hou. friend seems to have a different opinion now, but he need not make any suggestions to tills side of the House on patriotism.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I had no desire to receive a lecture on either consistency or patriotism from my hon. friend.
, I will compare motes with him on these matters on any platform in this country at any time he wishes.


Robert Laird Borden: I am willing to compare.notes on any platform with my hou. friend, and I think that his record in that respect will not justify him very much in the opinion of the electorate. The hon. gentleman deliberately stated in the province of Nova Scotia that the maritime provinces had better secede from this Dominion. There is no doubt about that; that was his attitude. If I am not mistaken, he refused to observe the natal day of this Dominion during the time he was premier of Nova Scotia, and he never really was inspired by these proud feelings of Canadian patriotism which now actuate him until he came into this parliament some seven years ago. Since that time we have heard a great deal about patriotism, which apparently did not exist in that hon. gentleman's breast until that time.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All these questions have been threshed out in the province of Nova Scotia. We have had ample opportunity of discussing them, and the record of my humble services in that province and the appreciation which the people have shown for them, are, I venture to say, a sufficient answer to the hon. gentleman's statement. It was my good fortune for many years to be before the people of that province. While I differed from many of them on many things, I think I can point with satisfaction to the verdict which they gave on many occasions, in spite of the course my hon. friend has pursued. I have listened with considerable interest to him since I have heard him talk of what the national policy and Sir John Macdonald and the Conservative party have done for Canada. Let me tell him that he did not always talk in that strain. If I were to take the pains to hunt up his record, many passages might be quoted from his speeches, if they were reported, which would not be altogether in harmony with his adulation of Sir John Macdonald and the national policy.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has made that statement in the Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
House twice before, and I challenged him then, as I challenge him now, to mjike good the statement. I trust that until he is able to answer that challenge, he will not again repeat statements which I have twice denied before.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is fortunate perhaps in having made his speeches at a time when they failed to receive very much attention, and failed to be reported in the press. I have under-stood-let us not mince words now-that my hon. friend, up to a comparatively recent date, long after the national policy was proclaimed, counted himself a member of the Liberal party. I believe he acknowledged himself to be a member of the Liberal party until the agitation arose in Nova Scotia on the question of repeal.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am going to give the hon. gentleman the benefit of that although it is debateable. I understood that my hon. friend was a very good Liberal in Nova Scotia until long after the! national policy was promulgated. I am informed and believe that he took the stump in one of the counties of Nova Scotia in support of a Liberal candidate against the national policy.


Robert Laird Borden: I never mentioned the national policy or Sir John Macdonald on any stump in my life up to 1890.


Edward Cochrane: Take it back.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend must give me a more frank denial than that if I am to take it back. I 'sa,idl that I understood that the hon. gentleman had taken the stump on behalf of'a Liberal candidate in one of the counties of Nova Scotia who was running as an opponent of the national'policy. If my hon. friend denies that I will withdraw the statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I made a five minutes speech in 1882-the only political speech I ever made in my life up to 1896- in support of my kinsman, the Minister of Militia. In that speech I made no reference to the national policy or to the trade policy. I am inconsistent to that extent, if my hon. friend regards it as inconsistent, but I am not ashamed of having made that speech or supported that gentleman. Probably if I were not so actively engaged in public life, personal considerations might induce me to support him again. I would not be ashamed to do so, but I do not want my hon. friend to understand on that account that I am guilty of one-hundredth part of the inconsistencies of which he stands convicted in this House to-day. Did he or did he not in Nova Scotia himself move a resolution against the duties on foodstuffs, denouncing those duties as having been created in the interests of the Ontario mil-

lers, and calling on the Dominion government to repeal them? And has he not, In the last seven years, been acting as Finance Minister without taking a step to carry out the resolution he then proposed ? Which does he regard as a greater inconsistency-that five minutes speech of which I am not ashamed, or his own attitude as a minister of the Crown, faced with his own resolution in the Nova Scotia legislature calling these duties odious and hateful, and yet remaining seven years a minister of the Crown of Canada and permitting these very duties to continue to be inflicted on the people of his province ? Is he or is he not the same gentleman who advocated in Nova Scotia-advocated because he was forced to do so, and hot because he believed in it-the secession of all the maritime provinces from the Dominion ? And this is the gentleman who is lecturing me about inconsistency.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the lecture began on that side.


