1903-08-13

Mr. LEMIEUX (Gaspe) asked:: 1.	What are the names of the lecturers on agriculture for the Department of Agriculture ?
2.	In which counties of the province of Quebec were these lecturers employed during last year
3.	What salary is paid to these lecturers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 1.	The following officers of the department, in addition to their other duties, deliver lectures on agriculture :
Experimental Farm branch-Dr. ffm. Saunders, LL.D., director; Dr. Jas. Fletcher, , LL.D., entomologist and botanist ; Mr. F. T. Shutt, M.A., chemist ; Mr. Win. T. Macoun, horticulturist ; Mr. J. H. Gris-dale, B. Agr., agriculturist; Mr. A. G.


Mr. BARKER.: Gilbert, poultry manager ; Mr. A. T. Char-ron, assistant chemist ; Mr. J. L. A. Mc-Murray, Mr. John Fixter.
Branch of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Dairying-Dr. Jas. W. Robertson, LL.D., commissioner ; J. C. Chapais, assistant dairy commissioner ; F. W. Hodson, live stock commissioner ; J. A. Ruddick, chief of the dairy division ; W. A. Mackinnon, chief of the fruit division ; George H. Clark, chief of tiie sued division ; Frank Hare, chief of tile poultry division ; A. W. Woodward, official referee for butter and cheese ; Alex. McNeil, fruit inspector ; Elmer Lick, fruit inspector ; P. J. Carey, fruit inspector; J. F. Scriver, fruit inspector ; E. H. Wartman, fruit inspector ; Richard Burke, fruit inspector ; Geo. IT. Vroom, fruit inspector ; F. L. D&ry, fruit inspector ; J. J. Philp, fruit inspector ; Barton Gandy, fruit inspector ; Freeman Fitch, fruit inspector ; Maxwell Smith, fruit inspector.
In addition to the foregoing, the following persons have been specially engaged at various times to deliver lectures : T. G. Raynor, Daniel Drummond, Henry Glenden-uing, J. E. Orr. Mrs. I. E. Tilson, Prof. H. H. Dean, Robert Thompson, Duncan Anderson, John Jackson, Jas. Slieppbard, G. C. Cottrelle, J. M. Gardliouse, Gus Boyer, C. W. Nash. It. F. Holtermann, Robert Ness, G. W. Clemons.
2.	Brome, Beauce, Compton, Drummond, Megantic* Richmond, Wolfe, St. John, Iberville, Rouville, Missisquoi, Sliefford, Sherbrooke, Stanstead, Artliabaska, Terrebonne, Montcalm, I/Assomption, Joliette, Berthier, St. Maurice, Champlain, Argenteuil, Cham-bly, Chioutimi, Jacques Cartier, La Praire, Laval, Lotbiniere, Maskinonge, Nicolet, Richelieu, St. Hyaeinthe, Two Mountains, Vaudreuil, Vereheres and Yamaska, Port-neuf, Quebec, Quebec (city), Montmorency, Dorchester, Huntingdon, Bagot, Bellechasse, Chateauguay, Kamouraska, L'Islet, Mont-magny, Rimouski, Temiscouata, Charlevoix, Lac St. Jean, Matane, Montreal, St. John, Wright.
3.	The officers of the department are not paid anything for lecturing in addition to their regular salaries. Other persons engaged by the department are paid at the rate of three dollars per day.



MILITARY RIDING SCHOOL AT ST. JOHN D'IBERVILLE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MORIN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1. Has the government had a military riding school built at St. John d'Iberville ?
2 It so, to whom was the contract awarded, and at what price ?
3. Were tenders previously called tor by public notice ? It not, why not ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden).: There is no riding school at St. John.



TRADE WITH JAPAN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Are goods and merchandise of the same *classes and values, manufactured in Canada and the United States, respectively, subjected to the same customs duties upon being entered for consumption In Japan ?
2.	Are exports from the United States to Japan admitted into the latter country on more favourable terms than exports of a similar character from Canada ? If so, why Is the discrimination made ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright):: 1.	As regards some classes of goods they are. As regards others they are not.
2.	Certain specified articles exported from the United States to Japan are admitted into that country on more favourable terms than exports of a similar character from Canada, the reason being that there exists a special preferential treaty between Japan and the United States, which also contains the ' most favoured nation clause,' while no such treaty exists under which Canada could claim preferential or minimum tariff.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into Committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a national trancontinental railway.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Mr. Speaker, the debate in which we are engaged at the present time has now reached such a stage that we may fairly say that the House is seized in a general way of the views put forward by the government in favour of the proposition which we are discussing, and that it is seized in a general way of the objections which are put forward by our friends on the opposition side. We have, therefore, made some progress, and if the debate at later stages is to be illuminated upon the subject it will be necessary for us to confine ourselves more to the points which prove to be at issue between the parties, instead of discussing the general features of the scheme, which are now well before the country as well as the House. We have had exhaustive statements from both sides. We had an eloquent and able speech from the right hon. leader of the government, in which, with that ability which on both sides of the House, I think I can fairly say, we all admire, he placed before the House and the country his views respecting this great project. He was followed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That hon. gentleman did not, It is true, have the printed contract before him sufficiently long to enable him to give a mature and detailed criticism of its contents, and therefore he may fairly ask that this House and the country shall hear him again. But, in so far as the general features of the scheme were concerned, they had been reported in the press without dispute ; they had been brought before the members of the government following in caucus, and, with that enterprise which characterizes our friends of the press, had been fully and completely reported to the readers of the newspapers. Therefore, I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, probably knew as well, when he came to listen to the Prime Minister's deliverance, the general features of the scheme which he should be called upon to criticise, as he knows at the present time. He did not shrink from the task which was imposed upon him, but he spoke vigorously and at length on behalf of himself and his party, and placed himself on record respecting this proposition. Then we had an address from my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who, by reason of his length of service in this House, his service in the late government, and the position which he occupies in the public life of the country, is well qualified to speak for the Conservative party of the province of Ontario in this House; and I think I do not misstate my hon. friend's position when I say that it was one of uncompromising hostility to the proposition of the government. Then we had from my hon. friend the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) a lengthy and exhaustive discussion from the standpoint of an opponent. My hon. friend and late colleague spoke with all the knowledge of a gentleman who bad been a member of the subcommittee who were instructed to prepare the details of this scheme. Therefore, he could not claim that his information was not full and complete or that he had hot sufficient time to go into the subject with great fullness since the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister. So that we may take it that what he has said is the worst that can be said, so far as he is concerned, with respect to the scheme before us.
Then we heard yesterday from the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk, and I think I am safe in saying that his attitude was one of un-eomproming opposition. We heard also from the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) last night, and his attitude was equally one of uncompromising opposition. So that*-we have this fact thoroughly well settled, that from every portion of the Dominion represented by our hon. friends on the opposition benches, except from the west-we have not yet heard from our friends from the west- we have uncompromising opposition to the plan of the government in connection with this transcontinental proposition. From our side we have had a very able and convincing speech from my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and last evening we had from the Finance Minister a speech characterized by that ability and eloquence which

causes us all on this side to he so proud of him. Leaving aside for the moment the presentation originally made by my right hon. leader, the different phases of the subject were dealt with by the hon. member for North Norfolk and the Finance Minister in such a convincing, exhaustive and conclusive manner that would be mere impertinence for any one at this stage to undertake to amplify the argument and reasons which they gave. But if I may be permitted, I will devote a few moments to a consideration of a few of the objections which have been raised by our hon. friends on the other side to this contract.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier spoke to us yesterday afternoon at considerable length, and the chief ground he took for opposing the Bill was that we had no information about the country through which we proposed to run the line from Winnipeg to Quebec. I understood him to take the position that it was unwise and imprudent to undertake to build a railway without first having had an actual survey made of the route. But it has been pointed out that the position taken by. the hon. gentleman, and which has been reiterated on that side, is contrary to all business experience and practice. When people undertake a railway enterprise, they usually come to parliament for authority to go on, before making an actual survey of the route. They get first a general knowledge of the couutry, such a knowlelge as justifies them in the conviction that a railway of the character they intend to build, can be built, and then proceed to get the requisite authority to make a survey and decide on the exact location. That is what was done-in fact I do not know that quite as much was done when the Dominion undertook to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Information was at the disposal of the government which enabled it to say that the railway could be built and they undertook to build it and they did build it.
And after the government entered intoi a contract for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that railway did not follow the line of the survey which had been made at all, but went hundreds of miles away from where, according to the survey, it was intended the road should go. It will not be found, in all the practice regarding the initiation of great railway enterprises, that complete surveys are required before a decision is arrived at to go on with the work.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier raised another objection. He said the province of Quebec required colonization railways, and he made that statement in such a way ns to indicate that the argument or proposition he was advancing was an argument against the scheme we were discussing. Well, I am wholly unable to see what it has to do with the proposition we are discussing. If the province of Quebec requires colonizataion railways, if there are districts in that pro-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
vince through which the building of colonization railways can be justified, then this parliament is prepared to deal liberally with any proposition for development of that kind when it is brought before us. My hon. friend has been a member of this House for six years, during two of which he has occupied the position of lieutenant of the leader of the opposition, and up to this moment he has not brougt before us a single scheme looking to the building of a colonization railway in his province. I do not see therefore how he can say how there has been any lack of. disposition on the part of this House to deal liberally with his province in that respect. There is absolutely no connection between the twoi propositions. We stand in the same position with regard to the province of Quebec upon that subject as we do with regard to the other provinces of the Dominion. As! a member of a government I have never had any sympathy whatever with the agitation which has arisen and been fomented in certain parts of the older provinces against the bonusing and encouraging of railways.
I take the position that it would be an act of folly, that it would be disastrous for the parliament of Canada to lay down any principle contrary to the encouraging of railway construction in this country. I have suffered politically somewhat for my faith, because in certain parts in the western country which are fairly well served with railway facilities, the people have been persuaded that the policy of bonusing railways should cease. But, I am convinced that the view which I entertain is sound and will appeal to the solid business judgment of the people in the long run. 1 We are prepared to give effect, to the policy of encouraging railway construction in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and the other provinces of the Dominion, including the old province of New Brunswick, where additional facilities are required.
The hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has addressed some criticisms to this contract. I am sorry he is not in his place, because he has been placed by our hon. friends opposite in the position of a railway critic and as being in some sort, after the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), the railway expert of the opposition ; and wre are therefore to pay some considerable degree of attention to what he says. My hon. friend criticised the provision of this contract regarding running powers. I regard that provision as most essential and important, as a fundamental provision, without which this contract never could have been made. That is the importance which the government attaches to that provision of the contract, and therefore when it is attacked we find it necessary to meet the attack. And when this debate is over, I do not think that hon. gentlemen on that side will be able to say that any attack was made on this particular phase of

the question which has not been thoroughly met. My hon. friend from North Norfolk dealt with that question fully.
The 'allegation is made that the provisions respecting running powers are not practical. In broad, general terms, that is the proposition that is laid before the House. It is said : Your idea about a railway highway, your idea about running powers is a good enough idea, but it won't work. What did my hon. friend-from North Norfolk say? He showed that it is actually working. He said : It is of no use for you to say it won't work ; here is a road where it is actually working now. And what is the answer to that ? I am free to say that I do not know. It was said that the arrangement could not work where the road was more than one division long, say more than 75 or 100 miles, for you would have to have engines, shops and changes of crews. And my late colleague, the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), excited the mirth of our hon. friends on the other side by the humorous description he gave of the difficulties that would arise in endeavouring to carry into effect what he represented as a ridiculous and impracticable idea. Now, humour is a very good thing, and a very entertaining thing-but it is not argument. And when, after my hon. friend's humorous address, the hon. member for North Norfolk said : Your argument is very well for a lawyer, .but here are the facts, here are two railway companies doing this very thing which you [DOT]say is ridiculous and impracticable ; what have you to say to that ? And we ask hon. gentlemen on the other side what they have to say at this present stage of the discussion ? My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has an answer to it, and to that answer I desire to draw attention. Bet the House observe that the hon. member for North Norfolk spoke * in the morning, and the hon. member for Hamilton, who is a railway man-I understand he lias been a railway manager-a man with expert knowledge of railroads and familiar with the road to which my hon. friend from North Norfolk referred, and the country through which it runs, spoke in the evening. And what was the only argument he could bring against the facts stated to this House by the hon. member for North Norfolk ? Why, the only thing he could allege, after a whole day's consideration of this most important phase of the question, which goes to the root of the whole contract, was that the dominant railway, the Canada Southern, did not permit the junior railway to compete with it for local traffic. That was all he could think of saying. It turns out then that even that is not correct. My hon. friend from North Norfolk says that, so far as freight business is concerned, the dominant railway does permit competition for local traffic, for he says he has shipped the freight. There can't be very much mistake about that. And my hon. friend from South
Essex (Mr. Cowan) says that, so far as passenger business is concerned, they do permit competition, because he has bought the tickets. There cannot be very much mistake about that. So the alleged facts put forward by my hon. friend from Hamilton do not appear, so far as the testimony at our disposal is concerned, to be very conclusively established. But, supposing' they were established, supposing that what my hon. friend says were perfectly true, and the railway company which owns the fee of the Canada Southern did not permit, and was not permitting, the junior road, the leasing road, the road co-operating with them in the use of the line, to compete for local business ; will my hon. friend from Hamilton, or will the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), when he follows me, say how this affects the provision of the contract that we have now before us ? The arrangement in the case of the Canada Southern is a voluntary arrangement ; the dominant railway can allow competition for local traffic if it likes, or it can refuse to allow it if it likes. Is that the case in this contract ? This contract provides that the government shall decide the terms and the running powers. It is not a voluntary question ; the Grand Trunk has nothing whatever to do with the subject ; tout the government, or the railway commission, or whatever authority the government may provide, will decide the terms on which these running powers shall be used. Therefore, let the House understand and mark well, that this futile, absurd and ridiculous objection is the only answer that can be made to the conclusive argument of my hon. friend from North Norfolk upon this question.
Now, my hon. friend from Hamilton undertook to lecture the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) as being a very innocent and easily gulled person, because, forsooth, that hon. gentleman relied to some extent upon the survey of Sir Sanford Fleming, made about thirty years ago. I would have gathered from the remarks of my hon. friend from Hamilton that there was great danger that the physical features of the province of New Brunswick had changed within the last thirty years. He did indeed make the suggestion that the surveyors of thirty years ago were not as careful and particular in gaining information as are the surveyors of the present time. Well, Sir Sanford Fleming, be it remembered, was the chief engineer of the Canadian government. He was instructed to procure the necessary information for the purpose of locating the Intercolonial Railway line. As was pointed out toy the Finance Minister, he made three surveys for the purpose of locating three practicable and reasonably good commercial lines, any one of which might have been adopted toy the government of Canada for the location of the Intercolonial Railway. And what

the hon. member for Hamilton, in his answer to the Finance Minister, asks us to believe is that, because that was done thirty years ago, and the report is an old report, and because the government ultimately decided that for political, military and imperial reasons, they would decline to take the better route, which Sir Sanford Fleming, though he did not recommend it, evidently thought was the better route, we are not justified in believing that that route is there at the present time just as much as it was thirty years ago. Well, it would be painting the lily to answer an argument of that kind. My hon. friend from Hamilton then proceeded, being somewhat restless under the remarks of the Finance Minister respecting the attitude of the opposition towards the Intercolonial, to rebut, with some degree of warmth, the suggestion that the opposition were not friendly to that road. There is an old line asking a question which seems appropriate here :
Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love.
But why did you kick me downstairs ?
Our lion, friends on the other side have dissembled their love for the Intercolonial very successfully for the last five or six years. They have been kicking the Intercolonial downstairs and the late Minister of Railways and Canals with it, on every occasion that they got a chance. They say they have not been hostile to the Intercolonial. Well, when we came into power we found, as has been very truly said, the Intercolonial Railway ending in a ploughed field. We brought it into the city of Montreal and made a modern and businesslike railway out of it. We have spent millions of dollars to bring the Intercolonial up to date and make it a modern railway, and give the people of the maritime provinces a railway service that they have a right to be proud of and to be satisfied with. This government, and the united force of the members of parliament behind (this, government, enabled the Minister of Railways and Canals to come down .to this House and make this proposition for the purpose of carrying out what we believed to be a sound and businesslike policy in regard to that railway. But where were the gentlemen on the other side ? Why, Sir, year after year they have fought that proposition, every proposition, that we brought forward, inch by inch, tooth and nail, every day and every hour of the day, to the greatest extent of their ability. And not only that, but while this has been going on, year after year they have denounced the late Minister of Railways and Canals ; they have attacked the late Minister of Railways and Canals, they have hounded the late Minister of Railways and Canals all over Canada, in their press and upon the platform. And, Sir, we have the astounding spectacle within the last two or three weeks, after the culmination of Hon. Mr SIFTON.
their attacks, of the whole Conservative party joining in enthusiastic applause while the late Minister of Railways and Canals addressed the House from his desk ; and we find them endeavouring to show to the country that this gentleman whom they have been hounding year after year, whom they declared to be incompetent, and corrupt and incapable, is the greatest railway authority in the Dominion of Canada.
Now. the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-and I am devoting some attention to the hon. member for Hamilton, because he has been put forward early in the debate, lie has been put forward before the late Minister of Railways and Canals in the Conservative government, my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), he has been put forward even ahead of the leader of the opposition, to declare the railway policy of the Conservative party in connection with this contract. My hon. friend from Hamilton took violent exception to what has come from this side of the House in advancing the argument that this railway is required in view of the possible withdrawal of the bonding privilege. I am not going to discuss that question, because in my judgment it lias 'been discussed sufficiently. The Prime Minister, the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the Minister of Finance have given very fully the views of this side of the House on that question, and I do not propose to repeat the discussion. I propose to devote a moment or two to the criticism of the hon. member for Hamilton. If I understood him aright, his answer to the suggestion that another railway,was necessary and would be a convenient safety valve in case of the withdrawal of the bonding privileges, was this: That if the bonding privileges were withdrawn it would simply have the effect of driving the traffic to Canadian ports over the Intercolonial, and that we ought to feel gratified that such should take place ; and we should devote ourselves to building up the Intercolonial instead of building another line of railway through New Brunswick for the purpose of helping to take care of that business. I do not think I misstate the position of the hon. member for Hamilton. Let us examine his proposition for a moment or two. At the present time the Intercolonial Railway has certain equipment, certain switches, certain station yards, certain engine houses, certain terminal facilities. My late colleague, the exMinister of Railways and Canals, says the facilities are not sufficient for the purpose Of doing the business that we have to do at the present time. We have large appropriations before parliament at this session for the purpose of improving those facilities. We have been improving them by spending millions of money every year since we came into power. We are told by our late colleague that the facilities are not sufficient as yet, and that some millions more will be

required to enable that road to cope with the business which it has to meet under present conditions. Well, I do not know whether that be correct or not; I do not know enough about the Intercolonial to say ; but I think perhaps we may all agree over that which we do know, which is a matter of common knowledge, that the Intercolonial has had all the business within the last year or two that it could do, and that its facilities are not more than sufficient to enable it to do the business which it has at the present time. The Canadian Pacific Railway has a short line to the city of St. John, it has large facilities for doing business there and along that line. The Grand Trunk Railway has a line from the city of Montreal to the city of Portland. It is a magnificent line of railway, well equipped in the best modern style, and it has terminal facilities which I am credibly told have cost from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000. We are told by the Grand Trunk people that the facilities which they have for doing business between Montreal and Portland are not sufficient now to cope with it.
Now, what is the proposition of the member for Hamilton ? It is that the Intercolonial, with its barely sufficient equipment to do the business which it has now, shall take three or four times as great business of the Grand Trunk, that it shall take the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that the business of these railways shall be suddenly precipitated upon the Intercolonial Railway, and that that railway shall be expected, with its insufficient facilities, to do the business of the whole three. And my hon. friend says that that is a consummation to be desired. He says we should not be alarmed at a prospect of that kind, that it is something which will help the Intercolonial and which does not at all call for any action upon the part of this government for the purpose of preventing the consequences which might flow from it. Why, Mr. Speaker, has he considered for half a moment what would happen in such a case as that ? Why, we would have in the traffic of Canada confusion worse confounded, we would have a blockade* which would throw into the shade the wheat blockade which took place during the last couple of years in the North-west ; we would have the business of the country disorganized, because the business of Canada depends upon its export trade, and we should have millions upon millions of money of the people of Canada annually wasted on account of our inability to do the business which ought to be done over these railways. That, Mr. Speaker, is the contribution to the discussion of the railway question which Is made by the ra ilway expert of the Conservative party.
There is another contribution which my hon. friend from Hamilton made. He pointed out with some detail and with great accuracy that the prairie section of the railway was easier to build than the eastern section; and that inasmuch as the Grand Trunk Company would probably start up first to build, and would complete it as rapidly as they could, they would have that line of railway in the western portion of Canada, or a considerable portion of it, hundreds of miles of it, I think he said, constructed and graded to do business before the government would have built the eastern section between Quebec and Winnipeg. My hon. friend then proceeded to show that the result would be that the Grand Trunk Railway, long before the government line to Winnipeg was built, would be hauling out wheat from Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, and bringing it down to the lakes and sending it to the markets of the world. I may be excused if I do not regard that as a very alarming proposition. If the proposition is that before we get the line built to Winnipeg the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be relieving the congestion and raising the blockage in the west by taking the grain out by way of the lakes, the way our hon. friends say it ought to go, that is not a very alarming criticism of the proposition before us. We trust that that will be the case. We trust that the prognostications of my hon. friend from Hamilton will come true that at an early date the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will to a considerable extent be able to relieve the congestion in the west. As to this argument against the immediate construction of the Winnipeg-Quebec line, I would say that if it proves anything it proves that we should have started to build the line to Winnipeg two or three years ago so as to be there in time. It certainly does not prove that we should not start now. I just note in passing that my hon. friend from Hamilton, like some other members on the other side of the House, argues in favour of the construction of another line by way of North Bay instead of going to Quebec or to the eastern provinces. I note also that my hon. friend from Hamilton, who perhaps thinks it is necessary for him to do something to bring about better relations with the late ex-Minister of Railways and Canals than he has been having during the last few years, entered into an argument for the purpose of justifying my late colleague for leaving the government and I think that my hon. friend was rather unfortunate because he justified my late colleague for leaving the government on the ground that he was not sufficiently consulted by the right hon. Prime Minister, but he forgets that that is not the statement of the late minister himself. My late colleague says that that is not the reason at all. He says that his resignation only had relation to the question of the policy of the government. So that, if my hon. friend: from Hamilton thinks to pay court to my late colleague I am afraid he will find that this effort has not been successful. I

