1904-04-26

DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-NINTH PARLIAMENT 4 EDWARD VIT., 1904 VOL. LXV COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE TWENTY-SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TO THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF MAY, INCLUSIVE

[Stage Direction]
PotiRetSoroi 2^wm&me?ita>: Bfbjiothequs Champiain University de Moncton Moncton, N.^a, CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Col. 2018, 23rd line from top :-' unsuitable ' should read ' suitable-'
Col. 2040, 2nd line from top :-' in the length of a railway,' should read : ' in the length of a transcontinental railway.'
Col. 2947, 14th line from foot of column :-' like ' should read ' unlike.'
Col. 3140, 11th line from top :-' tariff ' should read ' traffic.'
[Stage Direction]

House of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 26, 1904.

o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 77) respecting- the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 78) respecting the Ottawa River Railway Company.-Mr. Ethier.
Bill (No. 79) to incorporate the Thompson River Improvement Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the Canadian Traction and Power Company.-Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 83) respecting the Nepigon Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.

Right Hon.   S@: That the Bill (No. 72), An Act to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act, be the first Order of the Day on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, after questions put by members, until finally disposed of.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Does that give any opportunity for motions ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No, it does not.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be advisable to have an opportunity for motions on at least one day in the week ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I would have hoped that my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden)
would have that opportunity on Monday next.


Mr.  R. L. BORDEN I .@: join with my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in that hope but we must be prepared for eventualities and possibilities.


Wilfrid Laurier: If we have not disposed of this Bill by the end of this week, 64	'	[DOT]
I think jmy. hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) and I can agree to have a day to dispose of the motions on the order paper.


Robert Laird Borden: Very well, with that understanding I have no objection to this motion being carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,

Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire of the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) when I may expect the return to be brought down respecting the dismissal of the postmaster at Wilton, in the riding of Lennox, which was moved for on March 17th.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I will make inquiry and inform the hon. member tomorrow. [DOT]



PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call attention to a matter relating to myself personally and in that connection I will quote an article which appears in the 'Globa' of yesterday. The article is as follows
There are certain conventions and amenities recognized in parliament that are necessary to the conduct of its business in a civilized way. There seems to be an element both at Toronto and Ottawa-disposed to ignore this. One of the matters arranged between the whips is the order of speaking. This had been settled between Messrs. Calvert and Taylor for Wednesday night last. Mr. Alcorn was to be the last speaker on the Conservative side and the premier was to close the debate. Mr. Bell, the member for Pictou, however, chose to ignore the disposition made by the authority of his own whip and achieved the highest form of fame he will ever achieve.
So far as this Is a personal matter, I might perhaps absolutely ignore it. At any rate the rather insolent suggestion contained in the last sentence is one which I think will be most properly treated with entire and complete contempt. At the same time, it is necessary that I should offer some explanation to the House as to what some members may perhaps have thought an irregularity. My understanding was that the



lion, member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) was to close the debate, and with that understanding, I and a number of others on this side of the House who were prepared to speak, consented to withhold our speeches for the time being. After the hon. member for Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) had concluded, the right hon. the premier proceeded to make a speech. X had no knowledge that such an arrangement had been made ; it had not been communicated tc me by my whip, and I thought l was at perfect liberty to go *on and reply to the premier's speech. X do not now feel inclined to give any other reason for doing so, although I might suggest some such in the general tenor of the premier's speech, but I do not think it would be to the advantage of the House at the present time to raise these points. I will simply say that when I consented to withhold my speech on that occasion, it was with the understanding that Mr. Alcorn was to close the debate, and later when the premier made his speech, I felt myself at perfect liberty to follow him and would not have been at all surprised if the debate had gone on for some time afterwards. I am sure that no man in the Houke is more anxious to obey the rules and conventions of the House than am ,1 ; I should regret very much in any way to impair the regularity of the proceedings. Apparently some right seems to have been claimed that the premier could make not only a reply, but a final reply and close the debate. I do not know on what grounds that claim was made, but apparently the paragraph in the ' Globe ' would seem to indicate that the right of closing the debate, rested in the premier for the time being. As this is a proposition to which I am not prepared to accede, I shall move the adjournment of the House in order to accord an opportunity for any explanations that may be offered, because I think it is important that we should have a clear and distinct understanding not only of what the rules are, but also of just what arrangements the House is disposed to agree to, and to live up to. I should be the first man to regret that I should have done anything to break through the regular procedure. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: Before the motion is carried it may be well that I should make an explanation to the House. I have served for 20 years in the position of chief whip for the Conservative party both in power and in opposition. I have served under the late lamented Sir John Macdonald, Sir John Abbott, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper, and our present able find gifted leader, Mr. R. L. Borden, and this is the first occasion on which it has ever been intimated to me that any agreement made by me with the whip of the opposite side had been broken. It is not


Adam Carr Bell: pleasant to be twitted by the hon. the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) that I have broken such a bargain. It is well known that whips have to make certain arrangements aud must have private and confidential conferences. For years, the late lamented Mr. Trow, chief whip for the opposition, served in that position, he was succeeded by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) and with these gentlemen my relations were always most pleasant and satisfactory, and they have been so with the present chief whip of the government (Mr. Calvert). No person who has ever served in that capacity can intimate that any violation of any confidence or arrangement we have made has taken place. The arrangement now spoken of was first talked of on Tuesday the 12th, when the chief government whip asked me when the debate would close and he asked if it could possibly be closed on Thursday or Friday of that week. I told him I did not think it possible. He asked how many speakers I had and I showed him this list which he examined. He said he had three and mentioned the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne). He also thought that there might possibly be a speech from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and he expected, although he had not consulted the premier, that the premier would want to say a few words. I said I would discuss the arrangement with my leader and meet him again the next day. We met on Wednesday, and after a discussion decided to close the debate on Tuesday if possible, and if not then on Wednesday for a certainty. The debate went on that day and at night on Wednesday, after the agreement had been made, the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) moved the adjournment of the debate, although his name had not been submitted in the conference or given to me as one of their speakers. Had it been, knowing the number of speakers I had on this side of the House I would not have consented to a division on Wednesday.
The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) moved the adjournment of the debate on Wednesday night. Then he took the floor on Thursday on the order being called, and did not conclude his speech until ten o'clock at night. The hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) followed. These two hon. gentlemen occupied the whole of Thursday. On Friday morning I said that the agreement was violated, because here was a speaker whom he had rot counted upon. On Friday I had. to go home, and I left the matter in the hands ol the whip on our side for Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), to.look after affairs during Friday

and Monday until my return. I gave him the list of speakers, which included :	For
Thursday Messrs. Broder, Bennett and Henderson ; Friday, Messrs. Roche (Marquette), Alcorn, Bell, Lavell, Wilmot and Clare ; for Monday. Messrs. Maclean, Pringle, Lefurgey and Pope ; for Tuesday, Messrs. Kemp, Fowler, Hughes (Victoria) and Ball ; and for Wednesday, Messrs. Barker and Clarke. On Friday, a side issue was interjected which occupied all the afternoon. The result was that the only speeches on our side disposed of were those of Messrs. Roche and Pope. On Monday another side issue was interjected which occupied the House until six o'clock. As soon as I got back and had a conversation with my colleague (Mr. Roche, Marquette) I went to the chief whip of the government and told him that it was impossible to get a vote on Wednesday. He put up the hon. member for South Essex, also the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and Mr. Lavergne (Montmagny), the hon member for Halifax (Mr. Roche), as well as the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes). These were in addition to the three names he had given me, although the Minister of Justice had not spoken. I told him it would be impossible to dispose of the vote on Wednesday. But he told me he thought we would have to get through and that he would have a consultation with the Prime Minister. On Wednesday he told me he had had that consultation and the Prime Minister had insisted on the vote being taken on Wednesday. I said I would consult the speakers on our side and cut off as many as we could ; if the Prime Minister really wished to dispose of the matter, we would close it in the small hours of the morning. Then I had a consultation with him as to the speakers. He informed me that the debate must close, and we parted at that. After the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had spoken, we had another consultation. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) was going to follow. I asked if we could not join in going to the hon. member for Winnipeg to get him to abstain from speaking, so that we could get the vote earlier. We had tii at consultation with the hon. member for Winnipeg, but that hon. gentleman insisted on his right to speak. While he was speaking, you, Mr. Speaker, called me over to your chair, and in conversation with you, you suggested that if we could get the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) not to speak, we would have the vote then. While we were engaged in that conversation, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) came and stood at my Side and we discussed taking the vote as soon as the hon. member for Prince 641
Edward had ended his speech. While I was listening to the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) the chief whip of the government came and told me that the Prime Minister was going to say a few words. I did not say anything, one way or the other. But, instead of the Prime Minister saying a few words, he made a speech of an hour's duration, including a strong attack on the leader of the opposition. It is hardly to be wondered at that more than one hon. gentleman on this side thought that the arrangement that had been made, was not to be carried out. As soon as I understood that the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) was to close the debate, I went to see Messrs. Bennett, Bell-Mr. Maclean was not here- Fowler, Hughes (Victoria) and Clarke and said they would have to bottle up their speeches because the government was insisting on a vote that night, and we might as well have it early. They agreed to that, believing that the vote was to be taken when the member for Prince Edward sat down. You, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, understood that that hon. gentleman was to close the debate, because you asked me not to have him speak, and we would have the division at once. When the Prime Minister ' instead of saying a few words,' made a speech of an hour, and. in the course of it assailed our leader, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), evidently felt free to reply. So, notwithstanding the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) that I had violated my agreement, if there was any violation at all it came from the other side. I want the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Annapolis, and the House and the country, to understand that I have never made a bargain as whip, whether my side was in power or in opposition, but I carried ir out to the letter.


Mr. WILLIAM S. CALVERT (West Middlesex).: I am very glad that this question came up, because I must confess that I felt, at the time when the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) got up to speak after the Prime Minister, that the agreement entered into between the chief whip on the opposition side and myself had been broken. I can concur in what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side so far as the agreement about the vote was concerned. We agreed on Wednesday, a week previous that the vote should be taken on Tuesday, if possible, and at latest on Wednesday. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), the chief whip on the other side, told me that this arrangement was concurred in by the leader of the opposition. The hon. gentleman blames us for having extra speakers. We did have the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) and the hon. member for King's P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes) but, on the

other hand we did not have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) who was expected to speak or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who also was expected to speak. We put up other members only in order to keep up our side of the debate, so that hon. gentlemen opposite might not be able to charge our members with being afraid to speak on the subject. We on this side were perfectly willing to keep up the discussion. But, when it came to Wednesday, the day agreed upon for the vote, the members bn this side had been informed and were ready for the division. We did not object to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), or the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) or the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) speaking. But when X returned after dinner, I happened to go up to your chair, Mr. Speaker, and was informed that none of the members on the opposition side except the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) would speak. I went to the chief whip of the opposition, and he informed me that the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for West Toronto, the hon. member for North Victoria had decided that they would not speak ; and that after the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) had concluded, the hon. member for Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) would be the last to speak on that side. That is what the chief whip on the other side tolcl me when I told him that the Prime Minister would close the debate. I heard, before the Prime Minister had spoken, that the hon. member for Pictou was likely to speak, and I could scarcely believe it. When the member for Pictou rose, I went to the chief whip of the opposition and asked him how it was that that hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) was speaking after we had decided that the Prime Minister should close the debate. And the chief whip of the opposition told me then that the hon. member for Pictou was speaking against his wishes, that he had not. agreed to his speaking, but that the hon. gentleman was speaking on his own account. Yet, he had informed me only an hour or two before the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for North Victoria and the hon. member for West Toronto had decided that they would not speak at that time. The only thing I objected to and the only violation of the course we had agreed upon that the debate should close after the Prime Minister was that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) spoke after that agreement.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Inasmuch as I happened to be one of the parties concerned in this matter, and chanced to be standing here when the arrangement was made between the chief whip of the government side and the chief whip of the opposition, I may say that the understanding was that the member for Pictou, the member for Toronto and myself were to withhold our speeches until possibly


William Samuel Calvert: some other occasion during the session, in order to carry out an agreement, entered into by the two whips. I may say that I objected to the two whips coming to any such agreement, that they should assume power to close the debate whenever it suited their wishes. However, at the request of the whip on this side I acquiesced in the arrangement. The distinct understanding in my mind at the time was that the member for Prince Edward was to close the debate. Eater on the chief whip of the government side informed me that though there were to be no more addresses, but of course, he said, the Prime Minister may say a few words. I knew nothing more about it. But I may say that the understanding was that the member for Prince Edward alone was to close the debate, and there was no talk at the time of the Prime Minister making a speech, or an impassioned appeal such as he did. I may say that after the Prime Minister had spoken I was very much annoyed, and felt much inclined to get up, because I felt the compact had been broken, and I felt inclined to go on, late as the hour was, and make my address on that occasion, because the arrangement, to my mind, had been violated, in spirit at all events, by the speech of the Prime Minister on that occasion. These are the facts as I understood them when the arrangement was made between the two whips. I know for a fact that it was the chief whip on our side who induced the member for Toronto to remain in his seat, and I know that he asked the member for Pictou to remain in his seat. I may say that I think it is hardly the proper thing for the two whips to come to any definite understanding that the division on a question shall take place at a certain hour or on a certain evening.
Motion (Mr. Bell) to adjourn, negatived.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 72) To amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.
Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, after the statements which have been made by the hon. gentlemen who occupy the position of whips of the respective parties, I need not offer any explanation or apology to the House for taking up some time in a further discussion of a matter of national importance. I hoped to have the privilege, in common with my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell), and some other gentlemen whose names have been mentioned in connection with that discussion, of saying something before the division was taken on Wednesday evening. But that opportunity having been denied me. and the matter appearing to me of such pressing and vital importance, I deem it

my duty to take advantage of the motion for the second reading of the Bill to oifer some remarks on this proposal.
The debate which has taken place during the last two weeks has been interesting and instructive. It has been interesting because of the number of eloquent speeches which have been delivered by members on both sides in connection with this proposal, and it has been instructive, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that a flood of light has been thrown upon the motives which prompted the government to take such decisive action, to take such speedy action as they took last session. Since this discussion commenced we have been enabled to see more clearly the real causes which impelled the government to refuse the Grand Trunk Railway Company permission to proceed with its original proposition. We are in a better position now to judge of the importance and value of the grandiloquent sentences which were uttered by the Prime Minister in introducing the measure to the House. There was no time then, in the estimation of the Prime Minister, to consider, to reflect, to weigh well the steps to which the country was being committed. Not a moment was to be lost. It was absolutely essential, in the best interests of Canada, that we should proceed immediately with the undertaking which was presented to us. So serious, so critical was the national position represented to us by the Prime Minister, that the reasonable requests which were made by hon. members on this side of the House that we should proceed deliberately, that we should have some further and more accurate information as to the country through which the proposed line was to pass, that we should have some more accurate and definite information as to the cost of this great undertaking, were all brushed aside, and were -not deemed worthy of being entertained by the government.
So far as this parliament was concerned, the contract which was entered into last year between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company was ratified. The people of Canada were held and firmly bound under the provisions of that contract; but so carelessly, so recklessly, if I may be permitted to use that expression without being offensive, was the contract drawn, that within one month after the prorogation of this House the contract was practically at an end ; because while the people of Canada were bound under its provisions, it was made perfectly clear to us that the other party to the contract, the company, was not bound at all. And so, Mr. Speaker, after having rushed this project through the House last session we have been called to-, gether this session principally to ratify a new contract entered into between the government and the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We were given assurance after assurance during the debate of last session that the companies with
whom we were negotiating, that the gentlemen with whom we were dealing, were men of honour, that there could be no doubt as to their ability, no doubt as to their intention to carry out in so far as they were concerned, the contract entered into with them. But I repeat that the first condition to show their bona tides, the first act which they were called upon to perform to show that they meant to fulfil that contract, was left unperformed, and, according to the statement made by the president of the Grand Trunk Company in London, this session of parliament is being held practically for the sole purpose of passing an amended contract which has been prepared by the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and which we are now discussing.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the government have been placed in a most humiliating position. I take it that they could not have expected to have been treated very much better by the persons with whom they were dealing. They have been placed in this most humiliating position because of the piecipitancy of their action and because they refused, without good and sufficient ground, in my humble judgment, to permit the Grand Trunk Railway Company to obtain access to the west by the means which ihc Grand Trunk Company at first proposed. At the opening of last session of parliament, on March 12th of last year, we were solemnly assured out of the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General that the whale question of transportation, a question far reaching and of the most vital importance to the people of Canada, was to be referred for consideration, for report and for advice to a transportation commission. On the 18th June last, when the House was discussing the question of granting substantial aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, to enable that corporation to extend their lines through Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, we were given an assurance by the right hon. Prime Minister that the government contemplated subsidizing only one transcontinental railway. He said that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was not then an entity. It was a mere project in the air which might or might not be carried out. In his speech the other day, upon the resolution introduced precedent to this Bill, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) declared that the government only commenced to frame the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on the 1st of July, or thereabouts. The time which elapsed from that date until the Bill was introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister last year was so short that, with all their business acume.i, with all their legal ability, with all their experience in dealing with railway magnates, it could not have been expected that hon. gentlemen opposite could have framed a contract in that period of time 1 tnat would have safeguarded, as it should


Edward Frederick Clarke: Dominion. And mark you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says that the first fight for the extension east-[DOT] ward was put up last year when the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was before the railway committee. It is then to the hon. gentleman from Annapolis and to those associated with him in the fight for the extension of the road eastward that we are to give the credit for the extension to Moncton. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade), therefore, not only slanders the members from the maritime provinces who sit on this side of the House, but. evidently without meaning it, he robs his leader the Prime Minister of the honour and the credit and the distinction of being the originator of this second ocean to ocean railway. We know now that it is the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and his fellow-Libera'ls from the maritime provinces to whom we are indebted for the paternity of this scheme ; we know now that it is they who conceived this second ocean to ocean railway, and we know that the Prime Minister is sailing under false colours and is being presented in a false light to the people when to him is attributed the credit of being the father of this scheme. After the modest declaration that has been made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wa'de), it is only fair and just to suggest that the halo which now surrounds the head of the Prime Minister in connection with this project should be transferred to the head of the membe" for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), because it is to him and not to the Prime Minister that the country owes this second transcontinental railway.
We were told last year that it was treason to Canada to suggest that reasonable delay should take place in the prosecution of this work, even until some definite information could be obtained as to the character of the country through which this railway may run and the amount of the expenditure that will be required. We were told that time was the very essence of the contract, and that any one who suggested a moment's delay was antagonistic to the interests of the Dominion. Well, Sir, this parliament, so far as it could, bound the people of Canada to the contract which was entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government. The government of Canada u ere given carte blanche ; and let me ask .you, Mr. Speaker, and let me ask any hon. member in this House, what action have the government taken since October last to prove that they were in earnest, or that the matter was as urgent as they represented it to be ? Six months of the most valuable period of the year have been allowed to lapse, and yet, when the House is called to ratify the amended contract made with the Grand Trunk, the ministry have not been able to lay one particle of new information before us respecting the region through which the railway may run. or respecting the expenditures that will be necessary to
Mr. CLARKE
carry It to completion. (Last year we were told that we had mountains of information at our disposal.
In the speech which he delivered in introducing the measure eight or nine mouths ago, the premier told us we had mountains of information available. That speech was reprinted In very handsome 'paffipSIet form, illustrated-w IIh^irtTTiurrrls, up umTer the head of * complete information ' was repeated the statement made last year as to the steps taken 150 or_2()0 years _agn to find a passaga-to-the-PScifi'c Ocean :
Samuel de Champlain devoted years to the task in the hope of finding a passage to the sea. Robert Cavelier de La Salle lost his life in the attempt. Another man, LaVerendrye, took an overland journey to reach it by exploring the prairies, and his two sons, on the 1st January, 1743, were the first Europeans to cast eyes upon the Rocky Mountains. LaVerendrye himself lost his life like Robert, Cavelier de La Salle in the attempt to get to the Pacific ocean. After the country had passed under the sovereignty of the British Crown the task was resumed by Scotch traders established in Montreal, and in 1793, Alexander Mackenzie was the first white man to reach the Pacific ocean across the mountains by the overland journey. Many private individuals subsequently attempted and performed the same feat. The last of them was Captain Butler, of the British army, who in the winter of 1872 crossed the continent from Port h-la-Corne at the forks of the Saskatchewan by way of the Peace river to the Pacific Ocean.
This is some of the information we find immediately under the subheading of ' complete information.' This was given to us by the Prime Minister last session ; but notwithstanding the urgency of the work from a national standpoint, what have the Prime Minister and his associates done since then to give the people of Canada further enlightenment on a matter of such vital importance ? In introducing the resolution containing the amendments we are now discussing, the Prime Minister a few days ago made reference to an expedition which went from Tadousae to Hudson's Bay more than 200 years ago. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Daurier) ransacked the library, poured over tlie ponderous tomes of the volumes of the Jesuit Relations, turned back the pages of history more than two centuries, and discovered in the 50th volume of these Relations that Rev. Father Albanel started on an expedition in August 1671, from the Saguenay River up to Hudson's Bay. Of what particular value is that information to us? Can we form a more intelligent opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of building this Transcontinental Railway oyer the route proposed because of this additional information which has been vouchsafed to us ? What advantage is it to us to be told that :
On the 23rd and 24th of June we found a less mountainous region. Its atmosphere is much milder, and its fields are beautiful; and the soil would bear abundantly and he capable of sup-