Robert Laird Borden: Is he or is he not the same gentleman who in Nova Scotia, on more than one platform, denounced the duties on coal and iron and told the people they had better give their attention to agriculture and fishing ? And is he not the same gentleman who during this very session submitted a resolution in this parliament to encourage these very industries of coal and iron ? Is he or is he not the same gentleman who went through the province of Nova Scotia and denounced on every public platform the alleged extravagance of the Conservative administration of this Dominion, and who has since made a record of himself as a spendthrift Minister of Finance ? Is he not the same gentleman who went through Nova Scotia denouncing protection in every shape and form, and who now, as Finance Minister, has a tariff in force which his own friends are commending as a protective tariff to the manufacturers of Canada ? Does the hon. gentleman charge me with inconsistency ? Is there not something said somewhere about the man who desired to pull the mote out of his neighbour's eye and had no regard for the beam in his own ? I do not want to discuss these old issues, and only refer to them because of some sneering observations which the hon. gentleman made in reply to myself concerning the patriotism of hon. gentlemen on this side. We know, with regard to Canadian patriotism, what is the hon. gentleman's record.
I did not introduce this discussion, but if the hon. gentleman desires a discussion of this kind, there is no reason why he should not be accommodated on any occasion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must correct my hon. friend when he says that I made -some sneering allusion to the patriotism of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am in the judgment of the House when I say that 3S2
I made no such allusion. So far as there has been any calling into question the consistency or patriotism of any hon. gentleman, it is my hon. friend who is in fault, and he must hold himself and not me responsible for any disagreeable consequences. With regard to the five minute speech, I take it for granted that my hon. friend does not mean to say that that was the ouly identification he had with the Liberal party. He was a member of the Liberal party, counted as such, belonging to a well-known Liberal family, and everybody in Nova SCotia looked upon him as a pronounced Liberal. Whether he made a speech of five minutes or five hours does not alter the fact that he appeared on the public platform as a champion of the Liberal candidate, opposed to the Dominion government. With regard to the question of confederation, which the hon. gentleman has brought up, I have never been ashamed of my attitude in that regard. I am not ashamed of the fact that I was an anti-confederate in the province of Nova Scotia, nor of my record on that question. No doubt many gentlemen who hear me now and who are great federationists, if they had lived in Nova Scotia in those days would have been anticonfederates. The great mass of the people, and especially the more influential classes, were anti-confederates. In fact the Conservative party would have perished years ago if they had not brought anti-confederate blood into their rank-s to help them. The hon. gentleman is not the first who joined the Conservative party. The Hon. Joseph Howe, perhaps the greatest man Nova Scotia ever produced, was an anti-confederate, but the Conservative party brought him into their ranks and made him a cabinet minister. The Hon. A. W. McLelan was an anti-confederate whom they brought into their ranks and made a cabinet minister. Sir John Thompson was an anti-confederate, and they brought him into their ranks and made him a cabinet minister, and a great one he was. If the Conservative party had been confined to their old blood, they would have perished years ago, and they were only kept alive by calling in from time to time, good, sound specimens of anti-confederate blood, some of whom I have mentioned.


Robert Laird Borden: I think at least my hon. friend has confessed one thing, and that is that the very best men that ever were in the anti-confederate party of Nova Scotia long since left it and joined the Conservative party.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That may be so, yet it is an established fact that if the present men who come from Nova Scotia are not up to ttye high standard the hon. gentleman would establish, they have the good fortune to command in a larger degree than he and his friends were ever able, the confidence of a people who are not behind those of any province in the appreciation of public affairs.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, I want to remind my hon. friend that, as far back as 1887, it gave a very substantial majority to the late Sir John Macdonald's administration, and in support of the national policy of which he was the founder and creator-a policy which recommended itself to the province of Nova Scotia in spite of all the efforts of my hon. friend and his associates to discredit it in the minds of the people and make them believe, by sectional appeals, that it was conceived altogether in the interests of the upper provinces.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And for long years before that and long years afterward the people of Nova Scotia were good enough to set the seal of their confidence and approval on their humble servant who now addresses the House, and when he closed his career as Prime Minister of that province and came to Ottawa to take,part in that larger arena, they continue their confidence by sending him here with an increased majority.


Robert Laird Borden: Which is likely to entirely disappear at the next election.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let me remind my hon. friend that he is not the first Nova Scotian sitting in that seat who made just the same prediction.


Robert Laird Borden: And many of whose predictions, particularly with regard to the west, are only beginning to be realized by my hon. friends on the other side.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend may do well to appeal to the great west where they do not know either of us so well as do the people of Nova Scotia. I confined myself to the question of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend goes to the great west, he may as well repeat there the statements made by him in the province of Nova Scotia that the construction of railways is more needful to us than to the great provinces of the west, because the great provinces of the west are not needful to confederation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am not going to refer to that Nova Scotian part of that question, but only to allude to one remark made by the leader of the opposition. He says that the government have not done much in the way of securing Canadian routes for the traffic of the Northwest but are depending upon the patriotism of the people there. I wish to point out that the government have made a contract with this company under which, unless a Canadian deliberately goes and asks specifically to have his stuff sent to American ports, it will go through Canadian ports by virtue of the contract.	*
Amendment (Mr. Barkex-) negatived.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Mr. LA YELL.: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That amendment is in effect identical with two amendments already proposed hy the hon. leader of the opposition which unfortunately the government were unahle to accept.
Amendment (Mr. Lavell) negatived.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I have an amendment which I wish to move as briefly as possible :
The expression ' working expenditure ' as applied to the eastern division of the railway shall not include any tolls, rents or annual sums in respect of the rolling stock equipment supplied for the said eastern division pursuant to section 22 of the said agreement in the schedule mentioned.
I might say that clause 14 provides that:
For the purposes of this agreement, the expression ' working expenditure,' as applied to the eastern division of the railway, shall mean and include alii expenses of maintenance of the said division, and of the stations, buildings, works and conveniences belonging thereto, and of the rolling and other stock and movable plant used in the working thereof, and all such tolls, rents or annual sums as are paid in respect of property leased to, or held by, the company in respect of the said eastern division.
This amendment is intended to make clear what the hon. Minister of Justice says is the intention, that the company shall really purchase the $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock and shall not lease for this purpose the $5,000,000 of rolling stock intended to be the equipment for the eastern division.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The first equipment to the amount of $20,000,000, which the company under this contract is to provide, must be the property of the company, but in addition to that $20,000,000, the contract provides that as the road progresses and. business goes on it will he necessary to add rolling stock. With respect to that additional rolling stock it is in the power of the company to lease that additional rolling stock and in that respect the clause is important.	*


