1904-04-12

[Stage Direction]
'Mro^ E^PATMCK moved for leave to °f Rj„,c'e EiH (No. 38) to amend the Petition that 1.1 Act- sai(i : This is to provide instead116? flat is granted, the petition, °f the o, n^iag handed back to the solicitor tftry ^PPHant, shall be filed by the Secre-C°urt State himself in the Exchequer the ban i ls wiH prevent its remaining in Mthoii+a? 011 a solicitor weeks and months Itlo Ut being filed.
titQe.10n agreed to, and Bill read the first
YitKon
.. Xlr.

[Stage Direction]
Lnt4ueIT|EATRICK moved for leave to "erritor^ , 1 (No. 39) to amend the Yukon bbfpose P ctl . 116 saifl : This is for the ai^,et conferring upon the commissioner the 7 .to make ordinances providing ^Pect to ( ,n'lsi°n of the Territory with re-aeternji paetions to the council, and also to y,. e rhe qualification of voters.
btQe, °n agreed to, and Bill read the first
I think it would be better because clearer to adopt the form ' reported with amendments,' and ' reported without amendments.' All Bills must be reported from the committee to which they are referred, so that the note in the order paper, ' reported ' is really unnecessary. I think it would be better to adopt the form that I suggest.
Mr.   I@: The practice has been that when a private Bill is reported with amendments, th,at fact is noted on the order paper. That practice should not be departed from.


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) will find it so on the order paper. -Take, for instance, item 6 and also item 7. They are both noted on the order paper as ' amended.' That means that they have been approved by the committee with amendments.


Mr. SPROULE.: But the question I raise is whether it is well simply to use the word ' reported,', because all Bills must be reported. If the object is to distinguish between those that are reported with amendments, and those that are reported without amendments, it would be better to make that plain.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose it is understood that when a Bill is noted as ' amended,' that means that it has been amended by the committee and is reported with those amendments. And that ' reported ' means that it is reported without amendments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that in his case we are establishing a new pre-[DOT]edent, which may be found an inconvenient me in some respects in the future. We pro->ose here to amend two statutes within the lompass of one small Bill, one of these itatutes relating to a railway in the produce of Quebec and the other to a railway n British Columbia. One desiring in future o ascertain whether an amendment has men made in either of these cases would mturallv look for it in the index under the lame of the railway. But when two are [DOT]overed by one short Bill and the name of

only one is given in the title, it may be a little difficult to find either in the future.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 9) to revive and amend the Acts respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Tisdale.
Bill (No. II) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Gal-liher, by Mr. Macpherson.
Bill (No. 14) respecting the Atlantic and Northwest Railway Company.-Mr. A. T. Thompson.
Bill (No. 15) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 19) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company - Mr. C. March.
Bill (No. 21) to incorporate the Pontiac and Interprovincial Railway Company-Mr. Me-Cool.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Temiscouata Railway Company.-Mr. Malouin.
Bill (No. 29) to incorporate the Canadian Credit Indemnity and Guaranty Company.- Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 31) to incorporate the Guelph and Goderich Railway Company.-Mr. Holmes.
Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McCarthy.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
Is it the intention of the government to abolish the Indian reserve of Ste. Lucie or Doncaster, and to indemnify the said Indians ?
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: No Indian reserve can be sold, alienated or leased until it has been released or surrendered to the Crown.
The question of the surrender ol' the Doncaster reserve was submitted to the Indian owners but they decided to retain the lands for their own use.
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Taylor-asked : Mr. SPROULE.
1.	Has the government spent the sums vo 9 last session for the squatters settled on reserve of the Iroquois Indians of Sault Louis and of the Lake of Two Mountains-a serve established by the statute 14-15 Victo chapter 106 ?
2.	If so, in favour of whom ?
3.	Who paid out those sums ?
f


Clifford Sifton: 
MESSRS. MACOUN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DAVIS-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
„nt is
By what department of the govenunel * Mr. Macoun employed. What are his <*u ^oes when was he appointed ; and what salary he draw ?	^
Clifford Sifton: 
James M.: Macoun.-Duties. Assistah turalist and botanist. Appointed to te * jgt ary staff May, 1882, to permanent sta*1 July, 1898. Present salary, $1,750.
BRITISH COLUMBIA IMMIGRATION ^'


Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 
Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Mi**s Justice).: 
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINES REGUL
Ralph Smith: 
Hon.   CHAS@: 


FITZPATRICK
[Stage Direction]
of
Justice). 1. Yes.