porting a large population if it were cultivated.
But Rev,_JntJier Alhanel was not out for the purpose of exploring the country "to ascertain its capabilities and possibilities in connection with railway construction ; he was out on an evangelizing tour and was traversing a country hundreds of miles away from the route over which this road is to pass.
At page 205. another quotation is made from the record of that pioneer missionary :
I can assert that on the 15th of June there were wild roses here, as beautiful and fragrant as those at Quebec.
What does that prove ? That it is a wise and judicious policy for us to construct this transcontinental road ? Xo, it proves absolutely nothing ; and the fact that the Prime Minister would resort to these quotations is in my humble judgment-and I say it with the greatest respect-the strongest possible evidence of the dearth of information at the hon. gentleman's disposal, and of his desire to take every fair advantage possible of any information respecting any part of that great northern country which he may be able to find to his hand. In speaking of the voyages of exploration, of the privations, of the heroism, of the fortitude, of these pioneer missionaries, I desire to do so with the greatest possible respect. The story of their voyages, of then- travels, of their sufferings and heroism will always be read with intense interest by those who desire to make themselves acquainted with the early history of this country. But when the simple annal of a voyage of exploration from the Saguenay to Hudson's Bay is made to do dutv in this discussion. I also feel at liberty to make further quotations from the same page and volume. The first quotation made by the Prime Minister was from page 181 of volume 56. On page 181 I find the following :
On the 19th we arrived at Makonamitk'ie-that is ' the bears' fishing place.' It is a flat region with very shallow water, and also extremely rich in fish-small sturgeon, pike, and white fish having their haunts there. It is a pleasure to see the bears walking on the shores of this piece of water, and, as they go, catching with a paw now one fish and now another, with admirable dexterity.
Is this passage not as germane and as valuable to the inquirer respecting the territory through which this proposed Transcontinental Railway will pass as that quoted by the Prime Minister ?
The next quotation used by the Premier was from page 205, and turning to that page 1 find :
I say nothing of the abundance of wild fowl in the region. On the island of Onabaskouk, if the savages are to be believed, they are so numerous that in one place, when the birds shed their feathers at molting time, any savages or deer coming to the spot are buried
in feathers over their heads, and are often unable to extricate themselves.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal +o any bon. gentleman tbat the fact that the Prime Minister makes quotations that are not germane to this subject and that have nothing whatever to do with the construction of this road, is beyond peradventure proof of the paucity of the information which the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have to lay before the House and the country. If the hon. gentleman had quoted these additional paragraphs, and they are to oe found in the same pages from which he did quote, we might have pointed to the fact that this new territory to be opened up by the Transcontinental Railway would be an ideal place for anglers, or for tourists who would like to have an opportunity of seeing bears catching fish now with one paw and again with another. Further, if it was intended to prove that the country was unsuitable for settlement, the hardy pioneers who would brave the rigours of that country might in some measure be consoled by the knowledge of the fact that there were mountains of feathers available for then- use, so tbat after the toil of the long day they would be able to rest their weary limbs on beds of down. If any hon. gentleman desires to obtain an accurate estimate of the country through which the Rev. Father Albanel and his associates passed in their journey from the Saguenay to the Hudson's Bay and of its value for settlement, he must read the whole story, and I am satisfied that every independent, fair-minded man who reads the story of that voyage will come to the conclusion that so long as there are within the four corners of this Dominion prairie lands available and awaiting occupation, no great body of settlers will be found willing to locate In the country far north towards Hudson's Bay.
Mr. Maeoun, of the Geological Survey, gave evidence before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization last year. He was sent lip into that northern country in 1902, by the Minister of the'Interior. He appeared before the committee on the 17th of April last. He made the statement to the committee that he had been sent up by direction of the Minister of the Interior to examine the Yukon country for the government, and he said further :
I would not go from here until late in June, for the reason that I had been in northern countries and I told our director, ' I am only going to waste my time by going so early, for nothing can be growing.' I did not leave until the latter part of June, and I reached Dawson on the 10th of July last year. Dawson is over 20 degrees north of where we sit, in latitude 64 degrees, 15 minutes. When I reached there I found red currants, blueberries and strawberries, perfectly ripe on the hillsides on the 10th of July. Well, of course, I was more than astonished. There is a rose that grows here, that we know as rosa aeicularis, and on the 3rd

these statements were doubly reprehensible because they were made on the eve of the time when the government proposed to challenge the verdict of the electors on the great issue we are now discussing.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments which are made in the contract with the Grand Trunk Railway Company are very far-reaching. A local journal has summarized the amendments which the government are seeking to make in the contract of last year. The matter is put tersely in that journal, and I will take the liberty of presenting its views, which are my own, to the House :
1.	Throo	-joanjoiial time for the syndicate TtPbuild the road.
2.	.Government liability for millions more of
mouey"In cost.	

opposite in 1874 were prepared to give for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway at least $177,940,000, whereas that road was constructed four years afterwards, according to their own estimates, and under Conservative auspices, at a cost of $135,000,000. So I say that if a comparison be made in that matter it would not redound to the credit of the Liberal administration which was then in office. It may be said there was no offer received for the construction of a road under Mr. Mackenzie's terms. No, because no person had any faith in the bona fides of the offer which was made, no one would undertake to construct a road under those conditions. But that road wag built under Conservative auspices, and if the West has progressed so rapidly that another road is now desirous of sharing in the prosperity it has created, it is the greatest possible tribute that can be offered to the genius and patriotism of the men who carried through the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1879. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to refer at any greater length to these comparisons which hon. gentlemen are making between the terms they are giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the terms which were given by the Conservative party for the construction of the Canadian Pacific in 1879. But, let me just quote one extract from a speech made by the late hon. Alexander Mackenzie when this Canadian Pacific Railway scheme was under discussion in 1879. He said :
Does the hon. gentleman imagine that settlers will go to the Northwest Territories and buy land at $2 an acre when there are millions of acres of land offered for nothing in the United States ?
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the 25,000,000 acres of land given to the Canadian Pacific Railway were worth, when earned, $3 an acre. Mr. Mackenzie pointed out, which was a fact, that in some of the great states of the union, Texas, Kansas and others, vast areas of land were being given away for nothing to settlers, and there was a great rush of settlers in that direction instead of to our own Northwest at that time. Mr. Mackenzie proceeded :
We have found it very difficult indeed in Canada to promote settlement, even where the land was given away by the government. It is still more difficult to send settlers to the far off western country, where they have the initial difficulties of a new country to contend with, not less in amount, though different in kind, than the settlers of our own wooded districts. They have a long winter, absence of lumber and building materials, and difficulties of transportation. We must, therefore, make up our minds, if we are to settle that country, that it will be done only at the expenditure of a large amount of money to aid settlers in going in, and giving them land free after they get in.
This is the evidence of the difficulties which Mr. Mackenzie appreciated were in store for those undertaking to build that road, and I repeat that taking all the cir-Mr. CLARKE.
cumstances into consideration, the government of Sir John A. Macdonald instead of being condemned are to be congratulated upon the action which they then took, because we see abundant evidence on every hand of the results of that action in the condition of affairs existing in the Northwest Territories to-day.
My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has been bitterly assailed in the course of this debate, because he has dared to express an opinion in opposition to the views which	are held by the
gentlemen opposite as	to the wisdom of proceeding with this contract. One hon. gentleman, if I remember rightly, asserted that if the Canadian Pacific Railway were making advantageous terms with the government, my hon. friend and colleague from West Toronto would not be found taking any objection to these arrangements, but that because it was the Grand Trunk with whom the government were dealing he was opposed to the Grand Trunk and did not desire to see that great company get access to the northwestern part of this country. I make the assertion, and I challenge contradiction, that neither in this House nor out of it since this proposition was first made public has one word fallen from the lips of my esteemed colleague against the extension of the Grand Trunk Railway into Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I say that every utterance he has made has been in favour of extending the GrftinT'TItl'fni; liailway sysTCTn into that great western country. I. say that instead of finding fault "with the proposition that they should get into that country my colleague has advocated that they should be permitted to go into the country-apd that reasonable assistance be given to them ; but because he has the audacity, the temerity, or whatever word you like to use, to oppose the proposition of the hon. gentlemen opposite a nasty slur-it is nothing but a slur- is thrown at him ou account of his connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. He holds the confidence, as one of its representatives, of one of the largest and most influential constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, and statements of that kind made by hon. gentlemen opposite will harm him most where he is least known. His life and his conduct in this matter are before the people of Canada and before the members of this House, and I say that the only objection which he has made to this proposition is that the terms cannot be justified, and that in view of the original intention of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the declarations made by those responsible for the management of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, it is little short of fatuous folly on the part of the government to jeopardize $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada, when the Grand Trunk Railway Company were prepared to finance a scheme which would have

given them practically all the access that the present scheme is going to give them to the most profitable part of the western territory. But, my hon. colleague seems to have been singled out as the one gentleman in Canada connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway who ought to be abused by hon. gentlemen opposite. A director, and a most important director of that company, Lord Stratheona, has been honoured with the confidence of hon. gentlemen opposite for years. He has been called to occupy the position of our representative at the heart of this great empire. He is the Canadian High Commissioner at London. Has anybody ever asserted, because he is a director of and interested largely in the Canadian Pacific Railway, that therefore in matters affecting the well-being of Canada, even when the Grand Trunk Railway Company is the other party to the agreement proposed to be made, his opinion would be biased ? Not at all. As soon as these hon. gentlemen came into office they saw fit, and the public have supported them in that action, to have a knighthood conferred on the managing director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, who wears the honour well and worthily, because as an officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway and as one who has been identified with #Canada and become a British subject he has shown his great ability in the conduct of that magnificent road, and is entitled to recognition at the hands of his sovereign, and nobody has ever found fault with hon. gentlemen opposite for having made a recommendation to that effect. Sir Sandford Fleming, another director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is quoted with approval from time to time by hon. gentlemen opposite. tV by ? Because they think that they can find a grain of comfort for their scheme in some of the utterances that have fallen from the lips of Sir Sandford Fleming. And though Sir Sandford Fleming, Lord Strath-cona and Sir Thos. Shaughnessy are directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway, these gentlemen are regarded with favour and the opinions of some of them are quoted with approval, but because my hon. colleague had the hardihood to dissent from the scheme of hon. gentlemen opposite, his connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway is a barrier to any such confidence being extended to him. and his words are not to be treated with the consideration which the words of a man occupying the position which he does in the business and financial life of Canada are entitled to receive at our hands. I said that Sir Sandford Fleming's opinion was quoted with approval by hon. gentlemen opposite. A predecessor in office of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party, the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, attached great importance to the opinion of Mr. Fleming. In the debate from which I have already quoted in this House, which took
place in 1879, he quoted Mr. Fleming's opinion to this effect:
Supposing we finished the road in seven years, we have Mr. Fleming's authority-assuming him as an authority, and I think he is very much within the bounds, that until at least three million dollars per annum, and they have still habited territory, it is quite impossible to expect the road to pay its running expenses. Mr. Fleming estimates these at not less than eight million dollars per annum, and they have still further to be supplemented by the proportion of money required each year to renew the road. The road will require renewal of sleepers and rails every eight or ten years on an average. No doubt if steel rails are substituted for iron the time for this renewal would be considerably enlarged.
This statement was made in 1879. The Canadian Pacific Railway was completed, I think, injffin Sir Sandford Fleming made the dSCTaration that until at least three million people were drawn into that uninhabited country, it was quite impossible to expect that the road could pay its running expenses. Mr. Mackenzie made the mistake that the hon. gentlemen opposite are making to-day. He quoted Mr. Fleming's opinion. They are quoting his opinion to-day. Fifteen years after that road was built, in 1901, when the population of British Columbia, of the Territories, and of Manitoba, Algoma and Nipissing, of every foot of the territory through which that road runs from Lake Nipissing out to the Pacific coast, was less than one-quarter of three millions, less than 750,000, what result was shown by that great national highway, the Canadian Pacific Railway ? In 1901 the gross earnings of the road were $30,000,000 and the net earnings were $18,000,000. Fifteen years after the last spike was driven in the road, and when the population of the district which was served was less than one-quarter what Mr. Fleming estimated would require to be there before the road would pay running expenses, there was a surplus from earnings of no less than $5,750,000 available. And Sir, the gentlemen who then banked on Sir Sandford Fleming's statements, and the gentlemen who bank on his statements to-day, are doing so not because he is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but because they think that the statements he makes harmonize with their own views, and support the policy which they have laid before the people of this country.
Sir, you remember that during the last session' of this parliament appeal after appeal was made to Sir Wm. Van Horne, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to induce him to take the chairmanship of the transportation commission. The announcement was made in the speech from the Throne that this complex and important question of transportation was to be referred to a commission. The government could not deal with it themselves, (they have since shown their incapacity to deal with

Mr. Blair explained a few days ago to the Halifax Board of Trade how improbable it was that either the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific would hand over to the Intercolonial at Montreal any considerable portion, if any portion whatever, of the traffic originating on those lines. The grain carried as far as Montreal by the Canadian Pacific when not shipped at that port, will continue to be carried over the Canadian Pacific until it reaches its ocean terminus at St. John, and the traffic originating on the Grand Trunk will under like circumstances continue to be carried over the Grand Trunk until it reaches its ocean terminus at Portland.
These are the deliberate expressions of the hon. gentleman. He concluded as follows:-
The Intercolonial must as to this class of business for ever continue to play second fiddle to these great company lines, until it can establish a connection that will plant it right in the heart of the great distributing centres and emporiums of the west. Not until then will it ever be in a position to compete on even terms with its rivals for the grain carrying business of the Dominion. If anybody can suggest a better move in this direction than the acquisition, if necessary, of the Parry Sound road, he should have the floor.	.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I should give the floor to the hon. member for Hants just now in order that he may give some explanation for this volte face, this great change in his opinions since he penned and made public his letter. It would be interesting to have him explain how he came to take his present position after putting himself on record as strongly advocating on business, patriotic and national grounds the very scheme which the leader of the opposition is now presenting to this country.
But there is just one word more in connection with this matter which I would like to say. The Minister of the Interior and some other gentlemen who took part in this debate have pointed out that there is a difficulty in the way of utilizing the Intercolonial Railway instead of building a parallel line, and it is that the route would be so much longer. The Minister of the Interior the other day estimated that the additional mileage under the scheme of the leader of the opposition, of carrying the Intercolonial Railway west to Winnipeg and on to the coast would he .32" miles as eomnnred with theliresbllTproposition. After the Minister of the Interior, I think the hon. member for Hants and the hon. member for Annapolis have between them taken up the mantle which has fallen from the shoulders of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). They are to-day the chief spokesmen and experts on matters connected with railway administration who are not members of the cabinet. My hon. friend from Hants, in a speech last year on this very question of the value of a shorter route, made a declaration in reference to a statement by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). The hon. member for Mr. CLARKE.
Victoria said that a matter of three or four hundred miles in the length of a railway does not make any difference in rates. And the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) approved of that, and said :-
Anybody who knows anything about railroads has had that fact brought to his attention.
Last year the argument was presented to us that, in a transcontinental railway such as the one we are discussing to-day, a matter of three or four hundred miles did not make much difference in rates. That statement was made by the hon. member for Victoria, and was approved and endorsed by the hon. member for Hants. When the hon. member for Hants was asked why, if that was the case, he did not approve of the proposition to hand over the traffic at Quebec to the Intercolonial, instead of building another line for it to run over, he said :
The Intercolonial is a different thing altogether. It is a short piece of railway which does not connect with the great centres of the west. The principle does not apply to a short line as it does to a long one.
So, the hon. gentleman has an argument to meet any and every emergency. Yet he stands beside his colleague from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and joins in denunciation of the leader of the opposition whose object is to perpetuate the Intercolonial by extending it westward as a most important factor in the regulation of freight rates throughout Canada for all time to come. What did the motion of the leader of the opposition say ?
2. The extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian Bay and thence to Winnipeg, and the extension and improvement in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces of the government system of railways.
I believe that policy commends itself to the people of this country. I believe it will especially commend itself to the people of the maritime provinces. And notwithstanding the attacks, the unfair attacks as I claim, that are being made upon the leader of the opposition in the maritime provinces, the people will appreciate his services, they will appreciate the sacrifices he is making, and when the opportunity is given them they will endorse and approve his policy. The leader of the opposition is being opposed, he is being misrepresented in the -maritime provinces because, it is charged, he is unfaithful to their interests. The same method of attack is followed in the west where the leader of the opposition is also being misrepresented because it is said his policy is inimical to tlie interests of the west and especially of the great city of Winnipeg. During the Inst session the leader of the opposition defined his position quite clearly, and I desire to put on record the statement he then made. It disposes effectually of tile unmanly and unfair attacks that are resorted to by friends of hon. gentlemen op-

posite and by newspapers of the west that support these hon. gentlemen, as to the position the leader of the opposition occupied last year and occupies this year with respect to the connections to be made by this new road at Winnipeg and other western centres. The leader of the opposition supported his amendment last year for these and other reasons :
To assist in improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Fort William, upon the condition that the complete control of rates is obtained and that the Grand Trunk Railway, as well as the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Fort William to Winnipeg	It will give the people control over
rates by the mere fact that the Intercolonial Railway has power to enter Winnipeg. It will place the people in a position to own and oper-_ ate their own line through the west to thp' coast, in ease of oppressive rates, or in ease control of rates by the railway commissioners should not fulfil our expectations, or in case the development of the country, within a few years,
may point to that as a desirable policy	I
regard it as of the utmost possible value to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian Bay and thus to secure a considerable portion of the products of the west for transportation upon the people's railway to our own ports of Quebec, Montreal, and the ports in the maritime provinces.
These paragraphs which I have quoted from the speech of the leader of the opposition prove to a demonstration, I submit, that nothing was further from the hon. gentleman's desire or wish than that the great city of Winnipeg should be ignored or sidetracked in the plan extending the Intercolonial westward to the Pacific ocean. And the newspapers of hon. gentlemen opposite must be hard up for arguments to hurl ,against the leader of the opposition when they charge him with such an offence.
There are a few words more I wish to say with regard to these attacks on the leader of the oposition before I sit down. When Hon. Mr. Blair resigned the portfolio of Minister of Railways and Canals, the Prime Minister selected the hon. gentleman whom be considered best qualified to succeed the Hon. Mr. Blair and to discharge the important, responsible and honourable duties in the cabinet which Hon. Mr. Blair had discharged. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) was selected to occupy the seat which Hon. Mr. Blair had vacated. That hon. gentlemen is a political godson, I understand, of Hon. Mr. Blair. He was certainly a great admirer of Mr. Blair and approved that gentleman's policy and advocated the same policy with regard to the extension of the Intercolonial that Mr. Blair had advocated. And I propose to refresh the memory of the House by quoting a few paragraphs from the speech of the hon. member for Westmoreland two years ago in this House. Speaking on April 25th. 1902, the hon. member for [DOT] Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) said :
The Intercolonial Railway has been one of the most splendid assets that the government of Canada has ever possessed. . . . When the fathers of confederation framed the British North America Act they recognized the fact that it was essential for the consolidation of these provinces that there should be an iron band connecting the provinces which then constituted the Dominion of Canada. . . . The idea must have been dominant in their minds that in the future, as our Dominion came into its vast western territory, it was quite as essential that that road should travel beyond the lines of the St. Lawrence and go west and unite whatever might then be the provinces of Canada. ... I venture to say that the Intercolonial Railway will yet prove to be one of the richest dividend hearing concerns in this great Dominion. . . . That it will one day justify the efforts of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) to make this railway worthy of this great Dominion. He found it a tramway and he has left it a railway. He has equipped it in a manner which I need not describe. This is but one evidence of the value of the efforts which the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) has been putting forth to make a railway out of what seemed to be the intention or the result of an intention to side-track at least a portion of the Intercolonial Railway. ... If the terms of confederation are to be carried out in their entirety