note also that almost every hon. member on the other side of the House who has spoken has suggested that this line of railway will not have any return traffic and that the amount of business it will do is extremely problematical. I hope to say a few words upon the subject of traffic before I finish my remarks. I just note now for the purpose of marking the objections that have been made that this is one of the objections which has been raised very generally by our friends on the other side of the House. Then, Mr. Speaker, I note also that our friends on the opposite side of the House, particularly my hon. friend from Hamilton and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), took strong objection to the accuracy of the Ontario government reports in regard to the country which we have to deal with and through which we are going to build this railway. I have had some experience jin connection with the sending out of exploration parties and the organization of parties and I have made an examination of the reports of these parties to which reference has been made. I have taken the trouble to look into the organization and constitution of these parties. I have read the instructions which were given to the various members of these parties and I make the statement without any hesitation and without any fear that it will be successfully contradicted that these parties were organized in a most comprehensive and in a most businesslike way. If there is any reason why these reports are not reliable that reason has not been made evident to this House and that reason is not open to the ordinary observer or to the person who ordinarily examines these papers. We have every reason. I submit, Sir, to entertain the belief that these reports are in every respect completely accurate, and completely reliable in so far as they have gone. But, if our hon. friends on the other side of the House are not satisfied to take the reports of the Ontario government, if they are not satisfied to take the reports prepared when the party with which it does not agree politically, was in power, I think we can furnish them with a large amount of information prepared and procured by the government of Canada when their own party' was in power which deals very fully and very comprehensively with the questions which are at issue in regard to the quality and the nature of this country, and I shall take occasion before the conclusion of my remarks to indicate briefly the nature of these reports and the method by which that information has been procured.
Just now I desire to call attention to what I regard as a somewhat important criticism of the contract which is before us. When the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) addressed the House in reply to the right hon. Prime Minister, one of the important points which he made, one Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
of the points upon which he laid great stress was the allegation, since supported and amplified by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that the contract was an abrogation and an abandonment of the policy that the government inaugurated and carried into effect when it brought the Intercolonial Railway into the city of Montreal. That statement has been made, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has attached great importance to it, has put it in an important place in his remarks upon this important subject when he was addressing the House and the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has amplified it at considerable length. Let us for a moment or two examine the question as to whether that suggestion or statement is justified or not. It is an important point, it is a point that ought to be settled, and today, therefore, some consideration may properly be devoted to it. We have spent a large amount of money iu bringing the Intercolonial Railway into the city of Montreal. We inaugurated an important line of policy when we did it and we say that we are not abandoning that policy. We say we were successful in carrying that policy into effect, that it has brought about the results which were anticipated that we are not abandoning that policy at the present time and that in no possible respect does this proposition affect that policy. The hon. leader of the opposition said that if this policy meant anything its logical conclusion was that we were going on with the Intercolonial Railway to the great lakes. I make the statement that the hon. gentleman lias not made out the truth of that proposition. That is an assertion which an examination of the facts does not warrant. The Intercolonial Railway, ns a matter of railroading was brought Into the city of Montreal for the purpose of bringing it into the commercial metropolis of the country in order that it might be able to do business in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway upon equal terms. It was not brought there for the purpose of enabling it to do the grain traffic of tiie west. It may be a proper thing some time to do it, but the two propositions are entirely distinct. There is no connection between the two. The hon. leader of the opposition suggested further-I think his words were-that if that policy meant anything it meant that the Grand Trunk Railway was to hand over at Montreal to the Intercolonial Railway its proportion-I took note of the word used-its proportion of the traffic for the seaboard. It depends upon what my hon. friend meant by the word ' proportion.' If he meant a rateable proportion, if he made a half, or a third, or a quarter, or any fixed proportion then he was entirely wrong, because there is nothing of that kind in the contract. The traffic contract obligates the Grand Trunk Railway to hand over to the Intercolonial Railway

the traffic which is routed by shippers over the Intercolonial Railway. That is what it requires it to do, and if the contract which we are now discussing is carried into effect the position of the Intercolonial Railway will not be altered in the slightest possible degree in any way, shape or form. Since that contract went into effect what has been the position ? The condition has been, that the Intercolonial Railway is competing for through-traffic between Montreal and St. John with the Canadian Pacific Railway short line, and with the Grand Trunk Railway still shorter line to Portland. It was able to do during the last year, 1903, $1,739,545 worth of through business. That was the through business of the Intercolonial Railway done in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway short line and the Canadian Pacific Railway short line. The local business of the Intercolonial Railway was $4,327,620 or a total of $6,067,000. What does that prove ? It proves, first of all, that the predictions of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, that the policy of extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal was an absurd policy, and that their assertion that the railway would do no business was absolutely foundationless.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: And, Sir, I venture to assert that the criticism which they are making now, that the railroad which we propose to build will not do any business, will prove to be equally foundationless when the facts are known. The figures that I have given prove that the Intercolonial Railway was able to do a substantial amount of business, and that the Intercolonial Railway was able to do it in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway; both lines much shorter than the Intercolonial Railway ; both lines-and this is the point I wish to emphasize-both lines shorter than the new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway line will be. Then, Mr. Speaker, if the Intercolonial Railway under its traffic agreement can compete with the short line to Portland and with the short line to St. John, why in the name of common sense cannot it compete with the new line by way of the Chaudiere Junction ? When you come to sift the arguments presented, when you come to look into the actual facts, there is absolutely nothing in the business position presented in connection with the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway, which even suggests the idea that this transcontinental railroad is going to do any harm to the Intercolonial Railway, so far as the through business is concerned.
It is said that the Quebec and Moncton branch of this railway will injure the Intercolonial Railway, by taking business away from it in a local way. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in that connection, that members of the House should direct
their mind to the illustration which is in their own experience in matters of this kind. I believe, Sir, that if they do address their minds to this experience which they can recall, they will come to this conclusion-a conclusion which I venture to say is justified by all railway experience on this continent-that the building of additional lines of railway where there are any considerable natural resources does not have the effect of injuring the business of the first line. Experience will show all over Canada and the United States that the railways that are doing the worst business, the railways that are the poorest, the railways that are prospering the least, are the railways that are alone. That is the experience all over this continent, and that always will be the experience, mark you, in a country where there are any considerable natural resources and which has any capacity to develop trade. Of course, if you run a railway through the desert, or if you run it through a region of rocks where no traffic can be got, that would not be the case. But where you run a railway through a country that is capable of development and capable of sustaining a population, a new road, according to all experience, builds up its own business, and in addition to building up its own business, by its drawing power and general effect in building up the country, it promotes the general business so that the old road will do more business than it did before the new road was built.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Why, Sir, the Canada Atlantic Railway has not done any worse since the short line from Montreal was built by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am told they are doing better. If you take the position of the Grand Trunk Railway in Canada, everybody knows that the Grand Trunk Railway Company never began to prosper until the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, and came down to the province of Ontario, and invaded the city of Montreal, and put new life into the business. The Grand Trunk Railway has prospered in a greater degree ever since. And what is going to happen in the province of New Brunswick and in the province of Nova Scotia when this railway is built, and when through business is carried to a large extent-to I believe an enormous extent-through these provinces ? In the first place we are going to have, even while the railway is being constructed, an enormous demand for the products of the industries of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We are going to have business done in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick upon a scale and upon lines that have never been attempted before. And, Sir, what is going to be the first institution that is going to

prosper by the increase of business, and by tlie increase of general prosperity in these provinces ? Why, Sir, the railway is the very first institution that will prosper, and I venture to say that the first effect of this prosperity and this increased business in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be to benefit the Intercolonial Railway. I am not in the habit of making predictions, and I am not generally very sanguine in matters of this kind, but I venture the statement-and time will show whether my statement is correct or not-I venture the statement that the inauguration and carrying out of this enterprise will be the first step which will go towards placing the Intercolonial Railway on a paying basis and making it a good and a revenue-producing property. I have never been able to comprehend the position of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair). I have never been able to follow his argument; I have never been able to see that there was any argument of any kind whatever in a business way, in the contention which he advanced with respect to the Quebec-Moncton line.
I want to say upon that point just another word, and if I speak at such length on this question of the Quebec and Moncton line, it is because of the fact that it has been made the point of resistance, the point upon which the attack of our friends of the opposition, and their press all through Canada-with the exception of the press of Nova Scotia and possibly a part of New Brunswick-it is the point upon which they have centred their attacks. I would not say anything further were it not for the fact that as a representative of a far distant portion of the country, I wish to express my view on the proposition to construct that line. I entertain the view in the first place, that it is very surprising to me that the people who are going to be served by this new line should have stood being treated as they have been treated, so long. I express the opinion very emphatically, that if these people were animated by the same spirit as the people that I have the honour to represent in this House, and that my hon. friends from the -west have the honour to represent, they would have had that railway before now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They would have had the promises which have been repeatedly made to them and repeatedly broken, carried out. They would have had these promises implemented and carried out, or somebody would be made to suffer very severely in consequence. Therefore, I am surprised, I am extremely surprised that this railway which upon every possible ground of reason and common sense the people that are going to be served by it are entitled to get, I am surprised that it should be the one part of this proposition that is attacked with the utmost venom.


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: and that it is held up as being wholly indefensible and wholly absurd. If we were being asked in this House at the present time to build a branch line of the Intercolonial Railway into that part of the country; if we were being asked to subsidize another railway there, who would raise his voice in objection ? There is not a man on this side of the House, and there is. not a man on the other side of the House, who would raise the least objection to the construction of that line ; and if a single man did raise an objection, the railway history of the Dominion of Canada would be the answer to that objection.
References have been made in the press -I need not multiply them now-to cases in the province from which I come, in my own county, where there are railway lines ten, twelve, thirteen and fourteen miles apart. Nobody talks about the infamy of paralleling railway lines there; and we are getting on pretty well, and the railways are getting on pretty well too. Take the position in the province of Ontario, with the Canada Atlantic and the Grand Trunk running on the average not further apart than this line.


Mr. COWAN.: The Canadian Pacific from London to Windsor, for 110 miles, does not run more than two miles from the Grand Trunk, and we subsidized it to do that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We subsidized a portion of that line in this House, and was there a man who took the responsibility of dividing the House on the question or of saying that we were wrong ?


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: What part of it did you subsidize?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: A jiart that runs not more than five miles from the Grand Trunk. I know that, because I scaled it on the map.
Hon. Mr. 1 TAGGART. When was it subsidized ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Three or four years ago; I cannot give the exact date. I remember it being discussed in council, and I remember the subsidy being passed in this House. I cannot remember the local name of the line. Now, Mr. Speaker, consider a few more cases. It may seem that, we are wasting time on this point; but we are not wasting time when we are showing that the principal objection which has been raised to an important part of this scheme is an objection that is perfectly absurd, and has not a particle of foundation. The Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway parallel each other from Montreal to Toronto. How far are they apart ? I looked at the map the other day and scaled the distance, and I do not think they are more than forty miles apart anywhere.

They are not as far apart on the average as 62 miles. The Canada Atlantic and the Grand Trunk, running down from the Georgian bay are no further apart on the average than these two lines that we are speaking of. Why, when Mr. Booth built the Canada Atlantic Railway he was hailed as having achieved something which entitled him to be ranked as one of the great men of Canada, and I think that is right. I admire Mr. Booth because of his achievements, and I think he is entitled to respect and credit at the hands of the people of Canada for what he has done. But if Mr. Booth is entitled to credit for having built a railway to the Georgian bay paralleling the Grand Trunk to get a share of the same business, how is it that when you propose to build another railway in another part of the province you are infamous, and too much cannot be said against your proposition? I venture the statement that the longer that particular objection to this proposition is discussed, the more our hon. friends on the opposition side will wish they had never raised it.
I do not know whether we are safe in saying that the leader of the opposition party is against this contract or not. I have listened with some degree of care to the addressses which have been delivered, and I have not heard anything from the other side of the House in favour of the Quebec-Moncton line. I have heard a very great deal against it from the different gentlemen who have spoken, including the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. X do not suggest that he undertakes yet to speak for our hon. friends on the other side. From the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), from the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), from the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), we have received word of what I take to be uncompromising opposition to the Quebec-Moncton line. Our hon. friend the leader of the opposition has not yet spoken clearly on that question. We invite him to speak.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: You will hear him all right.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We invite him to say whether he, speaking as the responsible leader of the Conservative party, is prepared to endorse what the gentlemen sitting behind him have said, and what they are saying in the country with regard to this proposition. The people whom my hon. friend represents have a right to know where he stands* Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, there are difficulties and responsibilities in connection with the position of a leader of a great party which are very embarrassing; but my hon. friend will have to face the embarrassment, and he will have to tell us whether he elects to stand with the people of New Brunswick, the people of Nova Scotia and with the people, so far as the rest of Canada is concerned, who are supporting this government, or whether he elects to stand with those members of his party and a small remnant of the people of Canada who have undertaken to block a meritorious proposition. We shall listen with interest to what my hon. friend has to say on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: You will hear it all right; do not be alarmed.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I desire to refer to one criticism which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition made, and which requires to be mentioned and cleared up at some stage of the debate. My hon. friend referred with fine sarcasm to a provision in this contract which relates to the question of security. He read the clause with reference to the deposit of $5,000,000, and spoke somewhat sarcastically of this clause as a statesmanlike provision. I will quote his own words :
In other words, the company guarantees to build a railway as to which it receives a guarantee of $13,000 per mile for one portion of it and $30,000 per mile for the rest ; and it deposits with the government $5,000,000 as security that it will use the bonds guaranteed by this government.
If the company were depositing $5,000,000 as security that it was going to use the government guaranteed bonds, the sarcasm of my hon. friend would be perfectly justified. That would be not a statesmanlike provision, but a most absurd , a most futile, a most ridiculous proposition ; and I wonder that it did not occur to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in the hasty examination which he made of this contract, that it would be safer, In his preliminary criticism, to give the lawyers of this government, including my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, credit for a little common sense and a little brains in drafting the document which they submitted to the consideration of parliament. If the hon. gentleman would give, us credit for a little common sense and intelligence he would uot put that construction upon this document. The hon. gentleman read the clause and therefore could hardly claim that he was not aware of its contents. By reading the clause, he made this perfectly clear, that the $5,000,000 are put up for the- purpose of securing that the company shall build and equip the railway in accordance with the terms of the contract. What does that mean ? It means that the company shall use the bonds guaranteed by the government and the bonds guaranteed by second mortgage in order to procure money for the construction of the railway and also for its equipment to the extent of $20,000,000, and we shall have a mortgage on the whole. I leave my hon. friend to explain this discrepancy between his version of what the contract provides and the actual facts. An off-hand statement as to what a clause

in a contract means must be made with some degree of caution or serious mistakes will occur. It is not, I presume, a thing that cani be lightly passed over, that when a contract of this description is made, when the utmost care is taken in the drafting of its provisions, when legal counsel are employed to draft, with the utmost care, security clauses, and when a large and substantial security is being put up, a gentleman occupying the responsible position of the leader of the opposition should wholly distort and misconstrue the effect of this important provision. My hon. friend must remember that the great Conservative party throughout this country will look with respect to what he says on this question, and therefore he cannot afford to entirely mislead them in regard to one of its important phases.
I have tried, in the remarks I have made up to the present, to advert more particularly to what I consider the important feature of the contract. I spoke of the question of running powers, and I said that that was so important a feature of the contract that in all probability, if that provision had not been there, the contract would not have been concluded. There is another provision of equal importance. It is one to which reference lias been repeatedly made. I refer to the provision which relates to the question of routing traffic by Canadian ports. Certain criticisms have beeu addressed to that particular part of the contract. I may say that I agree largely in the view expressed by my hon. friend the Finance Minister, when he said that inasmuch as we were making a clear, distinct and unambiguous contract with a responsible company, with a respectable institution which might reasonably be expected to implement its obligations, we should have a good deal of confidence that every reasonable effort would be made by them to carry out the contract. There is much more to be said on the question, and I desire to call attention to the nature of the criticisms on this point. I think that the criticism of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, was perhaps the most reasonable. He said that this is a provision which you can evade and he left it there, except that he suggested that there was no penalty provided in case the Grand Trunk Railway failed to meet its obligations in this respect. Upon that I shall speak in a moment or two. Then my hon. friend and former colleague, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) suggested a most elaborate method of getting around the contract. He suggested that while the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would not know that the contract was being violated, the Grand Trunk Railway would send up agents over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway stations to induce people to route their traffic by the Grand Trunk Railway to Portland instead of to Quebec and St. John. That was the sug-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
gestion given by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals as a reason why he does not think this is a good or effective proposition. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) lias another reason. He says that the Grand Trunk Railway would issue instructions to its officials not to interfere with the routing of the traffic but to let people route traffic at the same rates by St. John and Halifax, if they wanted to, but the Grand Trunk Railway would take care not to promote any official who would permit that to be done. Are the opponents of this measure driven to such absurd reasons as these against a provision of this kind in a solemn contract made between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ? I would like to see my hon. friend the leader of the opposition or the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals sitting upon a bench, as the sole arbitrator between the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway to adjudicate on a complaint that the contract was being violated under such circumstances. If evidence were given on behalf of the government that the agents of the Grand Trunk Railway went through the stations, communicated with the people, and induced them to send their traffic down to Portland, I would like to see the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific getting up and declaring that they knew nothing at all about such proceedings. How long would a judge, with any common sense, listen to such an absurd, ridiculous plea. If it were a criminal case, there is not a court or a jury in Canada who would not convict the accused, of guilty knowledge. We cannot put upon the interpretation of the contract any suchi ridiculous reasoning. How great a penalty would the hon. gentleman want ? Would it do if we fine the company $1,000 ? Would it do if we fine them $10,000 ? Or would it do if we fine them $1,000,000 ? If hon. members will look at section 35, they will find the foilwing words :
For the purposes hereinafter in this paragraph respectively defined the company may and shall create mortgages to trustees as follows :-
Then, in subsection (c) :-
A mortgage which shall be a charge upon the rolling stock constituting the equipment of the eastern division next after the charge mentioned in paragraph 35 (a)

That is, our own mortgage, not another

-to secure to the government the rental payable in respect of the eastern division, the efficient maintenance and continuous operation of the said eastern division, and the observance and performance by the company of the terms of this agreement.
Upon that line of railway there is to be $5,000,000 of rolling stock under a mortgage to the government to secure tlie performance of the terms of the agreement.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). May I ask my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sifton) a question ? I suppose he is very familiar with this con-

tract and could give me in a moment the information I want. Is there any provision in the contract which requires the Grand Trunk Company to own the rolling stock on the eastern division? Would it not be possible for it to merely lease it?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will deal with that in a moment.


Robert Laird Borden: I should be glad if the hon. gentleman would do so.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The point referred to was one passing through my own mind, because it was adverted to, I believe, by my hon. friend from Hamilton though I did not hear him very distinctly. It is an important point to be considered. But just now I was calling attention to the fact that upon $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock the government of Canada has a mortgage expressly provided not only to secure the operation of the eastern division, but to secure the performance of the terms of this agreement. And one of the terms of this agreement is that this clause shall be fully and completely carried out. If it is a fine our lion, friends want, there is a fine provided, amounting to the respectable sum of $5,000,000. But I go further, I would not consider it at all advisable to put in this contract a penal clause, a clause that would provide, for iu-iustance, that a fine in the ordinary sense should be levied against the Grand TrunkRailway for the violation of the clause. It would not, in my judgment, be an appropriate or proper way of arriving at the end we desire to reach. In drawing this com tract, we are not making an amendment to the criminal law-, we are making a contract between parties. If the contract were between two private parties there would be no penal clause. Any lawyer will agree that while sometimes such a clause as a liquidated damage clause is inserted in a contract, yet, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, contracts between private parties simply state what the parties agree to and they are left to their ordinary remedies in the courts. In this case, the contract is being made between a great railway corporation and, in effect, the parliament of Canada. The parliament of Canada has plenary jurisdiction over the other party to the contract. TJiere is no body that has jurisdiction over the parliament and over the railway company too, and we cannot place ourselves in exactly the same position as that in which private parties stand. The company trusts in our good faitli that we will deal reasonably and properly with them, and they are perfectly safe in so doing. If there is any doubt about the meaning of any clause in this contract, they may fairly say to us: Do hot pass an Act of parliament to decide what this means, but submit the matter in some way to a judicial and impartial tribunal, in order that it may be decided. In such case, we should not
have the right to legislate upon a question that was fairly and reasonably a subject of dispute between us. But if we come to a clause which is absolutely clear, about the meaning of which there is no possible dispute, and a state of fact arises in which it is clear beyond doubt that the company is wilfully, deliberately violating the terms of this agreement, will the leader of the opposition, or will the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals,, tell this House that the parliament of Canada has no remedy in the circumstances? Sir, the proposition is the most absurd that could be brought before a deliberative body. It would be the duty of parliament, in case of such a state of facts arising, to apply every remedy within its power; and it cannot be doubted that its power is ample and complete with regard not only to the Grand Trunk, but with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I can see no possible ground for argument that, in case of a wilful violation of this clause, parliament would not have power, properly and without the violation of good faith, or proper practice in the premises, to take any steps necessary, in the exercise of its supreme legislative jurisdiction, to enforce the carrying out of the terms of the contract.
Now, I have dealt with what seemed to me to be the main criticisms which have been addressed to this contract by our hon. friends on the other side. Looking over the trend of what has been said up to the present moment, I gather that hon. gentlemen opposite are opposed to this proposition, they are opposed to it with unanimity and, apparently, they oppose it with vigour. They have certain grounds upon which they base their opposition. First, they say that this railway is not a pressing necessity at this time. Second, they are opposed to the Quebec-Moncton branch-except my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and we shall hear from him later on. Third, they are opposed-and this is a point to which I wish to direct a little attention later on-to our construction of the Quebec-Winnipeg line. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) tells us that the proper method of developing the outlying districts of the province of Quebec is by colonization railways running out from the older parts of the province, and my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) expressly takes the position, so far as Ontario is concerned, that that province, he believed, would favour the development of the newer portion of the province, not by a through line, as we suggest, but colonization lines running out from lines already in existence. You will see, Sir, that I am trying to define the issue. As I understand, these hon. gentlemen take issue as to the necessity of this work, and as to the method, and say that their method would be better and more in accordance -with the necessities of the case. These are the issues between us. They say that

the road will not have enough business to justify its existence or its construction. And lastly-I think these three or four points that I mentioned would cover the main ground upon which they object to our proposition-lastly, they apparently decline to accept the reasoning which we have presented to them from this side of the House upon the financial phases of this scheme.
Our hon. friends opposite view apparently with some degree of amusement the reasoning which has been presented to them, and the statements which have been made in respect to the financial effects of this contract, and the amount of money which it will take to implement our obligations in regard to carrying it out. My hon. friend the Finance Minister-and I may perhaps ask that particular attention be given to this phase of the question, because I think it is the most important in the whole discussion-my hon. friend the Finance Minister took the provisions of this contract in so far as they relate to the financial features, and he went over it from end to end. He made a close, and a careful, and an exact calculation as to the amount of money which we should have to pay if the Grand Trunk Pacific carries out its contract. That was the nature of the calculation which was made by the Finance Minister. If the Grand Trunk Company carries out its contract, then there is no escape from the conclusion which was placed before this House by my hon. friend. You cannot get over it by laughing, you cannot meet the argument by jeering at it. There is only one way of meeting the argument that he presented to this House, and that is by showing that the Grand Trunk will not be able to carry out this contract. That is the only way you can meet it. If the Grand Trunk Company carries out its contract, then we will pay just what the Finance Minister said, not one dollar more not one dollar less. We have therefore to discuss the question upon that basis. I intend later to say a few words in regard to the question of traffic, but in the meantime I desire to point out one important consideration having reference to the question whether the government are taking sufficient guarantees that the company will carry out its obligations. In the first place, we have to consider what was well suggested by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd). who asked what would happen when the railway bonds mature. Upon that point I am not going to enter into a lengthy argument. because I do not think it is necessary. I will, however, say this, which I think will meet with the immediate assent of every member on this side of the House at least, and I hope of every member on the other side, that so far as the payment of the bonds at maturity is concerned, either upon the eastern section or upon the western section, we are perfectly satisfied that fifty years of development in


Clifford Sifton: Canada will make that railway worth a great deal more than the face value of the bonds. Therefore we may dismiss from consideration, we need not bother our heads about the payment of the bonds. The railway will be able to do much more than take care of the principal and the bonds when it is called upon to do so.
As to the payment of interest in the meantime, what you have to consider is the immediate security the government has for the obligations which are incurred. The security which the government has for the fulfillment of these obligations is this : In the first place, the Grand Trunk Railway Company have to find the additional quarter of the money for the construction of the western section ; they find $20,000,000 for rolling stock, and they put that $20,000,000 under our mortgage ; they put under our mortgage $30,000,000 of their money which they provide as an additional security for the general purpose of carrying out this contract. I think, as my hon. friend the Finance Minister well said last night, when he so fully, so clearly, and so ably discussed the financial phases of this question, that no parliament, certainly not the parliament of Canada, was ever asked to assent to an important financial proposition which was so buttressed with security, so impregnably fortified toy all the securities that were required, as this proposition which we are dealing with at the present time. And yet, we are asked to believe that after a little while the Grand Trunk will fail to carry out its contract, and it won't go on. What does that argument amount to ? What ik the Grand Trunk going into this scheme for ? It is because it has a magnificent system of railways in the eastern portion of Canada, because there is an enormous and growing traffic in the west, and the Grand Trunk wants to get In there, and by means of this railway it is going to get in. Moreover, its thousands of miles of railway all over Canada are going to be connected with the growing trade in western Canada, and they are going to do a large and profitable business in consequence. Yet, Sir, the suggestion is made that after a little while, after they have got that trade built up, after they are making millions of dollars out of it, they are going to stop operations on this transcontinental road, throw it all up, and withdraw altogether from the business, as they will do, if they do not carry out the terms of this contract, and it is only by carrying out the terms of this contract that they can get any business from the west, or over the western line. So I think it must be clear that we may feel ourselves reasonably safe and reasonably well protected.
A word upon another point, and I would like my hon. friend from Lanark to direct particular attention to it; I would like him to give his view as to what is likely to happen as a result of this enterprise. I

would like my hon. friend, with his knowledge of this country, to say if lie does not himself know, and believe in his heart, that this is going to be a great and a successful enterprise. My hon. friend once had faith in the country, I do not know whether he has lost it or not. He told us some time ago, in fact, that he used to have faith in the Intercolonial and in its management, but that the management of the Intercolonial under the late minister had destroyed any prospects which might have once existed of advancement in the policy of government ownership of railways. Now, the real question on which we are at issue with our friends opposite is the necessity of this railway, the immediate necessity of it. My late colleague, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, entertained the House at some length in discussing this question of the immediate necessity of the railway. He said that if there had been any demands made for that road he would have heard them. Well, I thought if what my hon. friend said was true that he had not heard any demands made, that he must have been suffering from deafness even worse than I am myself. I thought he must have been emulating the example of that celebrated character Rip Van Winkle, he must have been asleep, and he must have been sleeping very soundly, or he would have heard the many and insistent demands, a very few of which I shall refer to, for the construction of a new railway to afford greater transportation facilities to the country in general.
But what I desire to advert to is not so much the attitude of the late minister, which was fairly well dealt with by the member for North Norfolk, but the attitude of our friends upon the other side, because, when the late Minister of Railways and Canals said there was no immediate necessity. for this railway, his remarks were received with the greatest of applause by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that they approve of the position taken by the late Minister of Railways and Canals, when he stated that there was not sufficient necessity for this road and that he had heard no insistent and strong demand for its construction. It is necessary that we should make our position upon that point clear. This is not a thing that can be passed over with a wave of the hand. It is a serious and important matter of business, and if the allegation is that twelve or thirteen members of the government have gone into the council chamber, locked the door, discussed this matter, and have, after a little talk with the railway managers, brought out a scheme for building a transcontinental railway involving an enormous expenditure of money, when the people do not want the road, and when there is no demand for it, it is a pretty serious allegation and it is an allegation that we have to meet. What are the facts in re-271
gard to that point ? I think the testimony will be found to be absolutely conclusive.
At one o'clock. House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.