Samuel Barker: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the fact that the provision in the contract is :
Or in respect of the hire of rolling stock let to the company as part of the equipment of the said eastern division.
The working expenses shall include rent upon rolling stock. Now surely it is wise to say that no rent shall be allowed on the $5,000,000 worth of stock with which they are bound to equip the road. It cannot have been the intention of the government that rent would be allowed on that

as against the earnings, and surely it is a wise precaution to remove any doubt on that point so that on whatever other rolling stock they may charge rent they shall not charge it'on the $5,000,000 of rolling stock they are bound to provide out of the capital.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The intention is that sections 11, 12, 13, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 37 provide, and it is a matter beyond the possibility of a doubt, that rolling stock to the extent of $20,000,000 for the first equipment must be the absolute property of the company.
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived.


William Barton Northrup: I have another amendment which I wish to move as follows
The equipment of rolling stock mentioned and provided for in 'Section 22 of the said agreement in the schedule set forth shall be acquired, purchased and paid for and be renewed from time to time by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company free from any lien, interest or rent, and from any charge to working expenditure.
This amendment is intended to make clear what I believe to be the intention of the government in respect of this clause. Clause 22 is the one which provides that the company is to purchase $20,000,000 of rolling stock for the equipment of the road, if ' equipment ' necessarily means ' purchased.' The Minister of Justice said the other day that it did mean * purchased.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I never said that. The hon. gentleman cannot find a word in which I said indicating that equipment means purchased.


William Barton Northrup: The government contends that the effect of that clause is that the $5,000,000 worth of stock is to be purchased by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Right, but that is not wbat my bon. friend says.


William Barton Northrup: Practically it is and it is the reality we are after, not the phantom. Tne Minister of Justice says that the effect of this clause is that the Grand Trunk is to purchase $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock as the equipment of the eastern division. I take the contrary view, that the wording of the contract would not involve that result and that leasing would be sufficient. The amendment which I have submitted simply makes clear the view that he has expressed as the meaning of the contract. Therefore the minister should accept the amendment, as it meets his own views and is what he says is intended by the section.
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I wish to move the following amendment.
That section 2 of chapter 235 entitled ' An Act respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway,' be amended by adil-Mr. BARKER.
ing at the end of said section the following words, ' saving and excepting clause 42 of t.he said agreement which is hereby amended ty striking out in the 7th and 8th lines of the said clause the words ' not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper ' and also by striking out in the 14th line of said clause the words * not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper.'
Words are inserted in clause 42 that must have been put there at the instance of the Grand Trunk to enable them to defeat the evident purpose of the contract. If not, why should the people of Canada be required to put up 100 oi 200 million dollars, and then allow any man in the west to say that he shall use that road for his own purpose and for the purpose of exploiting a port in the United States ? When we are putting up the money, to build that road, no man in the North-west Territories ought to be permitted to use it for any purpose but to build up Canadian ports, and therefore I say that these words in the Act are at war with a high national aspiration, and should be eliminated from it. The maritime provinces will not be content with mere words. This clause means a permission for the Grand Trunk Railway to use the road for the purpose of exploiting ports in the United States. Therefore, I think the government cannot do anything else than strike them out. Why should we pay $200,000,000 for this railway, and then allow the people of the North-west to use the railway for building up American ports? They have no right to use it for that purpose, and I can tell hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces that every man in Nova Scotia will take that view, because tbe business men of the maritime provinces see that with these words in the contract.-words put in to give the Grand Trunk Railway Company the opportunity they want to get into the Northwest Territories and use the trade of the west to build up their old Ontario system-tile Grand Trunk Railway will take advantage of the oportunity to build up their port at Portland. I had a gentleman write to me the other day, and he asked: Why will not the government be bonest, and put in the contract the word ' Portland,' so that every pound of freight originating in the Northwest shall be hauled to Portland? Every man in the North-west Territories will know that if he wants to serve the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway, all he ihas to do is to say : I want my freight routed by way of Portland. Some hon. gentlemen think that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will need to have a lot of officials in that country to bring about the routing of freight in that way. Every man in the North-west Territories will know that if he wants to stand in with the Grand Trunk Railway Company he must send this grain by the route that suits them, and if he wants to get a favourable freight rate he must route his grain otherwise than by Halifax. No Grand Trunk official who is hunting for