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, especially to this paragraph :
-that the Intercolonial Railway shall he extended, it shall crawl further west year after year until possibly it shall extend to the prariries of the west, and our seaports shall be the ports whence sail the rich products of the great western country.
The words of the hon. gentleman were prophetic. He divined what was in the minds of the fathers of confederation. He saw that the fathers of confederation felt and believed that the mission of the Intercolonial would not be fully discharged, that il would not have rendered the services to Canada that it was designed to render until it united not only the older provinces, but the newer provinces, and bound the Dominion into one harmonious whole. The hon. member for Westmoreland, advp-cated that policy. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in all conscience, there must be some time limit for the changing of their opinions by hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely they are called upon to give the country some leason for the changed positions that they assume. Dante saw over the gate of the infernal regions the inscription,
All hope abandon, ye who enter here !
Can it be that there is a legend over the council chamber of hon. gentlemen opposite-
All principle abandon, ye who enter here !
Must a man ignore all his pledges and promises and agree to change his mind on every thing he has advocated before he can become a member of this government ? I submit it is a spectacle that we ought not to witness in this House. I draw attention to the fact

that this gentleman, selected by his leader for so important a position as he now occupies, less than two years ago was a staunch advocate of the extension of the Intercolonial westward; that last year, as my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) quoted him, he declared himself unequivocally in favour of government ownership and of the extension of the Intercolonial. Is it not a spectacle for gods and men that the hon. member for Westmoreland, who has been elevated to the important and responsible position which he now occupies, has been absent from this House practically during the entire time of this debate, that he has not once opened his mouth or raised his voice to give us one reason why he has changed his opinions, if he has changed them ? If he now concludes that he was wrong in advocating the extension of the Intercolonial, he should be frank enough to say so; if he thinks the present scheme is more favourable, he should have the courage to express his opinions. It is not fair to the House or to the country that this gentleman, following in the footsteps of Mr. Blair, approving of all that Mr. Blair did up to the time of his resignation, should now turn around and swallow his previously expressed convictions.
Just a few words more before I sit down. The contention has been made again and again that if the Grand Trunk had been permitted to carry out its original scheme the result would have been that all the freight gathered at Winnipeg from the west would have been brought down through the Ontario system and find its exit to Europe via Portland. Addressing the shareholders of the Grand Trunk on March 8th, 1904, Mr. Hays said :
We are to-day handling from flfleen-to-twenty million^Ust ^ear~TT~reached 24,000,000-bushels of grain, which came across the lake from Lake Superior down to our ports, feeding the whole Grand Trunk system locally throughout Ontario, and this gives us the whole of the way from Montreal, thus contributing a very large portion of our earnings. We cannot hold that to our system if we do not take some means of fastening it to us. . . . That traffic will be lost to us if we do not tie it up, so that to-day the question is not what your position Is going to be if you embark on this enterprise, but what it is going to be if you do not embark on this enterprise. That is the question that this meeting must decide to-day ; that is the question to which you must give serious consideration. Your directors and your management have spent eighteen months at it.
That is one of the reasons why the Grand Trunk Company were so anxious to go on with their original scheme. Mr. Hays says they wanted to retain the traffic they now handle which comes to their Georgian Bay ports and goes over the Ontario system to Montreal; and they wanted to have access to the west so as to be able to secure the long haul on the vast traffic they now gather in Ontario and Quebec which is destined for Mr. CLARKE.
the west. Mr. Hays is still steadily pursuing that policy. He has not deviated one hair's breadth since November, 1902, In the prosecution of the object he then had in view. He is still trying to reach the goal which he proposed to himself when he first made the announcement as to the intention of the Grand Trunk to gain access to the west. On the 25th of December last he says :
/ Our first obiect will be to get the east con-(nected with the great lakes for summer traffic and then to give Winnipeg connection with the
(east. The people of the west want more railway facilities and we intend to give it to them as quickly as possible.
' Well, Mr. Speaker, after they have made connection between the great lakes and the west, what then ? Every pound of freight which comes down to Port Arthur is lost to the Grand Trunk Pacific, every pound of freight from the west when it reaches Fort William or Port Arthur is, according to the statement of the Minister of the Interior, absolutely and irrevocably lost to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That freight will be diverted from the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific near Winnipeg and conveyed by a branch line to Port Arthur, it will he conveyed in vessels from Port Arthur to Midland and other Grand Trunk ports on the Georgian Bay; it will be taken by Grand Trunk trains over the Ontario system and find its exit at Montreal or Portland. So far then as the summer traffic is concerned, and I challenge contradiction of this statement, every wish, every aim the Grand Trunk had in view when presenting their original proposition can still be carried out by them, and will be carried out by them under the proposition submitted by the government. If we had any doubt about that, our doubt would be removed by reason of the statement made by the leader of the government of the province of Ontario on the 8th of this month when presenting his scheme to the legislative assembly for aid to the Grand Trunk Railway. What did he say ?
The premier said it was propesed to aid a railway to be constructed from a point at or near Thunder Bay in a northwest direction about 200 miles, to intersect the Grand Trunk Pacific. The subsidy was $2,000 and 6,000 acres per mile. It was agreed that the Grand Trunk Pacific should give immediate attention to this line, so that by way of the lake ports the province could have connection into Winnipeg perhaps four or five years before the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed. The Grand Trunk Railway by this connection would be able to deliver over its own route to the west what is now going by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port Arthur. They wanted to encourage the Grand Trunk Railway to make Sarnia and Goderich distributing ports to the heart of the Northwest. There would be Grand Trunk Railway steamers to Port Arthur, Grand Trunk Railway trains to Winnipeg and the west. A system of 2,600 miles would be connected with 2^600 miles west of Winnipeg. The growth of the connecting trade would provide freight for all the steamers on the lakes. The Grand Trunk

Railway would secure the advantage oLtbe long hatilr~wliU;ll~is the secrAf. ht railway success.
Tlie reasons given by the premier of the province of Ontario for bringing down his scheme of aid to the Grand Trunk Railway demonstrated, if demonstration were necessary, that it is to enable the Grand Trunk to feed their ports on the Georgian Bay with traffic from the west. He desires to build up Sarnia, he desires to build up Goderich, What for ? Neither Goderich nor Sarnia is within 500 miles of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and this proposition of the premier of the province is designed to give the Grand Trunk Company the advantage of the long haul, because it brings their Ontario and Quebec system into touch with the lakes and into touch with Winnipeg. And yet, notwithstanding these facts, hon. gentlemen opposite would lead the people of Canada to believe that they have devised a great scheme that will develop the Canadian Atlantic ports, and increase the business through all parts of the country. Whereas in reality they are simply playing into the hands of the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway, at the expense of the people of Canada, and at the expense of the people of this province in particular. The aid that is being given will enable them to do what they intended to do. The Minister of the Interior says :
But during the winter months, during the four and a half or five months when rolling stock would otherwise he idle and when ships are coming to our ports and demanding cargoes, then the railways will and do haul wheat allrail. My hon. friend knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway hauls millions of bushels allrail to make cargoes for these ships and the Grand Trunk Pacific will have a certain portion of that traffic during that season of the year.
So that all we can hope to get out of the enormous expenditure which we are involving the people of this country in is our chance of securing for the ports of Halifax and St. John a portion of the grain that may be carried all rail from the great western wheat fields to the Atlantic ocean. Sir, what proportion of the total output of the grain intended for export to hon. gentlemen think will come down all rail ? What percentage of the great and growing export business of the prairies and of the western territories will come down all rail to St. John and Halifax ? It will be only a fraction of the total quantity. The great bulk of the trade will come down by rail and water, and there is nothing in the contract which we have discussed for the last two weeks to prevent it from coming that way. The hon. Minister of the Interior says :
My hon. friend knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway hauls millions of bushels already to make up cargoes for its ships.
Yes, the Canadian Pacific Railway haul that grain to make cargoes for their ships
that are coming into St. John. They have to stiffen these ships, they have to complete the loading of these ships; but their position is entirely different from the position that the Grand Trunk Railway would be in, because the Grand Trunk Railway Company do not ship at Halifax or St. John, but at Portland. To Portland, as hon. gentlemen know very well, they will carry the freight to stiffen their ships and to complete their cargoes, and there will be every possible incentive to the Grand Trunk Railway Company to take the freight to Portland rather than to Halifax or St John. Am I not in the judgment of the House when I say that even if we do succeed in bringing some of the freight to Halifax and St. John the cars that bring it will have to go back empty or else compete with the Intercolonial Railway for the traffic that now goes over that road 1 I say that every bushel of grain and every carload of freight that goes over the Grand Trunk Pacific to be shipped at Halifax or St. John means, under the scheme of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the Intercolonial loses and will lose the whole of that freight from Montreal and Quebec, as hon. gentlemen know. The only haul eastward that the Intercolonial Railway can have is from Moncton to St. John or Halifax, and the only haul westward under this proposition that the Intercolonial Railway can have is the haul from Halifax or from St. John to Moncton. It is for the chance of getting a share of the all-rail freight for four or five months in the winter to St. John and Halifax that the people of the province of Ontario, if this road is to cost $150,000,000, will have to be responsible for $60,000,000, the people of the province of Quebec will have to be responsible for $45,000,000. and so on. It is for the mere chance of getting a portion of the grain that may go all-rail for four or five months in the year delivered at St. John or Halifax that we are involving this country in this enormous expenditure. If it were anybody else but the Grand Trunk Railway Company that we were dealing with we might have some hopes of obtaining a considerable proportion of the all-rail traffic for Halifax and St.John; but I repeat, and every hon. gentleman must know it, that every interest of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is involved in carrying that traffic to Portland so as to secure the long haul over the Grand Trunk's own line, and to fill their ships and enable them to sail promptly with full cargoes.
What is the situation in regard to freight going west ? Every pound of freight originating in the province of Quebec from the great city of Montreal westward, every pound of freight originating in the province of Ontario will go, under this new proposition, by the route that Mr. Hays intended in his original proposition. Every pound of freight, and every hon. gentleman who I studies the thing must know it, gathered up

in Montreal will be baulecl by the Grand Trunk Railway as far as they can haul it- in the summer time to Midland and Sarnia to be despatched by boat up the great lakes to Port Arthur, and in the winter time to North Bay and thence westward to Winnipeg if the freight is intended for Manitoba and the territories. But if it. is intended for British Columbia Eow wfiTit go ? It
win on just- |ia it ynoa	It will gO
by tne Gratia Trunk. Railway _ta Sarnia or \v7nrfgj^_tiieiir~ tn fnTicago and thence by the (Treat Northern Railway to British Columbia. So, I say, and I say it with the greatest possible respect, that the more this scheme is examined, the more one looks into this scheme, the more one examines the details in connection with it, the stronger, the more indubitable is the evidence that this scheme has been hastily and inadvisedly entered into, and that the people of Canada cannot by any possibility reap the advantages from it which lion, gentlemen opposite fondly believe that they will reap. I say that we only need to examine the details of this scheme to be perfectly satisfied, unless we are hidebound partisans, that this scheme is not in the interests of the people of Canada and that even at this late hour it ought to be abandoned, because by a much smaller expenditure we can obtain greater, more lasting and more beneficial results for all parts of this country, whether the maritime provinces or the provinces of the great west.


Mr. WADE.: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) allow me to put a question to him which I propose to ask him now because I will not be here this evening ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes, certainly.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I understand that during the course of his speech the hon. gentleman stated that I was slated for a position immediately after the close of this parliament. Will he kindly tell me what the position is ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will have great pleasure in answering the hon. gentleman's question if he will take his seat. I had the pleasure of reading that the hon. gentleman was slated to be chairman of the commission for the construction of the eastern section of this new transcontinental railway.


Fletcher Bath Wade: As the hon. gentleman does not care to do me any injustice I am sure he will be prepared to allow me to make a statement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I say that the statement is absolutely without foundation. I say that I have never applied for that position or any other position ; neither has anybody on my behalf and no intimation has ever been made to me that I am to be offered any position at all at the close of this parlia-Mr. CLARKE.	-
rnent, or at any other time. On the contrary it is my full determination to run at the next election in Annapolis county and I purpose coming back here as the representative of the county. As a matter of fairness I want to say one word more. Another report in the same connection has been circulated by the Conservative press that my health was so bad that I would not be able to run again and that I would have to resign. It seems to me that these gentlemen are somewhat alarmed and that they desire for some reason or other I should not be able to run again.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Frederick Clarke: aian ports should not hare it. if the government providCTrUTe facilities for handling it.
If that statement meant anything, it meant that Mr. Hays was prepared to make an agreement with the government and to give the necessary guarantee that every pound of freight that could be handled at St. John and Halifax would be delivered at these ports over this new Grand Trunk Pacific. But it is nevertheless an extraordinary fact that under this agreement we have to take our chances ; we have to appeal, (as has been stated by the Minister of Finance) to the patriotism of the people, while every energy of the Grand Trunk Company will be bent to divert as much of that traffic as possible from Halifax and St. John to Portland, the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway system on the Atlantic coast. There is not much fear felt in Portland as to the injury . that will be done to that port as a result of this amended agreement becoming law. The newspapers of that city are not very despondent over the discussion which has taken place here, nor over the contract which the government has entered into. The Portland ' Press ' the other day referring to this matter said :
With its close and the final ratification of the contract it appears that there will he no further obstacle in the way of beginning very soon the work of building another great transcontinental railroad line. It will not be so vast an undertaking as the Panama canal, but it will probably he of even greater interest and importance to this section of the country.
I am satisfied that that paragraph expresses the views of those who are interested in the future of the Grand Trunk system's terminals in Portland. I repeat that the government have been derelict in their duty in not compelling the Grand Trunk Railway Company to accept the obligation of delivering all its western trade over to the Intercolonial Railway, so as to secure for our own maritime ports that advantage which they have the right to expect from the construction of this transcontinental line.
I wish to say three or four words with regard to the position of the province of Ontario, as I understand that position. We have been charged with being sectional. 1 deny that allegation. The people of the province of Ontario are willing to assume their share of responsibility for the liability which may be imposed on the people generally in connection with the construction of a new transcontinental line. But the people of Ontario do not see what particular benefit is to be derived by that province from this expenditure. They think that the expenditure in any event is a lavish expenditure, and believe that greater good could be accomplished not only for this province but for all the other provinces of the Dominion by the adoption of the amendment which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mr. CLARKE.
R. L. Borden) has presented. It is said that this new scheme will give depth to the province of Ontario, and will open up a great tract of land suitable for colonization and settlement. It has been pointed out in this House again and again that the province of Ontario is doing its duty in the way of opening up to colonization whatever portions of northern Ontario are fit or available for colonization. The hon. member for ' Both-well (Mr. Clancy) gave a list of the companies which have been incorporated, and of the railways which are being constructed to open up the northern portions of this great province of Ontario. This road, therefore, is not required, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, for colonization purposes, at least for many years to come, and as far as being of any benefit to the older settled portions of the province it is impossible for any hon. gentleman opposite to show wherein that benefit will obtain. It is an astonishing fact, Mr. Speaker, but it is a fact, that the main line of this new transcontinental line will run practically as far north from the city of Toronto or of any other, of the great centres of the industry and commerce of the province as the city of Quebec is east of Toronto, as the city of Chicago is west of Toronto, or as New York or Philadelphia are southeast of Toronto. You are not surprised, therefore, that there is not a very great deal of excitement in the older portions of the province or a great deal of enthusiasm over the construction of this new line. It will not shorten the distance by one mile between the great centres of production in the east and the great centres of distribution in the west. It has been placed entirely out of connection with the old Grand Trunk. The main line runs 470 miles north of Toronto, and during the greater part of the year it will be of no possible advantage to the city of Toronto, or to any other industrial centre of this province. I think that so far as Ontario is concerned a more feasible, a more practical, a more patriotic scheme would be to adopt the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), made last year and repeated again this year. We want to see the Intercolonial Railway carried westward from Montreal. The present western terminus of that road is at the head of ocean navigation. So long as that situation exists, the Intercolonial Railway, owned by the people of Canada, can never exercise the slightest influence as a factor in regulating freight rates. The problem of transportation is to a great extent solved when the surplus products of the west reach Montreal, because that city is at the head of tide water. What we desire, the policy we approve of. is that the people's road, owned and controlled by the people, should be extended westward, first to the waters of the great lakes, where it can procure its share of traffic destined for the Atlantic ; afterwards the road can be continued west-1

ward to the prairies, to enjoy for all time a measure of the prosperity which will undoubtedly be enjoyed by that country. _We in Ontario do not object to the liability devolving upon that province of $60,000,000 in carrying out a necessary national undertaking, but we would prefer to see that sum, instead of being expended in building a railroad through a wilderness 500 miles north of the centres of population, expended in the purchase of the Canada Atlantic and the extension of the Intercolonial Railway further west. If we are to be mulcted in $60,000,000 for the cost of construction of a road which, when completed, is to be given to a private company, we would prefer to be mulcted for $66,000,000, an addition of $6,000,000, for the purpose of constructing a road that after it has been completed will not be given away to a private railway company, but will be used by the people of Canada in the interests of the people of Canada. The Intercolonial Railway has not paid in the past. It has been, shall I say without meaning to be offensive, a sinkhole. We have had to meet deficit after deficit in the conduct of the affairs of that railway The people of Ontario have had to bear their share of those deficits ; but I believe and I think that the majority of the people of this province believe that, managed under proper auspices, removed as far as possible from party or political influence, placed under and managed by a commission appointed by those responsible to the people, and extended westward, the Intercolonial would certainly have a bright future before it. We are prepared, or rather I am prepared, for I am speaking now only for myself, to vote that the province of Ontario shall become liable for $66,000,000 rather than for $60,000,000 if, as a result of that additional liability, we shall have control for all time to come of a transcontinental railway owned by the people of Canada and, if necessary, operated by them. We demonstrate, I hope, by that assertion that instead of acting from a sectional standpoint we are desirous of joining with those in the maritime provinces and in the west who believe that the Intercolonial Railway has a future and in giving it every possible chance. It is surely in the interests of the maritime provinces that that road should be maintained ; it is not in the interests of the maritime provinces that that road should be paralleled and side-tracked. We believe in a policy that will extend the Intercolonial Railway westward to Parry Sound and to Winnipeg, and also to the business centres of the province of Ontario, and we hope the time is not far distant when the cars of the Intercolonial Railway will have become as familiar objects on the sidings and tracks of the great industrial centres of Ontario as are the cars of the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway at the present time. What advantage will accrue to the people of the maritime provinces, of the west,
or of Ontario under the proposition of the government that will not accrue under the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) V The advantages in favour of the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) are manifold, and that proposition will cost much less money. The money that will be saved in carrying out his scheme could be utilized to great advantage in improving and developing the St. Lawrence route and the ports on the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic coast. We are willing to bear our share of the expenditure in connection with that matter, willing to bear that share cheerfully, to assist in every possible way to further the scheme of a national transcontinental railway, but we abject to be taxed for the construction of a road that will be operated by and in the interest of a private corporation. There was no demand made by the people of Ontario for the construction of this new line; there never was one word heard about the construction of a trunk line 500 miles north of Toronto, Hamilton and London for the purpose of colonization.
The people of the province of Ontario have borne their share of the burden that was imposed upon them by the construction of the Intercolonial and its maintenance and by the aid given the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railways. There is nothing for them that I can see in this new proposition. There would be something in it if we had a government owned road, a road owned by ourselves extending into the heart of Ontario, because such a road would benefit all parts of Ontario, and all interests, manufacturing, cofiimercial and agricultural. I believe that when an appeal is made, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, a substantial majority will show their opposition to this contract. The people have had no opportunity of expressing their opinion on the policy involved except in the by-elections some two or three months ago ; and if the expression of opinion given on that occasion be any criterion, I am justified in saying that when a general appeal is made,' the verdict rendered in East Bruce and East Lambton will be repeated more emphatically and signally in the whole province of Ontario.
Before I take my seat I desire to propose an amendment to the motion now in your hands, Mr. Speaker. I desire to move an amendment to the proposition submitted to us- a proposition which, from whatever standpoint you regard it, is a most extraordinary one. The proposition gnVqpittpd to ns calls upon this country to_hnilfl -L9Q0 miles of road-arrtniand it over to be operated by a company for fifty years, during only forty of which we can hope to receive any return. By this proposition we take the responsibility of building 1,900 miles of road and handing it over to a company, and we become liable for three-quarters of the cost of the remain-

ing 1,500 miles, which, after it is built and completed, becomes absolutely the property of the company. The people of Canada will have the privilege of becoming responsible for nine-tenths of the cost of construction and then have to hand the road over to a company. I do not believe that the intelligent electors of the Dominion will support a proposition of that kind. I think therefore it is only fair, reasonable and just that they should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the proposition of the government, and the amendment I propose is in that direction. I beg to move in amendment :
That the Bill he not now read a second time, but that it be resolved :
That the Bill is intended to ratify and confirm agreements providing for the construction of a transcontinental railway system, a large portion of which is to become the property of a railway corporation to whom the remaining portion is be	|,n1~ fifty years on terms
burdensome to the country ;
That under the proposed agreements Canada must incur enormous obligations, both direct and by guarantee, while the obligation assumed by the other guarantor is comparatively small ;
The House believes that before committing the country to such enormous obligations the government ought first to submit to the people the whole question, and especially the question whether Canada should not rather assume the entire obligation and thus own and control the entire proposed line of railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
-In the contract submitted to us by the government the liabilities of the people are very great and the advantages very small, whereas the liabilities of the company are very small and the advantages very great. I believe that the country is in favour of the amendment I propose. I think that the people should be given an opportunity of saying whether they would not prefer to go one step further-since they are assuming *such large liabilities and responsibilities in connection with this great transcontinental line-and become responsible for the small sum for which the Grand Trunk Railway renders itself liable, and take over the whole enterprise from end to end, and operate it in the best interests of all sections of the people of Canada. I must apologize to the House for having taken up so much time, and beg leave to move the amendment I have just read.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke).
Those in favour of the amendment will please say, ' aye.'
Those opposed to the amendment will please say, ' no.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I declare the amendment lost.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yeas and nays.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have declared the amendment lost.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Robert Laird Borden: But we called for the yeas and nays.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Not until after I declared the amendment lost. As a matter of fact, I did not hear any hon. gentleman say he was in favour of the amendment.


