1904-04-13

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 52) respecting the
Railway
Company-'"'^1 - -tli
Bill (No. 53) respecting the rea1'-'' an Telegraph Company.-Mr. 1
Keewatin Creary.

t'ij.gH ^T°- 54) to incorporate the Dominion Bii]lsiuance Company.-Mr. Maepherson. Korthp P^0' ^ respecting the Canadian ern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
criminal, code amendment.
R- LENNOX (South Simcoe) moved for tlie p„,° introduce a Bill (No. 56) to amend "Ununal Code, 1892.
(Bib?-_lion- Sir WILFRID LAURIER
tttnp ,,(	[DOT]	011 w 1	1
H ^mister). Explain.
pose';nfLENNOX. This Bill is for the pur-in «.1 correcting a difficulty that is found Rn<lei' °Pei'ation of the Criminal Code. ivith lr ?n Act of tlie Ontario legislature ®strat erence to tlle notion of certain ma-oxist; ?s' there is a provision, which also legist- tlle Dominion statutes, that if a tak6 f'ate>
in a case where he is entitled to titles takes more fees than he is en-t°£etw' R® is liable to a penalty of $80, "Rich -i .with the costs of the action in '[DOT]idea recovered. But it has been de-that n ecently that although he is liable to *W^wity, in a case where he has sum-to SoVa^isciicti011 and therefore is entitled tit 6x„e ,fees>
he is not liable to a penalty if
h'U'eiVcts fees in a case which is of a V V C" j inv
eWtsblsent to'trial.
only "j criminal character and where he is shall vVestigating a case to ascertain if it eXacts f sent to trial. If in that case he atai] i. ,s where not entitled to any fees Is not liable to tlie penalty which is fill by this section of the Code, 1892,
0nVl>Q(3nn,wK««	4-V.rt
Act.
corresponding section of the Onfy, -I'-',- it is manifestly fair, neces-^acts iat in a case where a magistrate l shoun68 an<t is not entitled to any fees f Wonirt liable to as great a penalty as **1 ai,j, e where he is entitled to some more than he is entitled to.
a,1<l takes
RtOe. ^0tl asreed to', and Bill read the first
Ur
QUESTIONS. Winnipeg post office.
[Stage Direction]
l Ra. J- R0CHE asked :
jJ °Ptin>the government purchased or secured a site for a post office, at Winnifroin whom ?
OI,UiIS thr, -
site"? 1S Price, and what is the size of
it
what depth has it ?
.^outage and is	°
j. R situated ?
H situ £-0a-ner sRe ?
for At
the
ated ? *what
If so, at what corner
date were negotiations first begun
By	of the site ?
U1l)ehaitlai? were the negotiations conducted, - sa	the government ; and in whose
7 t "'ere	government
ti0tt%ve th"

.ons secured ?
the
^'hieut	°f future extension or en
government taken into considera-ssiti
01 the post office ?
8. In that event, could the necessary additional property be procured adjoining the site now selected ? If so, from whom, and at what price ?	'
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Primo Minister) :: 1.	Yes, an option has been secured. Negotiations were conducted with Mr. Thomas Metcalfe, barrister.	'
2.	$1,000 per foot frontage for the two first lots, 101-38 feet, and $950 per foot frontage for the third lot, 32-90 feet.
3.	Frontage 134-28, of an irregular depth of 195 feet for 81 feet, of 144 for 20 feet and 100 feet for 33 feet. Situated on Portage avenue, between Garry and Fort streets.
4.	No.
5.	Chief Architect Ewart and Chief Post Office Inspector Ross looked into this matter first when visiting Winnipeg in February last, and the site selected was examined and recommended for purchase by them.
6.	Mr. Thomas Metcalfe, barrister.
7 and 8. The new post office building will, it is expected, give ample accommodation for the next twenty-five years.



CHARGE AGAINST JOHN M. DESROCHES, LITTLE TIGNISH, P.E.I.

Mr. HAGKETT asked :: 1.	What action has the government taken with
regard to the following question, asked in this House on the 10th September, 1903	'1 Mr. Hackett asked :
' (a) Has the government received a complaint from certain electors of Prince county, Prince Edward Island, alleging that one John M. DesRoches, of Little Tignish, township No. 2, fishery guardian, had committed fraud in connection with the distribution of fishing bounty checks for the season of 1902, and asking that the same be investigated ?
[DOT]	(b) Is it the intention of the government to order an investigation into this matter, as requested' ?
[DOT]	(c) If so, when will the inquiry take place, and will witnesses be called to substantiate the charges made ?
1 (j) The Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Frederick Borden : Yes. Yes. A searching inquiry will be made as soon as possible.'
2.	Has (.he inquiry as promised been made ; and what is the result ? If uot, why not ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Preliminary information was procured, upon which the minister came to the conclusion to suspend proceedings for further consideration.



LINDSAY, BOBOAYGEON AND BRIDGE ACROSS EMILY PONTYPOOL CREEK.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1 Has the government permitted the Lindsay Bobcaygeon and Pontypool Railway to cross the' mouth of Emily creek on a low-level, solid
bridge ?	.
2.	Has the government received any protest concerning the bridge ?

11S<3
8. Is it the intention of the government to require a swing to be placed in the said bridge?
4. Has the government any data showing that the navigation of this stream is becoming more important each year, and that quantities of timber and other produce find, and will find, an outlet by this waterway ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister o£ Railways and Canals) :: 1.	A fixed bridge to carry the Lindsay. Eobcaygeon and Pontypool Railway over the Emily creek has been authorized.
2.	Subsequent to passing the Order authorizing a fixed bridge, a protest was received from Mr. Hugh O'Leary on behalf of Mr. Edward Johnson, and also from the Kawar-tha Lake Navigation Company.
3.	Not yet been considered.
4.	No.



P.E.I. RAILWAY-BRANCH LINES.