freight need say one word. Every man in the North-west Territories will know that if he wants to stand in with the Grand Trunk Railway he must route his freight by Portland. I was in the North-west Territories, and 1 had to stand in with the' Canadian Pacific Railway. They were the great carrying company out there. When I went to. the office of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west I consulted them in regard to what I should do, and I acted accordingly to ' their wishes. I was in their hands. Every man in the North-west will consult with the "Grand Trunk Railway, and will do that which is most profitable to the company. Hon. gentlemen opposite from the maritime provinces are agreeing to spend this enormous sum of money, and yet they are allowing the Grand Trunk Railway to put in a clause which will absolutely defeat the object of the scheme from beginning to end, as far as the maritime provinces are concerned. I would have hoped that the hon. member for Antigonish (Mr. Mclsaac), the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) would have accepted this amendment, and that they would have urged the government, now that I have been compelled to move it, to accept it. The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) undertakes to stand up here and in a very trifling manner say that we must depend upon the patriotism of the men . in the North-west Territories. What do I care for the patriotism of the men in the North-west Territories ? We in Nova Scotia will not take so flimsy and so trival bonds as that in connection with a great enterprise of this character. We are taxed for our contribution to the cost of this railway, and we want a better pledge than the patriotism of the men in the North-west. We want it to be understood that every man in the North-west Territories who uses this railway-and no man is bound to use it unless he likes-who commits his freight to it shall know that when he does so it will be taken to a Canadian port, and that it cannot be taken otherwise. What is there wrong in that ? Is it not a necessary safeguard ? If the Grand Trunk Railway had no terminals in Portland, or if this Grand Trunk Pacific Company were not associated with the Grand Trunk Railway in any way, the maritime provinces would not have so much to fear in regard to this freight seeking other ports than the ports of the maritime provinces, but when we see on the face of this contract a clause for the purpose of permitting the Grand Trunk Railway to take this trade to Portland, we are alarmed, and we ask the government to strike these words out. Why should they he put there ? We build this road. We furnish these people out west with a highway. Should they be allowed to use it on the condition that their freight shall not go by way of the maritime provinces ? Every man in
fhe maritime provinces fully understands the danger of this section, and that there is no safety while that section is permitted to remain in the contract. I therefore beg to propose the amendment which I have read.
Amendment (Mr. Gourley) negatived.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would the hon. gentleman explain that ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: We wish to charge the western division with an obligation to pay the rents due on the eastern division, subject to the mortgages that may be put upon it-the first and second mortgages-so that there will he some security, at all -events on the western division, for the payment of rents on the eastern division.


Robert Laird Borden: This really carries out what was practically suggested as being a portion of the contract by the hon. Minister of Justice the other day. Of course, I understood from him afterwards that he was merely suggesting that you could enforce a covenant and therefore make it a charge upon a -private company by process in execution. As tbe matter stands at present there are three mortgages contemplated by tbe contract. Other charges might be imposed upon the western division to take precedence of any remedy the government might have as against the property of the company on that division. The security which the government holds at present for the operation of the eastern division is not very great. It is merely the security offered by $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock, *which is liable to great depreciation. My hon. friend (Mr. F-owler) reminds me that that security is only -a second mortgage. I do not know how it would be under the law of Quebec or Ontario, but under the law of my own province there would be a great deal of difficulty in enforcing that, without redeeming in the first place the mortgage outstanding. It may be that under the law of the other provinces, you could sell merely the equity of redemption,

but certainly in my province you could not do anything with it, so long as it was subjected to the charge of a first mortgage. The security of the second charge on that $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock is consequently of a very flimsy character. The Minister of Justice depends upon the western division for an additional remedy. But, if these three mortgages are all the securities contemplated at present, why would it not be proper to charge this western division as a security for the purposes contemplated in the amendment. I should think there would be no objection from the standpoint of the Grand Trunk Pacific itself, because the government have threatened legislation In case of default by the company. A' charge of this kind would be better than legislation in every sense of the word ; better for the government and better for the company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In what position would we be, in case of default on the part of the company in the performance of any of its obligations in respect to the eastern end ? Our position would simply be that of a fourth mortgagee.


Robert Laird Borden: The difference between us is, that in one case you create a charge now, whereas in the other case it would have to he created by proceedings in court.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The result would be the same. The mortgage could not be enforced except by legal process.


Robert Laird Borden: But, the advantage is that you would be sure that it would be a fourth mortgage, whereas otherwise it might be fifth or sixth mortgage.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They could not become a fifth or sixth mortgage unless parliament agrees.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice has overlooked the creation of an involuntary charge against this company upon some contract which it may enter into for work, or for materials, or for something of that kind. Any other creditor would have exactly the same rights against the company. The Minister of Justice would only be right, as to the creation of other securities in case the whole of the mortgaging power should he exhausted in the construction of the road.
Amendment (Mr. Osier) negatived.
Mr, BENNETT. I beg to move :
That no contractor or sub-contractor on the said railway shall employ any Chinese labour or workman in the construction of the said railway. Any contravention of this section shall render the person so contravening, liable to a penalty of	dollars in respect
of every such person so employed for each day during which he shall he so employed.


Robert Laird Borden: Those who have had the honour of being in this House for a number of years, know that session after session the members for British Columbia have made complaint that in their province there is a great deal of Chinese labour. I am informed that thousands of Chinamen were employed in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Those of us who live in tOntario, well know that a very considerable'number of Italian workmen are employed on extensive works in that province, and that their employment is a matter for great complaint* There ax-e thousands of Chinamen in British Columbia, and we know that when contractors are looking for labour, they will take the cheapest labour they can find. As to the so-called government section, there is no doubt the government will he looked after by the people of this country to see that Canadian workmen are employed, but on those sections of the railway which are not in charge of the government, there is great danger that Chinamen will be employed to the exclusion of white men. To-day we see the labour unions struggling to maintain their position in this country, and there is a very strong suspicion that governments are endeavouring to take the side of capital against labour. I sincerely hope that a provision will be inserted in this Bill which will preclude Chinamen from being employed in the construction of this railway. It may be urged that the $500 poll tax will prevent the importation of Chinese labour; but there are already thousands of Chinamen in British Columbia whose labour is at the disposal of contractors to ihe exclusion of sturdy Canadians. We have enough of Doukhobors and other foreigners now. without bringing Chinamen from British Columbia to work on this road. I hope the government will accept the amendment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whatever merit there may be in the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), I think he will agree with me that the subject should toe dealt with in a general Act, because it seems manifestly unfair-I shall not say preposterous-that one company should be debarred from employing Chinese labour, and that every other company in the Dominion should he permitted to employ it. This is not the only company that is subsidized and aided by the government. This happens to be a large enterprise, but there are other large enterprises aided by government in Canada.. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have always some new lines of railway under construction; the Canadian Northern and other railway enterprises in the west have occasion to employ labour. Whether they should be allowed to employ Asiatic labour or not is a fair question for discussion. I do not offer any opinion on that; but I say it would be manifestly unfair to say that this company should be denied that privilege while every

other company in Canada is permitted to have it.