Mr. SPROULE.: After you declared the amendment lost, the yeas and nays were asked for. Until you have declared, Sir, the amendment lost, we have a right to assume that it was carried, and once you have declared the amendment lost, we have the right to ask for yeas and nays.


George Taylor: Are you going, Mr. Speaker, to order the membeM to be called in ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The yeas and nays were not properly called .for.


George Taylor: They were. After you put the motion, we called for yeas and nays.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not deaf and I must repeat that I did not hear one hon. gentleman declare he was in favour of the amendment. Consequently I had nothing to do but to declare the amendment lost.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: There must be a misunderstanding. It was certainly the intention of this side to have a vote taken. I distinctly heard several gentlemen around me say ' yea.' I do not think, under the circumstances, the House would take advantage of a simple misunderstanding to declare an amendment lost when it was the intention of this side to vote upon it. I do not think there is any intention on the other side to take such a strict advantage of the rules of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I have always heard the Speaker put the question in this way. He would say, ' I think the ' ayes ' have it, or the ' noes ' have it and then from the other side the reply comes, * No.' I was waiting for the Speaker to say that, but he declared the motion lost without going through what I have always understood to be the usual formality.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The matter presents itself to me in this way. I put the question in the proper way. I asked those who were in favour of the amendment to say, ' aye.' I repeat that I did not hear one hon. gentleman say ' aye,' either in a low or a high tone. I turned round to the gentlemen on my right and asked those against the amendment to say * no,' and I heard ' noes ' from different portions of the House. As far as I could ascertain, there was no one supporting the amendment, and I had no other course but to declare it lost, and I take it now that, not having declared themselves in favour of the amendment, there is now no right on the part of hon. gentlemen to ask for the yeas and nays. So far as was made known to me nobody was supporting the amendment, and

no course was open to me but to declare it lost, and I take it that bon. gentlemen have no right now to call for the yeas and nays.


Mr. OSLER.: I said ' aye.'


Robert Laird Borden: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who proposed and seconded the motion would be understood as saying ' aye ' to their own motion-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I should have thought so, but I did not hear either of them do so.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has said that he said ' aye. ' It is the custom for the speaker, in such a case as this, to say ' in my opinion the noes have it,' and then the call for the ' yeas and nays ' can be made. That is the procedure that 1 have always seen adopted.


Mr. BARKER.: I would call your attention to the fact that not only did certain gentlemen on this side say ' aye ' when the question was submitted, but over twenty gentlemen stood up in favour of the amendment before you put the question of the other side.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have given a ruling which I think I cannot in anyway withdraw from. Of course, if it is the unanimous sense of the House that there should be a division I am in the hands of the House. Otherwise I can only repeat that I did not hear anyone s$y he was in favour of the motion. And I am not blind, nor am I deaf. I certainly saw no one rise nor did I hear anyone say ' aye ' when the motion was put. I take it that, no one having voted in favour of the amendments the yeas and nays cannot be asked for.


Mr. CLANCY.: Several hon. gentlemen have stated that they did say ' aye ' when the question was put. I can scarcely think it would be a fair thing to say that you, Mr. Speaker, had not heard it and therefore that it was not said. I have no doubt you did not hear it. But when an hon. gentleman rises in his place and says he did say ' yea,' I do not think you have any power but one, and that is to order the ' yeas and nays ' to be recorded, as so many gentlemen stood up to require that that should be done.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question is on the main motion.


Robert Laird Borden: No. Before the main motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. And I do this to signify my disapproval of the course pursued by you to-night. This course I never saw pursued Before, and I hope X shall never see it pursued by any Speaker in the chair again. A motion was presented to this House by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and it was seconded by my hon. friend from East Grey (Sir. Sproule). An hon. gentleman in this House
whose word you are bound to take-at least every other hon. member would be bound to take it-has said that he called out 'aye,' in response to the question from the chair for those in favour of the motion. There was at least that with which you are confronted. And, on the other side of the House we have had cries of ' no ' in response to the question. Hitherto I have always heard the Speaker, after putting the question, say ' in my opinion the ayes have it,' or ' the noes have it,' as the case may be; and then, if the vote was desired it could be demanded. That course was not pursued tonight. I think it should have been pursued. And I see no reason why, under the circumstances the vote should not have been taken. And I say that I regret that in this instance the Chair has seen tit to pursue the course which has been followed. I do not think it will add to the decorum of the House to have incidents of this kind arise. Every one in this House certainly understood, and you, Sir, it seems to me, must have understood, that this motion was not put as a mere idle form. I have seen, during the regime of Mr. Speaker Edgar and those who succeeded him, difficulties of this kind at once met by the Speaker in accordance with what he believed to be the .true understanding of those on one side of the House or the other.
I do not think it desirable that we should have any practice of this kind pursued with respect to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, I regret very much that, under the circumstance, you, Sir, have seen fit to pursue the course you have pursued to-night.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has taken this course in order to show his disapproval, as he says, of the ruling of the Speaker. He says that it is the rule for the Speaker to say, after the [DOT] ayes ' and ' noes ' have spoken, * in my opinion the ayes have it,' or ' the nays have it,' that is the rule, certainly. But the Speaker could not do it to-night because there were no ' ayes.'


George Taylor: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) says he said ' aye.'


Wilfrid Laurier: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) spoke, he spoke in such a tone that nobody heal'd him We know what oiten takes place when motions are presented. They are sometimes moved simply to assert the opinions of one side or the other. Of course sometimes they are put wich a view to challenging the opinion of the House ; but, in this case, when the motion was put, nobody said ' aye,' except the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). Generally, when a motion is put upon which a vote is expected you have a volley of ' ayes,' and a countervolley of ' noes.' This is followed by the Speaker's declaration that in his opinion the ' ayes ' or the ' noes ' as may be have it.

But you could not do it in this case, Sir, because there were no ' ayes,' and you naturally came to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen did not wish to vote. I appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) if it is not the case that the Speaker waited a few moments for hon. gentlemen to say whether they would vote, and they did not stand up.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Yes they did.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) is mistaken. Nobody stood up until after the Speaker had declared the motion lost. There was no sharp practice in this. The opposition has always the right to move amendments, as many as they please. Nobody would take advantage of them. But it seems to me, that, in this case they are victims of their own negligence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The practice in this case is quite well understood, and if the usual course had been followed, as laid down in Bourinot, this difficulty would not have arisen. Here is what Bourinot says :
Having read the question on which the. decision of the House is to be first given, he takes the sense of the members by saying : ' Those who are in favour of the question (or amendment) will say content (or yea) ; those who are of the contrary opinion will say non-content (or nay).' When the supporters and opponents of the question have given their voice for and against the same, the Speaker will say : ' I think the contents (or yeas) have it ' ; or ' I think the non-contents (or nays) have it ' ; or 'I cannot decide.' If the House does not acquiesce in his decision, the yeas and nays (or contents or non-pontents) may be called in.
Whenever the Speaker announces that the [DOT] ayes ' have it or the ' noes ' have it, then is the proper time to call for the ' yeas and nays,' and then comes in the rule that if five members stand up calling for the ' yeas and nays ' they are entitled to have them recorded. What we did in this case was what is usually done, and it seems strange that the House should be denied what it undoubtedly has a right to expect. It is not the proper thing to declare a motion lost before giving an opportunity of asking for the yeas and nays.


Samuel Hughes: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you are entirely out of order, because you have not followed the constitution. The constitution has laid down that there is a certain procedure to be followed in putting a question, and I maintain that that procedure has not yet been followed. I therefore take the liberty of appealing from the ruling of the Speaker.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN moved that the House do now adjourn.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I think the motion before you is that the House do now adjourn. It seems to me after the reading from Bouri-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
not that my hon. friend-has just given to the House, that it is plain there is a misunderstanding between some members ol' the House and you, Sir. That misunderstanding is important. By your ruling, the House, and this side of the House in particular, will be deprived of its undoubted right of dividing upon a question which is, in the minds of those who have put it before you, a question of great moment. My hon. friend has read Bourinot, and I shall have to read it again so as to comment upon it. I think with a little good will this question can be easily settled, and I hope it will be the unanimous sense of the House that this misunderstanding will not be taken as a basis for depriving this side of the House of the undoubted constitutional right which we have of dividing upon this question. Now, what should be done ? Bourinot says :
If it is evident that no member claims the right of speaking, the Speaker proceeds to put the question by reading the main motion, and then the amendment or amendments in their order, as the case may be. Having read the question on which the decision of the House is to be first given, he takes the sense of the members by saying : ' Those who are in favour of the question (or amendment) will say content (or yea) ; those who are of the contrary opinion will say non-content (or nay).'
Now, Mr. Speaker, you did put the question that way, and so far all was correct. But let us continue :
When the supporters and opponents of the question have given their voices for or against the same, the Speaker will say : ' I think the contents (or yeas) have it,' or ' I think the noncontents (or nays) have it,' or ' I cannot decide.'
Now, this is the part which was not done. You did not say that you thought the nays had it but you said :	' I declare the motion lost.' Now we have the facts that here was an amendment moved by two hon. gentlemen, and this declaration made by tlie bon. member for West Toronto that he distinctly said, ' yea.' It seems to me it was impossible for you, under these circumstances, to say the motion was lest. What you should have done, I submit, would be to say : I think the nays have it, and in consequence thereof five members on this side of the House would have arisen to demand a division to be taken. But there is another point which I think important. There is a well known rule of this House that a question must not only be put in English, but it must be put in French. Now that was not doue in this case. It was a misunderstanding, I take it, it was a lapsus, it was not done intentionally, but simply because you thought it was the right way to put the motion, either to allow some members on this side to speak to the amendment or to allow some members on the other side to speak against it; but

you did not put the question in the regular way so that a division could he demanded by those who proposed the amendment. Therefore I say, in the procedure which you have followed there are two flaws : First of all, you did not say : ' I think the non-eontents (or nays) have it ; or, I think the ' yeas ' have it; secondly, you did not put the question in French. Now it is absolutely necessary, it is absolutely essential bj the rules of this House, that the question be put both in English and. French. Of course if you began reading the motion in French we were at liberty to say :	Dispense with reading in French. But you did not give us that opportunity. So nobody was under the impression that you had put the question in a manner that it might be voted upon. Now is it because there has been a misunderstanding between the speaker and this side of the House, is it because there is a mere quibble, is it because there is a mere technicality in the way, that you are going to deprive the opposition of the privilege of dividing upon this question and recording their votes upon it ? I do not think so.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I was never so much impressed as I am now with the advantage of a dual language. There is certainly no desire on the part otThe Speaker, I am sure, certainly no desire on the part of this sidp of the House to deprive the minority of any right or advantage they may have in this House. I thought myself they had no intention of dividing upon it, and that the Speaker was merely following the ordinary course. But if there has been a misunderstanding, and and if the minority desire to avail themselves of their right of dividing the House upon the question, for my part, if my hon. friend will withdraw his motion. I will be glad to ask the Speaker to take a division.


Mr. B. L. BORDEN.: In view of what the Prime Minister said I will withdraw the motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I agree with the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) that it is the right of every member of the House to ask that the question be also put in French.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It is not necessary that any member should ask that it be put in French, the question should be put in French without its being asked.
Mr. TAYLOR, You are careful in every other motion that comes up, to read it in both languages.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I suppose I have been -lectured sufficiently for the time being. The question is now on the amendment of Mr. Clarke.
House divided j>n amendment (Mr. Clarke).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Kemp,
Armstrong,	Lancaster,
Barker,	LaRiviere,
Bell,	Leonard,
Bennett,	MacLaren (Perth),
Birkett,	Maclean,
Blain,	McGowan,
Borden (Halifax),	Morin,
Boyd,	Osier,
Carscallen,	Pope,
Casgrain,	Puttee,
Clancy,	Richardson,
Clare,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clarke,	Roche (Marquette),
Cochrane,	Sherritt,
Donnelly,	Sproule,
Earle,	Taylor,
Gilmour,	Thomson (Grey),
Hackett,	Tolton,
Haggart,	Vrooman,
Henderson,	Ward,
Hughes (Victoria),	Wilmot,
Ingram, Kaulbach,	Wilson.-17.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Bazinet,	Law,
Bickerdike,	LeBlanc,
Blanchet,	Loy,
Borden (Sir Frederick),	Macdonald,
Bourbonnais,	Mackie,
Brodeur,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Brown,	McColl,
Bureau,	McCreary,
Calvert,	McEwen,
Carbonneau,	Mclsaac,
Copp,	McLennan,
Costigan,	Malouin,
Delisle,	Marcil (Bagot),
Demers (St. John),	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Douglas,	Matheson,
Fielding,	May rand,
Fisher,	Meigs,
Fitzpatrick, ,	Mignault,
Fortier,	Murray,
Gauvreau,	Parmelee,
Gibson,	Paterson,
Gould,	Prefontaine,
Haszard,	Reid (Restigouche),
Heyd,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.,)
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Sinclair. Johnston (Cape Breton).Smith (Vancouver),	
Johnston (Lambton),	Stephens,
Kendall,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Lang,	Talbot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tolmie,
Laurier (L'Assomption).Tucker,	
Lavergne	Turgeon,
(Drummond & Artha.), Wallace.-66. Lavergne (Montmagny),
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Ross (Ontario), Cowan,
Hyman,
Sutherland (Essex), Beith,
Cartwright,
Christie,
Dvment,
Erb,
German,
Grant,
Opposition.
Hale,
Pringle,
Bruce,
Northrup,
Halliday,
Tupper,
Ball,
McCormick,
Broder,
Smith (Wentworth), Porter,

Holmes,	La veil,
Lewis,	Robinson (Nord.)
Macpherson,	Kendry,
McCool,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Morrison,	Ganong,
Schell,	Kidd,
Wade,	Daniel,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Wright,	Rosamond,
Campbell,	Calvin,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Davis,	Citlbert,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Gallery,	McIntosh,
Girard,	Tarte,
Guthrie,	Avery,
Lemieux,	Brock,
Lovell.	Gourley,
McCarthy,	Lennox,
McGugan,	Seagram,
Mulock,	Roddick,
Sifton,	Monk.
Amendment (Mr. Clarke) negatived.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question is now on the main motion. .


Adam Carr Bell: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this measure will he a sufficient justification for resuming for a short time the discussion of its provisions at this stage of the Bill when it is most proper and convenient to discuss it in its entirety. Generally speaking it must unquestionably be admitted by the people of this country and the members of this House that; ,this is a measure of the very utmost importance. It is really a very great measure. Judging it by its financial character it is very clear that it is the most important measure that has ever been submitted to the parliament of this country by the present administration and one of the most important that has ever ffieen submitted to the Canadian parliament. Hence, it is well at this stage of the proceedings, that is on taking the motion for the second reading of this measure, to discuss it in a manner which would not be proper when we come to consider it in detail in Committee of the Whole House. Now, I should think the first thing that would strike members of this House and the people of this country in considering this measure is its very great extent and the very great burden that, unquestionably, will be imposed upon the finances either of the country, or of the company if it is carried to completion. A transcontinental railway we have achieved already. The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway from the point at which it started, I may say a long way towards the centre of the continent, was a very great work of its kind. Still, this was not an undertaking spanning'the whole continent as this proposition now before the House is. so that, even as compared with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Transcontinental Railway Bill which the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has proposed to this House is a measure involving a work The SPEAKER.
that is more extensive and even greater than the Canadian Pacific Railway, a work which we all know to have been so much for the general advantage of Canada. We have not been standing still in Canada in the matter of railway construction. While we had the Canadian Pacific Railway with its connections and branches in eastern Canada and particularly its connection with the branch which reaches the Atlantic at St. John, while we had what was in very truth, in its last stages a transcontinental railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a railway uniting the waters of the two oceans, the greater part of which was constructed on Canadian soil, we were not confined to that altogether, because in the Canadian Northern, a road which has been under way for some years, although it did not commence, perhaps, with the ambitious title of a transcontinental railway, nor did its owners and those who were promoting its interests and driving along the project reveal to the people of Canada or to the world, in the first instance, that they proposed to commit themselves to the construction of another transcontinental railway, we have a railway which is very rapidly assuming the character of a transcontinental railway, of the second transcontinental railway line in Canada. It is now approaching Edmonton and has its plans, as I am informed, arranged for the extension of the road from Edmonton to a point on the Pacific somewhere in the vicinity of the point which it is proposed to be reached by the road to be constructed under the Bill now before the House. In eastern Canada the Canadian Northern Railway has large connections and has actually at the present time, as I am informed, reached the port of Quebec, one of the objective points of the great work which it is proposed to accomplish by the Bill now before the House. Hence, we have actually one Transcontinental Railway in full operation and we have another which, with a reasonable amount of assistance on the part of the government, will become a second transcontinental railway at a very early date. That being the case it is a little difficult to explain to the people of this country wherein lies the urgent necessity of providing for what I may call a third transcontinental railway for a people numbering six millions as the right hon. Prime Minister describes the people of this country to be in his opening speech on this subject. It seems, to me that six millions of people might be satisfied with less than three transcontinental railways and it would also seem as if it might be difficult for six millions of people, occupying an enormous extent of territory and only partially and ineffectively occupying that territory, to furnish the business which would properly utilize the means of transportation afforded by three railways of the , class and character of these which we'have been engaged in building and which we are

engaged, in the case of this last measure, m projecting.
The consequence is, that to the people of Canada, the proposition to spend $175,000,000 on the construction of this road, will excite the question :	For what purpose
is this road being' built, and is there any urgent necessity that requires the people of Canada at this time, to impose upon themselves this enormous burden ? Now, 1 am proud to be able to say that $175.000,000 is not a crushing burden for Canada, in view of our prosperity and our future prospects. If that sum were expended wisely upon a measure which would furnish adequate returns, such expenditure need not necessarily alarm the people of Canada, no matter how conservative they may be. If it were expended on the national defence ; or expended to guarantee national security ; or expended in order to secure an opportunity that was passing, I would feel warranted in supporting a measure that might imply a cost of even $175,000,000. But, at the same time I would require to have very very strong arguments adduced, io persuade me that such an expenditure should be undertaken for the purpose of constructing what will practically be a third transcontinental railroad in Canada, the advantage of which and the necessity of which at the present moment, is very doubtful indeed.
The most peculiar feature of this measure is, that while it imposes this enormous obligation upon the people of Canada, it does it in such a way that the property to be constructed, passes out of the hands of the Canadian people, and into the hands of a private corporation. That being so, we are naturally disposed to inquire, what is the relative magnitude of such a sum as $175,000,000. Let us remember that the tola] net debt of Canada is about $250,000,000. and that this net debt represents every dollar of indebtedness that has been accumulated in British North America ; from the time the first white man placed his foot on the soil ; that it includes the debts of all the provinces that had been contracted previous to confederation and the debts that have been contracted by Canada since confederation ; that in fact it m a debt that has been accumulated during a period extending over hundreds of years. Therefore when we come to compare the net debt of Canada with the sum which it is proposed to expend by the right hon. gentleman's measure, it will be seen that the building of this line of railway entails an expenditure, equal to about three-fourths of all the obligations that have been contracted by all the provincial governments, and by the Dominion government, from the very first settlement of the country to this date : less such deductions as have been made by the sinking fund. It will be
seen, therefore, that even though the country is prosperous, it is an enormous obligation to assume. Nothing but the most absolute certainty that the measure is urgently necessary, and that it is sure to be of great value to the country, would justify us in proceeding with it. I regret to say that the reasons that have been advanced ii' support of this measure are such, as would fail to convince any reasonable person that the construction of this work, at this time, is necessary or that it is likely in the near future to remunerate this country for the expenditure that it will necessitate. Last year, when the right hon. gentleman introduced this measure, he mentioned certain reasons which he said were of national importance, and which partook of the character of urgency. The right hon. gentleman, with the utmost degree of earnestness, announced that every hour of delay, almost every moment of delay was dangerous. His argument was that this measure would preserve us from a source of great danger to our commercial interests by the possible suspension of the bonding privilege. He left the impression on the House, and on the country, that in his opinion the bonding privilege was liable to sudden interruption ; and that the friendly arrangements which had existed between the United States and Canada for many years, might at any moment be severed, fi did not strike me at the time that the right hon. gentleman had made out a good case. We all know that this bonding privilege is a great source of convenience ; that it exists as an instance of the comity of nations, which results to the wellbeing and advancement of both. It occurred to me, that there could be no danger that the privilege that was extended to us by the United States, was in any immediate danger of being interrupted. I could indeed see a great many reasons which induced me to think that there was no such danger. This privilege had existed uninterruptedly for a great number of years. We had reason to believe that the enormously important and valuable privilege enjoyed by the citizens of the United States in trading to the ports of the West Indies, was enjoyed entirely in consequence of the fact that they maintained these friendly relations with us, and allowed our vessels to come into their ports and allowed our goods to be transported across United States territory.
I observe that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not entirely agree with me in this matter, but I think i may be able, although I am not at present provided with the authorities, to recall to his notice a convention which existed under which the privilege of trade on equal terms was guaranteed. Then again there is the unquestioned fact that the bonding privilege is of enormous value to the people of the United States. The men of the New England cities