ROYAL ASSENT.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter from His Excellency the Governor General's secretary :
Sir.-I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber on Thursday the 13th instant at four o'clock p.m., for the purpose of giving assent to certain Bills which have passed the Senate and House of Commons during the present session.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. S. MAUDE. Major, Governor General's Secretary.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I desire, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to call attention again to the fact to which I made reference this morning respecting the bonus-ing of a certain line of railway in Ontario which was a very short distance from another line of railway. I made the statement that this line was four or five miles distant from the other, and I think that is admitted. As to the question whether we bonused the line or not, I refer hon. gentlemen to the Subsidy Act of 1899. in which it will be found that this country gave a bonus to a railway to parallel the Lake Erie and Detroit Railway, and that these two lines are not more than five miles apart, as my hon. friends from that part of the country will know. There we have a striking example of the bonusing of parallel lines of railway, lines coming closely into competition with each other and going through almost the same territory. That, therefore, is a matter which depends on the necessities of the trade of the district in a particular case, and it is not to be settled by any general proposition that no parallel line should be constructed. That principle is so well recognized in this House that no one will undertake to dispute it.
I want to call attention to some other points on which there has been some misunderstanding. If we are to proceed with this debate upon intelligent lines, then there should not be so much discussion about matters in respect to which there can be no * dispute. In the Conservative press and in the addresses made by some of our hon.

friends-my hon. friend from South Lanark amongst others, -but I do not blame him, because when he spoke he had not time to read the contract-in considering the cost of this enterprise the government is charged with the interest upon the cost of construction, and which, if it should not be charged with, would mean a very substantial difference in the total amount of the liability. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will by this time have discovered his mistake and may correct it, but in the speech that was made by the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), who certainly had every opportunity of reading the contract with care and deliberation, he also charged us with interest upon the cost of construction in his calculation. Now, if you read the contract, you will find that the interest on the cost of construction shall be part of the cost of the road, and is provided for as capital in the ordinary way. Any person of ordinary intelligence will see that in the contract, so that there need be no dispute about it. Therefore, when we guarantee interest upon a maximum of $30,000 per mile in the moun-tiau section of this railway, the interest on the cost of construction, as it goes on for the five years, is included in that $30,000 per mile, and that is the maximum of our liability. We have no charge for additional interest, to the interest upon that $30,000. That is covered toy the capital account when the capital account is closed, and it is the same way with regard to the cost of construction of the eastern division. I call attention to that, because in the opposition press calculations are made which should be lessened to the extent of some millions of dollars on account of this manifest error into which they have fallen.
I want to say a word on the question of running powers ; not for the purpose of demonstrating the practicability of carrying out this provision in the contract, tout for the purpose of showing my hon. friends from the eastern portion of the country how important we who represent western Canada believe this, clause with regjard to running powers, is. Gentlemen who live in the eastern provinces, and who do not know what it is to be cut off toy thousands of miles from the seaboard, have no idea how helpless such a community is to alter the conditions of transportation without assistance of a very important and of a very extensive character. The prairie community west of Red river is in the position that they may develop their population and their trade to a very large extent, that there may toe atoundanee of trade for independent lines of railway, in addition to these already constructed in the prairie country, but you cannot get anybody to consider the advisability of constructing lines of railway, simply by reason of the fact that they cannot get out of the country for want of an outlet. In 'the other provinces you can get people to engage in a railway enterprise, but the op-


Clifford Sifton: portunity to do that does not exist in the west, for the simple reason that a railway of 50, or 00, or 200 miles, is liable to be confiscated at any minute by the conditions which a through line of railway may impose upon it. Therefore, it is that we who come from the west feel that this clause in the Bill which provides for running powers is very important to us. That clause can -toe so worked out that other lines of railway can make use of it, and it means that it will place the people of the west in a position of independence that no other scheme possibly could.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I want to say a few words on the much discussed question as to how these running powers can be carried out. It was discussed by the hon. member for North Norfolk, and later on by the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance touched a point which causes me to make another remark. He suggested that there was very little doubt about the possibility of carrying out this clause with regard to running pew-el's, and that it would be simply a matter as to whether it could be economically done, and whether in the matter of business it would pay to have it done. It will suggest itself at once to the members of the House that when the country develops, as it will develop, when the time conies that the Intercolonial Railway, for instance, may desire to make use of that eastern section, and when the Canadian Northern Railway, or other lines which may lie built in the western country, desire to make use of that eastern section main line, there is nothing to prevent the forming of an operating company, just as a terminal company is foriped in the city of Chicago, or any other place, and have that operating company put its staff along the line of railway, as is done in the case of the Canada Southern ; and that operating company will act for the benefit of all the railway companies that may desire to participate in the advantages afforded toy that main line. That is a simple matter which requires only to be stated in order that it may be perfectly clear that the bugaboo that has been raised in regard to this clause about operation is absolutely unfounded in fact, upon the question being examined.
My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) indulged in criticism of some provisions of this contract, and I am bound to say that if the hon. gentleman were not a man of age and discretion, I should not have been disposed to take him seriously; I should have thought that instead of addressing an argument to the House he was making a joke. My hon. friend's argument, as I understand it, was based on section 14 of the contract. I suggest to my hon. friend from Hamilton that in reading this contract, it would be better for him to enter-

tain the idea that it is a serious business contract, intended to govern transactions in a business like way, and not specially drawn for the purpose of concealing some nefarious plot to be palmed off on the public. If I understood my hon. friend's argument aright it was that section 14, which defines working expenses, as including in respect to the eastern division, money paid in respect of the hire of rolling stock, was put in the contract in order to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to borrow or rent the $20,000,000 of rolling stock, instead of purchasing it and putting it on the railway according to the terms of the contract. That is my hon. friend's suggestion. If you read this clause, you will find in it a definition of the expression ' working expenses,' and the obvious purpose of that provision, in respect of the hire of rolling stock, is this, that if the company-as <it will, as every company does, from time to time-has the use of rolling stock belonging to other companies, the rent which is paid for the use of that rolling stock goes into the working expenses as part of the cost of running the road; and I am not aware of any other provision that could be made to cover the case.


Samuel Barker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Does he not find in the ,14th clause that the rent is to be charged on the cars furnished for the equipment of tlie eastern division V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend's argument, if I understand it aright, is that that clause is intended to let the company put rolling stock on the eastern division without owning it. They are going to borrow or rent that rolling stock, and what are they going to do with it when they get it there V Under the provisions of this contract, they are going to put a mortgage on it. That is my hon. friend's argument. Now, I do not know whether my hon. friend's attention has been much given to criminal lawr or not; but if it lias, he will know that to mortgage property which does not belong to you is considered a serious offence, and I do not think it probable that this company will do that under this contract.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Is it a criminal offence for a lessee of property to mortgage his interest in it ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need apprehend that any court that is called on to construe this agreement could by any possible construction of this provision, bold that the company eould borrow their rolling stock and send it there for the purpose of complying wTith the terms of this contract. I was, speaking at one o'clock of the fact that our lion, friends opposite take issue with us upon an important phase of this question. They take issue with us as to the necessity for the railway, and I adverted to the fact that they loudly applauded my former colleague when he expressed himself as having been wholly oblivious of any demand for the construction of an additional transcontinental line. I, therefore, think it is wise to advert briefly to the evidence of such a demand and to the evidence of the fact that the government, in coining! to the conclusion to which it did, is not submitting a proposition which is without public support and' unwarranted by public sentiment. Well, I venture to express the doubt as to whether any member of this House can recollect any important proposition ever brought before the parliament of Canada which was received with such unanimous approval from all quarters as the proposition that the Grand Trunk Railway should build to the Pacific. Whether the people would approve of the method proposed, is matter for discussion, but there can be no doubt as to the opinion of the people of Canada regarding the necessity for a new railway across the continent. We find the evidence in all shapes and forms. In the fall of last year, the board of trade of Winnipeg-'that city which is the entrepot of the trade of the great west and which, in my judgment, will remain so and achieve great growth as the result of the development of that country-passed a resolution, most unqualified in its terms, as to the necessity for additional transportation facilities. In this resolution the board of trade said that the railway service had become so unreliable on account of being overtaxed that relief was absolutely needed. The passenger service had become so irregular, unreliable and apparently demoralized, that much loss was inflicted on business men. Then they spoke of the congestion with regard to freight traffic and other difficulties affecting transportation, and, wound up by saying :
Therefore this board respectfully urges the Dominion government to take such immediate action as shall remove the grevious disabilities under which the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories labour, and to take such further measures as shall effectually prevent a recurrence of the conditions herein described.
I find that the North-west territorial assembly, in the fall of 1902, passed a very strong resolution, in which they recited the many difficulties under which the people of the west were labouring in the matter of transportation, and wound up by saying that:


Clifford Sifton: The prospective increase in the volume of traffic, which largely increased cultivation and settlement of lands in these territories will certainly create, will further tend to congest . traffic between these territories and the provinces of the east, and unless it is held desirable to divert part of such traffic through foreign channels, adequate facilities for transportation must be immediately provided. That this assembly does therefore humbly pray that Your Excellency may be pleased to take such action as may be necessary or expedient to insure that the people of these territories are provided with an efficient transportation system as contemplated by the contract made between the people of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
It will be remembered that this is an address or memorial, passed by the representatives of the people of the North-west Territories, coming from all portions of the territories, and fully aware of the facts and circumstances as they existed at that time.
I find that last winter the Grain Growers' Association of the North-west Territories passed a strong resolution, in which they say that the country , is not only beiug retarded, but the residents are suffering much deprivation on account of the scarcity of fuel and building material, owing to the lack of transportation facilities.
I see in the ' Regina Leader '-not an editorial item-but a news item, stating that :
For many weeks past, first one merchant and then another has in vigorous language drawn the attention of the 'Leader' to the fact that the condition of railway traffic in the west is continually getting wmrse. The situation last year was bad enough, when for days and sometimes weeks, merchants were completely out of certain lines of goods, because the railway could not get them in. This year it is infinitively worse, for many business houses have been completely sold out of certain lines for weeks and months, notwithstanding the fact that their orders were placed in plenty of time and the goods promptly shipped by wholesalers in the east.
I find in last December an opinion given by a gentleman, with whom I have had long personal acquaintance, and who is better qualified to speak of the railway situation in western Canada than any man, living. I refer to Mr. William Whyte, a prominent officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and for many years general superintendent of that western division. Last December he said :
There is lots of room for the Grand Trunk Railway in the North-west. I'm glad to hear they are coming. You must remember that the Grand Trunk Railway is a national road, and it is far better to have it than an American road. If the people of the east had any idea of the rapidity with which the country is settling out there, they would not be surprised to hear me say : ' There is room for the Grand Trunk Railway arih others as well.' The condition of affairs has completely changed even since a year ago. The traffic is not only abnormal east-bound but also west-bound. It is this fact which has simply rendered it impossible to handle the crop with the despatch which was necessary.

Again he said :
In 1895 we had a large crop, as you remember, which was handled satisfactorily, simply because we could rush the cars back, and reload. To-day all is changed, and I don't suppose we are getting within 35 per cent of the use of our cars for grain haulage we did last year, simply because they are used in other ways. The people are rich, they are purchasing in the east, and what we call our lake trade has increased 95 per cent over last year. Then the fuel situation has changed ; they are consuming more fuel as they become richer, buying more groceries, provisions, &c., in the east, so that the abnormal increase has been in both east and west-bound, and in local trade.
My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) made a remark last May.. He said :
Still, as I have said, there is no denying the fact that they have not met the requirements of that country

That is, the railway companies have not- -and that, if they are going to remain in the country and if the country is going to make the progress we all feel it ought to make, either the company must voluntarily do more than It has done, or else this government or whoever is responsible in the premises, must take steps to meet the emergency which now arises.
And my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said this year :
Now with the influx of population to that country which has taken place lately, what will it be two or three years hence when you have 400 million bushels of grain ? Why, even twelve or fifteen railroads could not handle it.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Mr. SPROULE.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has not completed the quotation. My remembrance is that the rest of the sentence is something like this : ' in the short time the farmers expect it to be bandied in the fall of the year.' Let the hon. gentleman give it all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: House of Commons ' Hansard,' May 5th 1903-that is where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will find what he said. I have here a resolution from the council of the Toronto board of trade. As you go along and pick up just here and there a little of the evidence on this point as to the demand for this railway, the assertion of some hon. gentlemen that they never heard anything about it is slightly humorous. However, we have the resolution of the Toronto board of trade, passed on June 23rd of this year :
Whereas,, the hoard realize the necessity of an outlet by the shortest and cheapest route for the fast increasing productions of the Northwest country and the advisability of competition without the extravagance of the duplication cf lines.
Be it therefore resolved' that this board urges strongly upon the government of Canada the construction by the Dominion of a line from Quebec to Winnipeg traversing the clay belt of northern Ontario and passing north of Lake Nipigon to Winnipeg, the use of such railway being permitted to all railroads under proper regulation.	.
Has the Toronto hoard of trade gone mad? Are these business men all fools?


Mr. KEMP.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Will he make it clear that that was not a resolution of the Toronto board of trade, but of the council of the board of trade ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I shall not attempt any answer to my hon. friend (Mr. ICemp). He desires this House to take knowledge of the fact that there is a distinction between the most prominent men of the city of Toronto, selected by the business men of Toronto to be the council of the board of trade and their constituents.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the hon. gentleman will allow me


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Well, now, perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to proceed


Albert Edward Kemp: I will not interrupt the hon. gentleman if he 'does not allow me to.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am referring to a question of fact about which there is a dispute. It has been alleged in this House that nobody ever heard of the demand for this railway before. It is alleged that the government go into the council chamber, discuss this matter by themselves, then come out here and launch upon this parliament a mad, stupid, crazy scheme not worthy the support of any man of sense or reason. What do we find? We find that the council of the Toronto board of trade, the selected representatives of the business men of Toronto, next to Montreal the commercial metropolis of Canada, have solemnly put themselves on record as advising this very thing. If my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) had been desirous of accentuating this bit of evidence, he could not have done it more effectively than by calling attention to the fact that it Was not a big mass meeting, perhaps acting without any very great deliberation, but a meeting of the council of the board, prominent men, responsible to their constituents, and, giving their advice upon this question deliberately. Well. I find the Winnipeg 'Tribune,' my old friend, says that it is a good thing to have the Grand Trunk go west. The Winnipeg ' Telegram.' equally friendly to myself, says :
The same confidence in the west we still have, and we have no more doubt that the west can support a third system of railway than we had in 1901 that it could support a second system.
This was on the 27th of November. Two days before they had a long article in which they said that If the Dominion government make satisfactory arrangement the railway should be a good thing for the country, aud the country could sustain the road. The ' Mail and Empire ' had something to say on the subject on November 25th last. My hon.

friend the ex-Minlster of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) was good enough to point out that, of course, when it is known that the government has made up its mind to do a particular thing, the party press throughout the country naturally falls into line and is disposed to advocate the idea of doing this thing which the government has already determined to do. The suggestion of my hon. friend was that the knowledge that the government was going to take a certain course had considerable effect upon the mental attitude of the members of the press. I may be excused for doubting that the knowledge on the part of the managers of the ' Mail and Empire ' that the government was likely to take up this project would very much influence them in its favour. Therefore, I quote the ' Mail and Empire ' as one of the few newspapers n^)t likely tp be subject ,to government influence in the way suggested by my late colleague. The ' Mail and Empire ' said :
Last year the crop was more than the Canadian Pacific Railway, exerting all Its great resources, could handle 'before the close of navigation. This year, the crop is still larger, and though the hauling power of the road has been very greatly increased, milions of bushels will remain to be carried after Fort William is closed by ice. Yet the traffic of our North-west is but in its beginning: Instead of 70,000,000 bushels of wheat grown this year, five times that quantity may have to be looked after before the Grand Trunk Pacific is ready for business. Production will greatly thicken in the zone traversed by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern. But the wheat belt has been proved to be much wider than that zone. Far north of the country served by existing lines, the finest hard wheat can be produced. There is plenty of room for another railroad in the prairie country. The completion of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific will not prevent the Canadian Pacific Railway continuing by leaps and bounds along its career of prosperity.
And I find tbat on the 24th of November last tbe Montreal ' Star ' said :
That the great North-west needs additional railway connections with Eastern Canada is obvious.
Mr. Thomas Crawford, Conservative member of the Ontario legislature for a Toronto division, a' large cattle dealer, an experienced and capable business man, said, as reported in an interview in the Toronto News, on November 27th :
That to his mind, as a cattle man, it would he a good thing for Canada which would be a boon to the country and give us an assurance of good times for twenty years. ' The time has come,' said he, ' for such a line, and to-day if it were in operation it would do well. To-day there is such a traffic in our trade in North-west cattle that some of them have now to be shipped in by Chicago.'
Then a leading official of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. H. P. Timmerman, general superintendent, according to the Toronto ' News ' of November 25th, said this :


Clifford Sifton: I believe the Grand Trunk Pacific will be of great advantage to the west. It will certainly not injure the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway, for the output of produce is so vast that the question of competition will not be considered for many years hence.
I find tbat Mr. J. R. Booth, an able and experienced railway man, whose opinion lias great Influence in this House and throughout tlie country, in an interview accorded to the Ottawa ' Journal,' is reported to have said :
There is room enough for all in the trade which is to develop in western Canada. I certainly think it is a good thing for the country, and in fact I don't see how they have got along without a transcontinental line so long. They certainly need it to feed their large capacity at the shipping ports of Montreal and Portland.
Tbat is what Mr. Booth said when he had before him tbe original project, when tlie Grand Trunk intended to apply for a charter, and announced that they were going to build to North Bay and make their business tributary to their present outlet. But as the House will have seen, we have changed all that. I find in the ' Globe ' newspaper of November 25, an opinion of Mr. E. F. Clarke, M.P., who is' quoted as saying :
He thought that the proposed extension was second only in importance to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway some twenty odd years ago. He believed that the development in Manitoba and the Territories would go on so rapidly that even this third transcontinental railroad would find abundance of traffic awaiting its completion. The fact that it was to pass through the Peace River district gave some idea of the immensity of our country, for this district was fully 800 miles north of Toronto. He believed the project to he of the greatest importance, not only to Toronto and Ontario, but to the whole Dominion.
In the ' Mail and Empire ' of November 24. Mr. J. R. Booth is again interviewed, and expressed himself in favour of the project. In the ' Globe ' newspaper of November 25, I find the opinion of Mr. W. R. Brock, M.P. This paper, I believe, is on fairly good terms with my hon, friend, except politically. This is what he is reported to have said :	.
The new road will be the grandest possible thing for Canada. The Peace River district, through which the railway is to run, will be our future granary. The engineer who first surveyed for the Canadian Pacific Railway desired to go the route now proposed by the Grand Trunk Railway. There can be no question about the proposed route, being a succees in every sense, and an inestimable boon to Canada, It is better to have such a road as the Grand Trunk build the new lines, because it will ensure competition.
Now, I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. friend, or anybody else. This opinion of his was expressed on November 25tli, before it was decided and announced that the line was to he built from Quebec to Winnipeg. These gentlemen were then In favour of the project. I wish them joy of

it, I want them to take the responsibility of it, and I ask them to put themselves on record again. These gentlemen must therefore be taken to approve of the project of a transcontinental line, and of the route of the Grand Trunk Railway from North Bay westward to the prairies to bring its business down to Portland.


Mr. BROCK.: Does the hon. gentleman contend that great quantities of wheat from the North-west will go over the route they are now proposing, instead of over the route that I approved of ?


Tne MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will discuss that with my hon. friend later on. I have not the slightest hesitation in discussing that ; we expected to discuss it when we brought in this Bill, and we are going to discuss it. I have here a whole list of important men of business, speaking on November 24, who expressed favourable opinions with regard to the construction of this railway, and to the necessity of its construction. I need not give them more in detail. I And in going over this symposium of testimony, the views of the exMinister of Railways and Canals, not only in the Victoria papers to which reference has been made by the hon. member for North Norfolk, but in the ' Toronto Globe ' after he got back from his trip, after he had seen the west and had breathed the invigorating air of the prairies. The 'Globe' represent^, and no doubt truly, my late colleague as saying :
There is room for several railways in the west. With the business that will be created by the rapid settlement of the country, I venture to say there will be room for railways within twenty-five or thirty miles of each other. He said the extension of the Grand Trunk would be a good thing for the country.
Generally his views were favourable to the project. Later on my hon. friend the ex-minister was represented by the Montreal ' Star,' I do not know whether correctly or not, as saying :
I am free to confess that in my judgment the development of the Canadian North-west and British Columbia will be so rapid the next few years as to afford ample traffic for three transcontinental lines, and I am glad to know that the Grand Trunk Railway Company seeks to share in that development.
I simply mention that to show that the view which my late colleague entertained at Victoria, when he was in favour of three transcontinental lines, did not evaporate on the way across the continent, and that he still entertained it when he got here. Mr. Alexander McFee, president of [DOT] the Board of Trade in Montreal, an important business man, doing a large business in that city, said on November 24 :
The building of a transcontinental route ty the Grand Trunk Railway means a good deal to the Dominion of Canada, east and \vest. The announcement means that one of our great
needs is to be supplied. It assures the development of the Canadian North-west along Canadian national lines. The new railway is required. The North-west is ready for it. The country is in a state of rapid development.
The ' Montreal Herald ' of November 24, reports Mr. J. G. Garneau, member of the council of the board of trade, as expressing a favourable opinion. In the ' Montreal Herald' of the same date, Mr. W." I. Gear, president of the Montreal Corn Exchange, when interviewed, expressed himself as follows :
In the projected line of the Grand Trunk, competition cuts no figure. The country can support a new line and more than one. Besides, a little competition is a good thing for all parties, and a very good thing for the country. There is a lot of the North-west that has not been opened to settlement. The proposal of the Grand Trunk. I believe, is to open new country, and aid in filling the North-west. The benefit to the country of such a line as the proposed one cannot be estimated at the present time, but it is bound to be very great. The east and the west will alike share in the benefit.
Hon. Richard Turner, member of the legislative council of Quebec, Mayor White, of St. John, Mr. Jas. Carruthers, a prominent grain man of Montreal, commenced the building of a new railway. Mr. H. D. Metcalfe, ex-president of the Corn Exchange, and a prominent grain dealer in Montreal-expressed a strong opinion in favour of the proposition for the building of a railway to the west by the Grand Trunk. Although these statements, of which these are a few picked out at random without any special care, were published broadcast through the press, the position is taken in this House and before the country that no necessity exists for the construction of this railway.
1 have a word to say on my own behalf as to the question of the future. We gave last year 31,000 homesteads. That means 31,000 farms taken up, and we expect to give the same number or a larger number next year. If hon. members will take the trouble to stop and think what it means-to have 30,000 or 40,000 fertile farms taken up every year they will have some idea, though only a small idea, of what is going on in the west and what it is necessary to provide for. I think we can safely say that if we continue our present efforts in the way of immigration we will probably be able to keep the movement of population up to somewhere in the neighbourhood in which it is now, for a considerable number of years and if we do that we shall inevitably increase tremendously the production and not only that, but as I have pointed out and as the testimony which I have read points out conclusively, there will be an enormous amount of grain from the wrest and there will be an enormous amount of general merchandise to go back to the west and which this proposed line of railway may

be absolutely unable to handle. The Montreal ' Gazette ' of August 13-that is to-day- practically admits the necessity of a further outlet. In attacking the provisions of the government proposition, it says :
A line from North Bay to the Pacific, with such branches as the company thought it commercially wise to construct, would have been defensible and commendable and no one could have successfully attacked it.



ROYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows :
Mr. Speaker, I beg to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General desires and awaits the attendance of your honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills :
An Act to incorporate the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the encouragement of the construction of Dry Docks.
An Act for the relief of Florence Lee Gray.
An Act respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Algonquin Lumber and Power Company, Limited.
An Act to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Woolf Valve Gear Company.
An Act to amend the Acts relating to the Naturalization and Aliens.
An Act respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canada Central Railway Company.
An Act to Incorporate the Dominion Gas Improvement Company.
An Act respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Midway and Verncn Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Columbia River Improvement Company, Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Missionary S:ciety of the Church of England of Canada.
An Act respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Yukon Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Brandon and Southwestern Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Post Office Act.
An Act to amend the Act respecting the Safety of Ships.
Clifford Sifton: An Act respecting Government and Post Office Savings Banks.
An Act respecting Dominion Notes.
An Act to amend the Act of 1899 respecting the City of Ottawa.
An Act to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act, 1898.
An Act to incorporate the Citizen's Bank of Canada.
An Act respecting the Rathbun Company.
An Act respecting the Century Life Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Montreal-Longueuil Bridge Company.
An Act respecting Infectious or Contagious Diseases affecting Animals.
An Act to prohibit the importation, manufacture or sale of adulterated, process or renovated Butter, Oleomargarine, Butterine, or other substitute of Butter, and to prevent the improper marking of Butter.
An Act to amend the Fisheries Act.
An Act to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certains powers for the relief of George M. Depew.
An Act to incorporate the Niagara, Queenston and St. Catharines Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Chatham, Wallaee-burg and Lake Erie Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley and Lake Huron Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.
An Act to amend the Patent Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ended the 30th June, 1903.



THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: L have one other authority, just one as to the necessity for a transcontinental railway. It would be undesirable that I should omit to mention that the leader of the opposition on the 26th May last, brought this subject to the attention of the House, and pressed upon the attention of the government a resolution of the Halifax Board of Trade which is sufficiently important to lie again referred to in this debate. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bordenj placed before the House and the government particularly, the resolution in which it was stated as follows :
Whereas, application has been made to the federal government for a charter to build a line of railway known as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, from Quebec to Port Simpson, or Bute Inlet on the Pacific coast (said line to run south of Lake Winnipeg), and no provision has been made in application for the shipment of the traffic originating on said line through the maritime province ports in the winter season.

And whereas, members of parliament representing maritime province constituencies at Ottawa, have urged that the charter be granted only on the condition that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company agrees to build the line from the Pacific coast to the town of Moncton, N.B.
Therefore resolved, that this board approves of the stand taken (by the representatives from the maritime provinces.
Tlie resolution then goes on to (leal with the necessity for an arrangement by which the railway shall be built entirely through Canadian territory, that the rates of freight should be controlled and placed upon an equality; that the railway company shall be compelled to proceed with the construction of the eastern section simultaneously with the western section, and they recommend that the railway be built north of Lake Winnipeg, which is not quite so wise as the other provisions of the resolution, but which is no doubt due to the fact that the Halifax gentlemen are not as familiar with the country up there as some of the rest of us. Then they go on to say that the government be urged to adopt tin's route for a new transcontinental railway seeking government assistance, and the board also desires to express its opinion that the interests of Canada demand that the Intercolonial Railway be extended to the grain producing centres of the west. There is further on a telegram somewhat on the same lines which was sent by the Halifax Board of Trade to the late Minister of Railways and Canals. The leader of the opposition having knowledge of the fact that this resolution had been passed by the Board of Trade of the city of Halifax in his own constituency, very properly brought it before this House and proceeded to ask if the government were then in a position to say to the House and to the country in what , way they proposed to deal with this transportation problem, and
Was the government able to disclose to the House and to the country any really comprehensive national policy by means of which it' may be able to deal with this question of transportation in the west and in the east also.
I recommend these words of the leader of the opposition to my hon. friend from Lanark :
We know that not only in the west of Canada, but in the east of Canada as well, ir. is of the uitimosit possible importance to the people, it is vital to the interests of the people that they should have means of transporting their products to the foreign market equally as cheap and equally as available as those which are enjoyed by their competitors to the south of us, and we know that it is Otherwise impossible for our people in the east or in the west to compete on fair conditions with their chief, competitors, the people of the United States of America.
Now, has the government any policy upon this matter which it is prepared to disclose to the people of this country, and if it has not any policy at the present time, when may we expect that its policy shall be announced to the country.
Why, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had been forcasting the policy which we have laid before parliament be could not have done it in more explicit terms than those announced by the leader of the opposition in this House on the 26th May last.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend permit me to call his attention to one paragraph which he has omitted :
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that on a question of this kind which touches the whole future history of the transportation question of this country, the government ought not to take any leap in the dark, it ought not to take any step at hap-hazard. If the government proposes to appoint a commission it should have appointed that commission long ago, and that commission should have been at work dealing with and studying the very problems of transportation which are now confronting the government in regard to this matter.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think that anybody will dispute that the government ought not to take a leap in the dark. We are not taking a leap in the dark. We are taking a leap exactly on the line and over the route suggested by the Halifax Board of Trade, by the business men that my hon. friend represents, on the exact route which they suggested, and which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) not knowing and not supposing that the government did purpose to bring this policy down at this present session of parliament, brought to our attention, and practically endorsed some months ago. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) gave an intimation in another way that he had not a very decided opinion that the government was likely to adopt such a policy as it has adopted, and that he had in his mind! the idea that possibly the government would adopt the policy of encouraging the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway from North Bay. Therefore, my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) in addressing the Conservatives of Ward 2, in the city of Toronto on March 25th, 1903. as reported in the ' Mail and Empire,' spoke as follows :
While this great question of transcontinental railway extension

I stop for a moment to refer to that in connection with the suggestion of my late colleague (Hon. Mr. Blair) who never heard anything about the necessity of a transcontinental railway. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition heard about it and heard about it so often that be was making it a subject of discussion before his party friends who were assembled to hear him in the city of Toronto.
While this great question of transcontinental railway extension is before parliament and before the country, we must see to it that the public rights are guarded. The Postmaster General in his address of last evening expressed views which were sane and sensible,
Flattering to my hon. colleague the Postmaster General.

At last he has realized that this country Is a great one and can only be developed by a strong railway policy. In the past Mr. Mulock and his friends said that the Canadian Pacific Railway would never pay

We have heard something about railways not paying, for the last day or two :
-and that British Columbia was merely a waste of mountains, but their views are changed, for which he should be thankful. I am glad to hear of Sir William Mulock's noble and patriotic words. I am glad to hear of his conversion, but we as Canadians must ask some questions Shall we take care to so guard any franchise we give that it must be exercised alone in the public interest. Shall we see that any railway receiving public assistance forms part of an all-Canadian route ? But gentlemen, the record of the government is not such as to lead us to believe that these questions will be regarded with the importance they deserve. If assistance is given to any transcontinental railway it must be an all-Canadian line, which will take Canadian products to Canadian ports, where they will be shipped abroad.
That is the testimony of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think you will get much consolation out of that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) succeeded in making his meaning very clear. Now, there is some testimony since this project was launched, I find that Sir Sanford Fleming- a gentleman of great experience in connection with railway matters, formerly chief engineer of the government and chief engineer when the Canadian Pacific Railway and tlie Intercolonial Railway surveys were made, a man who has taken a great interest in the development of Canada ever since- I find he is reported in the Winnipeg ' Free Press * of August 3rd as having given to the correspondent of that paper in Ottawa an interview heartily endorsing the general scheme which is before parliament at the present time. In the ' Globe ' of August 6th Mr. James H. Ashdown of Winnipeg is reported as having given the correspondent of the ' Globe ' an unqualified endorsement of the government scheme. I attach a very considerable degree of importance to the opinion given by Mr. James H. Ashdown. Mr. Ashdown is perhaps the ablest business man that we have ever had in Manitoba or the North-west Territories. He occupies the position of being recognized as an espe-cialy able, keen, capable business man, and probably the wealthiest citizen and most successful business man of the west. Mr. Ashdown has been a member of both political parties. He was formerly a Conservative; later he became identified with the 'Liberal party; but he is not a man of strong party feelings, and has never had any very strong affiliations with either party. But he is a man who knows more respecting the trade conditions of the North-west, its im-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
portations and exportations, than any other business man in the west; and he gives his opinion in a most unqualified way in endorsement of this proposition.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the testimony in favour of this proposition ; and I think I may venture to remark that the testimony in favour of the immediate construction of a transcontinental railway may be regarded as tolerably conclusive. Sir, the congestion of traffic in the west has not been the congestion of wheat traffic only. Reading the discussions in the newspapers, and hearing what has been said upon the subject, persons not familiar with the local situation would naturally be led to the conclusion that it was a congestion which arose altogether by reason of the rush of wheat during a few months in the fall. That would be an entire mistake. The congestion during the last year or two has occurred not only during the months when wheat was pressing upon the railways, but during other months when the railways have been choked with cars loaded with general merchandise; and when the wheat season has come on they have been caught with their yards full of cars loaded with general merchandise which even then, before the wheat began to move, they have been unable to handle. Let it be understood that every carload of freight that goes to the North-west, wherever it may have originated, has to be taken care of by the railroads there, and the congestion has naturally arisen from the lack of complete facilities to handle the accumulation of traffic from various agencies. While that congestion was not serious in the early stages of the development of the country, it lias now, according to the testimony of competent observers, reached a stage when it is absolutely necessary that effective relief should be given. I wish to point out to this House, in connection with the situation there, a most important circumstance. You have a large and important part of Canada so situated that it is a thousand miles away from the other portion of the country with which it has political and business affiliations; and you have immediately south of our western territory a well-developed, well-peopled district, with vigorous and capable railway systems. Immediately to the south of the boundary line between' Manitoba and the states of Minnesota and Dakota there are four or five of the finest railway systems in the world- the Burlington, the Chicago and North-western, the Great Northern, the Northern Pacific. the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul -strong, well-equipped, vigorous systems, thoroughly versed in everything that pertains to the management of the railway business on tlie prairies. They are only a few miles away from Manitoba and our prairie district in the North-west Territories; and do you expect that you are going to allow the traffic to be congested year after year,


the grain to be held up, and the merchants to be left with their shelves empty, for lack of transportation facilities, and that these railway systems are not going to go in there and take this business to the south? It is contrary to experience and common sense. I am bringing this aspect of the case to the attention of the House because it is naturally my 'duty to do it. Hon. gentlemen from eastern Canada have not had their attention directed to this particular phase of the situation, and you would properly say to me that I had failed in my duty to the House and to my colleagues if I had not brought it strongly and seriously to the attention of the House. No person who has any knowledge of the situation will for an instant throw any doubt on this statement, that if arrangements are not made for relieving the congestion of traffic, not only in wheat, but in cattle and produce of all kinds for shipment outwards, and in general merchandise for shipment inwards, and if those arrangements are not made soon, as surely as the sun shines, the greater portion of that trade will go south to the United States. It is going now. Mr. .T. T. Gordon, of the firm of Gordon & Ironsides, the largest cattle exporters, I believe, in Canada, states that that firm sent last year 3,000 head of cattle by an American line because they could not get shipping facilities over the Canadian line. That is what is going on now. In the agricultural implement business, the makers of eastern Canada are handicapped for the same reason. A few hundred miles to the south there are implement makers with first-class shipping facilities, and the means of filling orders promptly when they come; and even if there is a slight difference in price, or if the difference is equal in amount to the fluty, you will find that the inability of the Canadian dealer to fill orders, largely due to lack of shipping facilities, is going to result in the business being taken away from him by liis competitors to the south. So our duty is to relieve this congestion of traffic, and provide for the future, not only for the purpose of enabling the great products of the country to be exported, but for the purpose of enabling the manufacturing towns and villages and the industrial centres of eastern Canada to be put in communication with our fellow-citizens upon the prairies, so that mutual ben-fit may bring mutual profits to all concerned.
Now, having decided-and I think the reasons given are conclusive in favour of our so deciding-that we should build this railway, we had to decide whether we should own and operate it ourselves, or whether we should deal with a company, and allow that company to undertake the task. I do not propose to discuss at any very great length the question of government ownership of railways. I have never been an advocate of that principle. I have
never seen anything in the experience of the government of Canada to induce me to become an advocate of it. What has been our experience of the Intercolonial Railway ? We have a length of line of 1,510 miles; the total expenditure of capital to June, 1902, was $68,310,019 ; it is over $76,000,000 now; all the surpluses since 1876 to the 1st of July last added together amount to $445,647 ; and the deficits since that time, if you subtract the surpluses, amount to $5,281,000. That is the position of affairs, financially, resulting from the operation of the government railway in Canada.
Now, Sir, le,t me not be misunderstood.
I entertain no feeling of hostility to the Intercolonial Railway. I recognize, as I said this morning-and I believe every man on this side of the House, and I have no doubt every member on the other side recognizes- the fact that the building of the Intercolonial Railway was a part of the terms of confederation, that Canada owes it to the people who accepted the terms of confederation that that railway shall be maintained and operated properly, and not only that, but that it shall be kept up to date, 'and that the people of the maritime provinces shall have a good, liberal, up-to-date service, a service which they will have reason to be satisfied with and proud of. I believe that it is true. I am in favour of doing that which is necessary for the purpose of giving effect to that proposition, but I see no reason why the fact that we are prepared to implement our obligations honourably should oblige us to enter into other obligations of a similar character and which we believed to be totally unnecessary under the circumstances. So far as we know anything about the operation of government railways, there is nothing in what has happened to induce us to place upon this country at present the burden of operating a line of railway across the continent. A moment's consideration with regard to the railway management of railway properties, must show us that there are good reasons- apart altogether from the question of honesty or dishonesty, or corruption or political influences, which we all know are serious enough in matters of that kind-why it is difficult, if not impossible to have a railway managed by a government as effectively and economically as by a private individual.
If you will consult railway men, they will tell you that the interfei'ence even of board's of directors is detrimental to the proper running of a railway. American railway managers have found that they cannot effectively conduct their railways with a board of directors which will interfere with the men who are running the road. The same experience has been felt by Canadian railway companies. The result has been that the system has now become general of giving the president practically undivided power and control. It has been found that divided: power and divided authority make

it impossible for a road to be effectively administered. Under our system what have, we? We have a Minister of Railways who has to submit to parliamentary criticism every time Jre wants to spend $3 or $10 on anything connected with the whole railway system. He can never conduct the enterprise with the same confidence, energy and vigour, when he knows that every item of his administration has to be dealt with and discussed as a matter of politics, as he would if he were serving a private corporation, confident that he would be backed up by the board of directors. That is one of the main reasons why it is wise for us, in a case of this kind, where we desire that the country should be opened up by an active, aggressive policy, not to load ourselves with that task, but to commit it to a private corporation.
We are not committing it to a company that we know nothing about. So far as the sentiment in favour of government ownership is concerned. I believe it is largely due to the fact that Canada has been behind the period in the matter of railway legislation. But we are remedying that every year. We are providing legislation which will have the effect of removing the grievances of which our people complain.
We have passed a railway Bill which is the first effort of a Canadian parliament to provide an effective means by which the public may get redress from railway companies. I am satisfied that the effect of that railway legislation, if administered, as I have no doubt it will be, in the spirit in which it is intended, will be to remove the feeling of distrust against railway companies due to the fact that the people have had unredressed grievances from year to year, and also the sentiment in favour of government ownership due to their belief that if they had to deal with a government their grievances would he more easily redressed. Having decided that we were not going to operate this railway line as .a government system, the question arose which company we should deal with. I have not heard any attack made on the decision of the government to deal with the Grand Trunk Railway ; and inasmuch as that proposition is not attacked, I need not defend it. If we come then to the terms upon which the railway is to be constructed, what criticism can be offered ? My hon. colleague the Finance Minister discussed it in detail last week and so did my hon. friend the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Both showed that the terms upon which the western division is to be constructed practically amounted to this, that we guarantee the bonds, and as security for our guarantee we obtain a first mortgage on a property which is going to cost from $55,000,000 to $00,000,000. We shall have a railway which with its rolling stock will have a value of $55,000,000 at least and inasmuch as our guarantee will not exceed $30,000,000, Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
we will have that guarantee secured by a mortgage on a property of about double the value. That is surely as good a bargain as was possible, and certainly no attempt at detailed criticism has been attempted on the other side.
As to the eastern section we have two alternatives, and I come now to a point where there seems to be a line of cleavage between some hon. members opposite and ourselves. Whether that cleavage exists all the way across the opposition, I am not yet in a position to say. We had in the beginning one proposition and to that proposition there was an alternative. The suggestion was made that we should assist the construction of a lines from the end of the North Bay branch of the Grand Trunk Railway northward and around to the city of Winnipeg and further westward to Fort Simpson. If we had .carried through that scheme, we should have, if they went by the route originally contemplated, about 600 miles of railway on a route practically alongside the Canadian Pacific Railway, or very near to it, which would have been, to ail intents and purposes, absolutely useless except for the purpose of making connections. That, however, was not a necessary incident of the scheme, because they might have gone north to the clay belt and around to the city of Winnipeg without very much increasing the distance. We had, therefore, the project of a railway from North Bfjy west to Fort Simpson, but without eastern connection except that which exists by the Grand Trunk Railway at present.	We declined to agree to
a proposition of that kind.	We declined to assist the Grand Trunk Railway to go westward and build up its business in such a way that, in so far as the winter business is concerned over this line, it would necessarily go to Portland. We declined to assist the Grand Trunk Railway upon those terms, and I would like our hon. friends opposite to say, before this debate is through, whether they support that proposition or not. If they are in favour of it the country has ft right to know it. The country has a right to know whether they support the position we took in that respect or are opposed to it.
We decided on the other plan. We said that we could not agree to that proposition, but would insist on a line being built from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to a central point in the maritime provinces, with tlie result that we will get a road which will open up, for the first 400 miles east of Winnipeg a territory where there is some fertile land and a good deal of timber readily available; a road which then goes through the clay belt of the province of Ontario, which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 or 000 miles long, a road which would furnish the shortest available line to the Canadian seaboard and furnish us. at the same time-and this is a point which,

I think, ought to be marked-with just as short and just as good a road through the provinces of Ontario and Quebec by the communication which will be opened up when the road is built. We have the Quebec to Winnipeg line north of Lake Temis-camingue; and with the connecting line to North Bay and down to Toronto, as short a route from Winnipeg to Toronto as exists at the present time by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or within a few miles of it. Practically, the distance will be the same; according to some scaling the distance is rather in favour of the new line. So, while we have the advantage of the through line, and of a line going through territory that requires settlement, yet. at the same time we have the advantage of just as good and short a route to every town and village in Ontario and Quebec by the old Grand Trunk system. So, we give what our lion, friends say we were going to give in the first instance, the line from North Bay. and we give the other line under conditions which will assure the carrying out the stipulations with regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question in that connection ? He has referred to the through line to Quebec and a branch to North Bay. Has lie made any approximate estimate of how much grain is likely to go by the all-rail route, and how much by the North Bay branch ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am about to deal with that in a few minutes. We are being asked-and that point was referred to by my late colleague (Hon Mr. Blair) in one of the letters he wrote to the Prime Minister-why we build the expensive section of the line from Quebec to Winnipeg ourselves, that is, the government - furnish the money to build the line, but we hand over the western section, the profitable part of the line, to a company to operate. The stating of the argument in that form is an intimation that we are keeping the unprofitable part and losing money on It, and handing over the profitable part to a company to make money out of it. But a cursory examination of the proposition before parliament must show any person that that is the exact opposite of what we really do. It is true we furnish the money to build the eastern section, under financial conditions which I shall not further discuss. But we make it a condition, mark yon, with the Grand Trunk Railway, that if we assist them in the construction of the line of railway westward over the prairies and to the Pacific ocean, they agree to take from us the eastern section and pay three per cent interest on its cost, and that is one of the conditions of the whole enterprise. So, the scheme we place before parliament is a completed scheme, a scheme under which we place the profitable and unprofitable parts under one management, and make it an
enterprise which will not place a burden upon anybody. In no other way could we have so arranged it that the business of the line would be managed in such .fashion as to prevent any burden falling upon us. It is not a case of handing over to the company the profitable part of the line and keeping the unprofitable ; but we bind the two together and make the profit of the whole line pay for the cost of construction of the whole line, so that no loss will rest upon anybody. I have no doubt that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would have preferred to get a good liberal bonus, pretty nearly enough to build the line from North Bay to Winnipeg, without any harassing or embarrassing stipulations as to what they shall do with their traffic, but under conditions, such as railway Companies like, leaving them free to do just as they please. That might have suited the Grand Trunk, but it would not suit the government, and it would not suit the Canadian people-and we are well within the judgment of the people in that respect.
I desire to say a few words in regard to the character of the country through which this Quebec to Winnipeg division is to pass. I shall try to make my remarks on that subject as short and as little tiresome as possible. It has been said! with a good deal of insistence that we do not know much about that country, that the explorations have been few and vague. A good deal of discredit has been thrown upon the official reports of the Ontario government on that country. I never heard before that those reports were unreliable. The reports were brought down to the legislative assembly of Ontario, the Toronto newspapers published excerpts from them and referred in glowing terms to the great domain shown to be owned by the province of Ontario, and congratulated the people of that province upon their possession. Nobody ever heard that these reports were not reliable until this debate opened, and it was found that this government was going to build a railway through that country. Then, suddenly, our friends of the opposition become very sceptical as to the value of these reports. Well, we have some reports which they got themselves, or which the Dominion government at various times have got. I wish to ask hon. members to look at a map which I have here which represents the territory through which the railway will run. The green lines, which hon. members will' see are I pretty numerous, represent the routes of exploring parties of this government which have from time to time passed through that territory. These lines have been traversed by exploring parties of the Geological Survey, to say nothing of the provincial examinations which have been made, and of the surveys and other explorations made from time to time. These lines show that the country lias been traversed from end to end. so that we practically know all about

that country. Thinking this an important point, I have had some definite information collected upon the subject from the reports which are available, and I have here a memorandum prepared under my instructions. I told these officers : Divide the line into twelve sections and tell me the character of the country through which each section passes, from the reports which are available. Sir, we have reports in regard to every one of the twelve sections, showing with a fair and reasonable degree of accuracy what the nature of that country is. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), when he was discussing this question the other night, made use of the following statement with regard to the road north of Lake Superior :
No. It will he built-it must be built-in that section north of the height of land reaching to the plateau which borders Hudson's bay and which, at the verge of the plateau, drops to the extent of three or four hundred feet. Between that drop and the height of land, the land is totally unfit for any purpose known to civilization. a land of low scrubs and unfathomable muskegs crossed by granite ridges.
Let me read to my hon. friend from an official report some facts regarding the character of that country.
In a northwesterly direction from the city of Quebec it is not difficult to reach the St. Maurice. The Lake St. John Railway runs in that direction quite a distance, and from the point near Rivigre h Pierre a northwesterly direction towards La Tongue and Iroquois Chute. Thence to the height of land there are no obstacles of any account, a general level plateau is struck which can be followed in a westerly direction for 800 miles not varying 200 feet in that distance.
That is on the question of grades. The* St. Maurice division ccmes next :
Country less hilly as we proceed towards head waters ^of St. Maurice and Rouge rivers. Good agricultural land in numerous areas, 3,000,000 acres fit for settlement.
This is the part of the country which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier said was no good, and would not enable us to do any colonization work.
Farming by Hamilton Bros., ten miles up the Range river, successful. Well timbered country. Red and white and lack pines, spruce, tamarack and birch. Climate is not any more severe than that of Quebec. Hills disappear at the height of land. At 380 miles from its mouth, the St. Maurice is still a. large river. Above Grand Piles station, last station up the St. Maurice valley, navigation is good for seventy miles. Numerous surveys by Richardson, Ingall. Bouchette and other surveyors and explorers and geologists, have been made.
That is about the worst part of the country, or nearly so.
Division No. 3. the Upper Gatineau.
Above 100 miles from mouth of Gatineau, country is generally level, rocky hills occasionally seen. Soil, sandy loam. Oats, barley, pease, spring and fall wheat under cultivation. Excellent reports from all sources. Timber abun-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
dant. Spruce, balsam, fir, white birch, black birch, white and brown ash, also maple, besides white and red pine. Minerals, nickel, copper, iron, limestone, &c. Water power, excellent. Character of crops grown indicate nature of the climate.
Surveyed by James Richardson, 1870, from Desert river to height of land, head waters of the Gatineau. Head waters of the St. Maurice on to Lake Mistassini, revealed a flat undulating plain, with good flats of farming land throughout the country.
Upper Ottawa division, No. 4.
This division comprises a good portion of the unorganized country of the county of Pontiac. Country generally flat or undulating plain, part of Hudson b'ay basin. The southern portion hilly and rocky. Middle portion, through which the line traverses, is flat and e&sy grade. Soil -large areas of dry clay soil extend around the height of land. Although the district as a whole in its southern portion cannot be said to be suitable for agricultural purposes, still in many places considerable areas of good land are known to exist.
I may say that from the northern slope of the height of land the southern part of the clay belt is well timbered, the waters running down to the northward. The railway Smust run along the northern part of the clay belt if we are to put it in such a position that the timber can be got out. Every man who is familiar with lumbering knows what I mean when I say that the timber can only follow the flow of the river, and the railway must cross the lower region, otherwise the timber cannot be driven down and reach tile railway. A branch railway must go on the northern side of the clay belt so as to take In the lower region of the river and enable the timber to be driven down, so that the large timber resources of file province of Ontario lying along the northern slope of the height of land may he rendered available for commerce.
Timber on the lowlands mostly spruce, tamarack and fir. On the high land, birch, poplar spruce and red pine. The country has been many times surveyed, and traversed by explorers since the early part of last century. Gold, gypsum, lignite, have been discovered.