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 

SUPPLY OF COAL TO GOVERNMENT-

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARE asked ;	j J
1.	What was the total quantity of c°aj ye&r nished to the government during the flsca ui)l>c ending 30th June last, for use in the buildings, works and institutions, ma111
or administered by the government ?	c0*1
2.	During this period, what quantity .,dj0gwas furnished for use in each public but* tj,e work or institution, stated separately, a""ergl names of the persons from whom the s aI)J lots were obtained ; the rates of payment, the total cost in each case ?	haSeS
3.	In which cases, if any, were the Purc
made by tender ?	0iS
4.	What sums of money have, durinS period, been paid or allowed by way a ut*' ing or fuel allowance, in lieu of or com tion for fuel ; and in what cases and to sums respectively have such allowances made ?
[u'(Transla^y Mr. Speaker, as a representative of a cojj adjoining those of my hon. friends of 1 bly-Verch6res and Laprairle-Napiervin^,,. wish to say a few words on the question der discussion.\t11\nFor once, my hon. friends will find tu\\ies agree with them. I believe the com ^ they represent require the protection 01 eJ)-government, especially on the eve of a eral election. I am personally familiar g the floods through which localities born aj; on the St. Lawrence have suffered thisj J (lie and I think the government should taK A necessary means to, if not entirely P \u201et, stop to at least prevent to a certain ]l0[). these calamities. I may assure _.unfriends on the other side that the co** ^ tives of the district of Montreal wil Votf1^\' find fault with the government f\xb0f P tl)pir ing against floods the people of\nVereh&res and Laprairie-Napierville- w ti9 I may say that this should not re\xae * gXV a mere suggestion submited to the ment for the purpose of securing b? e}e\xa3\' hon. members the good will of tbp0g*8? tors ; the question should seriously ,j0\xablU\' the attention of the government and >\n0f * at this very session be the snb.leLI\'Apiiis\' genuine report. I hope that the hon. " ges-ter of Marine and Fisheries, before tl)e sion closes, will report to the House t jni-hest means to be adopted to protect porta nt part of the vicinity of Sfitis\u201e. Besides, if the hon. minister.could the House that it is possible to open\' jj#\nas far Mutf \xa3\nMarch, it " ^oJe\ntion on the St. Lawrence real, by the beginning of Marcn, ^ of great interest to the country aS tmg * V and might have the effect of prevei ,j.riiu construction of that famous Gra\xab\' oSit1\xb0 I\'acific, by proving that we are in a jjfltc \' to use, as early as the beginning gpoi\'1 our great national route for the ^ ;0(iuct?-tion of grain and other western P g op s So that. Mr. Speaker, the unanim\xb0 ,eji 11 ion of all citizens, Conservative *', u'Ole >U \' ls ^at the government should take it( accessary means to do away with the "\'liioh eiliences an<3 at times disasters under Chaii m*10 e!ectors of our lion, friends from vilie ,\'y-Verekeres and Laprairie-Napiferi e labour at times.\nP- D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). <ration-) 1 referred yesterday to these of v^\xaes\' when laying the case of the town Cou,.\u201e\xaet(3Uu before the government. Of \'Lfiin a We slul" be glad to vote the amount ti0n necessary to investigate the ques-fiictea^ put a stop to the heavy losses in-I\'eai a ?n towns in the vicinity of Mont-\xb0bviat . think the government might have dyr-Jped these losess by using, for instance, latin0. lte to prevent the ice from accumucarr}p P\'an of building an ice-boat might be server out- Russia has provided such a that ^ on the Baltic sea, where boats of suCe description have been operated with [DOT]toubt for some years past. I have no b\xb0at * at, in the vicinity of Montreal, a "\'\'tii],!\t[DOT]as those constructed in Russia\nI ren^1Ve exceIlent results.\nmy right lion, friend the Prime\nbwSer to bear in mind that the case I Hie | , before him is quite an exceptional idea t have no doubt but that the damages fectivo were brought about by the de-tbe nit instruction of a certain dike which sent \xb0*- Montreal has built with the con-the i|, . the Harbour Commissioners within *ihi\'isdi t-S of \'be territory placed under their Certain*3H the government are to a\ns"biniH extent responsible in the cases just of thp i \' they are the more so in the case Astern. piovemeuts to which I referred Com^ay and carried out by the Harbour In llSsi\xb0hers.\nthe o^dhclusion, I recomemnd particularly the g0*\xae_of Verdun to the kind attention of', u"emment.\nrp,\n^eake?ET\xb0- TAYLOR (South Leeds). Mr. ttl', ' ' t desire to rlireot the attention of Mi", u'w \' niatiJ"1\',\' uer (Air. I\nd*aime<p before the House yesterday, and VJ ^ hat the damage to which he refer-phers \u201e(,cause<l by the harbour commis-I, \'"\'atm. Montreal diverting the flow of A did Tbe Prime Minister stated that L\xb0hsibie 1 think the government were res-a, attenf Want to bring this matter to yl Cami \\of the Minister of Railways j \xaet that iS (Hon. Mr. Emmerson). I re-re uhder*tn \xae llot in his place at present, to that be lias had a speech']
Rt.   H@: 

[Stage Direction]
lion. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	Nothing definite decided.
2.	Yes, petitions have been received for
the construction of branch lines as follows: -From O'Leary station to Cape Wolfe, from Mount Albion station to Pownal, from Cardigan to Montague, from Murray river to Murray harbour, from Murray river to Machon's point or Beach's point, from Vernon river hi idge to Lake Verde station, from some point oil Cape Traverse branch to Xew-Lon-dou bay. Request by letter from Air. J. ,T. Hughes, M.P., for an extension from Souris to Elmira.	x
o. A location survey was made between Murray river and Murray harbour ; and instrumental surveys were made between Cardigan, on the main line, and Montagu? bridge ; between Montague bridge and Surrey road, on the Murray harbour branch [DOT] also between Hoitts' Mill and Brudenell river and New Perth station on the main line. Reconnaissance surveys were made from Montague bridge to the Murray harbour branch near Kinross, also from McRae's Mill to Murray river. The intention Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 
Hon. H. II. EMMERSON (Minister 0 ways and Canals) :: 
ACT, 1900.
[Stage Direction]
asked :
Mr. in,' it tv. .
bn °duce n*10 iutention of the government to Bn ihion a-5f iusislation in amendment to the ws.e of oicT ,cii°ns Act, 1900, for the pur-tyl0h the r* 'i.chuiug the constituencies in a^the davfU rn'nS officer has the power to
[DOT]ue iav f ® omcer nas tne power to als0	the nomination of candidates,
to>Cer Snc\at constituencies has the returning Ce *>
Power, under the statutes now in
day and place for holding the
A ^t. pr
lister?: Sir WILFRID LI
iff'):
AURIER (Prime
r>'	gijl [DOT]
Or'- Li n,„Be.ci is now under consideration.

the
and
electoral districts of Algoma,
eri-iy .Hi GaspC* and Chicoutimi rii)Oo i,, 'I,'iuebec. Burrnrd and Yale British Columbia,
mid
and

Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour received from the Dominion of Canada Institute of Amalgamated Engineers a request for the deportation of the following men, brought into Canada under contract by the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, viz.:- G. A. Kyle, engineer, Tacoma, Wash.; M. Kyle, engineer, Tacoma, Wash.; W. Allan McNeil, St. Paul, Minn.; Hare VanArsdaile, W. Jones, engineers, Wisconsin ; W. Meyer Nutting, engineer, Portland, Oregon ; W. H. Goodman, W. Mason, draughtsmen, Tacoma, Wash.; R. Heckman, engineer ; Hicks, transitman, Tacoma, Wash.; Anderson, typographer, Seattle, Wash.?
2.	What reply has been given to the request ?
3.	Has the Minister taken any steps to ascertain the total number of men imported under contract from the United States in connection with the survey of the proposed Transcontinental Railway ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General.) Certain correspondence on the subject has passed between the secretary of the institute and the government, and if a return is moved for, the copies will be produced.