to-day are commercially and politically the most influential community in the United States. On every occasion when there has been any proposition to interrupt the friendly relations between Canada and the United States, we have found the. merchant classes of Boston and the New England States awake to the fact that nothing could be more injurious to them than an interruption of these privileges. Then we know that over the Canada Southern Railway which is now under the control of the Michigan Central an enormous traffic is carried which enables us to measure the tremendous advantages the people of the United States enjoy under the bonding privilege, and the great benefit to the merchants of Boston and the New England cities of being able to have their freight hauled over that air line. All these things being considered, it struck me that there was not very great danger of the interruption of the bonding privilege. But still it was only becoming that 1 should keep in mind the fact that there might be reasons known to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) which were not known to me or to the House. Owing to 'his position as leader of the gevern-meut of Canada he is in immediate and close communication with the home government and must know of matters affecting the foreign office, matters that are of importance in connection witli the relations between the people of the United States and Canada. Perhaps at the very moment the right hon. gentleman was speaking he may have had knowledge which led him to believe that in the Alaska botmdary question, which was not then settled, there were matters which might set up unfriendly feeling and lead to the repeal of the bonding privilege. If that were so-and I was not disposed to shut my eyes to the fact that these conditions might exist-strong as were the reasons that induced me a year ago to think there was no danger of the interruption of the bonding privilege, by so much stronger are they to-day when I remember that the only source of possible trouble between the governments bas been removed. Consequently it seems to me tbe right hon. gentleman himself in view of tbe fact that another year has passed without any sign of the people of the United States wishing to abandon the bonding privilege must see that his argument of the urgency of this matter is not one which should influence the members of this House or of tbe country. Tbe bon. gentleman laid stress last year upon the want of railway facilities in tbe west, and he stated the people of tbe west were injured and hampered in their business, subjected to inconvenience, and he supposed to a certain measure of loss, on account of insufficient railway connection. Having visited the west and having obtained all the information I could from members from that country who can speak with adequate information, it appears to me that there is no Mr. BELL.
immediate necessity for the construction of another line of road. We know that during the two years preceding the introduction of this measure by tbe hon. gentleman in 1903, there had been a great many complaints from the west as to the inadequate facilities for moving goods into the west and more particularly for the carriage of grain from the west eastward. While that was true for the two years preceding the introduction of this measure, it would seem that the inconvenience which existed in the west was not caused by the need of more miles of railway, but by the want of roiling stock on the existing lines. I am not going to say at all that there are not many hundreds of men, possibly some thousands, who are further from a railway line than they would like to be, but these men would be served not so much by tbe construction of another trunk line as by tbe extension of branch lines now in existence or proposed. I believed then and I believe now that witli sufficient rolling, stock upon these lines all the crops could be handled not only this year but for some years to come. The result of this last year has gone to show that this opinion was correct. JThere has been no complaint during the past year of difficulty in moving the crop as rapidly as it should be removed.
Mr. MeCREARY. It was a very light crop.


Adam Carr Bell: My hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) reminds me of a very cogent argument ; it has been a comparatively light crop. I would imagine that in proposing to spend the $175,000,000 the right hon. gentleman should have in mind the fact that it was possible you might have light crops, that it was not necessary to provide for a bumper crop every year. The fact of the matter was that the years preceding the introduction of this measure were exceptional, that the yield of grain was enormously large. These years in which some people might imagine that necessity existed for further railway communication were years of exception and plenty, years in which the crops were at least fifty per cent in excess of the average, and therefore it was not safe or prudent or wise to argue that because in years of enormous and overflowing plenty the railways could not handle tbe traffic of the country, we should at once proceed to expend a sufficient amount of money to equip the country with sufficient railways capable of handling all its enormous crops in bumper years. But there are other reasons. As long as the country was new, as long as the men going in had to recoup themselves for their expenditure and reimburse those from whom they bad procured supplies, the chances were they would want to make immediate sales of their crops. It would lie the policy of almost every farmer to turn his crop into cash at once. But with the growth of well-being in that western

country, with the increase of prosperity and independence, there will be none of that terrible rush to get a crop out in short time between the harvest and the close of navigation, and the people will be quite content, and even anxious, to hold their crops so as to take advantage of a rising price. No one will deny that that has been the experience in that country. Instead of every man being forced to market his crop at once, the conditions at present are such that every farmer considers his wheat an asset, as a counter in the game, out of which he wants to make the largest amount of profit, and he is not going to throw it on the market at a time when all the products are thrown in the hands of merchants at once, but will hold it with the view' of such advantage as may come from a rise in prices. Again, we all know that on account of the extension of banking facilities in the west, it is just as easy to borrow cash against wheat in warehouse there as it is in Chicago. Warehouse receipts will be accepted by any bank. Consequently no man is forced to throw his crop on the market the moment he gets it into his hands. All these circumstances go to show' that if any one believed there was an absolute necessity to build a road in the west for the purpose of bringing out the crops at a very hurried rate, he would be labouring under a mistake. We must remember that while the people of the w'est in August and September are harvesting their crops, all the crop is not going to be used up at once. It is going to last for twelve months. It is grow'n for the purpose of supplying bread and food to communities, either here or abroad, during a period of twelve months. Why then should it be considered absolutely necessary that that country should be equipped with a system of railway capable of moving the w'hole crop in a few months ? Why should the people, considering the matter from their own viewpoint, considering it from the point of view of the advantage to accrue to them, insist upon throwing upon the market at once twelve months supply, which is to go gradually into the possession of consumers during the entire year? I could not see for my part at any time any adequate reason why this road must be built at once to relieve pressing necessity in the Northwest. If it could be shown that our people in that part of Canada were suffering, and that their suffering W'ould be mitigated by the construction of this road in the west, then I would be perfectly w'illing to join with the government in giving it to them at the earliest possible moment; but in such case I would imagine some system might be devised that would give the same measure of relief in a much shorter time than the measure before the House. For instance by building a line from Fort William or Port Nipigon-because I do not think it would be any injury to us to have two ports at the western end of lake Superior-to Winnipeg and thence to-661
wards Edmonton-which would be a work almost of insignificance compared with the project now before the House-all that advantage which could possibly be conferred on the people of the Northwest by the present scheme would be conferred on them in a very short time. But the measure before the House contemplates a great deal more than that. It loads down that scheme, which might be carried out in the course of a very few years to the advantage of the people, with conditions and attachments which are going to make it a work which can only be executed in a very long time and at enormous cost. There was another reason advanced by the right hon. gentleman why this road in its entirety, with its eastern connections, should be built over the route which he indicated rather indefinitely as lying about the height of land in the central parts of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, hundreds of miles north of the large settlements and the great cities in these provinces. The tight hon. gentleman, and those who followed him, argued that the government scheme will provide a great colonization road and fill up the at present unoccupied parts of these older provinces. For my part, I have never been able to satisfy myself that that is likely to be realized. We know from experience that in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, in the parts not far removed from the older settlements, the conditions existing are at least as good and possibly better than those which prevail along the line of the proposed railway. We know that there are millions of acres of land in these districts similar to that which is to be found in the north and perhaps better-certainly not worse-which have railway communication to a certain extent-through which pass the lines of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway and to a certain extent the government railway, and we do not find these portions of the-older provinces becoming filled up by population in such a way as would lead any one to believe it would he profitable or advisable to spend any $50,000,000 on a colonization road through the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec at this time. There is another reason why we should not be so anxious at this moment to fill up those tracts and by special inducements persuade settlers to go into them. To my mind the proper policy of Canada is to fill up her public domain in such a manner as to give her greater strength at the moment. Her proper policy would be to develop that portion where she will receive the largest share of reward. Every dollar expended in the better parts of Canada must strengthen our country with increased population and increased wealth make us eveyy day more and more advanced upon the road to greatness and national wealth and strength.
If it were in the power of the right hon. gentleman to divert any considerable por-

lion of the immigration now coming into Canada, whether from European countries or from the United States, to the northern parts of Ontario or Quebec, this laud of which we know nothing, would he consider it a good and wise act in the interest of the country to do so ? Would he not consider it infinitely more to the advantage of the country, infinitely more a public service for which he could claim the gratitude of the people, if he should prevent the attention of settlers being directed to these less advantageous situations, and turn their attention and their steps towards those portions of Canada which are so desirable for the incoming settlers as we know the prairies to be? That country is already opened up by railways. We are told on the authority of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, Hon. Mr. Blair, that it is capable of receiving a population of five or six million souls ; a population equal to that of all Canada to-day could find homes and could prosper and be served by the railway connections that already exist in the Northwest. In that public domain you have one of the estates belonging to this country, an estate upon which the public money has been spent in order to make it profitable ; an estate that will add to our national wealth and strength. Every settler who is sent, whether by government interference and assistance or otherwise, to make a home in northern Quebec and Ontario, as compared with one who goes to the prairie land, to the Saskatchewan country in the Northwest Territories or Manitoba, would be a most unprofitable subject to Canada. Place the settler upon the rich lands of the west and he becomes a prosperous citizen ; at once he begins to accumulate wealth ; and every dollar that he accumulates goes to swell the aggregate wealth of Canada. The man who takes up a farm on the prairie, is able, within a year or two, to export $1,000 worth of wheat. He swells the exports of the country, and the effect of his work is to increase the imports to an equal amount, possibly a larger amount. On the other hand, the settler in the forest, in the country along the line of the eastern section of the proposed transcontinental railway, might support himself but. unquestionably, he could not have a surplus to swell the exports and imports of the country and attract more and more the favourable attention of the financiers of other countries and the people of the world at large to the wonderfully favoured land in which we live. To my mind, the highest considerations of patriotism should have led the right lion. Prime Minister to devote the attention of his government and the resources of the country to exploiting, in the first place, the profitable-estates of Canada that lie in the west, and leave these less profitable, these worse lands-we will not say ' bad ' lands-which may well be left until the good lands of the country have been fully occupied. Now. to Mr. BELT,.
a certain extent, it seems to me clear that the course that the right lion, gentleman is pursuing is really unpatriotic. He is using the resources of this country in order to divert the attention of incoming people, to secure tvliom we are expending large sums of money, from portions of Canada in which they can add almost at once and enormously to the wealth of the country to other portions in which they would fail to become wealthy or to add to the country's wealth, and to a country in which they would fail to become contented citizens. It is a misfortune when men come here who have connections abroad and who are likely to send back to the friends they have left any expression of opinion that they have injured their prospects by coming to this country. Every consideration would seem to indicate very clearly that, in respect of the bonding privileges in respect of the alleged lack of traffic in the Northwest, in respect of the alleged developing of colonization roads in the less desirable parts of Canada, anything like a fair consideration of the argument must lead one not to the conclusion that the right lion, gentleman has come to, that he should build this transcontinental railway, but that he should do nothing of the kind. I cannot satisfy my own mind that a single one of these arguments is cogent in the direction in which he applied them. To my mind the whole force and effect is in an entirely different direction. Now. having the opinion I have of the enormous capacity and capabilities of our Northwest I should say that nothing that the government could undertake in the way of railway extension in the west could be too great humanly speaking. That a certain railway extension is unnecessary up to this moment is no argument, because, the population is going into that country at a rapid rate. To say that a railway extension will not be needed before ten years is an indication that it is time we were commencing to provide for it. The right hon. gentleman. in the amendments he has introduced to this contract shows that he does not contemplate the completion of the road in the west in less than seven years. It is evident that he thinks that even longer time may be occupied, because we have a provision in the Bill that the company shall not he held by any obligation to complete the road in that time under certain contingencies. So, we may fairly assume that it will be ten years before that work is completed. Therefore, so far as that is concerned. it would seem to me that we should be well in advance of the work of necessary railway building in the more fertile parts of Canada. As to the other parts of the scheme, in so far as the construction of the eastern extension of the road is concerned.
I must admit that I am not persuaded nor do I see how it is possible for any public man to persuade the people, or for any citizen of Canada who studies the question

with an unbiassed mind to be convinced, that the right hon. gentleman has made out a case for the eastern part of this road. To a certain extent, I have been disposed to fear from the discussion that this road might fairly be designated a political railway-or, rather not a railway but a railway project. I have always suspected that it was a railway project of a decidedly political character. And, listening to the speeches made by some hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces, I could not be unaware of the fact that they were exceedingly anxious to impress me with the idea that there was great danger in any man from the maritime provinces opposing the construction of this road. And why ? Because, these hon. gentlemen assume and assert, without proof but with a great deal of confidence and glibness, that the right hon. gentleman is going to bring to the ports of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia enormous quantities of the products of the west. If my hon. friends could prove these things, they need scarcely hesitate for a moment to believe that I should be found supporting them.
Because while I think we owe everything in the way of work and construction to the west, I cannot consent to the idea that we do not owe everything as well to the east. If we are to do all we can to make the citizens prosperous in the west, we ought to do all we can that is likely to make them prosperous in the east.
But what reasonable ground is there for believing that the construction of this road from Fort Simpson to Moncton is going to divert anything like a large part of the grain traffic of the west to the ports of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia V For my part, I cannot make myself believe that it is possible. We have direct rail communication now with these ports over two lines of railway, over the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial to St. John, anil over the Intercolonial to Halifax ; and yet we know that grain is not carried to these ports in such quantities as to make it of much value to the merchants of those ports or to the citizens of those cities. I need not proceed to prove that the grain has not gone there. My right hon. friend knows that the administration of which he is head constructed an elevator in St. John and there are other private elevators. To what extent has the government elevator in St.
' John been of use in handling the crops of Canada ? Then this government constructed the large elevator in.the city of Halifax, it has been there for years available, a modern elevator, but to what extent has that elevator handled the crops of the west ? If it is going to be possible in the future to send this grain from the west into Halifax and St. John in such large quantities as the right hon. gentleman and his supporters would make us believe, how is it that this grain has not gone into those elevators in the past ? We have had railway connections. we have the Intercolonial, this year not limited in its operations by the usual business considerations, a line which has developed those ports, and which can carry grain and heavy products to them at rates which no private road could undertake to meet. For instance, in the course of last year we know that the Intercolonial, for nine-hundredths of a cent per ton per mile, one-eleventh of a cent per mile, has carried grain from Montreal to Halifax. That experiment has not continued. A certain amount -of grain did go at that price, but it has not continued, and why ? Because the government would not carry any more at the same price ? Probably not. Very probably the government would go on carrying grain at the same price, and that price is so low that it is very evident no company road could compete with it. But the fact of the matter is, that the grain so far has been delivered in some other direction in such a way as to make it more advantageous to the men whose business it is to market the grain products of this country than it would be to send them to these ports.
Now, when the right hon. gentleman and his friends assert that by the construction of a new line of road 1,900 miles in length, which will run through a territory which must be, in the first place, absolutely unproductive, that it is going to carry grain to Halifax and St. John which he cannot at this moment carry by the government line, then he is asking me to believe something which, to my mind, is incapable of belief. What company road operated under the usual conditions, what road operated as the property of private persons who must receive some return for their investment, could possibly carry freight at the prices the Intercolonial carries it for ? It is clear that no company could do it. We have the evidence given by Mr. Wainwright, of the Grand Trunk, a road which is to have control of the policy of this new road who in giving evidence before a committee of this House, asserted that a profitable rate at which companies could carry freight was one-half cent per ton per mile. He said that under certain circumstances in carrying freight by train loads, and not by car loads, a rate of four-tenths of a cent pier ton per mile might be given, and even leave a small margin of profit. But what relation has a rate of four-tenths of a cent per ton per mile, which Mr. Wainwright says is the practical cost' of carrying freight over the Grand Trunk, what relation does that bear to a rate of nine-hundredths of a cent per ton per mile ? Why, it is more than four times, it is four and a-half times as much. The Grand Trunk management says it is necessary to get a rate four and a-half times as great in order to clear themselves and to avoid loss, ns has been received by the government road, and yet this government road has not succeeded in diverting any large amount of grain to the port of Halifax. But the right hon. gentleman would ask us

to believe that a company road, a road owned by a company under the management of Mr. Wainwright, who very probably would have the same relation to this road he has to the Grand Trunk now, a gentleman who says he must have four-tenths of a cent per mile per ton to clear himself, is going to carry wheat to the port of Halifax at less than nine-hundredths of a cent per ton, and I presume the Intercolonial cannot carry freight to-day at nine one-hundredths of a cent without loss ; why, it is asking us to believe what is incapable of belief.
Therefore, I cannot avoid the suspicion which I hold with great regret, that there is a strong tinge of political character in connection with the project which the right lion, gentleman has laid before the country. I am afraid it was more for the purpose of carrying elections than for carrying wheat that the right hon. gentleman introduced this measure, and I have a strong conviction that it is going to have that effect, but it will be the return freight that will be realized, the return traffic. Instead of carrying elections for the government, it may have the effect of carrying the elections against the government; and if the project were really conceived and introduced in that spirit, it would be only a fitting condemnation to be pronounced by the people upon the government if the government were defeated on this measure. If it were a matter of great national importance, if it were for the welfare of Canada, if it could be shown that it would add a dollar to the wealth of Canada, or be of any advantage to a large portion of the citizens in any part of the country, then I would say that it deserves support and the government deserves commendation for having courage enough to propose so great a scheme. But if it be what it appears to be now, a project conceived for the purpose of influencing the people to support an administration which felt they must go to the country with some project, which felt that its record as it stood at that moment was not sufficient to commend it to the country ; then, Sir, I cannot, for my part, support that measure, nor can 1 conceive how any man can support it. As I have said, it involves an expenditure by this country of what is really an enormous expenditure even if Canada were a wealthy country. It involves at one stroke an addition to our debt of $175,000,000, to a debt which is already over $250,000,000, which has been created in the course of over 100 years. It is, relatively speaking, an enormous addition to our debt, and we are not likely to realize any good results from it. The consequence must be that if the matter presents itself to the people as it presents itself to my mind, they cannot assent to it. To a certain extent I believe, from the manner in which the right hon. gentleman introduced this measure, he had a hope that the greatness of the scheme would attract support, that the younger, the more adventurous and Mr. BELL.
the more daring spirits of' this country would say : Yes, this a great scheme"; this is a thoroughly Canadian scheme. It shows boldness, it shows continental powers, a conception of continental courage in undertaking such a scheme, but, when the younger men or the older men come to look at this measure in its details they will surely; hesitate to believe that it is always and throughout going to maintain that character. It is launched with a good deal of eclat, it is launched with a great deal of what I might call demonstration on the part of the right hon. gentleman and his administration, but it is not proceeding, so far, to maintain that character in which it made its appearance in this world. When left to itself, when left to stand upon its own merits this scheme has failed. It is practically a failure up to this point. It was not defeated by the action of the opposition in this House. It was criticised by the opposition but it passed safely through this House, it left this# House exactly as it came into it, but when left to itself, when it had to take its place before moneyed men, when it had to take its place in the money markets, when it came to find the capital that would enable the whole scheme to be realized, it became a failure and practically collapsed. Now, the scheme comes back to this House certainly no better, certainly not improved, as far as the people of Canada are concerned, and still, if the members of this House pass this measure again, if again it should through them receive the assent and support of the people of Canada, what guarantee is there, what probability is there that even then it will be a success ? If it failed before why should it not fail now, and if it be that this measure has not found itself with the strength that would enable it to continue its existence after it passes out of the protection of the government why should this country be called upon to vote for this measure this year when no additional argument has been advanced from the government benches, or no satisfactory explanation given of the fact that the measure as conceived by them last year and perfected by them last year when left to itself promptly and summarily developed into an absolute failure ? That character is stamped upon it, to my mind, and the right hon. gentleman and his associates bring to this House a measure in which are concessions made to a company every one of which goes to show that the company upon whose strength they depended for the completion of this measure and for its realization was incapable of the task which it undertook to perform. Every concession made to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is virtually a concession made to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and if the Grand Trunk Railway Company were unable last year at a time when matters