William Humphrey Bennett: In answer to the lion. Minister of Finance, let me say that in the event of any subsidies being granted to new lines of railway, whether they are to be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern or any other, I would be pleased, speaking for myself, to support the insertion of a clause preventing the employment of Chinese labour. Whether this would be considered preposterous or not is for the labour councils and trades unions of Canada to say. If we are to take the Finance Minister at his word, anything done on their behalf may be considered preposterous.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have a better opinion of the labouring men of Canada than to think that they will be misled by any such misrepresentations. They are not lacking in the sense of fairness, and they will say that if this is a sound proposition, it is just as sound to apply it to the Canadian Northern and the Vancouver and Westminster and other roads as to the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Humphrey Bennett: Make it so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will the hon. gentleman make it so by bringing in a Bill to apply it to all, not to one only ?


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) in bringing in his resolution. I may say that I have been working on the same line Cor some time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert George Macpherson: Hon. gentlemen may laugh. My only desire is to accomplish something, not to make political capital. When I hear hon. gentlemen who are lineal descendants of the men who brought Chinamen in 1882, against the demands of the people of British Columbia, and who, during eighteen years that the Conservative party were in power, positively refused to impose a head tax on Chinamen, except a paltry $50 -when I hear these hon. gentlemen talk today, it looks very much as if the leopard had attempted to change his spots. We know that, to meet the wishes of the people of British Columbia, the government of Sir John Macdonald appointed a commission to investigate the question of Chinese and Japanese immigration, and the commission brought in a report decidedly detrimental to the interests of the people of British Columbia, practically favouring Chinese and Japanese immigration. In British Columbia both political parties are agreed on this question. The Chinese question has been made a political football for demagogues in that province ; but no one party has a monopoly of it. In his resolution, my hon.
friend from East Simcoe has recognized only half the evil. The Japanese are to-day a greater menace to us than the Chinese could ever expect to be, and I ask that the government shall provide in the general Railway Act that no corporation receiving public money shall be allowed to employ Asiatics of any description. I will support the amendment of my hon. friend, but I want it to go further and include the Japanese as well as the Chinese. We do not wish to see any of these Asiatics employed on any railroad which may be built in the future. They are a menace to our civilization and a blot on the escutcheon of Canada. The province of [DOT] British Columbia contains about 20,000 of one kind and about 15,000 of the other. I do not want to see any political capital made out of this matter. I want to see it provided for in the general Railway Act, so that it will apply to all railroads and public works, whether they have received public money in the past or will receive it in the future.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: It seems to me that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has overlooked one thing, that is, the stringency in the market for farm labourers. I represent a farming constituf ency, and I know the great difficulty the farmers of Haldimand have to obtain the requisite amount of farm labour, and for what they do obtain they have to pay very high prices, so that the legitimate profits of agriculture have been seriously reduced in consequence. I am quite in accord with lion, members in wishing to see the Chinese out of the country, but inasmuch as we have increased the poll tax to $500, and there is no serious danger of their entering in large numbers, I see no cause for this amendment. As to those who are now in Canada, if they were excluded from working on the road that would be a deteriment to our farming class. They are not in any respect farm labourers, and their exclusion would simply mean that the railway navvies would have to be recruited from the farm labouring class, and the farmer would be the sufferer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is interesting to know the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson). He says that the exclusion of the Chinese was an important issue at the time of his election, and he desires that these people should be shut out. But if so why does he not move an amendment to that ^effect ? Being a supporter of the government .he would be more likely to get the government to accede to his request than if he were a member of the opposition. He makes the excuse that he will support an amendment to that effect to the Railway Act, but the Railway Act is not before the House. The Bill which is before the House is one which will involve the employment of a large amount of labour and which affords a good opportuity for the hon. gentleman to show his sincerity by moving to prevent the employment of

Chinese labour on the railway contemplated by that Bill. I am afraid that he will have a difficult task before him when called upon to explain his conduct in his own constituency.