Mr. CLANCY.: Will the hon. gentleman say what page of the report he is reading from ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am reading an abstract from information in the Geological Survey, which has been made at my request and by my instructions, by Dr. H. M. Ami, a member of the Geological Survey, who will be responsible for the correctness of the information which lie has taken from the official survey.


Robert Laird Borden: The suggestion was that if he would give us the pages of the reference as he goes along, it would be convenient to this side of the House.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot do that for the reason that tin's is collected from a large number of reports in different places ; but I will leave upon the Table of the House what I am reading

from, so that it can be consulted from time to time. I will leave also further references which will give an indication as to where they can he obtained.
Surveys iby the geo-logical surveys of Canada, by the Crown Land Commissioners of Ontario and Quebec, as well as by the officers of the Ontario Bureau of Mines, afford valuable information on the resources of this division, who all state favourably.
Division No. 5. Abbittihbi division.
Minerals-Iron, copper, magnetic iron pyrites and steatite are reported, and inasmuch as the great Huronian belt of metalliferous rocks traverses this region further discoveries are anticipated.
Timber-White and red pine found over the whole region. On the north side of the heignt of land pine trees measure from eight to nine feet iu circumference.
I heard a statement made, 1 think by the hon. member for Hamilton, last night, that there was not any timber up in that country any larger than a man's thigh. We have here an official report which states that there is timber there ranging from eig'lit to nine feet in circumference. Our lion, friends have a very contracted idea of the resources of their own provinces.
Soil and climate-The whole country northward from t-he mou-t-h of the Montreal river *s pretty correctly described as a level clay plain with rocky hills protruding here and there through it. Mark the distinction between this region- and the country south. Clay appears to be uniform throughout the whole region. Several acres of this clay soil are cultivated at the Hudson Bay Company's post at Abbittihbi. All the ordinary cereals cultivated' on the St. Lawrence can be cultivated at Abbittihbi.
I may here mention that in 1896 or 1897 seed which had been sent to a point called Lake Wawanisipi 80 or 90 miles north of 'Lake Abbittihbi by Dr. Robert Bell, of the Geological Survey, was planted and successfully ripened.
Division No. 6, Upper Moose or Mattagaml division.
Character of country-Fine agricultural land, clay and sandy loaim- forms part of great clay basin of Moose river and its numerous tributaries which take their rise near the Canadian Pacific Railway line north of Lakes Huron and Superior, and even south of the line. The head waters of the rivers in this division are well timbered, and the country is well described as an undulating, rolling plain, gently sloping towards James' bay.
Soil is good for farming throughout the greater portion of the country.
Division No. 7, Kabinakagami river division.
Character of country

Generally level plain, slightly inclined to the west, very easy grade, practically level. Soil, Olay for the most part. Land low and1 s-wa-m-py in places, needs drainage. Rolling land, heavily timbered.
Timber-Good spruce, tamarack, banksin pine, poplar, red pine, cedar, reported throughout this division, besides white birch, bal-m of Gilead.
Then we come to division No. 8, the 8tli division out of the twelve into which the line was divided.
Division No. 8, Long Lake division.
Character of the -country-Fine agricultural land. Level and rolling country. Partially dissected plane. Rocky in the southern portion. Flat and generally level along the projected line. Soil-Very -productive. Abundant vegetation everywhere. Good timber.
Division No. 9, Nepigon division (in Thunder bay district of Ontario).
Character of country-In part level and undulating and part rocky. The Nepigon region constitutes a dissected plane. Good agricultural land, clay soil and clay loam and sandy loam. Timber-A little north of Lake Nepigon the country is heavily timbered with spruce, banksin pine, poplar and balsam, with occasional birch, also tamarack.
Then we have sections 10, 11 and 12 at tlie other end of the line, which do not constitute a country which we can call an agricultural country. The last 300 miles, or probably 400 miles, of the line Is iu a country which it cannot be successfully asserted is likely to be a country which will amount to very much as an agricultural country. There are occasional patches of good land along the water-courses, but they are not large in extent. This is a country which is largely timbered, which will produce a very considerable amount of business for many years to come by reason of the fact that the railway, if it is constructed as suggested, will go along on tlie lower reaches of the river and will in that respect be iu an exactly converse position to that occupied by the Canadian Pacific Railway now. The Canadian Pacific Railway, unfortunately for it, in being built from Port Arthur to the Red river, was built in such a way that it runs along just at the southern end of the rivers which run northward and the timber which is situated near tlie head waters of these rivers cannot lie driven to the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, because the flow of the water takes it the other way. The result is that the Canadian Pacific Railway between Port Arthur and Winnipeg practically lias no lumber business at all except what comes to it from the south by way of the Lake of the Woods. The fact that it touches the Lake of the Woods so that American timber that comes from the Rainy river and across the Lake of the Woods can be shipped by it is the only thing that enables it to do any timber business at all. This line that we are proposing to build will go further north and the timber will be driven down the streams and a large business will be created in that way. I do not know that I need say anything more upon that phase of the subject. I have taken the trouble to have this report prepared. because I thought that the House was entitled to something more than mere fragmentary statements in regard to this matter, and that it was entitled to a systematically prepared statement by a responsible officer of the government which would

give us that information and would give it to us in a form that could be relied upon.
We are at issue with our hon. friends on the other side of the House upon an important question of policy in regard to colonization. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier and the hon. member for Lanark have taken the position in this House that in regard to the great and important question of opening up the unsettled portions of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the sound and statesmanlike policy to follow Is to run colonization railways from the older parts of the provinces and they put the position against the position we take when we say that the sound and statesmanlike method of opening up these unsettled portions of the country is to put a through line of railway through those territories so that we shall be enabled by means of that railway to make it at least probable that settlement will take place. Let us understand each other. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier and the hon. member for Lanark, one representing the province of Quebec and the other representing the province of Ontario, the two provinces that are most concerned in regard to this proposition, say that it is wrong because we propose to put a through line through the northern part of Quebec and through the northern part of Ontario, instead of building colonization railways up from the older portions- and stopping there. Stopping in the woods, Stopping nowhere. The policy which is advocated by these hon. gentlemen, if pursued, would, in our judgment, not result in the settlement of that country for many years. I ask the House to compare these two lines of policy. If you cannot do any better in opening up the northern parts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, build a colonization railway up there. It will help. The Temiscamingue Railway is a meritorious enterprise. It will develop the country, slowly, it is true; it will help towards the development of the country, but I ask hon. members of this House to contrast the development that -is likely to take place from two lines of railway, one running from Quebec and the other from Ontario in these respective provinces, to contrast the development that is likely to take place under the policy advocated by my hon. friends with what is likely to take place if we send a transcontinental railway longitudinally through that district, and if we place that district not upon a back street, not away in the woods where nobody can see it, but on the main artery of travel, upon the transcontinental line. When the trade of this line is developed the staff of men who will be required to operate this important railway will be of itself an important nucleus of settlement within that district and the supplies which would be required of one kind or another and the work which gathers Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
around the operation of a great railway will be the very best nucleus of settlement, the very best stimulus, and it is certain that settlement will take place rapidly. I think when the matter is placed before the House there will hardly be any difference of opinion that we will see these northern territories of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec settled much more quick'y under the policy which we propose than under the policy which our hon. friends opposite have adoveated. Then, my hon. friend from Lanark-I was rather surprised at him criticising this scheme-asked: What is to become of my province, the province of Ontario ? I do not know what my hon. friend considers to be a grievance. We have in Ontario a great undeveloped territory, almot an empire, a territory ns long as from Windsor to Montreal and as wide as the fertile portion of the old province of Ontario. We have in the St. Maurice valley in Quebec one million acres of land open for settlement. Ontario is confronted with the task of developing the great territory to the north, she is confronted with an enormous task, a task by which the resources of a provincial government will be taxed in order to carry it out successfully and this government, without asking for a dollar from Ontario, except such; as is her share of the general contribution, inaugurates a scheme to put a transcontinental line of railway right; through the heart of that territory ; yet, my hon. friend from Lanark has nothing to say in regard to that proposition except that there is a grievance on the part of the province of Ontario. If my hon. friend thinks that is a grievance on the part of the province of Ontario-he is generally a man of pretty good sense-I think he will find he has made a mistake this time and I think he will find that the people of Ontario, when he goes out amongst them, will not agree with him in regard to that proposition.
It has been suggested to me at various times that I should make a remark or two about the question of the wheat traffic on this line. Manifestly, Mr. Speaker, no man is called upon to make any definite or specific predictions in regard to the wheat traffic, When the hon. leader of the opposition made the statement the other day that the Canadian Pacific Railway had handled last year forty million bushels of wheat and that only two and a half milliou bushels went all rail, I queried the statement and I made up my mind that my hon. friend had not been properly informed. I took the trouble to telegraph to the grain commissioner to get the figures, and I find that during the last year the total amount of grain from Manitoba and the North-west of all kinds that came east was 45,087,413 bushels, and that the amount that came all rail was 5,823,000 bushels, so that the percentage of the total that went all rail was

12-9 or practically 13 per cent, instead of 2i per cent, as the leader of the opposition has been informed.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say two and a half per cent ; I said six per cent, and these figures I believe are reliable.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The figures given by the commissioner officially to me, show that the amount that went out by rail was 13 per cent. It is difficult to get correct figures in matters of this kind, and I suppose when my hon. friend made the statement that the return which he had got wTas in some sense a partial statement and that he had been misled in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman whether the whole of the 5,500,000 bushels he refers to went north of Lake Superior by the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is not stated. I have simply the returns of what came to the east by rail.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will remember, because he wants to the perfectly fair, that what I was speaking of was the quantity that went by the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior. What is the name of the commissioner who made this statement ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Castle. The statement I have is a statement of the amount of grain that went from the west by rail as compared with the amount that -went by water, and that is the point with which we are concerned and with which we have to deal in connection with this argument. Ntnv, the figures I have given do not include the shipment of flour, and the advantage which wheat has in shipment by water is not applicable to flour in the same degree. 1 find in the Inter-State Commerce Commission report for 1901 (page 13) that the subject is fully discussed, and it is pointed out that when it comes to the shipment of flour, the water route has not the same advantage over the rail route that it has in the shipment of wheat. It is well known by those who ship these commodities, that the water route cannot compete in the same degree with the all rail route in the shipment of flour. I do not think there is a difference of opinion as to that. Now, a very large quantity of flour will be shipped from the Nortli-west Territories and Manitoba as time goes on. I do not think that it ever can be said that any large percentage of the crop will be shipped in the shape of flour, but no doubt an enormous quantity of flour will be shipped, a quantity which will furnish an appreciable traffic for a railway. I find further in connection with these shipments, that there is a very substantial am-272	'	.
ount of wheat that goes from different points by rail as opposed to the water route. 1 will give these figures, not with the object of showing that the facts will be paralleled in connection with the railway we are speaking of. but I will give the information because it bears upon this discussion, and as I think, because it will lead to a certain conclusion in connection with it. From the city of Chicago in the year 1901, 31,523,000 bushels of wheat went by lake and rail, and 13,969,000 bushels went by all rail. In 1902, from the city of Chicago 22,000,000 bushels went by lake and rail, and 8,190,000 bushels went all rail. This will show that the lake and rail route even when most advantageously situated lias not by any means yet a monopoly of the business. Now, let us take the shipments of flour. In the year 1902, 1,0S6,000 barrels of flour went from Chicago by rail and lake, and 4,752,000 barrels went all rail, showing that when it comes to the shipment of flour the railway has a great advantage.
We have some times very indefinite ideas as to what rates could be made by railways when they want to make a good rate, and when they get down to a competition basis and find they cannot get any more. I shall give two or three rates as an illustration of what railways can do. I am not going to say that this new railway will open with a rate of this kind, I am not going to say that this railway will carry all its business on a rate of this kind ; but the railway we are going to build is going to be a good railway ; it is going to be just for the express purpose of carrying heavy loads and giving low rates, and being able to compete with a low rate. Therefore it is proper for us to consider what low rates have been given and can be given on similar commodities as those which we shall haul, in other parts of the continent. I find that the average distance from Kansas city to Chicago by the three roads :	The Santa
Fe, the Burlington, and the Rock Island is 488 miles. By the report of the Inter-State Commerce Commission for 1901 (page 15) there was in the previous year a rate of five cents per hundred pounds between Kansas city and Chicago. If you take the distance from Winnipeg to St. John via the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway you will find that the equivalent rate from Winnipeg to St. John would be 111 cents per bushel, and if they can haul wheat for 111 cents a bushel they can get plenty of it to haul. The Inter-State Commerce Commission report for 1900 (page 22) points out that there had been previously a rate from Buffalo to New York of two and a half cents per bushel. That is not the average rate upon which the wheat is carried, but that was a rate which obtained and under which immense quantities of wheat were carried, and which the railway companies were prepared to maintain if circumstances did not alter. The average distance from Buffalo to New



York by six routes is 443-12 miles, and on this basis the rate from Winnipeg to St. John would be 10-56 cents. Now, to come nearer home, during the past four years the Canada Atlantic Railway has hauled grain from Depot Harbour to Montreal as follows : highest rate four and a half cents; lowest rate two and a quarter cents. There is a break in the route from Depot Harbour to Montreal. It is all rail to Coteau and then there is from 42 to 45 miles of water-carriage to Montreal. This rate is what the Canada Atlantic Company charged to haul it over the all rail route and then tranship it and take it down the 45 miles and deliver it at Montreal. The transhipment and the handling and the carrying for the 43 or 45 miles was certainly as expensive to them as it would have been if they had their own line into Montreal and had taken it through by rail.-I fancy there is no doubt that if they had their own line into Montreal they would prefer to carry it in, rather than tranship it and take it 45 miles by water. The com-paris.u therefore is a fair comparison. The distance from Depot Harbour to Montreal is 38S miles, and as I have said, the Canada Atlantic Railway during the past four years has hauled grain from Depot Harbour to Montreal ; highest, four and a half cents a bushel ; lowest, two and a quarter cents per bushel. If you take the lowest rate of two and a quarter cents, then on that basis the rate from Winnipeg to St. John via the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would be 10-85 per bushel. Now, I want to compare that. I talked with a prominent member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange the day before yesterday, and I asked him, how that 10 85 cent rate would compare with the rates which he is now paying from Winnipeg to New York by lake and rail. He tells me that, taking into account the rate by lake and the rate by rail, and a small additional charge for extra insurance which they have to pay by reason of this mixed carriage, the rate to-day from Winnipeg to New York is 10j cents. And, mark you, if the proposed railway can haul wheat as cheaply as the Canada Atlantic line, it can carry it from Winnipeg to St. John for 10-85 cents per bushel. My hon. friend says in emphatic terms that this railway is not going to haul any wheat. I do not say whether it is or not; but the hon. gentleman must get over these figures before he can convince the public that it is not. They are set forth in the official report, except as regards the Canada Atlantic, which I procured privately, and, as they are in accord with the information received respecting the Canada Atlantic, there can be no question of their accuracy.
When I speak of the traffic which this railway is going to handle, I point to the fact that 1.000 miles of this line from Quebec to Winnipeg are going to be in the province of Ontario and the whole merchandise traffic which now goes by rail from Grand


Clifford Sifton: Trunk points in Ontario and Quebec, except that on the new line west of the city of Quebec, will go via North Bay and Ternis-caming over 1,000 miles of this useless line, and through the fertile clay belt to Winnipeg. In the face of that fact it is childish to talk of this railway having nothing to do. Within a week after the railway is opened, it will be busy hauling merchandise from eastern Canada. Let me call attention to the fact that the distance, as estimated by an expert officer of my department, from Toronto to Winnipeg by way of Chicago and the American lines over which much of the traffic has gone of late years-especially before the last two years, when the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway made some arrangement about taking the freight northward-is 1,400 miles by one line, and 1,304 by another. The distance from Toronto to Winnipeg by way of the Grand Trunk line to North Bay, from there by the Temiscaming line, and around by the projected line, is estimated at 1,171 miles, or some 200 miles shorter than the main route by which the great business was done for many years by way of Chicago. It may be that the estimated length of the new line is a little short. It is difficult to estimate exactly what it will be, but certainly it will not be more than 1,200 miles. If you take the route by the Canadian Pacific Railway from the city of Toronto to Winnipeg, you find that the distance from Toronto to North Bay is 220 miles, and the distance from North Bay to Winnipeg is 1,060, or a total of 1,286 miles, as against 1,200 miles by the projected road. So that, making a fair allowance for deviations, the length of tlie new line will be substantially the same as that of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Therefore, we have the city of Toronto plifeed in communication witli the west by this system as directly as it is now by the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have that competition and its increased facilities established. From the city of Montreal and from the city of Toronto the distances will be practically the same. So that we have these connections established on the most favourable terms.
There is another line of trade to which just one word of reference may be made. It is the cattle trade. I want to call the attention of this House to a fact or two with which I think they are not acquainted, because they are not likely to have ever been brought to their attention. I want to call attention to the fact that one of the great industries of the North-west Territories is grazing cattle, as contrasted with raising cattle. Last year we imported into the North-west Territories no less than 50,000 head of what are called Stockers, that is, young cattle, bought by the ranchers for the purpose of being finished and perfected for the English market. Where did they get them ? They got 25.000 from the good province of Ontario, and our friend Mr. Craw-

ford, tlie Conservative member for one of the Torontos In the provincial legislature, says they have not at present facilities for sending their cattle to the North-west, and he wants the Grand Trunk Pacific built so that they will have more facilities. Where did they get the rest ? They got them from Mexico. Cannot the farmers of the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces raise cattle to supply the stock grazers on the Northwestern plains ? Why, Sir, it only needs to be stated for us to understand what a profitable business it would be for the farmers of the eastern provinces, who can raise cattle, but who are not able, on account of the want of pasture facilities, to finish them for the English market. Here we have 25,000 stockers in one year coming from far away Mexico, because we have not the shipping facilities to take them from eastern Canada. Not only have we not the shipping facilities to take cattle in, but we have not the facilities to take the cattle out; for X find that Mr. J. T. Gordon, in an interview says that his firm had last year to ship no less than 3,000 head by an American line because they could' not get facilities over the Canadian line. And the cattle business in the North-west Territories is simply in its infancy. Last year we shipped out 42,000 head of cattle. That in itself is a pretty substantial business; but it is only a trifle as compared with what is coming. A necessary part of this business is the handling of stockers, and this is a business which the new road will do on an enormous scale, and in which it will be difficult for any other line to compete with it. It will pass through a northern country which will abound with cattle and through which they can be easily and favourably shipped. So we have in that business a large and1 important item, which will prove a great and substantia] source of revenue to the new railway when it is constructed.
I want to say a word or two in regard to the prospects of this enterprise from a financial standpoint ; and I speak as one who has had a considerable personal knowledge of the development of the western country, and of the differences that have been produced in the financial conditions of the railway companies owing to that development. The net profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ending the 30th of June, 1902, were $14,085,000, and last year its net profits were $15,000,000. The company have made of their railway enterprise a magnificent success, and if they were called upon to-morrow to incur the liability to pay back every cent of public subvention which they have received, and all the money which they have received for lands, notwitstanding that, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be a good, sound, and solvent concern. Compared with that enterprise, the route from Quebec to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is a better route. For perhaps one-half of 2721
the way there will be a considerable business, particularly in the line of timber, which will constantly contribute to its revenue. And throughout that district, there are good agricultural lands from which we may expect, within a reasonably near future, a fair amount of traffic. The Canadian Pacific Railway, on the contrary, was built around the north shore of I.ake Superior. It was built through a rocky country which did not then, and does not now, produce a single pound of traffic, and which is difficult to operate on account of its grades and the sharpness of its alignments and curves. The Canadian Pacific Railway along the north shore of Lake Superior is absolutely unproductive. Then speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway line across the prairies, it runs through the very worst portion of the territories: You could not select a line that could be very much worse unless you got right down close to the international boundary. But this new line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will run from Winnipeg to the Mountain pass through a territory, every mile of which is fertile and productive. It is hardly conceivable that such could be the case, yet the information in the possession of the government amply justifies the statement I have made. There is no such fertile stretch of country in the world. Now take the British Columbia part, for some reason best known to themselves, which nobody has ever been able satisfactorily to explain, the Canadian Pacific Railway chose the Kicking Horse pass, which is the worst pass in the whole lot, and it went through a line of territory which perhaps, of ail the different belts that could be opened up through the Rocky mountains is the least productive. And it suffered In consequence. For years it got no traffic, except what its own construction gave, out of that portion which goes through the eastern part of British Columbia. The Grand Trunk Pacific, on the other hand, will go from the Rocky Mountain pass to the coast through as rich a timber and agricultural country as there is in Canada-a country rich in timber, mineral and soil. Then we must not forget that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was projected, there was no movement of settlement from the outside. There were no farmers coming to Canada in 1881 from foreign countries. At any rate their number was inappreciable, and the Canadian Pacific Railway suffered from that fact. That company had dozens of agents out trying to initiate movements of population into our western country but did not succeed to any considerable extent, and for years later there was practically no immigration of any serious volume into tire North-west Territories or upon the lands from which the Canadian Pacific Railway had to draw its traffic. What movement of population there was came almost entirely from the eastern provinces. But what is the position now ? We had an immigration

into the North-west of 125,000 people last year. If it keeps on at that rate for the* next ten years, think what that will mean for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Think of the difference in the position of that company as compared with that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which went travelling on for years and years before there was any appreciable influx of settlers. Let it be remembered also that when the Canadian Pacific Railway started- business, it had no connections with eastern Canada and no way of getting business. What had it to do ? It had to go to Montreal and set to work at an enormous sacrifice to parallel the Grand Trunk Railway by connections all over Canada. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, on the contrary, will start with a magnificent system of connections, ready to open business the very day the road is finished. What does that mean ? It is impossible for us to conceive the difference that will make in the volume of business which the railway company will do. Consider these facts. Consider the prospects of this railway, and ask if there is the slightest reason why any sane, reasonable man should think this company will fail in its obligations to the government.
I have extended my remarks, Mr. Speaker, at much greater length than I had anticipated and must apologize. I have only one point further to call to the attention of the House. We have had in the North-west Territories, ever since this government has been in power, a state of affairs, under which the great bulk of odd-numbered sections of public lands have been held locked up by our obligation to furnish large quantities to railway companies. Many years ago the system was adopted of surveying the country into odd-numbered and even-numbered sections, and of holding the odd-numbered sections for railway purposes, to be given to railways as government land grants. The even-numbered sections were kept as homesteads. We have not been able to deal with the odd-numbered sections in the Territories*or Manitoba, because of the fact that we had large obligations outstanding binding us to furnish certain specified quantities of land to various railway companies, under arrangements made by the previous government. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether that was wise or not, but that was our position. Rut we are now arriving at that position when, I fancy within the next two or three weeks, a final arrangement will be closed, under which the railway companies which have claims for land grants, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, will have those claims finally settled. I am pleased to say that as a result of this, an enormous quantity of odd-numbered sections will come back to the government and be available for disposition in any way which the government may be authorized by parliament to adopt. We shall have no doubt in the neighbourhood of 50,-