certainly were no worse than they are now to finance their scheme, what really satisfactory reason have we to believe that they are going to meet with any better success when they go into the money markets of the world with the amended measure we are now about to put into their hands ? To my mind there is every reason to believe that if they could not float the scheme last year they cannot float it this year. But. if this project contains the enormous advantages for Canada which the right hon. gentleman claims for it, and if it is likely to become a failure in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company should he really jeopardize this enormously valuable scheme by putting it into such incompetent hands ? If it be true that the construction of this road will add a new Canada to the old Canada that we know and will practically give us a new nation would it not be better for the right hon. gentleman to keep this scheme in the hands of the government which has financial strength, which certainly can command the best railway ability, in whose hands it will not be likely to fail ? Is it not a mistake on the part of the right hon. gentleman, instead of keeping this matter in the hands of himself and his own administration and sending it on the way to success with the strength and force that can be given to it by the government, lo send it into the hands of a corporation whose record) is failure ? They have not succeeded in doing what they undertook to do. they have to come back to the government as suppliants with a confession of failure. If the interest of the country in this matter is so great and important as the right hon. gentleman led us to believe last year why should he entrust a matter of such importance to the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company? It is not on account of the expenditure. That is very clear, because, if Canada can afford to expend, at a moderate estimate, $150,000,000 in order to carry this scheme to completion it can very well" afford to supplement that sum of money with the $14,500,000 which is all that the Grand Trunk are going to contribute. If the government can raise $150,000,000 for this purpose it certainly can provide one hundred and sixty-four and a half million which addition, as far as the burden on the country or the difficulty of financing the scheme is concerned, will be infinitesmal. It will not be required to be considered or measured. Then, I say in so far as the financing of the scheme is concerned the argument is ten to one in favour of the government of Canada going on and building this road itself. If the right hon. gentleman believes and lias persuaded his colleagues into believing that this road is so important to the people of Canada as he has assured us it is, he should not jeopardize such a scheme by placing it in the hands of men who are not in a position to carry it to a
successful completion. He should keep it in his own hands. But, reading over the very important amendments which have been made to this contract, not one of these amendments can recommend the scheme to this House, not one of them can recommend it to the country, not one of them can recommend it to the taxpayer. They are great concessions. They are all made, without exception, for the one purpose of keeping the Grand Trunk in this scheme. Now, why is that ? These amendments have been criticised from this side of the House. The fact has been pointed out that in every instance there are concessions to the contracting parties, the parties of the other part who are contracting with the government of Canada. That has been pointed out on this side of the House as an objection, as a reason why they should not be favourably considered, why they should not receive the support of the representatives of the people in this House. What has been the reply from the government ? Has that objection been controverted by any speaker on the government side of the House ? The right hon. gentleman, himself, in introducing this measure admitted that these were all concessions and his defence of them wms to endeavour to belittle them and to make them appear trifling, small, of no very great importance and not really very objectionable. But the right hon. gentleman did not say that they were not objectionable. He had to admit that they were objectionable, but the whole of his argument was directed to the endeavour to show that they were not as objectionable as they might have been. I think I am not doing the right hon. gentleman an injustice when I place his argument in such a light. These things are not so bad as they look. We have certainly cut down the security of the people, we have lightened the burdens of the company, we have eased their obligations in several respects, when we might have done more. They wanted more, we were assured. We were told that we ought to be grateful, that we ought to receive this arrangement with thankfulness because the concessions were not greater than they were. When the matter came to be dealt with by hon. gentlemen who support the right hon. Prime Minister what was their attitude ? It was practically the same. One hon. gentleman of ability on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) said :	What are the
opposition talking about ? They are all expressing regret and surprise at the fact that these concessions are made in favour of the company. What else would they expect ? It is no matter to be discussed ; it is no matter to be considered lightly. The hon. gentleman, proceeding with his argument asked : Is it to be supposed that the company would come to the government and ask for harder conditions ? They were

intended to be concessions, the company were looking for concessions, and therefore, what are the opposition speakers talking about ?
The government say they are concessions. Of course they are concessions, but the extraordinary thing is that the answer made by the government to the criticism from this side of the House is, that they cry : peccavi, mea culpa. They appear to believe that an open and full confession is not only good for the soul, but that it should be accepted in perfect satisfaction of all penance. But the government have not repudiated the charge made against them : that this measure was put through parliament eight months ago, after months of consideration ; on the assurance of the government that it could not be touched or altered because it was a binding contract, that the concessions were made for the sole purpose of getting the Grand Trunk Railway Company into this contract, and that this measure could not achieve success unless the Grand Trunk Company were kept in it ; and, that notwithstanding all this, the same government should return to parliament within a few short months, and present to this House a weaker contract, and consider that a full answer was made to all criticism, by the simple confession that the new contract was not as good as the old one. That is one of the most extraordinary positions in which any government lias 'ever been placed in the history of the parliaments of this world.
When the people of the older provinces come to look at this matter carefully ; the people of Prince Edward Island, the people of Nova Scotia, the people of New Brunswick ; they will ask : what is to be given to us by this measure. The supporters of the government have promised enormous traffic to maritime ports. I never saw any men so willing to promise immense advantages as the government and their supporters, except it be Mr. Hays, who when he was before the committee, was prepared to promise anything that was asked of him. But, Sir, when you find such remarkably good promisers as the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway and the government, you are likely to find in the end that these promises are very much contracted in their performance. The people of the older provinces in the east, will be burdened by this measure with a debt of from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, or $30 per head of the popoulation, or $180 per family ; and they will want to know what return is coming to them. The Prime Minister cannot satisfy any business man in these provinces that it is possible for him to throw tile trade from the west into the eastern ports to such an extent as to recoup the older provinces of Canada for the expenditure of $30,000,000. In view of the fact that in summer time the grain of the west will come over the lakes, I do not think that the Prime Minister will find it


Adam Carr Bell: easy to turn a very large percentage of that traffic into these maritime ports. He will need to explain to these people, what was meant by the president and by the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, when they assured their shareholders, that their purpose in supporting this scheme was to increase tile traffic over the old Grand Trunk system, and to earn greater profits upon it. The right hou. gentleman will have to explain to them, what was meant by the further statement of these two representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway, that they could not hope to maintain dividends if they could not increase traffic over the Grand Trunk system. Botli Sir Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays assured their shareholders, that if it were not positively expected to bring the traffic gathered by the Grand Trunk Pacific over the line of the Grand Trunk Railway, they would not recommend this measure for their endorsation, and the right hon. gentleman will find it hard to explain these statements. How is the Grand Trunk Railway going to realize increased earnings, and at the same time divert the traffic from its own line to the ports of St. John and Halifax ? We know that it is an utter impossibility to have the grain traffic gathered by tlie Grand Trunk Pacific in the west, going over the Grand Trunk Railway to Portland and at the same time to send the same grain over the Grand Trunk Pacific to St. John and Halifax. There are a great many other considerations in connection with this subject. but in view of the fact that so little has been volunteered for our information from tbe government side of the House, I think it only reasonable that I should desist from my argument at this moment and leave it to the government to advance some satisfactory reason why we should accept this arnended contract, and why we should put it in the power of the government to give another opportunity to the Grand-Trunk to go to the financiers of tlie world, and make a failure of this scheme, thus further delaying tlie realization by the people of Canada, of the benefits which the right hon. gentleman says his scheme will confer on them.


Mr. M. K. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: The hour being somewhat late, I would move the adjournment of the debate. .


Wilfrid Laurier: It is too early to adjourn ; it is not 11 o'clock. My hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) must go on with his speech this evening.


Matthew Kendal Richardson: Although I ventured to speak on this subject once before this session, and although there have been a large number of speakers since that time,
I feel to-night that the subject is one which is arousing increased interest in the country and in this House. It is quite pleasing to us on this side to see the effect this debate is Laving in the House, as shown by the vote that was taken a short time

ago, and I believe that the more the subject is discussed and the more light there is thrown upon it, the more opportunity the public have of investigating it, the more public sentiment will take the turn the House is taking and that the public will say we are going a little too fast in this matter. It has been said again and again that it is a very important subject. and its importance will justify the lengthened debate which has taken place upon it. It is one of the most important matters which has been brought before the public since confederation. I venture to say that no subject of equal public importance has ever attempted to be put through the House by force as is being done in this case, without the electors at large having some opportunity of expressing themselves upon it. It has been sprung upon the electors and they are only now, through the medium of the newspaper press and other means, obtaining a little opportunity to look into it. I feel satisfied that the more light there is thrown upon the subject the less chance there is of this measure being carried with the consent of the electorate of the country. We on this side of the House are not opposed to expenditure for the development of this country. We have as much faith in the future of Canada as any one on the other side of the House. If we may judge from our history in the past we may claim that we have always had more faith in the future of Canada than has been possessed by the party on the government side of the House. However. we are pleased to note the growing feeling, the growing sense of loyalty to Canada, which is even permeating the ranks of the great Reform party of Canada. It is not matter of congratulation to us on tliis side of the House to see any spirit contrary to that. We believe in the development of Canada and in any reasonable expenditure, provided it is a wise expenditure, for that development. The enormous sum which is proposed to be added to the public debt of Canada is not the sole or the main objection that we have to this scheme which is being forced through the House. We are prepared for expenditure, having faith in the future of this country and having faith that at no distant period we will require extensive development and extension of railways in the west and a better transportation system than we have at present. There are abundant opportunities and avenues for expending money. The most important question we have to deal with in Canada to-day is, as has been often said, transportation. But it is not necessary that there should be any undue haste in this matter. It does not follow that we should rush unwisely into enormous debt and expenditure but rather that we should be sure we are right and then be prepared to go ahead. That is a good motto to use in
individual life, aud in small enterprises ; it is a good motto to adopt for the administration of the affairs of a young country like Canada. The mountains of information which were to have been brought before us have dwindled down to very small, almost invisible mole hills. It is evident that we are very lacking in the information which we should have before entering on a scheme such as this. We are delighted to know that we have in the great Northwest such a magnificent area for the production of cereals ; that we have what is now commonly termed, not only here on this continent, but in Europe as well, tiie granary of the world. We are delighted with this, hut there is no need on that account that we should rush into unwise expenditure. We have been going steadily in that regard. A very large amount of mileage is now under contract and construction for the development of the country. To build railways into areas which are not at all settled at present, for which there could be no local traffic, is to say the least an unwise expenditure, especially when we see that we already have a country served with railways either built or under construction that would provide homes for per- * haps five times as many people as are now settled there. It would he much better for the interest of the country and much to the advantage of the settlers, that settlement should he of a regular consecutive character, where railways have been already constructed and where lands are available for settlement either on free grant or reasonable terms in order that the settlers may have municipal government, social life and all the advantages which flow from these conditions. If anything is said depreciating any particular section of Canada we know that it is regarded as a sad thing to give a black eye to that part of the country, but it is of much greater importance that we should see that no attempt is made in bringing in settlers to place them in districts not suitable for settlement, where they cannot eke out a reasonable livelihood. Mistakes of that kind have already done infinite damage to Canada. Men have been induced to go into districts where they could not raise crops or even cattle and when these men who were as badly off as if they bad been transported to Tasmania have returned to the old country, their accounts of their experiences have been a very bad advertisement for Canada.
What will they say of Canada as a whole ? They judge of it by the miserable experience they have had in districts not suited for settlement. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about encouraging colonization in this country between here and the North Pole- north of Quebec and Ontario, in those wilds of which so little is known. I do not think I need tell agaiu the story of that wonderful rose bush discovered some 250 years ago.

I suppose the roses are growing there yet. But that is no guarantee that the country is a fit place for settlement. What we have pointed out all along is that we should have a reasonable knowledge of the country before proceeding to build a railway through it. In the first place there should be a reasonable exploration of it, we should know something about its topography, its climate and all thes matters. Then if the exploratory reports be satisfactory, we should have regular surveys made, before attempting to go into a large railway enterprise such as this, involving such an enormous expenditure. Should this scheme prove a blunder, no one will live long enough to see its worst results. We do not claim that it is a barren country, unfit for settlement, or that it is all rocks or impracticable in its topography for the building of a road, but what we say is that we know nothing about it. We were promised a lot of information, but we have not had one iota added to the meagre, scanty data given us when this House rose last October. If any has been obtained, it lias not been imparted to the House or the country.
Last year we were assured again and again that the bargain was closed, that no suggestion, however good, no amendment, whatever might be its merits, could be received or entertained for one moment, because the agreement had been made with the accredited representatives of the Grand Trunk, and simply required to be ratified by the Company in Great Britain, which ratification was bound to follow. Consequently no amendment could be entertained, no matter how desirable, nothing could be accepted which was not in the bond We were told emphatically that the agreement was of such a character, made with reputable men, with a strong company, of such repute, that there need not be the least doubt of its being carried on their part, and that they would be held to their bargain. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance told us that, if there should be any attempt or any appearance of any attempt not to keep the bargain, the government would find means of holding the company tight to the agreement. But where is that bargain to-day ? We were told that we would be surprised at the very insignificant nature of the changes to be made. We were not told however, that all these changes were to be made in the interests of the Grand Trunk. But when the whole thing is unravelled and laid before us. what do we find ? Not a word to our advantage. Not a word which will strengthen the guarantees placed in that agreement to protect the rights and privileges of this country. But we find every word in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway. It seems as if in some way we cannot fully understand the government were tied to the Grand Trunk Railway. We cannot understand why we should


Matthew Kendal Richardson: be so bound to them, but after having been told most emphatically again and again that the bargain was - closed and would certainly be ratified by the company in the old country, we are confronted with these changes, which we find are most important. They take from the agreement nearly everything of a guarantee that the rights of Canada would be respected. In my opinion it will be only necessary that this matter should be discussed a little while longer, that it should permeate throughout the country, that the people should be set thinking and talking about it, in order that they may decide on entirely repudiating it and the government which' fathered it. Here is an enormous expenditure estimated as low as $8,000,000, $0,000,000, $10,000,000 and $13,000,000 by the government and their supporters, but estimated at $139,000,000 by the greatest railway expert in this country. And if you add the changes made by the concessions to the Grand Trunk Railway, the road will certainly cost not less than $150,000,000. This is the estimate given by the man who is credited by the premier with being the one best fitted to offer an expert judgment on a matter such as this. The government are condemned by their own expert and out of their own mouth. All that we want is that the country shall have an opportunity of *giving its judgment on the question. We shall be quite satisfied on this side if this matter is intelligently discussed throughout the whole country. Here is an expenditure of an enormous amount, not less than $150,000,000 ; or at any rate obligations incurred to that amount, and which may amount to $50,000,000 more and very probably will. Out of all that, all that the Grand Trunk Railway, according to the assurance of its president given at the annual meeting of the shareholders, can be liable for is $14,500,000 or less than 10 per cent of the whole. Would anybody of common sense endorse such a policy ? If we are to incur such a large expenditure and such enormous obligations,' we might as well go $14,500,000 more and own the road ourselves. But instead we are practically giving to the Grand Trunk Railway the whole transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean at a cost to them of about one-tenth what it is going to cost the people of Canada.
When this comes fairly before the ratepayers of this country I feel that thoughtful men throughout the length and breadth of the land will repudiate it with their voices and with their votes also. Men are not going to be tied to party to-day, whatever they have been in the past. I believe there is a large measure of independent intelligence in this country than there ever was in our history before. And it is an intelligence that ought to be brought to bear upon a great question like this in order to make sure that, if we are to undertake such an enormous expenditure we shall get some-
20S5

thing in return for it. We must consider that we are putting it out of our power to give to the people engaged in the production of grain in 'this country the great advantages which we ought to give them by reducing the rates of freight. This road will not bear comparison with the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. That road was a political necessity, decided upon as a means of confederating and actually joining together the provinces of the original confederation.
It had no commercial basis. But this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway claims to have a commercial basis ; and if it has, I do not see why it cannot be managed as well by the government as by a company. At any rate, I think we ought to seek the means, which other foreign countries have found, not only of building but of running our great transportation system. They have succeeded well in other countries, and I believe we have the ability in Canada to make our railways a benefit to the people at large. If a profit can be made in this work, that profit should inure to .the people who are producing the wealtli of the country. It may be true that there is not a profit in it at once, but I do not see any reason why there should not be a profit in the future as the country develops, and as it comes it should be used to lessen the rates to farmers shipping grain over the road, which is supposed to be the greatest item of freight that the road will carry. So, there does not appear to be any immediate necessity for rushing into a matter like this, especially the construction of the eastern section of the road. As has been pointed out before, we were quite as desirous as the government that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, that large company, having its 'ramifications throughout the province of Ontario and Quebec, should have access to the wheat fields of the Northwest. It is not a matter of surprise that the Grand Trunk was seeking an entrance to the Northwest. But they had no such scheme as that which the government now places before us. Their scheme if entertained by the government would have been infinitely less expensive to Canada. Had they been given a charter and the right to run into the wheat fields, there would have been no necessity to give a government grant for the building of the railroad in that section of the country, for it would be built at small expense and would bring a ready return. But it was quite to be expected that the line through the less productive sections of the country, for instance, the line around the north shore of Lake Superior or through the Rockies and Selkirks would have deserved, and I have no doubt would have received, reasonable assistance from the government. But that assistance probably would not exceed $10,000.000 to $12,000,000 at most. It has been estimated at a lower amount than that on the basis of the usual grant given to railways in that territory. Even giving all the grants that could reasonably have been asked it would not have amounted to more than $15,000,000. For that we should have had practically another transcontinental road, for the Grand Trunk has connections already with the Atlantic ports, and would have had through connections to the Pacific coast. Compare this with the enormous expenditure that Canada has entered into in this undertaking-$150,000,000 for a service which the Grand Trunk was ready to give us for not more than $12,000,000. But the route chosen is imposed upon the company by the government. The company were told : We will not give yovT~a-enaavrer unless you agree to build a road through the norrh-ern territory from Winnipeg to Moncton, and in that way run through a territory practically unknown. When, it is built, as is proposed, at the cost of the taxpayers, the question is whether it would not be profitable-fee-tha__people to run it as well ns build it. Going through the ~country as it does, it could not get a local trade. The company, therefore, were in a position to make great demands upon the government. A bargain was supposed to be concluded, but now they make further demands. And we have no assurance that when they go back to the shareholders of the company they may not say : We will not agree to this ; we will have more concessions. We cannot but be surprised that the government should be so supine ns they have been, being prepared, apparently, to give the Grand Trunk all they ask.
I take the liberty, again. Mr. Speaker, of moving the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Matthew Kendal Richardson: If it is the pleasure of the House that I should continue, I have still something more to say on this very important subject. It is one that will bear talking about, and the time may come when we will look back, and, if we have a keen interest in the welfare of the country, we may wish that we had said more and had used every argument to prevent an unwise bargain being carried out. We appeal again to the government not to press the matter at this juncture with the scanty information it possesses as to the territory through which it is proposed to build the road. There are many other reasons. One thing was brought out in the debate very markedly, and it seems to be growing upon the intelligent thought of the community, that the time has come when we should give serious consideration to the idea of the government taking control of the large services of the country especially that of railway transportation.
I believe the feeling is widespread that even with respect to the smaller franchises, and that is quite evident with regard to the franchises in our cities, we should have