P.E.I. MAILS.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	What contract did the government have with the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway for carrying Prince Edward Island mails last winter, and the amount of contract, and whether per mile, per trip or annual ?
2.	What contract did the government have with B. C. Royworth for carrying Prince Edward Island mails from and to Sackville to Cape Tormentine, and the amount of contract, and whether per mile, per trip or otherwise ?
3.	What arrangement has the Department of Railways with the Post Office Department for carrying mails by special train in Prince Edward Island ; and the rate per mile or otherwise ?
lion. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :
1.	The arrangement is $G per single trip. This amount is paid for conveying Prince Edward Island mails on regular trains, and is over and above the regular rate for conveying local mails.
2.	No contract. The rate per trip has not yet been adjusted.
3.	Fifty cents (50c.) per mile.


APPOINTMENT OF J. E. DUVAL.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Have the Railway Commissioners or the government appointed an officer to inquire into and report upon the causes of railway accidents which take place in Canada, in which, or as a consequence of which, human life is sacrificed ?
2.	If such officer has been appointed, what is his name ; how long has he resided in Canada ; is he a British subject ? If so. when did he become naturalized ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	J. E. Duval. Has resided in Canada for the last twenty years. He is a British subject. He was born in Canada.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.-TOWN SITES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER ashed :
1.	Has the government any arrangement with any railway company or persons regarding town sites in the Northwest ?
2.	Is it true that the government, or officers on behalf of the government, are interested in any town sites, or proposed town sites ?
3.	What are the conditions or arrangements ?
4.	What sums have been realized by the government from such arrangements ?
5.	Where do these sums appear in the public accounts of Canada ?
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The government has no arrangement now with any railway company or persons regarding town sites, but there was a partnership with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in four town sites, Virden, Qu'Appelie, Regina and Moosejaw from 1883 to 1902 when a division of the unsold lands was made.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	$141,229.90.


Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals.) The information ashed for by the hon. gentleman cannot now D furnished as the accounts have not yet bee>
made up.


NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE MEDALS-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	How many members of the Northve"t Mounted Police served in the rebellion of 'r
2.	Did such members receive the "medal
that campaign ?	be-
3.	Were land grants or scrip issued to '
members of the Northwest Mounted Police " served in that campaign ?	.
4.	Did the Northwest Mounted Police 1
part in the supiession of the rebellion ?	. g
5.	Did they serve in the field as a	.
force, similar to the militia and volunteers [DOT] g
6.	What objections are urged against grancjf]-the Northwest Mounted Police the same con5 , eration as accorded the militia and volunteer5


Rt.   H@: ,g
1.	919 officers, non-commissioned office and men.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes'	7 .tied
6.	It was considered that a clistmc e. should be made between the mounted whose ordinary duties of maintaining ''
5.-Public Accounts.
Fiscal Year.	Part.	Page.	Particulars.1883-4	i	50	* Included with revenue received on account of 1 Genera1884-5 	i	50	hales of Lands'	1890-1	i	44	1891-2	t	43	1892-3	i	43	1902-3	2	35	Total	
.
Aiw,u,>t'
$
ct-*
1:gS
gjs


I.C.R.-EARNINGS AND EXPENSES.
Mr. BARKER asked :: 
THE LIGHTSHIP LURCHER-
Mr. KAULBACH asked:: lIjUr
1.	What was the cost of the HgtRsluP ^gn>
c-her,' built by the Poison Iron tvo
pany, of Toronto ?	. at R*
2.	When did the said vessel arrive fax ?


Mr. CLARKE.: 
ROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.
[Stage Direction]
Sp®AKER read
y tiie Governor General.
the message as fol-
Su, *
aa<j
>k,
l,,_have °£ Pie House of Commons :
" ss whiche*Vet* w'th much satisfact -s f0), " y°u have adopted expreseing your ,.s'°n of ?. speech with which I opened the ^0vernn,Parl,am<fut.
Ott?*?nt H°use,
a>
12th April, 1904.
Eon Yuk°n COMMISSION.
5? Iutew^rF9RD SIFTON (Minister of the'6
terior) called
v ... , When the Orders of the Day n!'	yesterday tlie lion, leader of
lotion ®l^,n (Mr. a- F. Borden) asked a w!1 appoi nti tlle Position of the commissi, *°n nv,. -5 to inquire into affairs in the J'T.'tly t6rfl,t°ry. The position is this : heii\io,J of i?1?,.tlie opening of the present ; resup i a''hament, an unfortunate acei-he con,, .ln the death of Mr. Bell, one
[Stage Direction]

th,
A couple of weeks v ;; 3ustice Britton wrote to the y ot State
calling attention to this
5SSS?Mr8lrer8
ta Ctilrv ,Ir- Justic
0f°t an1/ a State ca.fe	
bg1 goVP, "K t° he advised of the view th6 ^rstied 4?nt as to what course should Of .'htsfj ' "lie matter was referred to ,fustioe ,., 'Parlinent. and the Minister ' Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) has
reported that the death of one of the commissioners results in the commission not being so constituted that the remaining commissioner can legally make a report. Instructions have been issued to the Justice Department to have another commission made out to Mr. Justice Britton and be will be asked to expedite his report. As soon as it is received it will be laid before the House.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would stiggest that the evidence might be printed in the meantime so that there would he no delay after the receipt of the report in placing it before the members of the House.


Mr. SIFTON.: The evidence has not yet -been returned to us by the commissioners. My hon. friends will, of course, understand that in the ordinary course it would not be returned until it came with the report, but we shall consider the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) as to communicating witli the commissioner and asking to have the evidence sent to us at an early date.