John Graham Haggart: 000,000 acres of odd-numbered sections to dispose of in such manner as parliament may authorize. I propose at an early day to submit a measure providing for the disposition of these lands. The first principle will be that the actual settler on an even-numbered section alongside an odd-numbered section shall have the preference' in buying that piece of land at a price to be fixed in the manner provided in the Act. But I would point to the fact that we shall enter upon the business of selling something like 50,000,000 acres of land in the territories in a short time, and if we watch the manner in which the business of selling land by railways and land companies, has been going on, we have no reason to doubt that, if we choose, these lands will be disposed of with some degree of rapidity. What I desire to say is this : There is probably, out of that 50,000,000 of acres of odd-numbered section-the even-numbered sections are kept for the poor man's homestead-20,000,000 or 25,000,000 at present so far removed from communication as to be absolutely of no money value whatever. But in my judgment. within ten years from the time this railway is completed, 20,000,000 acres of land owned by the government at present will have acquired a value at least of .$3 per acre. That is not a thing about which there is any question. We have seen it happen before, and we know it will happen again. I have quoted this to the House to show that, so far from the railway costing the people anything, the fact will be that the enhanced money value of the property of the government will be four times as great as will be necessary to pay for the road. I simply desire to add that whether you consider this scheme in its broad outline, or its comprehensive and careful details, or whether you consider the manner in which it achieves great results with a minimum of cost, I am satisfied it is a scheme which ought -to commend itself to the enthusiastic support of this House.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, some days ago, on the introduction of the Bill, I made some remarks in reference to the question now before the House. I dwelt upon the points of the scheme laid before us as well as I could, considering that I had only had an opportunity to see the Bill after the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who leads the House, had risen to move the first reading. I have had an opportunity since of looking into the whole Bill, and I intend to supplement the remarks I made by a brief statement, as brief as I can make it, of the reasons which induce me to oppose the measure. Before entering upon

a discussion of the general merits of the Bill, however, I may be pardoned if I make reference to statements made by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) and some other hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate. The Minister of the Interior prefaced his remarks with a criticism of the speech of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). I shall go more fully into the history of this measure later on, but, without doing so now, I may refer to one point. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals stated that he had heard of the Bill only a couple of weeks before it was introduced in this House -that is the measure of the Grand Trunk, which was discussed at full length in the committee. He afterwards said he never heard of the proposition to build to Moncton until nearly the middle of the session, and that this was tacked on to the original proposition of the Grand Trunk, which was to build the road from North Bay or Graven-hurst to north of Winnipeg, or to Winnipeg, passing over the prairie section and through the mountains to Port Simpson, and a branch from the main line to Lake Superior. To my astonishment I hear now from the Minister of the Interior that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) had the full proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway before him, and was appointed a member of the sub-committee of the council for the purpose of drafting the Bill which is at present before the House. If the hon. gentleman were a party to the whole scheme, he must have known of this line from Winnipeg to Quebec and Quebec to Moncton. The hon. gentleman gave the most emphatic denial, at any rate, to that j>art which includes the building of the line from Levis to Moncton, The whole proposition arose out of a request of the Grand Trunk Railway for power to extend their road so as to get the trade of the prairie region of our country. To that proposal I do -not suppose there would have been any serious objections by any member of this House. It might be duplicating lines, it might be passing over a section of country over which we are now subsidizing a line, but the feeling of the country was that if any road was to be built into the prairie region, the Grand Trunk Railway should have an opportunity of extending its lines to that country. But, to our astonishment, after the Bill had been delayed from day to day before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, there was tacked on to the proposition of the Grand Trunk a line from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton. The necessity of that road and the probability or the possibility of its being utilized as a commercial undertaking has never been explained. It is evident that, as the first element, if that proposition is to have any chance of success, it must observe the conditions suggested by my hon. friend from North,Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). If that road is to command traffic, it must be a modern road, with easy grades and curves and heavy construction. Over this section of the road we have no survey at all. The possibility, of, if possible, the cost of constructing a modern road through that country has not been explained by any gentleman on the other side. We have had a great deal qf poetic talk about the development of the west, the teeming myriads of people going to settle upon the prairies, the millions of bushels of grain which are to be taken out of that country and poured into the eastern market-but we have had no statement from any authority as to the possibility of building a commercial road through that country. The hon. Minister of the Interior tries to explain the matter. He states that the modern way of building roads is to apply to this House and get a charter and then go into the undertaking. Let me show him the difference between that and the present proposal of the government. It is true there may be a walk over a section of the country. The possibilities of the road may be considered by the incorporators, and they apply to this parliament for a charter for the purpose of building it. But they have had surveys made before they go into the undertaking. In the present instance parliament is asked to grant an enormous sum of money for the construction of a road of which not even a preliminary survey has been made.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me, and the right hon. gentleman when introducing the Bill, tried to show that there was abundant information before the government in reference to this proposed plan. They stated that explorers had gone through the country and had made a partial location, that Sir Sanford Fleming had made an accurate location of that portion from Levis to Moncton which the government propose to construct. I propose first of all to deal with these statements of the right hon gentleman and of the Minister of the Interior. The present distance from Levis to Moncton was stated by the Finance Minister as 497 miles. The estimated distance by Sir Sanford Fleming from Chaudifire to Moncton was nearly 400 miles, or, adding ten per cent for curvature, nearly 440 miles, or a saving of nearly CO miles. He read to the House what he said was information which justified him in adopting this route. He read extracts from a report Sir Sanford Fleming made in 1864 describing the country, but he carefully eliminated from that, any description of the curvature or gradients. The route proposed in the Bill runs from L6vis paralleling the present Intercolonial as far as Rivi6re du Loup, or perhaps Riviere Ouelle. The shortest point of departure on the Intercolonial Railway for the purpose of making a detour to Moncton around the upper part of the state of Maine, would be at a distance of nearly 100 miles

from Levis. Then' the road from Levis to that point 100 miles away must pass at a distance of not more than fifteen miles from the presently constructed Intercolonial. A line from Riviere Ouelle or Riviere du Loup to the boundary of the state of Maine, or to the impassable lakes that lie directly to the north of the state of Maine, would be at a distance less than fifteen miles from the Intercolonial. Then he proposed, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to pass around to Edmundston and from Edmund-ston by a route which he described as passing at or near Cliipman, and thence to Moncton. Sir Sanford Fleming, in his report, shows the absurdity of passing from Edmundston to Moncton. The only possible way of constructing that line is to run down by a road which is at present constructed from Edmundston to Woodstock. When you arrive at Woodstock you must make a turn easterly to a place called Gibson, where there is a road at present constructed, and from Gibson to Chipman and thence to Moncton. If you will take that line and scale it from Point Levis round these points down along the valley of the St. John river at or near Woodstock over towards Gibson, from there by Chipman to Moncton, you will not shorten the distance of tlie present Intercolonial Railway by one mile. In the surveys that were made in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, we all remember that the Grand Trunk Railway had a road constructed to Trois Pistoles, and the New Brunswick government were building tlie European and North American road, and bad it built to Moncton. The Nova Scotia government had a road constructed at that time to Truro. Then these -were the objective points to make a connection between Moncton and Trois Pistoles, Rivi&re du Loup, or Rivi6re Ouelle, cutting off a portion of the Grand Trunk Railway to make connection from Truro to Moncton. This line would constitute nearly an isosceles triangle between these three points. There were numerous surveys made over tlie northern slope of the St. Lawrence for the purpose of finding a route to Moncton. There were numerous surveys made for the purpose of making a connection between Truro and Moncton. After all the surveys were completed, the present line of the Intercolonial was found to be the most practical. Let me read the information procured by Sir Sanford Fleming upon the subject, since tlie Finance Minister and the Prime Minister gave him as an authority for the location of this particular line of road. He says :
An air line drawn from 'Moncton to Rivi&re du Loup passes entirely within British soil, although near Little Falls it comes within two or three miles of the American boundary. This line is 260 miles in length.
Hon. Mr. ROSS, (Victoria, N.S.). What does he say about tlie road from Truro to Moncton ?


John Graham Haggart: 


John Graham Haggart: Truro to Moncton- I beard tlie lion, gentleman speak about that subject. I heard tlie bon. gentleman remark that he could locate it more accurately with his eye. I heard the hon. gentleman state that the engineer told him in conversation that there would have been a better location from Truro to Moncton than the one at present, if it had not been for the powerful influences of Sir Charles Tupper who diverted the line in the direction of Springliill. It is curious that the hon. gentleman did not find it out till seven or eight years afterwards.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Would the hon. gentleman excuse me ? I knew the history of that road and everything connected with it before I had a seat in this House at all.


John Graham Haggart: Tlie hon. gentleman was in the House in 1ST2 and 1S73.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Yes, and in 1867 too.


John Graham Haggart: From 1867 up to that date. The Hon. Sir Charles Tupper whom he accused of diverting the line of tlie Intercolonial Railway to the injury of tlie people of Nova Scotia had no warmer supporter than the hon. member from Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross).
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Again you are wrong.


John Graham Haggart: Notwithstanding tlie accurate engineering eye that the hon. gentleman talks about with which he describes that section of the country, Sir Sanford Fleming reports that the road as at present constructed has the best possible location that could have been decided upon to reach Moncton. Then we have any amount of information, I am glad to say, in the surveys that were made in 1864 as to the practicability of this short line road which was so graphically described by the right lion, leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He says that the day is past when men will travel fifty or sixty miles more than they ought to do for the purpose of reaching an end. We want short line communication, we live in a quick age, we have to pass quickly from one place to another. One would think, then, that there was no difficulty in constructing the road over that section of the country, that it was possible to get a line as the lion. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says at least sixty miles shorter, or as the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emerson) says, 205 miles shorter than the present line of tlie Intercolonial Railway. Let us see what Sir Sanford Fleming says in reference to that. Most accurate surveys were made from Moncton to Edmundston for the purpose, if possible, of getting a quick line of communication between Moncton and Edmundston :

An air line drawn from Moncton to RiviSre du Loup, passes entirely within British soil ; although near Little Palls it comes within two or three miles of the American houndary. This line is 260 miles in length.
He says that the construction of these lines, of' which this is one, is quite impracticable. Then he goes on :
There are many engineering difficulties on each which render it necessary to depart materially from the straight course and if practicable for military reasons the building of an Intercolonial Railway on either of these lines touching as they do near the American frontier is pronounced by military authorities objectionable.
The construction of the line, therefore, is quite impracticable.
. Beginning at Riviere du Loup and following the line laid down at the prescribed distance from the main boundary to the city of St. John, *we find that in passing over the mountainous ridge, which separates the St. Lawrence from the Restigouche, not only is a maximum elevation of nearly 2,000 feet above the sea reached, but the surface passed over is of a very broken character ; minor ridges nearly all crossing the line in a right-angled direction are constantly met with ; these attain elevations ranging from probably 1,000 feet to nearly double that height above the sea and are separated by low lying water channels, of which may be mentioned. Lake Temiscouata, River Toledi, Squa-took lakes, besides the branches of Green river. Several of these waters will not exceed 500 feet above sea level.
It goes on to state that :
The exploration similarly undertaken between the St. Lawrence and the Restigouche during the winter 1863-64, although It added to the information previously gathered, proved unsuccessful in the main object in view.
Here is the report of Sir Sanford Fleming. He gives the elevation for the road. What would the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) think of a railway built in that section of the country on which in some sections seven or eight miles in length there would be no possible gradient under seventy feet to the mile one way and sections with similar gradients for six or seven miles the other way ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: I understand the hon. gentleman is speaking of the survey from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston and down the River St. John ?


John Graham Haggart: I am speaking of the surveys from Riviere du Loup to the Restigouche river. I am speaking also of the surveys from Edmundston over to Moncton. Edmundston must be the objective point of this line of railway. There is no other possible way. From a point fifteen miles south of River Ouelle or Rivifire du Loup it must pass sharply round the state of Maine to Edmundston and go over from Edmundston to Moncton. We were originally told that there was a possible line from Edmundston to Moncton. What I am saying is that Sir Sanford Fleming has shown that that line is totally impracticable, and if you
read this report in full you will see that the only line that he suggests there is a line down the St. John river to a point at or near Woodstock, then turning easterly in the direction of Gibson or to a point opposite. Fredericton, from Fredericton to Chipman and from Chipman to Moncton. The only practicable route that I know of in that section of the country is as long as the line of the present Intercolonial Railway with worse gradients and worse curvatures. Now, we are called upon in this scheme to spend a large sum of money for the purpose, of making this road, according to the idea of the hon. member for North Norfolk, what 1 A first-class freight road with not more than four-tenths per cent gradients or a gradient of about twenty-one feet to the mile. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) stated in his speech yesterday that after having had conversation with Mr. McNicol, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other experts in regard to railway traffic, he was satisfied that with such gradients" it was possible to contend with water communication, and that was one of his reasons for changing his mind in reference to the difference between water communication and all rail comunication. What have we expended on the Intercolonial Railway ? According to the hon. Finance Minister, $68,900,000 to which is to be added the capital account of the present year. According to the hon. Minister of the Interior, $70,000,000 and according to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, the capital account is nearly $72,000,000. What would be the result of building this new road! ? As described by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals from the point of departure it will run parallel with the present Intercolonial Railway to near the River Ouelle. What is the necessity of that ? Then you are building a road for what ? To assist the freight on the Intercolonial Railway ? Will it bring a single ton of freight to the Intercolonial Railway ? No. What would be the result of the building of a sbort line, such as has been described by the right hon. the leader of the government or by the hon. Minister of the Interior ? What would be the result as regards traffic if you were to utilize the Chipman branch, or if the Grand Trunk Railway were to build a new line for the purpose of connecting Chipman with the point thirty-three miles north of St. John where this branch would connect with the Intercolonial Railway? You would utilize the Intercolonial Railway for 33 miles from St. John to Chip-man and you would abandon the rest of it. Not a pound of freight originating in St. John would pass over the old Intercolonial Railway to Ldvis. All that portion of the country through which the Intercolonial Railway runs, Temiscouata, Bonaventure, Matane, &c., would be deprived of efficient railway service. You would not run the same number of passenger or freight trains over the Intercolonial Railway because if yon did

you would be duplicating your service, and so if you build that new railway it means the abandonment of a large portion of the Intercolonial Railway. If your new line is a shorter line with easier gradients, the traffic will go from Halifax to L6vis over it, and vice versa. If your new line to Moncton is all that is promised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, the traffic will go over it, and no wonder that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) protested against the injustice that would be done to the people who have located along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. You will not only destroy a road in which we have invested $70,000,000 on capital account, but you will injure every private individual who has invested along that line of railway. We have accumulated deficits on the Intercolonial Railway for a number of years to) the extent of $1,500,000 a year, if what should be charged to revenue was charged to revenue and not to capital, and now you want to make it so that the people of Canada will have to pay increased deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. A madder scheme never entered into the mind of man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear-, hear.


John Graham Haggart: I do not believe it possible, I do not believe it probable, that when the government get correct surveys they will ever build that portion of the road. Why, the surveys on which the Prime Minister relies prove conclusively that that country is impracticable for a railway ; impracticable Tor a modern railway nowadays. When Sir. Sanford Fleming reported more than thirty years ago, he was talking of a railway which it was possible to use with 70 feet gradients and a greater curvature than is possible on a modern railway. But for a modern railway such as is talked of by the member for North Norfolk, not all the money and the credit that the government possesses could construct it from Moncton to Levis by that route. What would be the use of a road nowadays with 75 'feet gradients going up and five or six miles of similar gradients going down ? Why, you have only to mention it to show the absurdity of this scheme, and the improbability of such a road ever being constructed and used as a commercial highway. The Finance Minister presumes that this section can be constructed for $8,000,000. It can not be constructed for anything of the kind. If the gradients to be observed in the construction of that road are anyway modern, it cannot be constructed for" anything like that amount, and railway construction through a similar country demonstrates it. If such a railway as the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) speaks about were built there, the country would stand aghast at the amount of money it would cost. On the next section of the line we pass over the bridge and into the city of Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
Quebec. We are told that the bridge has contracts at present with half a dozen railways. The Minister of Finance estimates that the share of the transcontinental line in the user of the bridge would be about $2,000,000. I suppose that would be a fair amount. I do not know anything about the cost of construction or the expenditure on that bridge, but if this line uses the bridge I suppose it will have to pay for it, and the assertion is that when the bridge is finished it will cost between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. The Finance Minister estimates it at $4,500,000, and the user by the government railway would perhaps be fairly compensated for by $2,000,000. Then the railway goes from Quebec westerly to Lake Abbittibbi. We have had a wonderful description of that country from the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior has put upon the Table a map showing the routes which his officers have traversed, dividing it into twelve zones, and giving a description of each on the authority of Dr. Ami, an officer of the department. Let me tell the minister, in the first place, that this road from Quebec to Lake Abbittibbi does not pass over the height of land. The height of land drops a little towards Lake Abbittibbi, and the dividing line between the St. Lawrence and the Hudson bay is about the objective point which the road will take. Now, every man who has travelled in the northern section of this country knows it to be diversified with granite ridges, with little lakes in abundance and large lakes in every section. I wish from the bottom of my heart that that section of the country should prove to be the Eldorado which is described by the Prime Minister. It is a most difficult country in which to build a railroad on modern lines-a road equal to the Grand Trunk Railway, a road with modern gradients, . a road with 90-pound rails, a road of that kind through such a country would cost an almost incalculable sum of money. I hope that the minerals that the hon. minister described may be found in that country. I hope that the potentialities of the waterfalls, described by the Minister of Finance, may be applied to modern science ; for the potentialities would need to be vast indeed to make that road any kind of a safe commercial enterprise. I am not decrying the country, and perhaps some of it may be covered with timber which might be of more value than the same number of acres in the most fertile part of Ontario.
I hope, and it is the hope of every man in this country, that minerals of an economic character may be found in that section of country; but we have no information on that subject except the bald statement of the hon. Minister of the Interior that the officers of his department have found on the shore of Lake Abbittibbi, iron, gelena and soapstone or steatite. That is the only information we have on that subject. Pass-

ing westward, from there you cross the height of land, and some of the largest rivers, probably, in the Dominion of Canada. It is not necessary to give their names, but there are seven or eight rivers which it would cost enormous sums to bridge. Continuing westward, you pass another lot of rivers which run into James bay. constituting the sources of the Moose river, most difficult to cross. The Minister of the Interior says there is here a district of arable land capable of sustaining a large population. The statement which I made when the Bill was introduced is the fact- that the granite ridge which occurs in that section of the country extends on the Quebec side up to James bay ; and from that ridge there is a drop of 300 or 400 feet. From James bay to that dip is a distance of only 50 miles. In that section there may be arable land, and it may be a somewhat level country. Having a level so much lower than that of Winnipeg, I think that perhaps the fact of its being so much further north does not count much as to climate; and it may be that in the future that country, as far as Brunswick House, will sustain a large population. Does this railway go near there? It goes .about 50 miles south of Lake Abbittibbi, which is 170 miles from James bay, or 120 miles from tlie nearest fertile land. So that the railway cannot be of the slightest benefit in reaching that particular section of the country. Then, you go westerly across these rivers until you pass to the north of Lake Temiskaming. I believe it is proposed that this railway shall pass 70 miles north of the extension which the government of Ontario are building up to Lake Temagami. What sort of country is it in that direction? We have no report. Are we near the arable plateau of James bay ? No, we are far from it. This road does not run near it at all. It runs between the plateau and the height of land, and over that granite ridge of 300 or 400 feet high, which is continuous in that circle, and through a country which, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister of the Interior, is incapable of sustaining a population; a country of ridges of granite with muskegs between them. The hon. gentleman produces a map here on which you will notice that all the lines run north and south. They are drawn in that way because the man who prepared the map was very careful of his reputation. He divides the country into twelve zones which are made by the tracks of the explorers along the banks of the various rivers. As I have heard from geologists who have been in the country again and again, there is a fringe of wood along each river, which extends for two or three miles on each side of the river; but between that and the next river are impassable morasses and muskegs, which unless drained, are totally unfit for cultivation. Then passing to the north of Lake
Nipissing, we go on to the north shore of Nepigon. There have been surveys made in that section, starting at a point 35 miles north of Lake Nepigon, and going westerly towards the Montreal river and westerly towards Winnipeg. A description of the surveys was in the department. They were made in 1872, but I think the records of them were burned in 1873. However,
I bad the privilege of conversing frequently with engineers who were in that section of the country. A surveyor named Keating had the surveying westerly. The surveyor of the country easterly was named. I think, Thompson. One of the men under him was Mr. Secretan, of this city.' I have had from these men descriptions of that country, and the description I gave in my address a few days ago was strictly accurate. Tlie lion. Minister of Finance and the hon. member for North Norfolk stated that we had surveys from the north of Lake Nepigon westward towards Winnipeg. I stated in an interruption that after passing the north shore of Lake Nepigon, the survey took a southerly direction until it struck the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and went on from that point to Winnipeg. Suppose a line were run westerly to Winnipeg, where would it strike ? We have no description at all. Will it go south of Lake Seul or Lonely Lake and along the shores of English river, or will it adopt the most feasible route, which has been adopted by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Wabigoon to Winnipeg ? A road constructed by the shortest line from the head of Lake Nepigon to Winnipeg would duplicate the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway for 242 miles from Wabigoon to Winnipeg. What would be the use of a road of that kind? The only possible use of it to the Grand Trunk Company would be for the purpose of making a connection with their terminus at North Bay and for building a road from that line to Lake Superior.
Now, the section of the country 1 have been speaking of is without surveys. There is simply a charter for a railway obtained by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. We are asked to enter into an undertaking which will cost an enormous sum of money. Do the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ask for it ? Was it mooted in the request with which they came before this House ? No, they could not get a simple charter for the purpose of obtaining connection with Manitoba and the North-west without being loaded down with the useless undertaking to build a railway from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton. The Minister of the Interior asked : Would you allow them to build a road to the head of Lake Superior ? Would you allow them to build a road for the purpose of making their connections with North Bay ? If you did. what would be the result ? And he turned around and appealed to his followers as he asked this question. The result would be, he

said, that the enormous traffic, which would otherwise go to St. John and Halifax, would pass down to the Gdanr Trunk Railway to Portland. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it would pass down first of all to Montreal, and if Montreal had the accommodation and was the seaport it ought to be-from thence into the ocean steamers. Is it necessary then to load down the undertaking with this useless expenditure ? And all for an idea ! Fancy a man representing the North-west Territories and Manitoba making it a condition, in behalf of Manitoba and the North-west -Territories-a purely patriotic condition-that this expenditure should be incurred because of the possibility of thereby preventing freight going down to Portland and sending it instead to St. John and Halifax ! We have not had a statement from any minister as to the gradients on that road and as to the lines on which they intend to construct it. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said that if we build it, it must be built on commercial principles, up to modern requirements. Is that possible ? Is it possible to build a road from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton on modern principles, or with a gradient of twenty-one feet to the mile ? Has it ever entered into the idea of the ministers what an enormous sum will be required for the construction of that road? Let me give you an instance. Let me take a road, which is comparatively easy for the greater section of it, compared with the one contemplated. I refer to the road from North Bay to Fort William constructed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Well, Sir, that road cost $60,000 per mile. To build a road from the head of Lake Nepi-gon to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to Quebec, of even the character of the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William-which is not a modern road, the gradients on which are fifty-six feet to the mile and more-would cost $60,000 per mile.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Why be so modest ?