20S8
corporate ownership, for the people, in the interests of the people, for the profit of the people, ownership of all franchises, whether they relate to telegraphs, telephone communication, water, light and all these other various things that are controlled largely by companies at present; and above everything else that the government of the country should control the railway systems, at least that this government should build, own and administer a great railway for the benefit of the people in such a manner that if a profit can be made out of it that profit shall accrue to the people. This country can now undertake such a great work fit a time when our credit is so good-and we may favourably contrast the attitude of the present opposition on the subject of Canada's credit with the attitude of the Liberal opposition when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built. No man on this side of the House has done anything in any wav to discredit Canada either at home or abroad ; no man has written a line that would Injure the credit of Canada, no man has spoken a word that would reduce the good standing of this country in the money markets of the world. We have faith in Canada, as much faith as anybody else or any other party. But that is no reason why there should be this irresistible haste for the construction of this road. That is no reason for plunging the country into the waste which must result from going into a scheme like this without any adequate knowledge. That has been well pointed out by Mr. Blair, the government expert, that gentleman who is credited by the government. We have nothing to say against him. He is a man who, from his experience, from his intelligence, from his attention to these matters, is capable of giving an intelligent judgment on a matter of this sort, and he points out very well that this scheme is one that might end in dire disaster to this country ; and if it does, if it goes to that point, the present generation will not live to see us rid of the results. It will hang like a cloud on the prospects of this country for two or more generations to come. The government should give further consideration to this scheme, they' should get more accurate knowledge of the territory through which it is proposed to build this road, and they should not attempt to build faster than the absolute requirements of the country will warrant them. Wre must not lose sight of the fact that we have an immense area of country fit for settlement that is already supplied with railways, and in which there ale yet only scanty settlements. These areas ought to be filled up before other large aieas are attempted to be opened, areas of which little is known and where settlers may be encouraged to go in only to meet with disaster. If this scheme has the result of settling up sections of this country which aie not fit for settlement, it will militate against not only that region itself but Mr. RICHARDSON.
against Canada as a whole, and will be used by our neighbours across the line to our detriment. We ought first to direct our attention to bringing in settlers for the lands already fit for settlement, instead of making dangerous experiments and bringing settlers into a country half way between here and the North Pole, a country we know practically nothing about. I hope this policy will appeal to the good sense of the government, because I give them credit with having some good sense if they would only use it, and that they will pause before plunging Canada into such an enormous expenditure on such very scanty information as they possess at present.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: It is not often the House evinces such a disposition to listen to a debate, and under these circumstances I think I would be unwise not to avail myself of the opportunity presented. Perhaps even at the risk of wearying the House in the course of the next two hours, I may refer to some of the circumstances connected with this arrangement. I think the mercantile part of the community were rather startled last year when a number of gentlemen asked, as a businesslike proposition that certain rights and privileges might be granted to them, and were refused. No person expressed a great deal of astonishment when they saw appearing in the ' Canada Gazette,' the ordinary vehicle of information of that kind, a public notice that the parliament of Canada would be asked to charter a railroad upon certain terms and conditions. Now what were the -terms and conditions mentioned bv these gentlemen ? First there was the proposition that this railway be constructed in Canada, that there should be certain commencement points and certain ending points. The commencement point showed the enterprise was looked upon as a business proposition, because I think it is clear that the Grand Trunk Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific, which for the purposes of the whole matter may be treated as one, were well know to act in unison. It was a notorious fact to any person conversant with railway life in Canada that the Grand Trunk Company had a splendid equipped railway system extending over the whole province pf. Gid^T-in, in it . mi.. pni-i^nn/j jjs
western parts, and northwards as far as North -ttiyr- Therefore, when the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific Companies joined-forces asking that their system might be connecte3MTtNorth~T?ay and continued to the west, no one professed any surprise. But when parliament did meet, much, I have no doubt, to the consternation of the Grand Trunk Pacific people and to the disgust of the people of Canada, there were these gentlemen held up by a lot of politicians, a great many of whom had some axes to grind, and the result has been that the country is face to face with a political

rather than a businesslike proposition. It could not be expected that an enterprise like the Grand Trunk Pacific could be projected without its being generally known. SO when it became generally known that this railway was to be constructed to the city of Quebec, having its head and centre at that place which has always been noted for peculation and surrounded by a crowd who have always been known for peculation of the'funds of the province, why, Sir, it was the first intimation we had that there were a lot of political buccaneers starting out from the city of Quebec with a great enterprise on their hands, that was practically a dead horse, upon which nothing could be realized, a bridge that had to be in some way or another forced upon the ununwilling shoulders of the Grand Trunk Pacific people.
It is well known who some of the principals in that bridge were. It is well known that some gentlemen who were very close to some of the ministers were interested in that bridge and it is well known that the bridge in which some $0,000,000 had been invested, was an insolvent concern, and bid fair to become actually so unless it could be unloaded on the Grand Trunk Railway Company. When one reads the minutes of the meeting held by the Grand Trunk Railway shareholders in London one cannot help but sympathize with them in the pathetic wail that went up at the opposition which was given to their rights. What were they asking for ?-simply that they might have a charter to build from North Bay to the westward. But, they were at once held up by these buccaneers against whose action they complained so bitterly according to the printed minutes of that meeting. They diet not anticipate their opposition, but we saw at the meeting of the Railway Committee here that it was a question of holding up the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and that if they did not come down there was . no prospect of their receiving what they were asking for. First, and foremost came along the contingent from the province of Quebec who were behind this so-called Trans-Canada Railway and also the contingent that was behind the bridge. These gentlemen held up the Grand Trunk people. Feeble remonstrances were made by Sir t.uarles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays, but they were obliged to succumb to the brute force and to the bludgeons placed at their heads. They were forced at the point of the bayonet to consent that the railwnv should be extended from North Bay to Quebec. Whether that railway is ever to be extended or not will remain to be seen. But there cannot be a doubt about it that when the Grand Trunk directors wished their shareholders to consent to an acquiescence in the proposition now before the House, it was openly stated by the directors
that it was not in contemplation that this line should ever be built east of North Bay. When I say east of North Bay I should perhaps modify that by saying that it wtu entirely premature to suggest that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would be forced into the user or the leasing of this line fi'om the government of Canada. But, when the gentlemen interested in seeing this railway driven on to the eastward, saw the success met with by the Quebec contingent, the maritime contingent loomed up. I wish I had the exact words of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) who, in addressing the- House a few days ago, expressed himself in language which practically meant that when there was to be a distribution of public money as far as he and those associated with him on the other side of the House were concerned, they asked that the maritime provinces should participate in that distribution to the greatest possible extent. I remember particularly well that Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, when the demand was made upon him that the railway should be extended from Quebec eastward, made this answer . We have no necessity, we have no desire, we have no wish to extend the road eastward owing to the fact that we have an excellent arrangement concluded with the Intercolonial Railway for an interchange of r.ny commerce that we may take eastward. Under these circumstances there is no rea*-son why we should be asked to consent to an extension of this railway. Hon. gentlemen who are members of the Railway Committee will remember then what happened. I do not know whether it was the bludgeons or the bayonets that were presented at the heads of the Grand Trunk Railway people, but we know that when the maritime province people had forced the Grand Trunk to consent to an extension of the railway farther eastward still, there, occurred, day after day, that unseemingly wrangle between the maritime Liberals from the province of New Brunswick who asked that the, eastern terminus should be St. John, and the maritime Liberals from Nova Scotia who asked that it should be Halifax. A compromise was arrived at by which it was agreed that Moncton should be the terminus with the privilege of having branch lines running both from Halifax and St. John. Now, there is the position to-day of this political railway, this railway that the right lion, premier fondly hopes is going to be handed down to posterity as his handiwork, so that he may he adjudged, some day when the history of this country comes to be written, as a nation-builder like the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. Well, posterity will have to be the judge of that. I can hardly find fault with the members of the government and the right lion, gentleman who lends the government if they are anxious

by the country's money, which may make their line unprofitable-although I hope it will not do so.
That is demonstrated by the fact that when parliament met and the government announced its policy, the First Minister declared that he had seen fit not to take into his confidence the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair). The whole project had been arranged without the cognizance of his excolleague. Hon. gentlemen who were in the House last year must have heard the speech of the ex-Minister of Railways on that occasion. In the recollection of the oldest parliamentarian in Canada, I do not think there was ever such a scene enacted in this House as on that occasion. No man could possibly have spoken in a more bitter, sceptical and even insulting way than did the ex-Minister of Railways concerning this scheme of the government. Any lion, gentleman who sat in this House and watched the countenance of the First Minister could not have failed to notice the keenness of his annoyance at hearing the invective which came with such force from his ex-colleague. Yet. the ex-minister has had all he wants out of it. Instead of being turned into outer darkness, he forced the hands of the government to such an extent that, in spite of the acrimony of the language he used, despite all the insults he heaped on his former colleagues and the First Minister in particular, the First Minister was compelled to give him the fattest office in the gift of the government. Although the position is one which will be most trying, because of the conflicts there will" be between the railway interests and the interests of the public, yet the government have placed in that position an lion, gentleman whom the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), speaking as the mouthpiece of the government denounced as practically a dishonest man. Did not the hon. member for North Norfolk last year say openly and above board that the paramount reason why ihe ex-Minister of Railways could not see eye to eye with the government was because he was not going to have the giving of the contracts on the road, thus insinuating that had Mr. Blair been permitted to handle the contracts, there would have been dishonesty on his part. Yet this same Air. Blair is to-day in a position where he has to hold the scales of justice between the public and the immense corporations.
Again this government had to confess its inability to deal with the transportation question. It has said openly and above board that it is incapable of dealing with that question. A year ago the First Minister declared that the government, feeling their inability to clenl with the trnnsportci-lion question, found it absolutely necessary to call in certain gentlemen and report to parliament. They announced that they intended to call into their assistance a board of experts who would formulate a transpor- 1 Mr. BENNETT.
tation policy. I do not think it was any too soon for them to do it when one looks upon the huge expenditure made on the canal system. But before this board of experts could report and while the ex-AIinister of Railways was announcing to the government the cause of its inability to deal with the question as they should, what did we see ? The government took everything out of the hands of this board of experts and these three gentlemen are peddling about the country asking information here and there, not on great questions of transportation from one side of the continent to the other, but pertaining more particularly to local affairs. In the meantime this government was plunging the country into certain large expenditures, which will be rendered practically inoperative if their present scheme be carried through. I am sorry the Alinis-ter of Railways is not in his place to-night because we might get some information from him as to what the government propose doing with certain public works when completed. For instance, we are having a huge expenditure^ at Port Colborne at the entrance to the Welland canal. How many millions of dollars are to be expended there the Lord only knows, It has been stated in this House that $5,000,000 are to be expended, and we are to have not only the grain of western Canada but of the western states also carried that way. What proposition was advanced by the government when asking us to vote $5,000,000 for that harbour ?
I think the hon. the Minister of Finance was acting as Minister of Public Works and he will remember that $5,000,000 was anticipated for the expenditure at Port Colborne.


Air. FIELDING.: Anticipation on whose part ?


William Humphrey Bennett: On the part of the government.


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is no warrant for that.


William Humphrey Bennett: For an expenditure of $5,000,000 ?


William Stevens Fielding: The government did not commit themselves to any such sum.


William Humphrey Bennett: What has been the expenditure already at Port Colborne ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the figures,, but they were nothing like that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have not ' Hansard ' just now under my hand, but I may refresh the hon. gentleman's recollection. When the hon. member for St. Marys (Air. Tarte) was Minister of Public Works, one evening there appeared on the table a very large plan, which was not objected to by any other member of the government. And the proposition was this. First the depth of water at Port Colborne was inadequate, and huge breakwaters were to be placed at that point. After these breakwaters were erected, on

the outside edge, ingress would be then gained to the inside harbour. Then solid docks were to be constructed by the government, and it was expected that private enterprise would in due course erect large elevators on these docks. It was understood that certain capitalists were to invest their money in that business. To-day there is a company formed, of whicli the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) is .a member, and which has in contemplation. according to the prospectus of the company, the construction of elevators. If the hon. member for West York were here, perhaps he could enlighten us as to how much stock was sold in that company and what it has done.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and other members, of the cabinet know that .$2,000.000 has been expended at Port Col-borne ; and if the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) were here. I think he would back up my statement that double $2,000.000 has been openly spoken of as the amount to be expended at that point. I am not going to argue that it was unreasonable. It was pointed out that every year Canadians have the mortification of seeing fifteen or twenty millions of bushels of grain from the Northwest going through Buffalo and passing on to New York, or other Allantic ports. Port Colborne being an exposed harbour and not a deep water harbour, the large carriers could not get in there. The government said that if the harbour were deepened, if break-waters were provided, and docks constructed on the inside, capital would be forthcoming, as companies, -or at least one-had already been organized for the purpose, to build elevators. The great freighters on the lakes carrying 250,000, or may be. 300.000 bushels, instead of passing on to Buffalo, would wheel into Port Colborne. There the grain could be placed in elevators and then loaded into carriers with a capacity of, say 60,000 bushels, and sent to Montreal or Quebec. Perhaps, when the question of the expenditure for Port Colborne comes up in the House, it will be found that a very large amount has been spent there. But if the style of transportation contemplated in this Bill is to supersede others, it means that .you have practically thrown into the lake, the millions spent at Port Colborne, and the money might have been used to reduce the public debt instead of increasing it, as it has been increased for years past ? I am not sure the government were not right in regard to Port Colborne. I am not sure but that, had they followed out some of the measures promoted by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) it would have been better in the interests of the whole country. What is the reason they did not go on with these prospects of the ex-Minister of Public Works ? It was a notorious fact that the principal opposition came from the ministers and members from Ontario. And
why ? Because it was anticipated that if the channel were extended from the mouth of the French River through to North Bay, grain would be conveyed to North Bay and would there be transferred to the cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway and would be carried to Montreal or some other point. And so it was a notorious fact, that one or the reasons for that not going on was the opposition of Ontario members and ministers and of the Grand Trunk Railway to the Canadian Pacific Railway interest. When the ex-Minister of Public Works was stopped in that respect, what next proposition was enunciated by him ? It was one that, if carried out, would have been of great advantage to the country. I think it was in the fall of 1902, that it was openly announced in the public press, that the president of the Grand Trunk and the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway had come to an arrangement by which the companies were to unite on the basis of what would give the great west, and even some parts of the western states great advantages in the matter of transportation. What was that policy ? It was to give running rights over the Midland division of the Grand Trunk from Midland to Port Hope and on to the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. What would have been the result? By an expenditure of money which would have been made by the Grand Trunk Company themselves, this line would have been placed in a most favourable position. The Canadian Pacific Railway people would have brought their grain to Midland and shipped it over this line, which, by being doubletracked. and having the gradients and curves taken out, would have been so improved that fifty cars could be hauled by a single locomotive. It could have offered effective competition on favourable terms to lines between Buffalo, New York and other points on the sea-hoard. But. for some reason, that plan was not carried out. It was a plan that would have been better for the western people and the people of Canada as a whole, a business proposition that would have been on all fours with the plan now carried out as between the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk, over the line between Toronto and Hamilton. What happened in that case ? The Grand Trunk had a line between these two points. The Canadian Pacific Railway wished to reach Hamilton, in order to go westward to the bridge and make an American connection. When the Grand Trunk saw that the Canadian Pacific were going to parallel their line, they agreed to an arrangement by which both lines were to run over the Grand Trunk track. And so that line is run without competition, and on a paying basis to both companies. And so the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway would have made a common ground of the Midland division. They could have taken care ot all the grain that could be brought to

them front the head of the lakjes and transported in their own cars to Montreal, Halifax or St. John. At the same time the Grand Trunk would not have had the same spcwer that they are asking for to-day. Had parliament allowed them to build a line l'rosn Winnipeg, they could have built or 'Secured running rights to the head of Lake Superior, and the people would have the advantage of the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk, and the Mackenzie and Mann roads In competition, and practically it would not have cost the country a dollar. But that is a position that the gentlemen behind the Grand Trunk Pacific did not want. Why ? Because it meant nothing in the way ol railway construction. The Grand Trunk Hallway Company would have taken in charge,* itself, the work of betterment on Its Midland division. There would have been no construction between the head of Lake Superior and Winnipeg. Then, they would have done what Mackenzie and Mane did, build over the prairie country without having anything from the government in money or in land. But there was nothing in that for the exploiter or grafter, nothing in it for the hungry railway contractor.
So we find looming up this proposition of Senator Cox and Senator Gibson and these other gentlemen. When the Grand Trunk people, Mr. Hayes and other gentlemen, saw they could not get a railway from North Bay westward they were driven into this alliance against which their own stockholders in the old country remonstrated, and they had to assure their stockholders in the old country that it was only a myth, something that would never be carried into effect. I am here to say now that in the light of the past, in view of the fact that water carriage transportation has been a success, if this road is ever built-and I am going to take the assurance of the Grand Trunk directors to their stockholders that practically it never will be built-if it ever is built, there would hardly be a bushel of grain carried over it. We will accept the statement of the Minister of the Interior that the bulk of the grain that is to be carried out of the Northwest will be carried over a mixed system of land and water transportation. Now in face of the fact that that grain is to be carried out of the Northwest by lines to the head of Lake Superior and there to come down by water in boats either to the Georgian Bay ports or Lake Huron ports, to be carried thence through the Welland canal on to Montreal, what is the sense, for what reason are the government embarking in such a gigantic enterprise as the expenditure of all these millions ?
One thing is certain, that the government hope that this is going to tide them over the election. They are going into a fight which is announced for this year on the same principles that they fought the Remedial Bill in 1896. In the province of Quebec they gave the assurance that they were go-Mr. BENNETT.
ing to have a very strong Remedial Bill, a much stronger than the other administration could give ; and in the province of Quebec it will be announced that this railway is going to be built beyond a doubt. In the province of Ontario it was announced that there would be no Remedial Bill ; and so in the province of Ontario it will be announced next fall that there is to be no construction of this line beyond a point north of North Bay. That will be the policy adopted. In confirmation of that statement all the Liberal candidates in Ontario will point out that' not a single cabinet minister from Ontario has had the temerity to rise in this House and advocate it. Of course it would not be expected that the Minister of Customs would rise, because the Minister of Customs went through two campaigns lately in the province of Ontario. He went into the riding of East Bruce and expounded to the people the benefits of this Grand Trunk Pacific. He got an answer there not to his liking. Then the Minister of Customs went into the riding of Lambton and endeavoured to justify the attitude of the government. Well, the answer he obtained there was equally distasteful to the Minister of Customs. and equally distasteful to the government. So my word for it, when the general campaign comes on in the province of Ontario every Liberal candidate will be announcing on every occasion that this railway is never going to be built any further than a point north of North Bay, and in justification of their statement they will say : did not you read the debates in the House ? While it went on the Postmaster General was as mute and immovable as a sphinx. The Minister of Customs never opened his mouth ; the Minister of Public Works was never heard from, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce never uttered a sentence or a syllable that would possibly tie him down in defence of this proposition. If they go a little further they will advance the argument the Postmaster General made the other day when he was confronted with some of his past utterances, that no government was bound by the utterance of any one member of it, that no cabinet could be bound by the utterances of any individual member. While on the one hand you see in the province of Ontario, at public meetings and on public hustings, the statement' of the premier that this road is to be built through to the maritime provinces, these gentlemen will point to the fact that none of the ministers from Ontario ever advocated that proposition. The people will be told, too : If this government is sustained the Ontario ministers, when they go down to Ottawa, will assert themselves and will see that the line is not built any further than a point north of North Bay.
The other night, in closing the debate, the Premier made a little bid for his own support. I imagine that some of the ministers

from Ontario must have remonstrated with him, I imagine some of the members from Ontario must have remonstrated with him, those of them who have not received the promise of government positions, because I do not think many of the present crowd intend to make the fight again ; I expect these gentlemen must have appealed to the Prime Minister and said to him :	Can't you offer
a little grain of comfort in your speech that we can show to the people of Ontario. What did the Premier give them ? I have not the page here to refer to at present, but the right hon. gentleman will remember that the grain of comfort he gave them was in pointing to the fact that there was not a town, or a village, scarcely a hamlet in the province of Ontario, that was not invaded by the Grand Trunk Railway Company ; that the Grand Trunk's ramifications in Ontario were so extensive that there was not a manufacturing enterprise in any town, or city, or village in that province that would rot be benefited by the construction of this Grand Trunk Pacific. See what it would do to build up these manufacturing interests, because they would be enabled to ship their merchandise by the Grand Trunk Pacific into Manitoba and the Northwest. Now I am going to ask any business man or any man of common sense to apply his reasoning to such a statement as that. Is it to be expected that the Grand Trunk Pacific are going to carry grain from the west through to Moncton and on to Halifax and St. John and bring their empty cars back to North Bay, then bring their empty cars from North Bay down to Galt, for instance, and load them with merchandise to take up to North Bay and on to the west ? Why, on the very face of it is a preposterous absurdity. But what the Grand Trunk Pacific people intend to do is this : They propose, in the summer months, to carry their grain to the head of the lakes, and a certain amount of grain may be carried to North Bay. These cars will come down from North Bay and distribute that grain through the province of Ontario to the local millers, and after that, the cars having been emptied, they may be loaded up with merchandise for tiie Northwest. But no man with common sense can imagine that loaded cars are to be carried from the far west to the far east and to be brought back again to a point two or three hundred miles north of North Bay, that then they are to be brought down empty to North Bay and then to the towns and cities of Ontario to be loaded with merchandise. On the very face of it is an absurdity that no man would entertain for a moment. Therefore the Liberal candidates in that province will say : Don't you see ? We are not going to build this road any further than a point north of North Bay, because not only is no minister from the province of Ontario on record ns in favour of it, but there were moreover a couple of by-elections in the province of Ontario a short time ago, and (ITS
you could not get a minister from Ontario to take part in them except the pack horse of this government. The unfortunate Minister of Customs is made the pack horse of the party in the province of Ontario, and I do .lot say that in a disparaging manner because a pack horse serves a very good purpose. A great many hon. gentlemen must have accustomed themselves to the kindly services of the pack horse. There were miners, very bold and courageous, willing to do all that they were asked to do, but they could not do it ail. and the pack horse was pressed into the service. However, in the province of Ontario, the right hon. leader of the government is unhappy in the possession of a lot of ministers who are not to be found when the by-elections come along and unfortunately when they do come along the hon. Minister of Customs has to be the pack horse of the party. Where was the hon. Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock), when these by-elections were going on in the province of Ontario? He cannot be found on record as having said one word in reference to this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He knew that that would be a burning question there. He knew that that would be an important subject and a subject that the farmers would like to hear from him upon, and why should they not well ask to hear from that hon. gentleman upon that subject, because it involved an expenditure of millions when, in the past, he was solicitous for a few thousands of dollars? Did not the hon. Postmaster General assure the farmers of this country that he was an economist? Did not he tell them about the expenditures that went on at Rideau Hall, about how the public funds were dissipated, about how the Governor General was paid $50,000 a year, and as a proof of the honesty of his intentions, did he not move a resolution in this House that the salary of the Governor General should be reduced to $30,000? Well, he has had an opportunity of carrying that out as a member of the government, but be has not done it. But, the farmers of Ontario, hearing these statements from the hon. Postmaster General, naturally expected, that, when it came to an expenditure of $150,000,000, the hon. gentleman would be heard from on the subject. But, the hon. gentleman has not gone into that province to denounce this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, and I assume that when it does come up for discussion in that province, if the hon. gentleman feels that he can move out of the riding of North York for a day or two, he may go into some of the ridings. I think he will tell the people in these ridings that there is the report of the Grand Trunk directors, whose meeting was held in London, and that they were assured solemnly that the building of this line eastward from North Bay was premature and that it would not go on. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland), had an opportunity to go into these

ridings and place himself on record, but he did not do it. Neither did the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Samuel Hughes: How about the hon. Minister of Justice?