FLOODS AT LAPRAIRIE.
Mr. D. MONET (Laprairie and Napier-ville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the order of the day, I wish to call your attention and that of the government to the extremely painful conditions under which the people of Laprairie are labouring just now, owing to the ice floe and damages consequent thereon, through the flood, which occurred during the night of Saturday last. In order to conform.to the rules of the House, I shall, if necessary, move the adjournment.
Every year, the village, and even the parish of Laprairie, are threatened with damages on account of more or less serious floods ; and I believe that it is with cause that for fifteen years, and under the conservative rule, the government had improvements made with a view to protecting the property and lives of the villagers. Those improvements consist in a wooden pier or rampart built along the shore so as to protect private property ; besides, ice-breakers have been constructed with a view to protecting the pier itself. Unfortunately, those structures are made of wood, and owing to the yearly floods and to age, the woodwork is altogether decayed. So, it has been decided to replace those structures by others of more durable material. At my suggestion the government have acted on the report of one of their engineers, and, last year, the minister of Public Works ordered that those wooden structures, which has become altogether inefficient should he replaced by others in concrete.
I may say at once that for a number ot years, this House has voted subsidies aggregating altogether $75,000 or $100,000, to protect the village of Laprairie. The liberal

government, on that point, followed the precedent originating with the conservative government, some fifteen years ago, and have applied the principle laid down by their predecessors.
As a matter of fact, since 1897, a considerable amount, aggregating about $50,000, lias been applied, at my request to these protection works, and last year again a large amount was voted for that purpose. Unfortunately, that amount was not voted until late last autumn, on account of the protracted session ; and there was not enough time left to carry through the necessary improvements for the protection of the village of Laprairie. As the rampart or guard pier could not be completed, a gap was left, through which the ice forced its way a few days ago, causing the damage to which I have just referred. For the time being, 'Laprairie is not to be recognized ; houses have been cut in two and carried from one side of the road to the other ; all. with the exception of five or six are submerged as high up as the second story ; clothing, furniture have suffered from water. If no deaths have occurred, some narrow escapes are recorded. Women had to flee in the darkness of night, carrying away their children in spite of many difficulties, and one of them having let lier infant slip into the water, it was only through a miracle that it was rescued and restored to life.
I suppose there is no necessity for me to appeal to anything else but the government's equal force to their sense' of justice. If the breaking of the ice had such terrible results at Laprairie, this year, it is due, as I have just stated, first to the ineffectiveness of the guard pier,-in respect of which no fault can be found with the government, but also to the building up of that million dollar island, in other words that long dike which starts at Victoria bridge and extends into tile river. That dike or pier was built by order of the harbour commissioners, and by narrowing the bed of the St. Lawrence has always gi ven rise to inundations of a more disastrous character than formerly.
When its construction was begun, protests came from Laprairie, St. Lambert and a great many citizens on the south shore. It was urged that the construction of that dike should not be proceeded with, as disasters were apprehended; and what was the result? In winter time, there, water does not freeze any longer for a month or a month and a half; so we have no more that ice bridge over which farmers used formerly to cross when taking their products to Montreal. The water no Jonger freezes, and instead of driving in direct line towards Bonsecours market, as formerly, they cross to Point St. Charles and have to reach the market through the streets of Montreal, thus undergoing all the inconveniences which arise from circulating along thoroughfares cut up by double tracks of electric railways.


Dominique Monet: 
Mr.   V.@: engineers-that jhere is only one means of putting- a stop* to floods, not only at Montreal, but all along the river to Three Rivers, and that means, suggested by our engineers and which will be the subject of a special report to be laid before the House, is the building of an ice-boat which would break up the ice bridge over the St. Lawrence every spring. It would be an easy matter to my mind, to start in a craft of that kind from Quebec-where winter navigation is a fact-about the first of March and to 'ascend the St. Lawrence, breaking the ice as high up as Montreal, and keeping an open channel for the ice and water to flow down freely. I believe that, by that means, the river would keep its level and floods would be avoided. Another advantage would result from that : the opening of navigation would be hastened by two or three weeks, and might without difficulty, take place about the first of April, for the benefit not only of the port of Montreal, but of the whole country. For instance, if it were a recognized fact that by the first of April every year, the port of Montreal or the St. -"Lawrence route were open, that would be a distinct gain for us.
As far as the Department of Marine is concerned, I may say right here that I am collecting the necessary data to enable me to lay before the House a report from which we may ascertain whether the present state of things could not be remedied.
I think that is the most practical way to reach good results.


Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (St. Mary's).: (Translation.) While I was Minister of Public Works, I gave some attention to this question, as regards, at all events, the opening of navigation on the St. Lawrence in early spring. Of course, I looked into the reports of engineers on that subject. The claim is made that it is possible to hasten the opening of navigation. Having had more leisure of late, I gave somewhat more time than formerly to the study of that question. Russia has provided on lake Baikal a service of steam ferry boats. The English firm of Armstrong built for the Russian government those boats, on which three railway trains can be carried at one time. Of course, they have cost large sums of money.
A few days ago, I was reading that those boats were powerful enough to cut through fifty or sixty inches of ice; and it is no play to cross that lake, which is thirty miles long.
I call the attention of the hon. minister of Marine and Fisheries to that undertaking of the Russian government. The hon. minister will find in Henry Norman's excellent book : ' All the Russias information which may be of use to him.
As regards floods, it is a difficult matter to try and prevent them. My attention as minister was called to the damage caused, on both shores of the St. Lawrence, by those inundations, and almost in every case I requested officers of the department to carry


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Mr. E. LEONARD (Laval).: 
TO RIDEAU CANAL WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
ho g0v1' I desire to direct the attention of 'vbicb eminent to a serious state of affairs *huty
i?c9UesV?Pres?
inn+iP'11 tier (Mr. Monk) brought a sirni-
>°huty jXi®ts in the northern part of the
represent. The hon. member for

deliy
be mid l'ei. f°r the ]iast three or four H„, °an ll0. "e is so nervous about it that t) lee or .. remain in his seat more than Prime if, minutes at a time. 1 hope Minister will bring tills matter
to his attention. A few days ago a section of the government dam at Poonalimalee was torn away, and a good deal of injury was done to property at the town of Smith's Palls and at Merrickville. X understand that last night the entire dam was carried away, so that a new dam will have to be erected. It is not expected that there will be any navigation on the Rideau canal east of Newboro, perhaps during the entire summer, unless immediate action is taken by the government to retain the water now flowing. In any case the government should take immediate steps to protect the property of persons whose property is being damaged. There can be no question of the responsibility of the government in this case, because it is government property that is carried away. The property of many people is affected, at Smith's Palls, at Merrickville, in one of the townships in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and in the constituency represented by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart). I ask the government to take immediate steps to protect the property of these people in all these constituencies, and also to protect the navigation of the canal.
Motion for adjournment of the House withdrawn.