John Graham Haggart: What about ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Making such a modest calculation.


John Graham Haggart: I am giving the facts. Does the hon. gentleman contradict them ? Does he know that my statement is incorrect ? I am giving it on the authority of parties who are at present on the road and are running the Canadian Pacific Railway, that that section from North Bay to Fort William cost them $60,000 per mile. But suppose we take the statement of the Finance Minister or of the right hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill, that the cost will be $35,000 per mile. Is there any justification even for that expenditure ? Of what practicable utility will be that road V Can any sane man tell me that there will be a carload of wheat taken from Winnipeg to St. John ? The hon. the Minister of the Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
Interior gave half a dozen instances of railways carrying grain to Chicago. He gave the distance and the rate per bushel, and applying the same calculation to a railway constructed from Winnipeg to St. John, he said we will be able to carry wheat from Winnipeg to St. John for ten cents per bushel. I am not sure whether he did not say ten cents per hundred pounds, but he certainly said ten cents per bushel. Well, take the cost of carrying wheat from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. The distance by the Canadian Pacific Railway is 420 miles, and by the Canadian Northern Railway it is about 439 miles. The Manitoba government passed an order in council reducing the rate for the carriage of wheat from Winnipeg to Lake Superior to ten cents per hundred pounds. A modern car has a freight capacity of about 60,000 pounds, which would mean for the carrying of a car of wheat from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior, $60. Add to that the cost of bringing back the car, as it would not use more than one-third its freight capacity on the return trip. Take one-third off, 420 miles, and add the balance to 420, and you will have 700 miles. They are therefore carrying a carload at present 700 miles for about sixty dollars. That is the cheapest rate at which it is possible to carry it, and I do not believe that either the Northern or the Canadian Pacific Railway are able to realize any profit at that rate. You pay about six cents per bushel from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior ; you pay one-and-a-quar-ter to Midland ; you pay, as the Minister of the Interior said a short time ago. from two and a quarter cents up to three and a-half cents, and as much as four cents from Midland to Montreal. What would it take from there to Quebec ? A very little sum of money. Is it possible then that any railway can be constructed from Winnipeg to Quebec which would compete with that route ? If carriage by rail is cheaper than carriage by water, why is it that 45.000,000 bushels of wheat go by water from Chicago to Buffalo ? Why do not they send it by rail ? The distance is two and a half times greater by -water than by rail. They send it by water for the simple reason that railways, even with the most modern appliances and gradients cannot compete with a water navigation. If you want to utilize the surplus products of the North-west and Manitoba by shipping them through your own territory, the seaport of the North-west and Manitoba is the head of Lake Superior. Utilize your means of communication from Port Arthur down through the St. Lawrence canals. If the St. Lawrence canals are not adequate for the purpose, the money you are about to spend in this useless undertaking would give us all the water communications we require. The Georgian Bay canal project, I believe, is the best. By that system of communication from the Ottawa river and Lake Nipissing to Montreal, you

would Lave a system equal to that from Lake Superior down to Buffalo and Chicago and the other American ports. I am with the right lion, gentleman to this extent, that 1 believe with him that the country is on the top wave of prosperity, and there is a feeling amongst the people that this is the propitious time for the development of our resources. There is a feeling in the country that we are lagging behind in the race, and that, to use the expression of the right hon. gentleman, we are, compared with our rivals to the south, like the toad under the harrow.	'
The people feel that now is the time to develop, as quickly as possible the resources of this immense country, looking to the day when we shall be an independent nation not dependent on any people or any country on the face of the Globe, when we have a population of twenty or twenty-five million. But the right hon. gentleman has not seized his opportunity, he has not brought forward the policy by which that opportunity may be improved. As I said, we duplicate the Canadian Pacific Railway from Wabigoon to Winnipeg. And then, in order that the Grand Trunk may carry their scheme into practical effect they must have a road to the head of Lake Superior. Why do they not abandon that idea if they intend to bring the surplus products of Manitoba and the North-west to the Atlantic seaboard by rail? They know that they would not be in the race if they did not use the modern means of communication by bringing the grain to our seaport at the head of Lake Superior, there to be shipped to the place of consumption in the eastern world. It is a necessity for them to have this connection at the head of Lake Superior. West of Winnipeg, for the purpose of opening up those fertile plains described so graphically by the Minister of the Interior, we assist them to build a line through a country to cover which with a line of railway we have already arranged to loan $9,000,000. In building from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, this line will go to Edmonton. Why dupulicate the line which has already been assisted ? Where is the necessity for having two lines of railway between Winnipeg and Edmonton ? There is none whatever. The extension of the road from Edmonton to Port Simpson will develop the country. I hope to see developed upon the Pacific, not merely the harbours of Victoria and Vancouver, but also that of Port Simpson, and to see those harbours thronged with ships bearing the products of the east to be exchanged for the products of our country. It may be that for seven or even for ten years that section may not pay, but eventually it will pay, and it will not only greatly help the development of the North-west, but it will benefit the whole country. No man on this side of the House has opposed such a proposition. Never lias a Liberal-Conservative party failed in its faith in the country. Ours is the party that
built up the country, and we have never opposed even a lavish expenditure where that expenditure carried" with it a reasonable hope of benefit for Canada. But I fail to see a scintilla of evidence that the eastern portion of this road proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister will be of any use. It would have been a gratification to my old leader the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, could he have been present and heard the praise bestowed by lion, gentlemen opposite upon his policy which in his lifetime they condemned ; to hear his acts cited as examples and excuses for the government of the present day ; to find that in everything he is imitated by the very men who did the best they could to thwart his aims and to make impossible the carrying out of this policy. Everything that the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his friends condemned when we were in power and they were in opposition, is being adopted by them to-day, even to the policy of protection which for so long they resisted and denounced. But tlie lion, member for North Norfolk while lie praised the acts of the late Sir John Macdonald, could not resist criticising them almost in the same breath. He couid not resist having a fling at the Canadian racific Railway and the terms under which it was built. He condemned the scheme of Sir John Macdonald in regard to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway as extravagant. But he forgot to say that his own friends, when in power in 1S74, put upon the statute-book of this country a proposition to build that road on terms far more extravagant than those which were afterwards secured by the Conservative gc\ -eminent. They offered $10,000 a mile to begin with, the contractors to receive a sum per mile in excess of that amount which sum was to be agreed upon and to be paid in twenty-five years with interest at four per cent. Besides this the contractors were to have 20,000 acres of land per mile. But the hon. member for North Norfolk forgot to mention that. In his estimate of what the Canadian Pacific Railway, as built by the Conservatives had actually cost, he estimated $62,000,000 in cash and railway works completed, and he took the land grant as being worth $5 or $0 per acre some very high figure


Mahlon K. Cowan: Three dollars an acre.


John Graham Haggart: Yes-$60.000 per mile, and added this to the $62,000,000 given to the construction of the road. Why, when this land grant was given it was worth no such sum as that. It is useless, valueless, without railway communication. We bought the whole country for somewhere in the region of a million dollars


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A million and a half-three hundred thousand pounds sterling.


John Graham Haggart: Yet, though the land was worth nothing until the road was

built, the hon. gentleman lias estimated it at tile price which it might afterwards have brought. He forgot to say also that the Canadian Pacific Railway are taking from the Canadian government as part of their land grant nearly 2,000,000 acres of land in a country which was arid, upon which hardly a blade of grass would grow, Intending to spend some $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 in irrigating it, and so giving it value and making it useful. In giving a land grant, we were doing exactly what the people in the United States did-giving a part of the land in order to have it all developed. We did it successfully. The Finance Minister did not say a word about it, he did not say one word finding fault with giving the land for the purpose of building that magnificent work of which we are all so proud.
Now, I may be asked, What scheme do you propose? We are told that the people of Canada are ambitious, that we are on the top of the wave of prosperity, that we are anxious to develop every section of the country. In my opinion, the transportation question is the most important one to settle. Cheap means of communication are essential to our development. I may be asked: What scheme do you propose instead of that submitted by the right hon. gentleman. There are a great many propositions, but none of them involve the absurdity of the proposition of building a line from Winnipeg to Quebec and Quebec to Moncton. It is alleged that we need to do justice to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which has been a great benefit to the country, and has expended large sums of money for which its stockholders have received no return. If it is necessary to give that company an opening to the North-west, if it is necessary, as northwestern men say, to correct what they allege are excessive rates, for goodness sake, let us adopt a sensible plan instead of that proposed by the right hon. gentleman. Let it be left to experts to decide upon which is the best plan and most likely to develop our resources. Let us have some engineer to report upon the subject. Let us not go into this enterprise without any figures, without a single survey, without any technical knowledge of the country. Let us, before making this jump, obtain the fullest possible information. If the Grand Trunk people wanted to get into that section of country, their first proposition was the most sensible one, namely, the extension of the Ontario system of railways to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to Port Simpson. I think the company's proposition had some merits to commend it, but the government loaded them down for no other reason but political reasons. Why did they force the Grand Trunk Railway Company, if they wanted to go in and develop Manitoba and the North-west, to build a railway to Quebec? Wliy did they force them to take over the Quebec bridge? Why did they Hon. Mr. H AGO ART.
force them to build useless lines of railway in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? Do the company want to do so? Is it in the interest of the people of the North-west ? No, the people of Manitoba want to get the highest possible price for their grain, they want the cheapest possible mode of carriage for their wheat to the point of consumption. They do not want to load down the people of this country with the enormous debt which is proposed by the right hon. gentleman. Wbat is the debt? The distance from L&vis to Moncton, ns stated by the Prime Minister, is 425 miles.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: He estimated it at 400 miles, not 425.


John Graham Haggart: But he added the curvature, and his statement was that from Ohaudiere Junction, giving what he called a liberal estimate, it was 425 miles. Estimating the cost at $35,000 per mile, you get $15,000,000. The distance from Quebec to Winnipeg is 1,400 miles, and estimating the cost at $35,000 a mile, you get a total amount of $49,000,000. Then there was the little calculation in reference to interest that has to be paid on cost of construction. When I made a statement the other day, I had not read the articles of agreement, I thought the government would pay interest on the money during the construction of the road, and that that was an expenditure not to be calculated in the amount of 3 per cent to be chai'ged to the company. I find upon looking at the agreement that the debentures are issued and guaranteed by the government ns the road is constructed, and that the company become liable for the 3 per cent on the expenditure on the eastern section from the time the government pay over the money. That was the statement of the Minister of the Interior to-day when he corrected me in my calculation. Take the calculation of the Finance Minister. Making a moderate estimate of $35.-0C0 per mile for both of these sections, it amounts to an expenditure of $50,000,000. They have to pay interest. Never mind about our glorious surplus of $15,000,000. By making an actuarial calculation and applying that money we have in hand at; the rate of 3 per cent or 34 per cent interest, what will it amount to? The Finance Minister forgot that he lost interest on it from the time of payment to the time that he expended the money. There is 3 per cent upon $49,000,000.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You are wrong. He allowed for that.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know what the hon. gentleman says ?


Mr. WADE.: He included the interest in his calculation ?


John Graham Haggart: The three per cent payable by the company commences seven
8C97

years after the construction or the handing over of the work and after the company commences to operate. Then, for seven years we have to pay interest on the amount ourselves. During the next three years if the company earn the amount they are obliged to pay the interest, but if they do not earn it, the unpaid interest for three years is capitalized at three per cent. Then the lion. Minister of Finance calculates the distance in the mountain section to be about 450 miles which, at $30,000 per mile, would cost $13,500,000. For seven years we pay upon that amount. We pay the full amount of the expenditure for the purpose of constructing the road from Winnipeg to- Quebec, we pay the full amount of the expenditure for the construction of the road from Quebec to Moncton, we hand the road over to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and pay the interest upon the cost of construction for seven years, and if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are not able to pay the interest during the three years succeeding the seven years term, we add that to the capital account and charge them three per cent upon it. How that obligation is going to cost the people of this country $13,000,000 or $15,000,000 is the most extraordinary tiling I ever heard of. Surely we are expending the money in the construction of the road. We pay out the money for the interest upon it for seven years and these sums of money put together will impose an obligation upon us, as I calculate it and as it is calculated by the hon. Minister of Finance, of $70,000,000. Then, for the purpose of gratifying the people of Quebec who do not really want the road, which will be of no public utility to them, and for the purpose of expending $15,000,000 in the province of New Brunswick we are called upon to add to the debt of this country in the next seven or ten years an amount equal to more than $75,000,000. I will venture to say that when the road is completed you will find that the sum of money expended for the purpose of carrying out this contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will not be $75,000,000 because, as I said before, it is impossible that the road can be constructed for that amount. Having the experience and the knowledge that we have at present as to what roads cost in that section of the country and knowing that the expenditure of the Canadian Facific Railway for the construction of the road from North Bay to Fort William was $00,000 per mile, I do not think it is possible to leave that road in the first-class condition which it is proposed to do with ordinary gradients, not gradients of twenty-one feet to the mile, but ordinary gradients of fifty-two feet to the mile, for less than $125,000.000. What could we do with an expenditure of $125,000,000 ? What works for the development of the country could we construct with that money ? We could have a road, as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
originally proposed built to Fort Simpson. We could have our waterways enlarged to meet modern requirements which call for a depth of twenty feet, we could have the Georgian Bay canal built, we could have communication between the port of Montreal and tlie city of Quebec and the whole navigation of the St. Lawrence put in first-class condition. I will leave it to the people of this country to say which they prefer. If it is the question of transportation that is first in the minds of the people, if that is the all absorbing question, if it is a question as to what will tend to the development of this country more than anything else, seizing the present moment and making, if you like, a lavish expenditure for the purpose of developing the country upon the lines I propose will accomplish more to render the resources of Canada available than anything else. Cheap transportation will divert the trade of any country from one road to another. We have the experience of the United States. A half a cent a bushel will divert the trade from New York to Baltimore, or to Philadelphia, or to Boston. The expenditure for the building of the Georgian Bay canal would be justified by the results, the parties who Built the canal would get a good return for their investment and you would be enabled to transport to Montreal wheat delivered at Fort William or Port Arthur for five cents per bushel which is nearly the present rate. The whole scheme of transportation ought to be thought out. The government of the country ought to appoint their experts for the purpose of doing it. They ought not to jump in with wild cat schemes for the purpose of developing the country as they pretend it is for that purpose, but there ought to be a thorough investigation, first, to ascertain what the results of any such scheme would be. I am confident that if a commission of experts, men who have studied the question, commercial men, engineers, looked into this proposition not a single man from one end of the country to another would be in favour of the scheme as proposed by the right hon. the leader of the government. We are told that boards of trade are petitioning in favour of it, that the Board of Trade of Toronto and the Board of Trade of Halifax have petitioned for it. I have a great deal of respect for the boards of trade but I have more respect for the intelligence of the people of this country either as exemplified by representatives on this side of the House or by the right hon. gentleman and his supporters on the other side of the House. I have a great deal of respect for boards of trade. Is there any feeling in the country in favour of this proposition Was there any agitation in the country in favour of it ? The hon. Minister of the'Interior read letters in favour of it. I could read letters' to the contrary. He quoted partial remarks by newspapers and he quoted my hon. friend from East Grey

(Mr. Spi'oule) as a supporter of transcontinental roads. He quoted my hon. friend from East Grey as saying that it would require fifteen or sixteen transcontinental roads in the prairie section of the country. What the hon. gentleman said was that to meet the requirements of the people of that section of the country and to carry out their grain in a couple of months it would require fifteen or sixteen transcontinental roads. Do they require anything of the kind ? For the purpose of the trade of that country it would be sufficient to erect elevators in the different sections of the country and large elevators at the ports on Lake Superior at which the grain is received to be shipped out for consumption in foreign countries. That is the proper system to adopt. No railway will put upon its road rolling stock sufficient to move the whole crop of the country in two or three months. It would pay no company in the world. If there was proper rolling stock, and if the elevators were sufficient to store the grain, there is sufficient railway accommodation in that section of the. country at present. The commercial requirements of that country when they arise will be satisfied by railroads which are in existence, and by other railroads which will be developed by the people themselves. There is no necessity for the government entering into such a project, it may be necessary to develop new parts of the country to build railways, but there is no part of the Dominion so well served with railways now as Manitoba and the North-west. I venture to say that there is not 1,000,000 bushels available for sale in that section of the country which has not at present been carried by railroads to the point of shipment. The Minister of the Interior said that the Montreal ' Gazette ' had stated that it was in favour of a line from North Bay to the Pacific, with such branches as the company thought it commercially wise to construct, and that the ' Gazette ' stated that no one would have successfully attacked such a proposition. The Minister of the Interior gave that ns the opinion of one of the leading commercial papers of Canada, the Montreal ' Gazette,' in favour of this scheme, but he forgot to read this portion of the 'Gazette's' article :
This wild project should be dropped until there is time to find out what it means in the country financially and when that Is made plain and thought over by prudent men it will be probably dropped altogether. It is to be regretted that the Grand Trunk project has had these political features appended to It.
That is exactly the view of a great many members on this side of the House. The Grand Trunk Railway came to parliament with a plain commercial proposition. They were anxious to enter into the North-west to compete for the carrying of the immense products of that fertile country. They came with a proposition of their own, but for Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
political reasons, and for political reasons alone, they are loaded down with two useless propositions, namely, the road to Quebec and the road to Moncton. I hope yet that the right hon. gentleman will drop the scheme. I appeal to him not to risk the financial position of the country in an expenditure so ridiculous. If the country north of Quebec has the resources lie thinks, let us develop it as we have been developing it in the past, and as Ontario has been developing the Temagami district ; let us develop it locally toy roads through that section of the country. I have proved conclusively that there is no necessity for this road in New Brunswick. It is a useless appendage. It is a destruction of property at present owned by the government of the country. It will entail on us a loss of nearly $00,000,000 out of the $72,000,000 we have invested in the Intercolonial Railway. You are destroying one portion of your property by erecting a new property. You are giving no better line to accommodate the commerce of the country. Your scheme is ridiculous.
The Minister of the Interior talked about other railways having running rights over this line. The ex-Minister of Railways fully showed the absurdity of that. One would think it was a new power that was given to railroads. Why, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council can grant running powers to any railroad In Canada on any other railroad. What was the object of putting it In this charter and agreement, when it is in the law of the land already ? And yet, the Minister of the Interior told us that the agreement would never have been signed if that clause were not in it. As tlie Minister of Finance truly said, this power may he used as a lever for the purpose of making proper freight arrangements; witli other' roads. It enables a company that lias running powers over another road to make satisfactory arrangements for the carrying of their freight or the exchange of traffic.


Mr. DAVIS.: Have we the power to grant running rights over tlie main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to another company ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Under the contract ?


John Graham Haggart: You have it in tlie statute, and it is embodied in the new Railway Bill. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council have the power to grant running rights over any road in Canada to any other road on such conditions as they think right and equitable, and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council lias frequently exercised that power. _ Independent of that, some railroads have it in their charters. You will find it in the new Railway Commission Bill.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The new Railway Commission Bill does not interfere in any way with

the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It does not claim to interfere with their freight rates.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no doubt about that-on hired rolling stock.


John Graham Haggart: Why could not the whole stoek_.be hired ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not want to interrupt my kon. friend, but if he will refer to section 35 he will see at a glance that it is not possible for the whole of the rolling stock to be hired.


John Graham Haggart: I read that: 'A mortgage which shall be a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property.' That is the only equipment that may belong to this company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If it belongs to the company my hon. friend speaks of, how could the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway give a first charge on it?


John Graham Haggart: Will they be conforming with the conditions of this contract if they lease this equipment and put it on the road?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not for the $20,000,000 of equipment.


John Graham Haggart: Not to the extent of the $5,000,000?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not to the extent of $20,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: Then, I would judge from what has been said by the exMinister of Railways and Canals that they can do it to the extent of $15,000,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They must be in a position to give on that $20,000,000 of equipment a first charge to the government. They may get the property as they choose, so long as it is once on the road, it is liable to the first charge of the government.


Mr. GOURLEY.: How could it be unless they owned it?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the answer.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: You are putting a supposititious case.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If I am the owner of equipment or rolling stock and lease it to a company and agree to waive my charge in favour of the government, I have a perfect right to do it. It is a very simple thing.
Mr. GOURLEY'. But the owner would not waive it.


John Graham Haggart: Then we are to understand from the Minister of Justice that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have to put $20,000,000 worth of equipment on that road free from any mortgage, lien or anything else to any other company. If not. I am correct in my statement that they need not put on one cent of rolling stock


John Graham Haggart: except the $5,000,000 worth which will be liable to the government lien.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend be correct, then the contract is badly drawn. That was not the intention of the parties.


John Graham Haggart: The intention of the parties is another thing. The Minister of Justice says that under this clause the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway or transcontinental railway, have to put $20,000,000 worth of stock upon that road, which will go. without any other incumbrance, as security to the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is right.