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Justice does not belong to the province of Ontario, and he was not called to go into that province. I did not see the hon. Secretary of State invading either of these ridings on this occasion. So, we find that these members of the government from the province of Ontario have barricaded themselves and placed these great strongholds about themselves so that when the general election conies on in the province of Ontario they will be able to go there and say:	We said nothing in favour of the
extension of this railway beyond North Bay at all. Don't you see what it is going to do for Ontario ? We got a little pointer in this regard in the city of Toronto the other day. because this line is to be bonused liberally by the local government and the province of Ontario is to prove the great milch cow. The hon. Mr. Ross is bon using these lines very liberally connecting with this system, and he tried to justify his position in the local legislature the other day. He said that the Grand Trunk Railway is practically and pre-eminently an Ontario system. He said:	Look at what we are
going to do for the great province of Ontario. In the first place we are going to build up Ontario. There has been a great cry always for Mr. Ross to build up Ontario. Are we not, he asked, going to build up all the lake ports of Ontario? Experience proves, and time will justify the belief that the real carrying trade of the west has to come to the head of Lake Superior and from the head of Lake Superior it has to come down the great lakes to different points on the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. That will be a great line for these hon. gentlemen opposite to exploit. Take for instance, the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes). The hon. member for West Huron will go into his constituency this fall and say:	It
is true that this railway is going to cost a lot of money, but you must not believe the story about $150,000,000. It may cost $150,000,000 if the road is built clean through to Moncton. But, do not let any man run away with the idea that it is going to be built to Moncton. It is expected that the great bulk of the grain is going to be carried by vessel from the head of Lake Superior. Then he will say: Do you not see what the result will be? We, here, are on the line of commerce. Goderich can be built up and will become a great place. We have the promise of hundreds of thousands of dollars from this government to be spent in im-jn'oving our harbour. As soon as this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is built you will see millions and millions of bushels Mr. BENNETT.
of grain coming into Goderich. Do not believe the story that there is ever going to be a bushel of grain going through by rail. That is simply a myth. Then the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), will go to the people of Collingwood and assure them that it is an absurdity to believe that there is ever going to be a bushel of grain carried down to the east by rail. In confirmation of that he will instance the statement of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), that all the grain of. the Northwest Territories will be water-borne, and then he will point to the fact that the harbour of Collingwood is to have a few more hundreds of thousands of dollars spent upon it to deepen it. Then they will come to Midland. Probably the hon. Postmaster General will come back there. He had an experience there which did not prove very pleasant to him. I hope the hon. gentleman will come back to Midland and make one of those promising speeches of his. What is the promise that will be made there? Don't you see, as the hon. Minister of the Interior has said, that not a bushel of grain is ever going down over this railway system? It is the height of folly to say that this grain will be rail-borne. It is going to be water-borne and borne by the way of Midland. Do not run away with the story that they are repeating in Nova Scotia. New Brunswick and Quebec about the carrying of grain down there by rail. They never intend to do it. And so through every part of the province of Ontario the representation will be made that they are going to bring this grain down from the Northwest by the water route. Then, the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan), will make the same appeal to the people of his constituency. I suppose the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens), 'will make the discovery that by dredging the river Thames they will be able to bring down these boats from the head of Lake Superior and that these boats will be taken up this river. Every hon. gentleman in the province of Ontario will be going through his constituency with the assurance that they are going to build up every port of Ontario. What is to be said in the other provinces? They will have the statement of the right hon. .Prime Minister that this line is going to go through to the maritime provinces. On the face of it the whole thing is a government political railway, backed up by government friends, and the essence of the agreement as to the Jetting of contracts shows conclusively that there is a great scheme of graft at the public expense in this arrangement.
I really feel flattered to know that there are so many ministers present while I am addressing the House, for it is seldom that such a compliment is paid to one of us. Why, there are more ministers here to-night than when the hon. the leader of the oppo-

sition spoke, and I hope be will not be jeal ons of me in that regard. Surely it must be that tbe ministers are getting anxious. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Justice are here from Quebec. Do they fear that, owing to the strong arguments that we are advancing, the First Minister is weakening, and that he is going to throw up the whole scheme ? Are the maritime ministers here to see that the Prime Minister retains his backbone ? Are the Ontario ministers here to hope that our persuasion on the Prime Minister may prevail ? Any way, I cannot believe that the government is serious in their intention to carry out this project, be cause, judging from the experience of the past, it is bound to be a failure. Last yea: grain was carried from the head of the lakes to Montreal and Quebec for three cents a bushel, and how does the First Minister imagine that his transcontinental railway can compete with that ? The Minister of Justice admitted that vessels carried grain from the head of Lake Superior to Montreal and Quebec for three cents per bushel apd that they returned with cargoes of pulp-wood, but he said that was exceptional and that the vessels lost money. My information is that these boats earned good incomes for their owners and that next year more of them will be engaged in that trade. Does the Minister of Justice think that the pulp-wood of Quebec is so inferior that no more of it will be used by the manufacturers at Niagara Falls ? I regret that he will not answer my question in the negative, because it may be assumed that the pulp-wood of Quebec is of inferior quality. May I ask the member for Shefford (Mr. Parmelee), who is entering the chamber, if the pulp-wood of Quebec is of an inferior quality ?


Mr. PARMELEE.: The best in the world.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then if that be so, for many years to come the large American manufacturers will use that pulp-wood, and the vessels carrying grain to Quebec at three cents per bushel will have return cargoes and their business will be profitable. Judging from what was said by the Minister of the Interior, that the 'bulk of the grain of the Northwest will be carried to the head of Lake Superior, we will have a regular procession of vessels carrying grain on the lakes, and then good-bye to your transcontinental road as a grain route. Look what is happening in the United States with regard to the Erie canal. It is said that the Erie canal controls the freight rates on the railways, and we know that just so soon.as navigation closes in winter the railways combine, and up go the rates. The people of New York are to spend $100,000,000 in deepening the Erie canal.


Samuel Hughes: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Thanks very much for the correction. $110,000,000 would be a mere bagatelle in Canada, where everything is
done on such an extravagant and wasteful scale by this government, but in the United States, where public money is spent in the interest of the country, $110,000,000 is quite a handsome sum. We remember that last year the leader of the opposition challenged the ministers to tell him within $30,000,000 of what this road would cost, and they had to sit in their seats and profess ignorance on the subject. I mention this to show that in the United States, despite the fact that they are greatly maligned here-in fact, I remember that the First Minister a short time ago. in speaking of the United States, used some rp ther offensive epithets in regard to them -and I am going to stand here as a champion of the people of the United States- ministers and governments there in entering upon expenditures of $100,000,000 are bound down and guarded as to what they intend to spend it on. But to return to the Erie canal, if, with a depth of four or five feet, they have been able to hold these railways in check and to keep them down to a low rate, what will the rate be when the canal is deepened to 14 or 15 feet ? If the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals, who knows all about these things, but the sea! on whose lips we cannot break, were here he could tell us this at once.


George Taylor: I rise to a point of order. I think I see an hon. gentleman transgressing the rules by having his feet on the top of the desk. I want a ruling whether or not it is proper for an hon. gentleman to sit in his seat with his feet on the desk.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. C. Marcil).: The cause of complaint has been removed, and so I do not think a ruling is necessary.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was not directing my attention to the hon. member for West Ontario because he is one of the gentlemen who do not expect to again ghace this chamber. He hopes to go over into that charnel house of decayed politicians, the Senate, to use the description I have heard from members of the government and the party opposite. After this unseemly interruption, the presence of these feet, which I may describe as the cloven hoof, I am going to return to the situation of the province of Ontario in reference to this enterprise. First we are to be saddled with the major portion of this huge expenditure of $150,000,000, then we have to pay the $60,000,000 which the Ross government is to give and then we are told by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that the railway will not be of any more benefit than a road to the head of Lake Superior. There is not a doubt in the minds of thinking men that the deepening of the canal systems is going to revolutionize the carrying trade of this country. Take for instance the deepening of the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals ; before we had


George Taylor: Before I sit down, I purpose moving, seconded by Mr. Leonard, that the debate be adjourned. But, before doing so I desire to make a few remarks and I purpose placing on the records of ' Hansard ' a true account of the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway in London. Early in the debate some quotations were made from this document, and they were criticised by lion, gentlemen opposite on the ground
that it was a ' fake ' report. My hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) read the report from the 1 Railway News,' and I want to place alongside of it this other report, which the people will find is verified by the Grand Trunk official report, except for some words which the Grand Trunk people did not care to have published.
But, before I take this up 1 want to refer to an agreement we made here about half past ten o'clock. I went across the floor to see the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) who was the acting whip on that side of the House. I desired to discuss the question of an adjournment, because the Minister of Customs, by refusing to give the opposition the information they were intitled to had kept us here until three o'clock this morning.


An hon. MEMBER.: Yesterday morning.


George Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning. While the hon. member for Cape Breton and I were talking about an early adjournment the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) beckoned me over to his place and commenced discussing the matter.
I suggested that we could get into committee some time to-morrow if he -would allow an early adjournment. He and the Minister of 'Finance discussed the matter and then had a consultation with the Prime Minister. I came back and consulted with my leader (Mr. R, L. Borden) and said that the suggestion was that if we would agree to go into committee by six o'clock tomorrow they would agree to adjourn when the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) finished. The leader of the opposition said we could not agree to that because we did not know when the hon. member for Toronto and some others who wished to speak would get through. But we would promise to get through before twelve o'clock to-morrow night and get into committee. Further consultation took place with the Minister of Justice outside. I met the chief whip of the government and he wanted to know what the arrangements were. I stated the arangements and came back and reported to my leader and then told him that I was going to retire. The arrangement with the Minister of Justice was that we were to adjourn when the member for Pictou resumed his seat, and to-morrow we would go into committee in the afternoon if possible, but, if not, then as early after eight as possible and not later than twelve o'clock. Then I went home and went to bed. Shortly afterwards I was telephoned to that the agreement had been broken. I went to see the Prime Minister. I suppose he had lost his temper somewhat because his majority had deserted him, that he could not keep his members here to support him in this measure so that he was left with only nineteen of a majority. And he says this mea-I sure mvist go through, even if we sit up

night and day, and the agreement made by the chief whip of the government and the Minister of Justice, concurred in by the Finance Minister


William Stevens Fielding: No. I dissent at once. I made no agreement whatever.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding! made no agreement it is true, but he concurred with the Minister of Justice that the proposition was a fair one.


William Stevens Fielding: I state positively that I made no arrangement in any shape or form.


George Taylor: I did not say that the Minister of Finance had made an agreement. I notified the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that I intended to refer to this matter and asked him to remain in his place. The Miniister of Justice and the chief whip of the government will not contradict a word I say, and the Prime Minister's chief whip told me after I eame back : No, unless we agree to go into committee before six o'clock the debate will continue. There was no such arrangement between the Minister of Justice and myself.


Wilfrid Laurier: There was no arrangement made by the Minister of Justice reported to me. .


George Taylor: But after the conference he came to me in the presence of your chief whip and agreed to the arrangement I have stated.


William Samuel Calvert: I made no agreement with the chief whip of the opposition. The proposition was made in the presence of the Minister of Justice, as the hon. gentleman has stated, but before I had time to consult the Prime Minister in reference to it the chief Whip of the opposition had gone home. I made the statement of the proposition as made by the chief whip of the opposition to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said, no, that if the opposition would agree to close at six o'clock that would be carried out. When I went to find the chief whip of the opposition he had gone home, and I did not see him afterwards.


George Taylor: I did not say that the chief whip of the government and I made an agreement ; the Minister of Justice and I made an agreement, and I reported it in the presence of the chief whip of the government just as I have stated. I make no statement in my place or out of my place that is not true. Then the Prime Minister, acting on an impulse, I presume, because his majority deserted him to-night, was going to force the opposition to come to his terms and consent to going into committee before six o'clock, while the leader of the opposition promised to do so early after eight. When his Minister of Justice made the bargain I have stated, is he going back on that bargain simply because his majority was


George Taylor: '
decreased to 19 to-night ? Now I want to ask the Prime Minister if he purposes bringing about this state of affairs ? I have been in this House for 20 years, and every bargain of this kind to which I have been a party has been carried out. If the Prime Minister is going,to adopt these tactics then I have to say that from this day forward, so far as I am concerned, there will be no more conferences and there will be no more pairs, but the opposition will fight as best they can, take every advantage thev can of the government. But if the Prime Minister will carry out -that bargain, even now I know the leader of the opposition will agree to go on and conduct the business in a fair, straightforward and manly way. and every bargain made either by iiis whip or any other member will be carried out to the letter. Now if the right hon. gentleman wants by brute force to compel the opposition to stay here, not only will we stay here to-night, but we will stay til] six o'clock, or eight o'clock, or ten o'clock tomorrow night and perhaps for a week, as my hon. friend behind me says. But even though this incident has gone thus far. I will make this statement on behalf of the members on our side, that we will go into committee to-morrow night before 12 o'clock if the hon. gentleman will allow me to move the adjournment of the debate and let the House rise now. But if the Prime Minister forces me to go on, then from tomorrow will go into force a rule cancelling every pair on the book, and no further conference will ever take place between the government whip and myself.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend wrought himself into a very useless pas- * sion. The time has come to adjourn and I am quite willing to adjourn without any agreement at all. I have only this to say. that the Minister of Justice never reported to me that he had made any bargain at all. He reported there was a tentative agreement, and my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) wanted to consult his own leader.


Robert Laird Borden: I think these agreements had better be in writing. My hon. liiend the chief whip of the Conservative party came to me to-night after I had [DOT]seen him in conference with the Minister of Justice behind that door, and told me after some previous negotiations, that there was a distinct agreement that the debate should be adjouisned after the member for Pictou had spoken upon condition, to which I consented, that we would go into committee to-morrow night before 12 o'clock.
I told my hon. friend we would probably go into committee before six o'clock, but that we would not make any agreement to that effect, because I had already got into trouble with some of my hon. friends by consenting to vote on last Wednesday night. Six or seven gentlemen on this side of the

House wanted to speak, and I thought they were justly entitled to have that vote postponed till Thursday night, but because the right hon. gentleman insisted, and because I had given my word that it would rot be later than Wednesday night, I told these gentlemen they could not speak. I spoke to every one of them personally, and a good deal of dissatisfaction was caused by my doing so. Although circumstances had arisen which I thought might justify the vote being postponed till Thursday, I had given my word without qualification and I proposed to carry it out and did carry it out. To-night my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) after his conference with the Minister of Justice, was firmly under the impression that an agreement had been arrived at. and he came to me and reported the agreement which had been made and said he was going home, that everything had been arranged. He went and told my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Richardson! that | under the arrangement he was entitled to | move the adjournment of the debate. That hon. gentleman did move the adjournment of the debate. When he moved it, I understood from the right hon. gentleman that we would keep on until 11 o'clock. My hon. friend from South Grey waited until 11, and then again moved the adjournment of the debate, but the request was again denied. So after two incidents that amounted, as I understood, to a violation of a distinct agreement made with a member of the hon. gentleman's cabinet, after that I did not ask that the adjournment of the debate should be made. I understood that these gentlemen were apparently departing, either wilfully or otherwise, from an agreement which the Minister of Justice undoubtedly did make and which the Minister of Justice will not deny. All I can say is that so far as I am concerned there will be in the future no arrangement made between the whips as to the date at which any debate is to be adjourned or concluded unless it is put in black and white, so that there will be no question about it. It is a very unpleasant thing to have these questions as to the truthfulness of one side or the other coming up continually, as they have been doing during the past four or five days. So far as I am concerned in the future there will be no more question about it, because I will make no arrangement as to the taking of any vote in this House unless it is put down in writing. Then we will all understand it, and there will be no more of this nonsense of agreements being made and then broken, and our being told afterwards that they were only tentative. How could they be tentative when the negotiations with regard to the adjournment of this debate went on for 15 or 20 minutes, and when finally such an agreement was come to as justified the chief whip in telling me what he did. and in telling what he did to the member for South Grey, and then going
home thinking everything had been fairly arranged ? It is time that agreements of this kind should be placed in such a position that there will be no possibility of these unpleasant disputes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can say to my hon. friend that I have broken no word of mine. I have only this to say, that it appears the hon. gentleman was consulted by his own whip and he agreed ; I was not consulted by the Minister of Justice and did not agree, and that is all there is about it


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say with the indulgence of the House that I think my hon. friend the chief whip of the Liberal party was not justified, if, as he says, he did not understand this to be a binding agreement, in not coming to this side of the House and telling some of the whips who were in the House that he did not understand this to be an agreement. He was not necessarily obliged to convey that information to the chief whip on this sidA He could have come to some of the other whips on this side of the House, or to myself, and explained what he must have known to be at least a misunderstanding, and if he had done so we would have had an avoidance of the very unpleasant incident that has taken place tonight.


William Samuel Calvert: As far as I am concerned, as I said before, I entered into no agreement with the chief whip of the opposition. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), in the presence of the hon. Minister of Justice, explained to me the proposition of the opposition, and I immediately waited on the right hon. Prime Minister and made the suggestion to him, but it was not agreed to. I looked for the hon. member for Leeds for some time. I did not know that he had gone home and I expected to have him return to the chamber at almost any moment. I waited until he had returned and I did not know until I saw him in the House that he had gone home. However, I did not think of going to any whip of the opposition, or to the hon. leader of the opposition, because the right hon Prime Minister had not agreed to the suggestion and as the hon. member for South Leeds had made the suggestion to me in regard to an arrangement, I expected to have made the arrangement with him. I wish to say to the hon. leader of the opposition that I have never broken a pledge made on behalf of this side of the House. I do not think the hon. leader of the opposition can charge us with having broken an agreement entered the other night. If there has been any breaking done here it has been done by the opposition and not by us. Still, I might possibly have gone over to the hon. leader of the opposition, but it did not occur to me, as

1 expected to meet the bon member for Leeds almost at any moment. However, I entered into no agreement with him. As I understand it is the duty of the chief whips on both sides to make these arrangements. I did not think I had anything to do with any arrangement suggested by the lion. Minister of Justice unless it was agreed to by the hon. member for Leeds and myself after I had consulted the Prime Minister.


George Taylor: The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Calvert) was not a party to the arrangement. The negotiations v out on between the hon. Minister of Justice and myself and I had two or three conferences with him.


William Samuel Calvert: I was in the House all the time.


George Taylor: The chief whip of the government was not here and was not a party to the negotiations. The hon. Minister of Justice and myself met at the door and as we met, the chief whip of the government came up and in his presence I explained the arrangement to the hon. Minister of Justice and he said it was satisfactory. The chief whip ot the government had no part, as I understood it. in the arrangement and had no reason to ask the consent of the right hon. Prime Minister, because, as I understand the whole arrangement was concluded between the hon. Minister of Justice and myself.


Wilfrid Laurier: There was no arrangement with me. He came and reported the arrangement, and I would not agree to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I say it was the duty of the hon. Minister of Justice to have come back and told us, or it was the duty of the chief government whip to have told us and not allow this unpleasant incident to have taken place. As the chief government whip has referred to what took place the other night I want to say that it was reported to me by the chief whip on this side of the House that the vote was to be taken at the close of the speech of the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn.)


William Samuel Calvert: No, after the right hon. Prime Minister's speech.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not going to enter into the merits of the matter ; that was the information given to me and it was given to a great many hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I did not hear of the intention of the right hon. Prime Minister to speak until two or three minutes before my hon. friend from Prince Edward had concluded his speech.
Mr. TAYLOR moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, debate adjourned.
William Samuel Calvert: 



ADJOURNMENT-CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY BOND AGREEMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I would like to ask the attention of the government to the fact that there was an engagement by the government last year, which is to be found in the third volume of ' Hansard,' 1903. page 5641, that the mortgages and other securities taken by the government to indemnify them in respect to the guarantee of the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway were to be placed on the table of the House within ten days after the opening of this session. I had suggested that a provision to that effect should be inserted in the Bill. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals asked whether I thought that was necessary or whether an assurance by the government would be sufficient. I then said that I would be happy io accept the assurance of the government in that regard. I would ask that the assurance be implemented and that these documents be brought down and placed on the table of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.25 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 27, 1904.