Robert George Macpherson: I do not think I would require to go to any night school to the hon. member. When it is time to go to the polls, I can attend to my own case, and the hon. gentleman may come up and oppose me to his heart's content. If he will only make as many dreary, verbose speeches there as he does here, without the relief of a single scintilla of wit or humour, my election will be made doubly certain. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he is to-day breaking out in a new place. I am not aware that when the late government was in power, of which he was a zealous supporter, he ever raised his voice against the importation of the Chinese. I am not aware that when in 1882 his former leader, the late Sir John Macdonald, said it was absolutely necessary to have Chinese labour because the Canadian Pacific Railway could not be built without it, the hon. gentleman ever made the slightest protest. Would he do so now if he did not think some little political advantage was to be gained by it ? I doubt whether the province of British Columbia will ever owe anything to the hon. gentleman. He appears to utterly ignore the fact that good work may be done in a quiet way by a member of parliament and done much more effectually than by making himself an infliction on the House. I may say that I have not been neglectful of the interests of my constituents. One of the results of my election to this House has been the imposition of the head tax of $500 on the Chinese. I do not care to get out on the house-top and shout, but try to work for the best interests of my country, and I do not see any need of going to any night school to the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman will have to explain to his electors why he did not, when the opportunity presented itself, make an effort to keep out the Chinese. Instead of doing so, he is only offering his help to the government which refuses to accept tlie amendment now submitted. He asks, did I ever say a word on behalf of white labour or in the direction of keeping out Chinese labour. Well, if he will take the trouble to look up ' Hansard ' he will have his mind disabused of the impression which he evidently is labouring under, that I never did. I am afraid, however, that neither a night school nor a day school would furnish him with the information lie so much needs, but I can tell him that the proper time to act is when the question is before the House. It is all very well to talk of amending Acts which are not before the House, what he requires to do is to amend the measure which is now submitted to our judgment.	t


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. MACPHERSON; I said that I would be pleased to support the amendment, but I want it to go further and include the Japanese as well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you not go further ?


Robert George Macpherson: I am not taking the hon. gentleman as an example and do not require to be taught by him how I should act. If I should do what is wrong all the better for him and his party, and if I were to look up in ' Hansard ' all the speeches which the hon. gentleman has made, I would not have a moment to spare to do anything else. But I ask him again if he was not a member of the party which brought in the Chinese in 1882 ? It was the present government which made the head tax $100. That did some good, and it has now increased that tax to $500. As long as this question is made a political football, we cannot expect to have it settled. For my part I have no desire to make it a political issue and shall only be too glad to support the hon. gentleman's motion but hope be will make it stronger.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is not well informed on parliamentary more than on any other history of his own country. If he were he would know that when the Mackenzie government were in power there was nothing done to keep out the Chinese, and that the first attempt was made by the government of Sir John Macdonald, which imposed a poll tax of $50. That government afterwards appointed a commission to get information on which the House could act intelligently and independently, and that information is in the possession of the present government: and the House. The hon. gentleman said that he was instrumental in getting the $500 poll tax imposed, but every member from British Columbia could say the same thing. All were instrumental individually. But whether they were instrumentally, individually or collectively, it was only in a very tardy way and at a very late hour that the present government carried out their express promise to the people of British Columbia. Does not the hon. gentleman remember the celebrated telegram that was sent out to the Pacific coast when the government desired to have one of its supporters elected, that, whatever the desire of the people in regard to the Chinese question was, it would be carried out. The government candidate was elected, but the promise on the strength of which he had been elected has not yet been carried out. The people of British Columbia asked the exclusion of the Chinese, and. assuming that the government were honest and intended to carry out their wishes, they expected to see the promise of the government fulfilled. But that promise was not fulfilled, and it is only lately that the government have made a move in

the direction the hon. gentleman referred to, by putting on a tax of $500.


Robert George Macpherson: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert George Macpherson: This House has not heard me speak very much, but I purpose exercising my rights. My constituents expect me to stand up for their rights and 1 intend doing it. I am a young member in this House and I only desire what is fair. 1 would tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that when he attempts to draw a red herring across the track in a discussion with me, he is making a mistake. In 1881, when the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway was made-I have looked up ' Hansard ' and could quote it in support of my assertions if it was necessary- the people of British Columbia fought) against the bringing in of the Chinese. But Sir John Macdonald who was leader of the government, said it was absolutely necessary to bring in the Chinaman. We did not have the yellow plague until that time. But after that time, boatload after boatload of these people came because they were expressly sent for by the government then in power. These are facts beyond controversy so what is the use of the hon. gentleman saying anything to the contrary ? You . could not have a law to keep them out, because they were not a menace to our prosperity at that time.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: There was no occasion for Mackenzie to pass a law to exclude them.


Robert George Macpherson: No occasion whatever. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says that a commission was appointed by the Conservative government to inquire into this question. Did that commission consist of men from the west, or of men from the east, who are not in sympathy with the idea of putting on a head tax ? The hon. gentleman is conversant with the history of Canada for the last twenty-five years, and he knows that that commission was composed of men living in the east. I looked over the report and I failed to find a solitary straight-forward statement asking that a head-tax be imposed or an Exclusion Act passed to keep these people out of British Columbia. I am not finding fault with the commission. They may have reported according to the evidence they took. But the people of British Columbia still clamoured, for the redress of their wrongs. Then the present government come into power. The hon. gentleman asked me if I remembered a telegram that was sent to British Columbia. 1 do, and I was glad to see it. It told us that the wishes of the members from the west should prevail there. It took some time. But for my part I am prepared to accept a reform when I can get it. It was a pretty hard pull. If the hon. gentleman
was sitting on this side lie would understand the difficulties that face a government in this matter. He knows very well the opinion of the people in the east and he would have to deal with members of the government some of whom, perhaps, had given many hundreds of dollars to spread the gospel, among the Chinese, men raised in the same school as the hon. gentleman and who think it pretty hard that these people should not come into this country. Besides, these hon. gentlemen have the responsibility of government upon them. There is not one man in ten living east of the Rocky mountains who looks upon this question as we do. And for the simple reason that they are not up against the proposition as we are. They do not see their sons driven out of the country by the competition of these Chinamen. They do not see, in a kitchen, where a white girl should be working, a long tailed greasy Chinaman. They look at this question in the abstract.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert George Macpherson: Under the old system there was no chance for girls to come into our country, no chance for young men to come in and, find places in our mills, Hon. gentlemen opposite seem inclined to make a little fun out of this discussion. But 1 can tell him that this means more to us than they imagine. I have seen some of our brightest and best young men leave our country because of this yellow plague. You can go into our mills, and, where you find ten white men you will find thirty-five yellow men-pig-tailed Chinamen .and short haired Japanese. This is a proposition that we are	very
much alive to. Unless steps are promptly taken to prevent it, we shall be Hooded with this class of people who can never become citizens of our country. I have no desire to make political capital out of this matter. But I am glad to say we have a head-tax of $500, and I trust it will be provided that any corporation or body of men asking this parliament for aid or asking for any government work shall be forbidden to hire any but white men. I have no objections to the Chinese and Japanese in their own country. But I do strongly object to our country being overrun by a purely Asiatic people. They can never come farther east than British Columbia on account of the climate. Our climate is mild and humid and suits them. But the eastern provinces will never be cursed with them. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) need not fear that the Chinese will work on the eastern section because the country is too cold for them. They will remain in the west and swarm around our end of the line. I think I am as charitable as anybody, and I would be far from saying that any people who are now in our country should be denied the right to make a living. I do not employ