[u"1.\tWhat is the date of the latest reP jBjet\nthe engineer with regard to closing ttieprin\xae\xae at Cascumpee harbour, Prince county, Edward Island ?\te l)\xae'\n2.\tHas any correspondence taken Pla, tween James S. Gordon, Alberton, P-^lgctl\xae11 the Department of Public Works, in con with this work ?\n3.\tIf any corespon lence his taken Pla? 'gJl tl>\xae is the purport of it, and will it be l*ia , table of this House ?\n4.\tWhat amount of money has been e ^\non this work to date ?\t,. for\xae'\n5.\tWhat is the name of the foreman, ^c\xae\xae' men, employed on the work since it cova ? M and the amounts paid to each respect1* {0 tl>\n6.\tWhat were the wages iiaid per uie\tj\nforeman and labourers ?\t-t, 1111\nof", 'Thursday, April 14, 1904.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the government, and particularly my right hon. friend who leads the government, to a question which was put by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) on Monday last. As the question is a somewhat long one, 1 will not read it; but my right hon. frdiend will remember it. The question to which I refer is one inquiring of the government whether or not certain persons vr hose names are set forth in the question, have been appointed to positions at certain salaries since July, 1896. The second por-lion of tlie question was this :
Were the said persons, at the time they were appointed, members of the House of Commons of Canada ?
A further branch of the question was this :
If the foregoing list is not correct; in what particular is it incorrect ?
My right lion, friend, in reply, said :
All the information sought for in this question is already to be found in public documents.
I would like to suggest to my right liota. friend that that is not the mode of dealing with questions which has been pursued in t Ids House in the past. I suppose you could find fifty or a hundred questions put and answered last session, the answers to which might be found in public docu-

	*	x were to ha\
Hansard ' searched, I would find that man-o: the names have been mentioned i11 t House in previous sessions.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Nothing to be ashamed ot< I hope.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 
Mr. SPROULE.: I think that the ^ gentleman does not fully appreciate ^ right of hon. members to ask questions -the object they have in view.
non-


Wilfrid Laurier: If npers friend only speaks of the rights of mei l]jlS of this House, I must tell him that m- oJl not the right at this moment to spe< this question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Mr. SPEAKER.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I only ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.	>


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion o£ Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, for the House to go into committee to consider a certain resolution concerning the -ratification of the agreement between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, dated the 8 th day of March, 1904 ; ' and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny).: In rising, Mr. Speaker, to speak on tills question, I do not think it necessary, as most of the members of the opposition seem to do, to review every detail of the contract which was adopted last year. I only' intend making a few remarks, as a representative from the province of Quebec, to answer the call advanced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). As has been said already, there is no use for our friends who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, trying to conceal their disappointment over the amendments made to the Transcontinental Act this session. They seemed to expect that the concessions made would be so intolerable to the country as to render the construction of the railway impossible. Finding that this is not the case, finding that the amendments do not change the nature of the contract but merely some of its accidents, they have resorted to the tactics of emptying all the vials of their wrath on the eastern section. They seem to think, most of them with great joy, that in these new amendments lies the capital condemnation of that part of the railway which the government is to construct. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I share that view. On the contrary I am of the opinion that these amendments will assure in the near future the construction of that part of the railway. I will surprise, no doubt, many on the other side in stating that I am a believer in the theory that the eastern division of the road is as necessary to the country as the western part of it, and, Sir, I have strengthened that conviction from speeches I have heard on the other side of the House. Let us take for instance the declaration of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) who, after having praised heaven that the government would not build that part of the railway made the following statement, which, coupi-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This is quite a different picture from that which was painted for us by the visionaries of 200 years ago. As for the section between Quebec and Moncton, the work there is already well begun. There are many parishes of hardy men settled in the beautiful forest many years ago, who are now awaiting with anxiety our decision to build this great transcontinental railway which will bring them once more into relations with the advanced civilization they have left behind for the welfare of this Canada of ours. The line proposed there was recommended in 1864 for the building of the Intercolonial Railway. Some one has complained that it would parallel the Intercolonial. Well, I say that the proposed railway between Quebec and Moncton will no more parallel the Intercolonial than the Intercolonial at the time of its construction paralleled the St. Lawrence, or than the Canadian Pacific Railway to Ottawa now parallels the Canada Atlantic Railway. This project is a great thing for Quebec and the maritime provinces, and I think this was admitted last year by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), as it was this year by the leader of the opppsi-tion. Last night again it was admitted by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gour-ley). He said, speaking in that energetic manner of his :
I have said that the Quebec-Moncton section - must be built, and I wish to put myself thoroughly on record on that score. I am for that section from beginning to end.
I maintain that what is good for Quebec and the maritime provinces is good for the Dominion, because what helps' the west will help the general prosperity 'of Canada. The United States have taken for their device ' E pluribus unum.' That motto may rightly be applied to the policy of this government, for they are endeavouring to bring the scattered units of British North America nearer together and to consolidate the confederation.
As for the amendments presented to the House modifying the contract of last year, they have been so thoroughly and so well explained by the members on the government side of the House that I shall not speak at any length in regard to them. Let me however quote from ' La Presse,' a Conservative paper of Montreal, which has taken a very frank view of the situation, in a long article of which I will read only a few lines :
Sometimes the part of the opposition is an ungrateful one, because those whom it is entrusted to do not seem to have a clear sense of it. It is unreasonable to believe that thirteen or fourteen members of a committee, the pick and choice of the people's representatives kept in power by the will of the people, must constantly err In every way. There is a certain measure of common sense with which every human being is endowed. Would fate blind those whom Providence has entrusted for a Mr. A. LAVERGNE.
[DOT] affair*
while with the administration of public a ajj-in which it has a direct interest since *	,
mitted that : 'All powers proceed from d This year, it is the Grand Trunk which ^ in and hinds itself ; and Mr. Borden thinks this new contract does away ' with many , guarantees relied upon by the governme"
Mr. Borden's amendment, without denying i0 the railway is necessary, asks the c0Yn wit* meet the whole expenditure in connection the building of the road and to run a of risks. It is an emphatic plea in faV gVef! government ownership. Heretofore, country


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker,f the jV can get order on the other side o gpid1-* . With half a dozen hon. gentlefflt)lC n up and talking, we cannot ne< member who is speaking.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: 
Mr. CLANCY.: 
Mr. LEMIEUX.: Hear, hear.