John Graham Haggart: I am glad to hear that such is the case, because that is a further security for the expenditure of $13,000 per mile and $30,000 per mile. I have no doubt that that was the intention, but I doubt very much whether the agreement covers it. We may take it for granted that the Grand Trunk Railway are obliged to put $20,0000,000 of stock upon the road, which will be security to the government for the loan of $13,000 per mile from the prairie section to Winnipeg and the loan of $30,000 per mile upon the mountain section. Then I see another clause- which provides that $24,000,000 of common stock, shall be taken by the Grand Trunk Railway, for which they may not pay a dollar, and be held by it as security for any advance or any endorsation or any agreement which they enter into. They get that stock for nothing, and it may be necessary to be held by them for the purpose of controlling the stockholders of the transcontinental railway. I hope that the government will take proper means to see that every dollar the company expends is accurately shown, so that the government guarantee will not cover more than 75 per cent. But that is a very difficult undertaking, for we know how railway companies and contractors whip the devil around the post, to use a popular expression. The government have no security at ail that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will carry out its agreement except the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway. The hon. Minister of Finance has said that the old Grand Trunk Railway, with its enormous properties, with its assets to the extent of $250,000,000, is at the back of the concern. Weil, the obligation of the Grand Trunk Railway to the government of this country is to be valued by the measure of the Grand Trunk Railway stock. What does it sell for in the market? Does this bargain have a preference over the stockholders, the debenture-holders, and the bondholders? Not at all. You have no security, therefore, with reference to any part of this agreement. All you have is the promise of the Grand Trunk Railway, whatever the value of that may be. Long

ago we advanced a sum of money for the purpose of constructing the old Grand Trunk Railway, which that company was to return. Our claim was superior to everything else on the road, but we found it necessary to put it behind all the other securities except the common stock. To-day the Grand Trunk Railway owe the people of this country a sum, with interest, in the neighbourhood of $30,000,000. That sum we never intend to collect. It is a virtual gift ito the Grand Trunk Railway. We could not collect it if we wanted to, and might just as well make it a present. If we could not collect this sum, of what value is the promise of the Grand Trunk Railway ? I hope and expect that the Grand Trunk Railway will carry out its agreement. It has an' excellent agreement. It will have a road from Quebec to Winnipeg which will cost it nothing for the first ten years and from Quebec to Moncton, and it will have nearly all the money required for the construction of the prairie and mountain sections. All it will have to raise is sufficient money to build a branch from its main line to Lake Superior, and I suppose it may build a line to North Bay, or it may connect with the Temiscamingue road, which is being built by the Ontario government. That portion of it is a good investment. I think they will have no trouble in raising money on the security of that portion of the road from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. I hope the Grand Trunk will be in a position to carry out that part of their contract. Their original proposition for a connection with their Ontario system and the making of a transcontinental road in that way would, I believe, have been in the interest of the country. But, I must protest, as I said before, against the enormous expenditure into which the government seeks to force us. My hope is that when the engineering parties examine the New Brunswick section and the Quebec section, their reports of the cost of building a commercial road there will be so alarming that the government will be compelled to back out of that portion of the scheme. And, if that should occur, I am sure that none will be more rejoiced than the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It would take two years to locate the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, before a dollar can be spent in construction. Hon. gentlemen speak of having the road built within five years after it is located. If the expenditure is to be in the neighbourhood of $35,000 per mile, and if the work is to be carried on under government supervision in a country where they can only commence the work at the two ends- taking the supplies up the Canadian Pacific and commencing construction near the Montreal river, and, on the other hand commencing construction at Quebec-it will require, under the system of contracts and with the contractors which the government can employ, not less than seven ygars to 273
build that section of the road. So, it will be nine years and possibly more before the road will be in a condition to be handed over as part of the Grand Trunk transcontinental line. Interest must be paid on the money used on construction during that time. The parts that are built must be kept up, and, if possible, used. It is an enormous undertaking ; and, as I have said, I hope the the government, on looking into it, will grow alarmed and that the road will not be built. And when the facts are known to parliament and to the people of this country, I feel sure they will never allow such a gigantic expenditure for so useless a purpose.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, I should be loath to interject myself in this discussion after the very able and exhaustive speeches to which we have listened, were it not that I come from a province that has been represented for a long time in the councils of the country by the gentleman who has the leadership of the criticism of the project, now before the House. And I would the more hesitate to take part on account of the fact that that lion, member has been for many years my political leader, not merely in the arena of Dominion politics, but in the more restricted arena of provincial politics in the province of New Brunswick. However, I must deal with this question. I trust I shall deal witli it briefly, and I hope to deal with it on broad national lines. I shall endeavour to deal with it from the standpoint of Canada and not merely from the standpoint of the province from which I come. And, in so dealing with it, I shall not have reference to persons, except in so far as they may have relation to facts stated, principles enunciated and conclusions drawn. We are told that this scheme has been precipitated upon the country, that it has been forced headlong into the arena. I think that before dealing with that, I should, for a moment, refer to the speech of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) on that question of precipitation, I shall be called upon to cite one exMinister of Railways and Canals against another ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. It will be a case of the city of St. John vs. the riding of South Lanark. We have listened to a long, a somewhat long, discussion of this subject by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). In arising to address the House that hon. gentleman said he proposed to briefly give his reasons for opposing the Bill. I would not wish to say anything derogatory of that hon. gentleman, but I am sure that his speech showed a poverty of argument, while it was resplendent with affirmation and assertion. [DOT] On the question of precipitation, at the very outset I would invite the attention of hon. members to a speech delievered by the hon. gentleman himself. We are told that there should have been delay, that



there should have been deliberation, and then more deliberation, that the country is not prepared for this scheme, that parliament receives it' unprepared, and that the scheme itself has not been matured as it should have been before being brought before the House. In the speech to which I refer, delivered in this House on the 26th of May last, the hon. member for South Lanark made this statement:
The Grand Trunk Railway has done a great deal towards the development of this country, and the stockholders of that concern have had m but meagre return on the amount they have ' invested. Anything the Canadian people can do in return for the great benefits that that company has yielded to this country ought to be done, other things being equal. If they propose to build a road which will open up a new territory in the North-west and make a connecting line with Quehc, I would rather see it assisted than any other scheme I hear proposed.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I rise to a point of order, the hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate. The Prime Minister applies that rule every time he gets an opportunity to lion, gentlemen on this side of the House, and I ask that you apply it now.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The rule is well known to the House that no bon. member can quote from a previous debate. We are all quite conversant with that rule.


John Graham Haggart: Would you allow him nevertheless to go on and make his quotations ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it would save time if I were permitted to read the extracts which I have before me, they are iu print. Perhaps I could state from recollection what the hon. gentleman said, but as he has given me permission, I will read it, because it will recall to his mind what he did say, and said very well at that time.
There is no necessity for a commission as to railways. That commission might have been appointed before this session and the government might have formulated some policy, because now is the time to formulate a policy and to build the works that are necessary. The day of depression may come within a year or t.wo, because this country cannot always be in the position which it is at present, and it should take advantage of the tide. A few years is a great deal in the history of a country, as it is in the history of a manufacturing enterprise We should take advantage of the opportunity at the present time to divert the traffic into this section of the country while the routes are being formed, because once you have traffic going in a certain direction it is almost impossible to turn it into another channel. Take advantage of the present tide in our favour. Canada is in a better position now than she will be for a number of years to come to adopt a definite transportation policy, because'this is a state of affairs that cannot continue for a number of years. Take advantage of the present, formulate some policy which is destined to build up this country, take advantage of the opportunity which nature has afforded us, because we are now in the best possible position to secure for ourselves a place amongst the foremost peoples on the face of the globe.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I might also say that those words uttered by my hon. friend from South Lanark were the very words which were uttered by the right hon. leader of this House, in his speech explaining the scheme now before the House. Another extract which I am sure will he of interest to the House, is this :
My opinion is that if the government should decide to give any assistance for that purpose, the company which is entitled to the preference is the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That company has done a great deal to open up this country, they have spent a great deal of money, and have received very little returns for it. it may be the fault of the mangement of the company, but the fact remains that for the vast sums of money which that company has invested and which have had the effect of developing this country more than any other railway except the Canadian Pacific Railway, it has received very little return in the way of profits. I think the policy of the government should he to have this road built as far north as possible, to pass as r.ear as possible to the height of land in order to tap a region of country which has- not been opened up at present.
These words uttered by my hon. friend were prophetic. Little did he realize then that the government perhaps had under consideration just such a policy as he approved of, just such a policy as he deemed in the interest of the country. To-night we have listened to him discussing, first the section between Quebec and Moncton, and then the section between Quebec and Winnipeg. At that very time the Railway Committee were discussing the very scheme which is involved in this Bill. There was involved the completion of a railway from Quebec to Winnipeg, and my hon. friend, by his then spoken words, approved of that policy, the policy which has since been adopted by this government. It is true the hon. gentleman has taken exception to that portion of the scheme between the city of Quebec and the city of Moncton. He has done so in a very laboured way, I am bound to say, a'nd, lie lias done so, it seems to me, on false-premises. In the first place, he has called to his assistance certain statements made by Sir Sanford Fleming, issued in 1804, and be lias endeavoured to show that these reports confirm him in his objections to the route which is now proposed. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the route between Moncton and Quebec is a line of railway which extends back from Levis to Edmundston. then down the River St. John, to about tlie centre of the province, and then, down one of the tributaries of the Miramlchi, crossing the Nashwaak river, and thence on to Chip-man and to Moncton. My hon. friend has stated here that according to the report and survey of Sir Sanford Fleming the line thus traversed was one that, to use his own words, would not be one mile shorter, that is, the distance between Levis and Moncton would not be one mile shorter by that route than the distance between Levis, or Quebec, and Moncton by the Intercolonial. Has he taken ns into his confidence, so far as to

explain to tliis House that the surveys to which Sir Sanford Fleming made reference were the surveys made between Riviere du Loup and Edmundston and Moncton ? An entirely different route, a route that lengthens the line by nearly one hundred miles. He has not taken into consideration the fact that ltivifire du Loup is situated 123 miles from the Quebec bridge and he has not taken-into consideration the fact that when you travel down by the present line of the Intercolonial Railway to Riviere du Loup, or formerly the Grand Trunk line between Levis and Riviere du Loup, you travel a distance of 123 miles and that thence you cross over the intervening territory, a distance of 85 miles to Edmundston. He has sought to show by these reports that it was an Impracticable line, that it was one which would be condemned and was condemned by the engineers. I am sure that if he had sought information from Sir Sanford Fleming he would have found out that he did not know in very truth that the short line to which he refers is the line between Rlvi&re du Loup and Edmundston, that when you leave Riviere du Loup and travel out over the Temis-couata railway, because that railway traverses one of these routes, you go out seven or eight miles and reach a point on that railway where you have to climb 1,300 feet over the height of land, that you have to do that in sixteen miles, that on reaching the height of 1,300 feet you have to travel down again within a distance of sixteen miles and then you are on the same level from which you started seven or eight or nine miles out from Riviere du Loup. That is all the explanation that is necessary in reference to the statement that is made as to the impracticability of the route between Rivifire du Loup and Edmundston and down the river.	Now, my hon.
friend has not disclosed to us the fact that there was, later on, in the year, I think, 1890-1 am not sure as to the date- an application before the government of Canada, then led by the late Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, for assistance for a railway from Montreal down through the centre of the province of New Brunswick to Moncton and that there was a survey made. Some twenty-five years after the survey made by Sir Sanfcrd Fleming, there was a survey made from Edmundston to the city of Moncton and that survey was made by the Temiscouata railway company in" conjunction with or under the direction of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and that survey located a splendid line. I have had information from eminent engineers, two of them whom I could name, that the line that was then located is one of the best lines, and would prove to be one of the best lines that there is in the province of New Brunswick, and that it will prove to be one of the best lines there is in Canada. I have received within the 273i
last two or three days a letter from an engineer who was engaged in that survey confirming the statement I have made and this route does not follow down the valley of the river St. John as stated by my hon. friend. He has quoted from the report referred to showing that any line between Edmundston and Moncton must necessarily follow down the valley of St. John, and he took us down the present location of the Canadian Pacific Railway to AVcodstock, then he took us either by the back country or by the river route following the curves of the river down to Fredericton. He could reach Gibson by either route. No doubt these routes are excellent ones. I do not call them in question, but, I do know these are not central routes. Neither is a central route through the province of New Brunswick, neither is the shortest route, and neither of these routes which are condemned by Sir Sanford Fleming is the route to which I make reference, the one that was surveyed in 1890, the one that is capable of being on a line for through traffic and on a line for opening up a vast extent of rich country. I shall not refer particularly further to the route between Quebec and Moncton. I shall reserve that for observation a little later on in connection with some other remarks, but, I am only referring to it to show how illusory were the remarks of the hon. member for South Lanark in respect to his condemnation of the present scheme- . the scheme to build a line of railway back of the Laurentian hills, or what you will call the Laurentain recks back from Levis, through that rich section of country, through the counties of Bellecbasse, Mont-magny, and other counties upon the borders of the province of New Brunswick, skirting around that projection of the state of Maine which comes up too far, alas for the good of Canada into our territory, going down to Connors' station and following down the river St. John to Edmundston, going from thence down to Grand Falls and on through a section of country splendid for the building of a railway, because I speak whereof I know, having travelled over ever foot of it myself. I have driven oyer the road in my official capacity as Chief Commissioner of Public Works in New Brunswick. I know the topography of the country, and I know whereof I speak. More than that, it is a land rich in its agricultural resources. Along that line are to be found some of the richest sections of country that are to be found in the whole province of New Brunswick. Then, in that section there are to be found rich timber lands which will be tapped by this railway. I think that the hon. member for the city of St. John in referring to this section of the country did justice neither to himself nor to the province which has for so many years honoured him when be said that that section of the country was not worthy of consideration, or he said that in effect because he said that when you skirted the

northern section by the Intercolonial Railway and skirted the southern section by the Canadian Pacific Railway, you traversed the only sections of the province that were worthy of receiving consideration in the way of building railways. There is that great central part of the province of New Brunswick that is practically untouched by the hand of man. There is that great section of country from the Nashwaak bridge on towards Moncton. I have had occasion to travel through what is known as the Gaspereau valley and I venture the assertion that it is one of the richest valleys, one of the most promising agricultural sections, one of the most beautiful spots that I have ever visited in the province of New Brunswick, and I am sure that the Annapolis valley does not present a prettier picture than the valley of the Gaspereau situated in the heart of one of the finest agricultural sections of the country. It was at one time in the history of the province occupied by people, but the people did not expect that railways would be built and many of them deserted that section because the"y had no railway facilities. I am sure that it certainly cannot be said of that section, near as it is to rich coal fields, that it is unworthy of the consideration of the parliament of Canada, that it is unworthy of being considered in the way of development by the construction of railways. But, perhaps I have digressed from the course of my remarks in speaking of this. I have spoken of it because of the knowledge that I have of it and I have spoken of the feasibility of that route by reason of the fact that I have information from men who are eminent in the engineering profession, from men who know whereof they speak, and I think that their report is worthy of consideration.
Tlie hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has said that the line via Edmundston and Woodstock will not shorten the distance to Moncton by one mile as compared with the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman should apologize' to the House for having misled it. He should apologize for attempting to make out that the route surveyed from Rivi&re du Loup is identical with the route to be followed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Another feature of the speech of the hon. gentleman (Hon Mr. Haggart) was that it echoed the cry that the Intercolonial Railway was to be denuded of freight, and he asked the House : How about the competition with the Intercolonial Railway in the carriage of freight from St. John when this new road is constructed ? Well, let me in turn ask the hon. gentleman : How about the competition between the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway from St. John to Quebec and to Montreal ? He alleged that the Intercolonial Railway would be injured because the new line will shorten the distance between St. John and Montreal and Quebec, as compared with the Intercolonial


Henry Robert Emmerson: Railway. It is true that the distance will be shortened. Rut did not the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway short line through the state of Maine shorten the distance between St. John and Quebec and Montreal, and has not the Intercolonial Railway ever since been obliged to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway for freight and jrassengers. Did the Conservative government in the eighties think of the competition that would be afforded to the Intercolonial Railway when they subsidized the Canadian Pacific Railway short line, even though that short line traversed the state of Maine. I wonder what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) thought about that. Well, at this date, there need be no alarm, because if the Intercolonial Railway during those years has successfully competed against the Canadian Pacific Railway, it surely can compete against the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) described the line from the Chaudi&re to Moncton as a mad scheme and as an impracticable scheme, and ns a squandering of the money of Canada. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was a member of the Conservative government in 1890, but whether or not it must be within his knowledge that negotiations were (pending and promises made by the government of Canada, represented by its then distinguished leader, Sir John A. Macdonald, that there should be constructed a line from Edmundston to Moncton through the centre of the province of New Brunswick by way of Chip-man, practically over the route which is now contemplated. Was that a mad scheme? Was that scheme unworthy of consideration? It received the promised support of the government, but it met its fate like the Harvey and Salisbury line, whether in the Senate or not I am not aware, but it certainly did not materialize.


John Graham Haggart: No; it was refused by the government; I remember it well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But it was promised by Sir Hector Langevin on the floor of parliament.


John Graham Haggart: It was objected to by Sir John Macdonald for the simple reason that it was a competitor with the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Witli the Canadian Pacific Railway, you mean.


John Graham Haggart: There was no subsidy given to it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, it might have been a competitor with the Canadian Pacific Railway, but isn't it a wonderful thing that the Canadian Pacific Railway was not refused entrance into New Brunswick because it would be a competitor of the Intercolonial Railway. My hon. friend, in a

fine frenzy, almost agonizingly asked : Wliat was tlie use of building this railway through the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman must have forgotten that this line will not reach within hailing distance of Nova Scotia. There is a tradition in the provinces by the sea that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) was Minister of Railways and Canals for a number of railways, and that he once travelled over the Intercolonial Railway. It is said that he travelled through on a private car with locked doors, which was thought to be a reflection upon the people whom he might meet, although these must necessarily have been his own political friends. It is also rumoured that in the city of Moncton, where the general offices and the great workshops of the railway are situated, the hon. gentleman actually remained for one half hour. If that be true, and that was the only time the hon. gentleman went over the Intercolonial Railway, he may be pardoned for stating to-night that this new railway is to be forced through the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman has spoken of the debt to be incurred by reason of the construction of this line between Moncton and Winnipeg. But he has apparently not listened with any spirit of receptivity to the statements which have been made with regard to that matter. The hon. gentleman must know that it was clearly shown by the Prime Minister when he presented this measure to the House, and as clearly shown by the Finance Minister later, that the obligations on the country involved in this scheme will not exceed $14,000,000. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) does not discriminate between the guarantee of the bonds and the expenditure of money. It is true that there is to be an expenditure of money in connection with the building of the line between the city of Moncton and the city of Winnipeg; but it is also true that after a certain period the interest on that expenditure is to be paid by the Grand Trunk Pacific; and it is also true that the guarantee of bonds on the prairie and mountain sections is simply an endorsement by the government, and not an obligation which will fall upon them. It is simply tantamount to the government of Canada taking collateral security and becoming responsible for an amount which they will never be called upon to pay.
After expressing the opinion that the indebtedness of the government would be very great, the hon. gentleman calls upon the government to halt. He wants time for the whole scheme to be thought out, and he asks the government not to jump into it with precipitation. He thinks there should be a transportation commission; and yet his utterance of to-night was contradicted by his utterance on the floor of this House on
the 26th of May last, to which I have already referred.	.
I do not think there is anything further in the utterances of my hon. friend upon which I need dwell, and I will turn my attention to the remarks which I have to make apart from the hon. gentleman's participation in the discussion.
We ought to realize that there is involved in the proposal before this House a really revolutionary action on the part of governments with respect to aid to railways. We are all familiar with the past history of railway subsidies. We are all familiar with the fact that heretofore the Dominion parliament has granted subsidies to assist in the construction of railways throughout this Dominion, which were supplemented in some of the provinces at least, by provincial aid. I know that has been true with respect to the province from which I come- that year after year the government of Canada aided the construction of railways in that province, and the province almost impoverished itself in endeavouring to aid these railways. I will not refer to the history of the Dominion in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. That has been referred to many times, and is fresh in the minds of all. But I think I can take you into my confidence in respect to what has transpired in the province of New Brunswick, where many lines were aided by this parliament. I do not think what is known as the New Brunswick Railway was aided by the parliament of Canada. It may have been. That is the line of railway running from Edmundston down to Woodstock, thence to Fredericton, and also from Woodstock out to McAdam junction. But this particular line from Edmundston to New-burg junction, and thence to Gibson, opposite the city of Fredericton, received from the province of New Brunswick aid to the extent of 10,000 acres of land per mile. The best lands in the province of New Brunswick to-day are owned by the New Brunswick Railway and Land Company or its successors. Reference was made to the fact that the proposed railway from Quebec to Moncton traverses this extensive area of land formerly owned by the province and given as a subsidy, and these lands are now the subject of negotiation between the company which owns them and the government of the province. I believe there is an option oil these lands- why ? Because they are splendid settlement lands, and because they are richly timbered, and the line of railway proposed in this scheme will traverse that extensive area of rich agricultural and timber lands. The lines of railway which were aided by this parliament and by the province were as follows : There was the Albert Southern, a line some twenty miles in length, in tlie county of Albert ; there was the Harvey branch ; and there was the St. Martin's and TJpham line. These three lines, though aid-

ed by the government of Canada, and though contributed to by the people of the province, are to-day closed, and are nothing but streaks of rust; there is no evidence of their running. There were other lines-the Elgin and Havelock, which is running ; the Albert Railway, the Kent Northern and the Short Line, which runs from the city of St. John on the west side, down through the county of Charlotte to St. Stephen, paralleling, by the way, to use the term as it is now understood by our lion, friends opposite, another line of railway running from the city of St. John to the to-wn of St. Stephen. These two lines join the same cities, just in the same way as the Intercolonial and the proposed line will join Moncton and Quebec. The lines to which I have made reference have all been foreclosed and sold out under the order of the Equity Court. There are other lines in the province-the Caraquet, the Central and the Moncton and Buctouche-which are now practically held by the bondholders. I want to ask, with respect to these lines which are absolutely closed and are of no value to the country or the province, where are the subsidies, and what has been the net result ?' These are but illustrations of the conse-. quences which have followed upon the system which was adopted by the Dominion and the province of subsidizing railways, and I am very glad indeed that these illustrations teach us a lesson. They teach ns, so far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned, that it was fatal to subsidize railways by giving them grants of public lands. While the lands were given to the railways at the nominal value of a dollar an acre, equal to $10,000 per mile, they are to-day held at a valuation, I understand, of $7, and even $10 in some sections, per acre. That certainly proves that the province of New Brunswick would have been wiser had it borrowed the money at that time and held on to its land. With respect to these others, they squandered our subsidies and have not a dollar to show for them, which only shows in contrast the benefits of the scheme adopted by this government.
I do not propose to go over the ground traversed by hon. gentlemen who preceded me, but I want to say this. For a long time there has been throughout Canada a demand for another transcontinental line from ocean to ocean on Canadian territory. Such a road has been advocated in the newspapers arid on the public platform. In the province of New Brunswick its construction has been frequently urged. Throughout Canada the feeling has taken root that we should have a transcontinental line right through Canadian territory from a Canadian seaport on the east to a Canadian seaport on the Pacific. To paraphrase a line in one of the psalms, the idea was that Canada shall have. the ' dominion from ocean to ocean, from the river to the end of the land.' The time has come when we can realize the aspirations


Henry Robert Emmerson: of our people. If in 1871 we could undertake to build a transcontinental line of railway, we would be justified to-day in undertaking to build two or three such lines. There is prosperity on every hand, there is a feeling of hopefulness everywhere, and if we want to keep pace with the aims and aspirations of the people of every province, we will have to push forward this railway scheme. It would be criminal not to do so. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) sounded the alarm when he said that unless we did something now, traffic would seek other channels, and we all know that once traffic has found a certain channel, it is almost impossible to divert it into others. It has been very truly said that the world was born again with the introduction of railways, and I am sure that the Dominion of Canada would almost experience a new birth, if this line were completed and we were in a position to put it into operation. There would then be such a tide of immigration, such a volume of traffic, that another line of railway would be a paying investment. There are so many changes in industrial, commercial, social and political relations, following the establishment of railways, that one can hardly tell, from one year to the other, what the conditions may be twelve months hence, and we have to adjust ourselves to the new and varied conditions. The extension of a railway into new and remote territory increases the value of our lands and other resources. New sources of supply are tapped, traffic increases, and with the increase of traffic there is not only a rise in value of the property along either side of the railway but an increase in the value of other property as well.
One thing which cannot fail to strike anyone who gives any study to this scheme is that it will be the greatest immigration agency Canada ever had. When you realize that the old Grand Trunk Railway, with its tens of thousands of shareholders in the old land will become an active immigration agency, when you realize that each of these 40.000* (I am told that is the number) shareholders will be an immigration agent for this country, you will have some idea of what benefit this policy will be to the Dominion. Every one interested in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and their securities will advertise Canada's resources; and both the Grand Trunk Railway and this company will be the greatest colonizers Canada has ever had- far more so than the Canadian Pacific has ever been. In this respect this scheme will be worth all the money Canada will have to expend upon it. There is another feature. We must all realize that the extension of a railway into new and remote districts increases the value of our public lands. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway as an example. The value of the lands bordering that railway justify alone the expenditure incurred in the construction of that road.
87lt

Witli tlie permission of tlie House, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. .Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the House adjourns, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) to an item in the Montreal ' Gazette,' concerning the arrival of a German war vessel in the harbour of Montreal and the recruiting of officers and sailors for the German navy. The item reads as follows
On the occasion of the visit of the ' Gazelle,'
however, an exception is being made-
-with regard to recruiting arrangements-
-and the young Germans residents in Canada are to be afforded an opportunity of entering upon service with the 'Gazelle ' without the necessity of going to one of the German ports. The announcement has been made by the imperial German consul that a medical examination of young Germans as to their fitness for military service will be held by the surgeon of the warship on Saturday, at 2 p.m., at the German consulate, 100 Sherbrooke street. No previous notice is necessary ; the young men should bring along their papers. He also states that Germans who wish to do their military service with the German navy may enter upon service right here with the ' Gazelle.'
What I wish to ask is if it is customary or right to allow recruiting by a foreign country in Canada, and, if not, whether tlie minister's attention has been drawn to this item ?


Tlie PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I cannot warrant my information on this subject, but I think I am not far astray in what I am about to say. There is no recruiting by the ' Gazelle ' of any officers or sailors for the German navy. So far as that point goes, I am pretty sure I am correct in saying that this refers to young Germans in Canada who are still German subjects and are here only temporarily. According to the laws of Germany these young men, German subjects, are liable to conscription and to serve when called upon in the military or naval service of their country. As I understand it, these young men are taking advantage of the presence of German man-of-war in the port of Montreal to pass an examination which otherwise they would have to go to their own country to pass, because, if they did not pass this examination they would be liable to some penalty. That is the information I have received to-day. I have bad no opportunity of conferring with my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, but I observed the statement in the press, and we have been making inquiries to ascertain whether my information on the subject is correct or not. We shall have full information in a short time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 14, 1903.