either Chinese or Japanese, and I would be glad to see it made so hard for them to make a living that they would prefer to live in some other country. Then we should have more room for white men. I do not care so very much whether they are Douk-hobors for in a generation these classes become good citizens. But this is not true of the Chinese or Japanese for they are of a different blood.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) seems, as usual, to be entirely inconsistent and somewhat reckless in his statements. In the first place, he says they never had any difficulty with the Asiatic question until 1885. Why, I can remember when 'Cariboo' Thompson, when Sinister, when Amor De Cosmos, were in this House and spoke as strongly against the immigration of Chinese before 1882 as any men have ever done since. I can remember that this question was a burning question then, and we heard as much about it before 1882 as we have heard about it since. So much for the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Maepherson's) knowledge of his own province, concerning which he professes to be so well informed. Then as to the consistency of his party, where is that party today ? He says he remembers the telegram that was sent to the Pacific coast, and he was glad to see it-that the government would carry out the wishes of the people in the west. What was the wish of those people V Was it not that Chinese and Japanese labour should be excluded ? Did not they make these representations to the government V If so, why did not the government carry out the people's wishes, as they promised to do ? The hon. gentleman says it is different here in the east, and that we know nothing about the troubles they have to contend with. He says the government is face to face with the responsibilities of office, and it is hard to carry out these changes. Well, did not the government know that'just as well before they sent this telegram as afterwards ? If they made these promises, knowing that they could not carry them out, they were misleading the people when-they promised to carry out their wishes. The hon. gentleman says that the government has done all that was ever done for the people in the direction of excluding the Chinese and Japanese. Why, he says the present government have done more than any other government; comparatively speaking, they have done everything. Does he forget who disallowed the Act passed by the provincial legislature of British Columbia excluding these people, that it was the present government that disallowed that Act, and that when his own government passed an Act to exclude these people, they would have been kept out but for the fact that that Act was disallowed by the government here. Now. be says that no corporation receiving aid from this House should be allowed to employ either Chinese Mr. MACPHERSON.
or Japanese. He is about face to face with that condition now ; this company receives large subventions from the government, and why does he not support this amendment ?


Robert George Macpherson: Who was the first Minister of Justice to disallow 'the British Columbia Chinese Act and what was the date of that disallowance ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That has nothing to do with the question.


Robert George Macpherson: All right.
Mr. iSI'ROULE. Who was the first man that was called to account for boodling in British Columbia ? That question is as pertinent as the one the hon. gentleman has asked. I am dealing with the record of the hon. gentleman in this matter. He says: I desire to see the time come when no corporations receiving aid from this country should be allowed to employ Chinese or Japanese labour. Yet he approves of the employment of that very labour by a company receiving a large subvention from this country. He is so Inconsistent that he says he will not support the amendment.


Robert George Macpherson: I did not say any such thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What did you say ?


Robert George Macpherson: I said I would support it.
Mi-. SPROULE. In that case I misunderstood the hon. gentleman and I withdraw what I said.


Robert George Macpherson: I accept what the hon. gentleman says, but I would add that he was a member of this House when this matter of the Chinese immigration was brought up in this House on May 12, 1882. Mr. De Cosmos read a telegram saying :
24,000 Chinese in all are expected before August. The Chinese in the province will num-be 32,000, and will outnumber the whites.
Who was in power in 1882 ? The hon. gentleman was then ,in this House ; did he rise in his seat and give vent to his righteous .indignation ? No. Sir John Macdonald in reply to Mr. De Cosmos, said :
It is rather inconvenient that this subject should he brought up without notice of any kind ; and the hon. gentleman must be satisfied with a very brief and perhaps unsatisfactory answer. No complaints have reached the government of serious interference with white labour in British Columbia, from the influx of Chinese labour.
We all heard the hon. member for East Grey the other day saying that there were complaints prior to that; time. Here is the word of his leader whose word I will take, I will take the words of both of them, and the House can judge which is right in this matter.
Now he says further :
In fact, there is such a want of white labour in British Columbia, that if you wish to have