Mr CLANCY.: I assume that, naturally, hat would bo the view of the hon. gentle-nan, but I regret to say that he is seriously it variance with his leader. I regret to say

that that is not at all the view which his leader took upon introducing this measure to the House in the first instance, and X regret to say that since then he has nol retracted one single word that he uttered on that occasion. I fully agree, X think Canada generally agrees, and I think the members of the House, when they are in their sober senses, will agree with hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that we cannot afford to spend a dollar on what is known as a national transcontinental railway that would be weakened by any consideration, locally or otherwise, that would take away one particle from the strength or usefulness of that railway. But has that been the case ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) knows perfectly well that while he made a valuable statement to the House he could not resist the temptation to go to the different localities and say that these particular localities had not been served, to say, for instance, that the city of Montreal was getting more than its share as compared with the city of Quebec, and that the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway had been shifted from Quebec to Montreal. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) advanced these as reasons why the city of Quebec should have special consideration, in order to atone for the sins that had been committed against it in the past, and the atonement was to be the building of this railway to the city of Quebec. I hope that I have not misunderstood or misrepresented the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux).


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) permit me to explain something which perhaps he did not catch the other day ? WheVi my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was speaking he alluded to the fact that this railway would not go to Montreal, and added that everything was for the city of Quebec. Yesterday. I answered that statement. I said that I was myself a citizen of Montreal, although I represented in this House one of the counties of Quebec, but that as a citizen of Montreal I could not complain on behalf of my native city ; that Montreal had been well treated by the government and that if, in order to make of this route a short route it must pass by way of Quebec, and Montreal must not complain. That was the thread of my argument.


James Clancy: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: But in winter.


James Clancy: I am coming to that point, *which is a very important one. My hon. friend has couceded that that is a fair proposition, so far as freight during the season of navigation is concerned.
Mr. LEiMIEUX. It is admitted by Sir Sandford Fleming.


James Clancy: My hon. friend refers to Sir Sandford Fleming. That man occupies a very distinguished position in this country. Forty years ago he was considered a very efficient engineer; he is perhaps a very efficient enginer now. As such, his opinion is entitled to great weight in this country,
md he may well be looked upon as an authority. But I fail to find that up to this moment Sir Sandford Fleming has mastered tlie first letter of the alphabet of transportation ; I am not aware that he has had any training or experience on that question. Therefore when the hon. gentleman quotes liis opinion as an engineer, it will be listened to with respect and will carry weight; but I for one must be pardoned if I absolutely refuse to take the views of that gentleman as authoritative or weighty on questions about which lie perhaps knows no more than the average member of this House.
Now I will deal solely witli tlie question of tlie' utility of this transcontinental railway and for the present I will confine my remarks to the eastern portion, extending from Winnipeg to St. .Tolin or Halifax, eithei

of which ports must be taken to be the objective point for winter traffic. They are the only Atlantic ports which we have equipped. At both points we have constructed terminals and erected elevators at considerable cost, with the expectation of having at least a good winter service there. Quebec and Montreal are out of the question as winter ports. As I have said, we have practically only 10 per cent of the traffic from the west to deal with as winter traffic. Let us make a comparison of the all-rail distances from Winnipeg to St. John. By the Canadian Pacific Railway the distance is 50 miles shorter than the Grand Trunk Pacific, it would be 189 miles longer by the Intercolonial than by the proposed eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not believe that any hon. member of this House would consider these differences in distance to be important factors. I do not imagine my hon. friend from Gaspe would do so.	I have no
doubt he has in his mind the consideration of securing the carriage of Canadian products to Canadian seaports. The difference of distance between the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk Pacific, is put by Mr. Blair at very much less than 189 miles ; but I am taking the figures given by hon. gentlemen themselves. In order that I may have some proof as to that, I desire to repeat what Mr. Blair says. Mr. Blair is not an unimportant person in this country. He has been selected on the certificate of the premier for one of the highest positions in Canada. He fills a position which is probably more important to the people of Canada than any other in Canada. The duties devolving upon him are of a more serious and important character than those of any oilier single man in Canada. Therefore his views must be taken as pretty well settled, and as coming from a gentleman entitled from his experience and his position to great weight on questions of this kind. Mr. Blair, in speaking last year of the ability of the Intercolonial to enter- into competition with other lines, has this to say :	(.See
' Hansard,' p. 9699) :-
It must not be forgotten-and I wish to emphasize this fact-that the Intercolonial Railway has such exceptionally favourable grades, is so well laid, and is such an exceptionally favourable road for traffic, running along the coast line, that it can haul heavier traffic 259 miles further-than the Canadian Pacific Railway in shorter time. You can therefore see how small a figure 77 miles would cut under these circumstances.
I do not believe that my hon. friend from
Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) will question the
weight of that statement, especially coming
from a gentleman so competent to give an
opinion. But we have other witnesses. We
have the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who was the only gentleman selected
on that side of the House to make an effort
to reply to the able and comprehensive 1


James Clancy: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Vested rights, rene^als'


James Clancy: 
Mr.   A@: 
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General).: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question to him . If he lias the figures available, since he has given the financial basis of the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition, would he teU ns the estimated cost o^extending tl e Intel Railway from Montreal to the 1 act
it- CLANCY. I have endeavoured to lerfectiy fair. I am glad the hon Post-q('r General hasT asked me that questioi.

I think it will enable me to make the matter much clearer than I would have '[DOT]been able to do without this interruption. I would apply the same rule to both cases. As I have said, the average cost of constructing 1,875 miles from Moncton to Winnipeg, as was shown by the bon. leader of the opposition, including the loss of interest during the period of construction, is !j>45,000 a mile. We have to extend the Intercolonial from Montreal to Winnipeg, not 1,875 miles-because there is a portion of that railway on its way to Winnipeg- but 1,414 miles. I applied precisely the same rule to that-I said the cost would be $45,000 a mile. Therefore my hon. friend will see that I am perfectly fair in the calculation.


William Mulock: What is the total from Montreal to the Pacific ?


James Clancy: The cost of 1,414 miles, at $15,000 a mile, is $63,000,000, or a saving, as I have stated, of $21,000,000.


William Mulock: What is the total from Montreal to the Pacific ?


James Clancy: I will give the hon. gentleman the figures. The rate of cost which the hon, gentlemen have laid down for themselves for constructing a road from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, was $20,000 a mile for the prairie section, and $50,000 a mile for the mountain section.- I assume that would be the cost to the government of extending the Intercolonial Railway from AVinnipeg to the Pacific coast, which woui'd be an average of $30,000 a mile for the whole distance.


William Mulock: What are the totals?


Mr. CLANCY  .@: The hon. gentleman can figure them out for himself.


William Mulock: I am asking the hon. gentleman to give us the figures.


James Clancy: I will be glad to gratify the hon, gentleman later on.


William Mulock: Do not be afraid, tell us the cost.


James Clancy: I am taking the hon. gentleman as my authority for the cost.


William Mulock: Give us the figures.


James Clancy: now be somewhat anxious to know why the present Minister of Railways and Canals did not introduce the amendments here proposed. -Later on, that lion, gentleman may give his reasons. It may be that ids sullen silence up to this time indicates the spirit in which he signed this contract. He must have signed it with a trembling hand. Up to this time, lie has not had the courage even to remain in the House lor any considerable time during the debate. Much * less has he attempted to explain why the Minister of the Interior was put over his head to reply to the leader of the opposition. Possibly I may be able to make it plain why the Minister of Railways and Canals did not introduce this amendment, why he has absented himself from the House, and why he has been silent from first to last with regard to this matter. The Intercolonial now runs from Sydney on the Atlantic coast to Montreal. If we are to have a line from ocean to ocean, the question of government ownership must be squarely faced so far as that part of the road is concerned between the terminal points of the present Intercolonial. Now, last session, the present Minister of Railways and Canals favoured the extension of the Intercolonial to Georgian Bay. Fcrhaps I had better read to the House just what he said on that occasion. At page 8741 of 'Hansard' of last year, the present Minister of Railways and Canals said :
But there, is one thing I do wish to say, and that is connected with the proposition made by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in regard to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian Bay, in order that that railway might participate in the traffic which comes over the lakes. I have strong sympathy with that idea.
The hon. gentleman who said that is now but little seen within the walls of this chamber. But lie was prepared to go further than the remark I have just quoted would indicate. He was prepared not only to extend the Intercolonial to Georgian Bay, hut to adopt government ownership without any reservation mental or otherwise.
That was the position of the present Minister of Railways and Canals. Let us see what he had to say upon that subject. Speaking last year, page 8733 of the ' Hansard,' this is what the hon. gentleman had to say :
Those who have paid any attention to the course which I have pursued in relation to this railway project, if any have done me the honour to observe that course, will know that I have advocated, not merely in this House, but in the Railway Committee, the extension of the Intercolonial Railway into the west, and the operation of railways by the government.
No one can doubt the position then taken by the Minister of Railways and Canals. He goes further, and he points out the advantages that would arise to Canada by such a course :	.


James Clancy: 
An hon. MEMBER: 

1X33
one, that they took no chances, that they had their remedies and. that it would be their duty to exercise their remedies.
The security for the bond guarantee is to be found in mortgages which may be foreclosed by the government in ease of default.
Is the hon. gentleman now prepared as a member of this government and probably soon to be a member of the cabinet to repeat that statement ? I think it is his duty now, and I should like to give him an opportunity of doing so, to repudiate his utterance or say : I deceived the people on that occasion. He should say : I believed it then, and I believe it now ; I was not a member of the government then, I am a member of the government now. Then, there are some other hon. gentlemen who gave assurances to the people on that occasion. We have the hon. Minister of Finance. I greatly regret that that hon. gentleman is not in the House. I am disposed to pay that hon. gentleman the compliment of saying that in debate while always lucid he is not always logical, but he has the power of presenting his case with a good deal of force. My hon. friend beside me (Mr. W. J. Roche) says that this seems to be a season of bouquets. I want to pay a just tribute to those hon. gentlemen whose utterances are of great consequence at this moment. Let us see what the hon. Minister of Finance gave as an assurance to the people who supported that i scheme. The chief reason given to the people to induce them on that occasion to support the scheme was that the Grand Trunk Railway Company held as security $25,000,000 of the common stock. This is what the hon. Minister of Finance had to say upon that occasion :
We have provided that practically the common stock of this company to the full extent of $25,000,000 shall be held, not by promoters, not even by the old Grand Trunk Railway officials individually, but by the old Grand Trunk Railway of Canada itself.
Is that the case now ? Where is the hon. Minister of Finance to withdraw that statement, to repudiate it, to make amends to the people by saying : We have taken upon ourselves to change this ? What I said upon that occasion will not do. We must act differently now and why must we act differently?-because the Grand Trank Railway Company have asked us to act differently and there is no better reason. Again the hon. Minister of the Interior had something to say in regard to the Grand Trunk Railway Company making, in the first instance, a proposition to construct a road from North Bay to Winnipeg and the Pacific coast, coming to the government and having in view subsidies for the purpose of constructing that line. The hon. Minister of the Interior tells us that he did not assent to that, that it was not in the interest of the country to take a course of that kind,


James Clancy: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear,


James Clancy: 
Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: Mr. Speaker, in a day or two every member of this House will be called upon to vote on the resolution brought forward by the right hon. the Prime Minister and the amendment to it proposed by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). This is a time in the history of Canada when one has to ask himself what are the duties and responsibilities devolving upon a member of this House upon political questions involving the welfare of the whole Dominion. During the past six or seven years there has been a growing disposition, at least in the part of the country I have the honour to represent, to wonder how far this government, in dealing with matters of national importance, will go in ignoring all business rules and all the reasons that would guide parties in business transactions in private life. If we wanted to select an example of the extent to which the government would dare to go in violating and disregarding all business rules, we have it in the proposition put forward by the government last year and the still worse proposition now before us in regard to the so-called transcontinental railway scheme. We find that members of parliament are called upon to vote for an expenditure which has been estimated by several gentlemen sitting on your left, Mr. Speaker, to amount to nine-tenths of the total cost of the largest work ever undertaken by the Dominion of Canada. And it has been demonstrated that the other party in this enterprise, who is called upon to pay only one-tenth of the cost, is to have the whole benefit for fifty years, while the other partner, who puts in nine-tenths of the cost, is to have no benefit whatever for fifty years. At the end of that time, if they are*, alive, or if their descendants are not all in the asylum for having voted for such a scheme, they will be allowed to make an arrangement for dividing up what is left.
This scheme was debated fully at the last session of this House, and I do not propose to weary the House by going into the details of it. But I have a little hope that if I say a few words on the question, some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House may begin to feel that they will not be doing their duty to the country, or to those parts of the country which they represent ffthey do not insist on the government withdrawing the scheme, and getting a mandate from Z people before they plungei the country into an enormous expenditure for which the country gets practically nothing in retu .