the railway finished within any reasonable time, there must be no such step against Chinese labour. It is certain that British Columbia suffers very much from the want of a steady flow into it of white immigration. Whether the hon. gentleman is correctly informed as to 24,000, or 10,000, or 5,000 Chinese coming into British'Columbia, I have no means of knowing. But if they are coming, it is merely to work on the railway, to finish it as soon as possible, and we may well put up with the temporary inconvenience, as I understand it, of the presence of these Chinese.
So there were 24,000 landed in that month, but the government had no information at all, and the hon gentleman Who has just sat down said on the floor of this House that there were complaints here long before 1882, but his leader of that day said that was not the case and I cannot find any other reference to this in ' Hansard ' up to1 that date.
Farther on Sir John said :
Either you must have this labour or you cannot have the railway.
I do not think the hon. gentleman emerges with any degree of satisfaction from the' situation that he has brought on himself. He is always willing to rush in and establish a record for himself by assuming that he knows it ail. The hon. gentleman spoke about boodling and asked who was the first man who was run out of British Columbia, for that offence. I do not know and I do not catch the point of his remark. But| the Chinese Exclusion Act was disallowed in 1883 by Alexander Campbell, who was then Minister of Justice, and X believe the records show that that gentleman was a Conservative. Every Minister of Justice from that time on has disallowed these Acts and there is no question, there is no hon. gentleman in 'this House and no person in British Columbia who does not recognize, that the province of British Columbia, while they were passing these Acts, knew very well that they were doing something which was ultra vires of the British North America Act. They have no authority for that. If the Dominion government have vetoed these Bills they have only done what they were obliged to do. I do not think they would have been vetoed if the nefarious habit'had not been introduced by a Conservative minister in 1883.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The nefarious habit which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) of drawing on his imagination for his facts, has got the better of him again. He is just about as accurate and consistent in his statements as usual. In the first place he called the hon. member for East Greay to account because he said that the Chinese question was discussed in the House before 1882. What was the statement of the hon. member for Burrard ? It was that the Chinese were unknown in that country before 1882. My answer was that the question was brought up at various times before
that In this House by the members from that part of the country, and I am justified in saying that, as the record will show, if the hon. gentleman will turn up ' Hansard.' I agree that the question of excluding them came up in 1882, probably for the first time it became an important question as British Columbia was menanced by a great influx of people from China just then to work on the Canadian Pacific Railway and I recollect that Amor De Cosmos brought the subject up. There wa-s no white labour with which to construct the railway. It was utterly impossible to complete the contract within the time that the company agreed to complete it if they were not allowed to bring in labour from some quarter and employ labour other than that which they could get in the country. The statement was made over and over again that there was not one man for every ten that was required, and that unless they were allowed to bring in Chinese or some other kind of labour it would be utterly impossible to carry out the contract. That being the case, Sir John Macdonald said :	We cannot prevent people from coining In now because it is desirable that the company should be put in a position to carry out this public work as it ought to be carried out. After the Act was passed by the British Columbia legislature for the purpose of restricting the introduction of Chinese, Sir Alexander Campbell, the then Minister of Justice disallowed it. That question lias been revived by the British Columbia members from time to time. The hon. gentleman says that there are no Chinese in eastern Canada, and that we do not know anything about the Chinese question here. He is as nearly accurate in that statement as in some other statements he has made. I wonder, if, while he lias been in Ottawa, he has not seen Chinese here. There is not a city and town in east-earn Canada in which you cannot find some Chinese. If he wants to do what he declares the people of British Columbia require him to do,, he will avail himself of the opportunity of supporting the proposition which is before the committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: The motion I made seems to have been the only one moved from this side of the House which has found a single supporter on the other side of the House, and, flattered as I am by the support coming from the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson), I would only say, that, If by amending my motion by substituting the word ' asiatic ' for the word ' Chinese ' I would still further commend it to his favourable consideration, I would be only too glad to do so. I am pleased to know that I have one supporter, but I regret that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) should oppose the motion. I hardly understood what was meant by that lion, gentleman, but I understand that he anticipates an influx of Chinamen to work on this railway.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: No, 1 said that I thought that owing to the increase in the amount of the poll-tax there would be no influx of Chinamen from the outside, but that the Chinamen who are in the' country might themselves be used to some extent, and that therefore there would not be so heavy a draft made upon the farm labourers, who otherwise would have to do that work.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understood that the hon. gentleman meant to say that if you did not import a large number of Chinamen tlie farmers would be very hard pressed for labourers. I had the good fortune to be present at a military review in Toronto a couple of years ago, and I have a recollection of having seen the hon. member for Haldimand at the head of a battalion In which there were one or two companies of Indians.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: The hon. gentleman is in error. There were four companies of Indians.


William Humphrey Bennett: All the better. That being the case, I thought the hon. gentleman, in view of the pathetic picture he drew a few weeks ago of the depleted character of his battalion, would desire to have a more cosmopolitan battalion composed not only of Indians but of Chinamen. I shall have great pleasure in supporting the amendment that the hon. member for Burrard proposes by inserting the word ' Asiatic ' for the word * Chinese.'


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, I will agree to that.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Mac-pherson) negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) negatived.


Robert Laird Borden: There will be one or two other amendments in regard to section 2, and I suppose we will hardly be able to dispose of them this evening.
Progress reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: In case we get through with the discussion in committee on this Bill early in the day to-morrow, what business will be taken up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Redistribution Bill will be the next order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thuksday, iSeptember 24, 1903.