not a word about tbe Intercolonial being given any. protection either now or then. It is to go along, I suppose, by virtue of the special taxes to be contributed by the loyal people of Canada in order to keep it going.
Now, Sir, the question has been asked to-night by the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Clancy), where is the Minister of Railways and Canals ? Well, I do not wish to emphasize any more than my hon. friend has done the significance of the absence of that hon. minister, but I. as a humble member of this House, feel that the Minister of Railways and Canals ought not to have signed this contract if he was not going to come into the House and explain to us why he signed it. I feel that the Minister of Railways and Canals is not doing justice to himself if he is not prepared to come in here and explain and defend this contract, and to listen to the arguments that are used pro and con in regard to this railway. Does the Minister of Railways and Canals know all about it ? Has he considered carefully what the effect of it is ? He went down to St. John not long ago and received a strong hint that the people did not want it. He went down there and did his best to bring a supporter back here on the strength of this scheme, and he came back empty, but the leader of the opposition got a supporter instead of the Minister of Railways and Canals. I should think the Minister of Railways and Canals would begin to learn something from his intercourse with the people in regard to this matter. If he kept in closer touch with the people he might come to the conclusion that they are not in favour of this scheme. Perhaps the minister has not yet made up his mind to do like his predecessor and resign but he is waiting to see whether the government will not undertake to withdraw this contract. Perhaps they will, perhaps they will not. Rut I think the Minister of Railways and Canals ought not to remain out of the House as he does day after day, and night after night during this discussion, because the people will take the meaning to be that he is not in favour of this scheme, and I am satisfied that they will be nearer right than wrong, particularly after they read what he said last session, as it has been quoted by my hon. friend from Bothwell.
Now the government supporters do make an attempt to say that this scheme ought to go through. I want to be quite fair with them. I am willing to concede them everything they can get out of this argument. And they do make an attempt to show that this road should go through. Their chief argument is that the road is needed. Now I may say that there is no dispute between us on that point. We do not say that a road of some kind is not needed, but these gentlemen seem to think that as long as they say to the people, you need a road, then we are justified in paying nine-tenths


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Part of it is in the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There may be a part of it there, and perhaps the most active part of it. But we ought not to be troubled about Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories or British Columbia in this parliament. We are working for the people of Canada from Halifax to Vancouver. This is the way the hon. leader of the opposition deals with the fiscal question, as with every other question ; he says the same thing in one part of the country as he does in another. I want to tell the Solicitor General that there is a Conservative party in Canada, and there always will be. From what I can see, there is a very large and active Conservative party in the province of Quebec, and 1 have no doubt that he will find it more active than he wants it to be as soon as the government give the people a chance to say what they think of this matter.
Now, I have just one word more to say. I am going to do what I have done before, hopelessly perhaps, but still I think it my duty to keep on doing it. I am going to appeal to this government, humble member as I am-for I know a little about the feeling of my own constituency, and I have no doubt that it is the same in the rest of this Dominion-I am going to appeal to them to do something in the interest of Canada, and not to be troubled about party exigencies. I am going to ask them if they do not think that the cost of this scheme of theirs to the people of Canada will not have the eftect of dismissing them from office. I am going ask them not to put upon the people ot Canada the necessity of being defendants in a suit for breach of contract in the Exchequei Court The Grand Trunk Pacific Company said io them : We are not satisfied with the contract which was made last yeai ,

now give us a better one ; true, it is against the interests of the people of Canada ; but give it before you go to the country, because if you do not, you cannot give it afterwards. I appeal to this government not to put the people of Canada in the position of being defendants in an action for breach of contract, because I tell them that if they pass this measure, then after the next election when the leader of the opposition comes back and forms a cabinet, the first thing he will do will be to repudiate that contract, because the people will have put him in power to do so; and as soon as that is done, we may have to pay $50,000 or $100,000 of damages to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for breaking that contract. I am quite sure that the people of this country would much rather have to pay out of the exchequer the damages which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company could prove they had sustained by making surveys and by the disappointment they had suffered, than the greater evil of this bad bargain which the government are attempting to put upon them. Because as soon as the people get the chance to show what their mandate is, there is no doubt that their mandate will be to cancel the contract, even if they have to pay $50,000 or $100,000 to do it rather than $150,000,000 in return for which they get nothing. I do not think it is necessary or wise that I should detain the House any longer. I have said in a hurried way what I have had to say on this matter. I think we have calmly to consider this question as a business proposition; not voting for it because the Grand Trunk Company want it or because the premier happens to have asked us to do so-because the premier of this country may make mistakes, and the people are not going to let their representatives support him in those mistakes. The people of the Dominion of Canada expect the premier, no matter whether he be Liberal or Conserative in politics, to serve the interests of the people and to see that the assets and property of this Dominion are not wasted, as this resolution would waste them.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN.: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), I desire to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned. On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
1.	Is the government aware that t*le.D?ai)ii navigable channel between St. Joseph ,s j and Sault Ste. Marie is now through * ** States territory, via the Hay lake channel [DOT] ,a
2.	What is the lowest draught * of water
the Hay lake boundary channel ?	j3
3.	What is the lowest draught of water
the
the Hay lake channel ?
4.	Is the government aware that by s dredging of the Hay lake channel the water s been lowered two feet at the foot of the 1
at Sault Ste. Marie ?	a-
5.	Is the government aware that the inte{eet tional boundary channel is lowered by t'v0
in depth by the same cause ?	. pie
6.	Has the government arranged, through British government, with the United ®tateS nei the right of navigation of the Hay lake ch
for Canadian or British vessels, carrying traband of war in time of war ?	, tpe
7.	Has the government an estimate 01 . jo
cost of deepening the international chann the depth of twenty-one feet ?	cllr®
8.	Will the government endeavour to s ^ by treaty right the free navigation of the gl lake channel for vessels carrying eontraba war in time of war ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of ways and Canals).: 
P.E.I.-CASCUMPEC HARBOUR.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: Thursday, April 14, 1904.