2 Ti
al'owanLSa"e as tllose which led to the dis-°Ccasion 6 the same Act upon a former ' Ponder,^ 1 hey aPPear upon the corres-3. rp?ee and papers.
Upon answer t0 this question depends Act. e collstruction of the disallowance

[Stage Direction]
r>
RALPH SMITH asked :
iiataen).S	passed by the Dominion par-
ShiUese it? . °3' increasing tile head tax on a% enfo™®}ls,rants from $100 to $500 been Iitere°terenVn any Chinese, restricted by such Act, sUch ^ct anada since the coming into force of
xv^ght
r'^lGflT
^eaee).
o Ye«.
2- No.
Hon. Sir RICHARD CART-(Minister of Trade and Com-
2.	When was such communication received ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to take action upon Mr. Griffith's communication, and to order the deportation of the aliens complained of ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General).: 1.	Yes.
2.	One received on April Gth, and two to-day.
3.	The Alien Labour Act, as amended, contains provisions entitling any private citizen to bring an action for alleged violation of the Act, and on a conviction being secured, the government would be prepared to direct deportation. The law does not authorize the government to bring such action.


P.E.I. RY.-CAPE WOLFE BRANCH.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: PRITtqt-


W COLUMBIA ACTS DISALLOWED.
[Stage Direction]
Wh1'' RALPH SMITH asked :
?a>d atStuhe total number of Acts disallowec tUre. 1903 ? session 01 British Columbia Legis.
Jj
Justice)°aAS- FITZPATRICK (Minister c! R Three.
I C.R.__SIDINiG AT PICTOU. l.	asked :
Si^g Corm?0rk !las been done at Copper Crown 2^\y 900 ?Pany S Slding at Piot°u, Nova Scotia,
^Mr 4 'S 1116 tot:al cost °f Ikat work to
tor eHeXenue has been derived from the =*ui year since 1900 ?
& [DOT]jr
iU^ays [DOT] R- EMMERSON (Minister of sjt- No yvd. Canals).
2°e year°tQAoaS beea dolle at this siding
f 3:^234.51 °;
rotQ the H?i'.owin8 is the revenue derived v. 81<3lng l«ar
ilSl [DOT] [DOT][DOT] v	 93
U3-. .		 274 86
n _	"	 29 50
L-T.p p -
I W ' Y-ALIENS AS SURVEYORS. <!ra^l!KE aSk6d :
t^1U?i1iI>ioatioi?IfniSter of Lab°ur received any Provin °.m, Mr- George L. Griffith, of Nj ^'"ion ^Cn Secretary for Manitoba of p!r of h?gineera ada institute of Amalga-S iens ft ' Wiling attention to the num-f%es Trhnk P„Fi0yed on the surveys of the ; of ahenPsac'«c Railway, and giving the rk at Wi., eimp oyed *n connection with lnn'Peg and Edmonton ?
1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a branch line of railway from, at or near O'Leary station, on the Prince Edward Island Railway, to the west shore of the Island, at or near Cape Wolfe, in compliance with the request of the petitioners in that behalf ?
2.	Has the government received any communication from certain parties, residents of Kent county, New Brunswick, asking that this branch be constructed ?
3.	Is the government aware that the proposed branch railway would bring the western part of Prince Edward Island in close touch with the other provinces of Canada, the distance across the Straits of Northumberland being only about 15 miles at this place ?
4.	Will the government have a sum of money voted to build this branch at the present session ?
Hob. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1.	Tbe matter is still under consideration.
2.	No.
3.	The government is aware that, the distance between the proposed terminus orx Prince Edward Island ana the mainland in Kent county, New Brunswick, is about-15 miles.
4.	Nothing has yet been decided on.


P.E.I. RY.-MURRAY HARBOUR BRANCH.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to extend the Murray Harbour Railway beyond its present terminus at Murray river ?
2.	If so, at what place will the terminus be located ?
3.	Has a survey been made and a report handed in on the section between Murray river and Guernsey point ?
4.	Who made such survey, if any ?
5.	Has the contract for the construction of such extension been let ?
6.	If so, who is the contractor ?
7.	What is the contract price per mile, and the conditions of same ?
8.	What kind of terminals are contemplated, and cost of same ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Sueli is the intention.
2.	Murray harbour.
3.	Yes.	_	.
4.	Under the direction of Mr. McKenzie.
5.	Tenders have not been asked.
0.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Answered by No. 5.
8.	A station house, round-house, wharf and warehouse with necessary tracks. Estimated cost of same is $75,000.


P E I RY.-MURRAY HARBOUR BRANCH EXPENDITURE.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 
&quot; SOCIETE DE CREDIT.&quot;
Mr. L. P. DEMERS asked :: 1.	Has the government been informed that since the 13th May, 1903, several companies, bearing the name of " Soeldtd de credit," have obtained letters patent at Ottawa ?
2.	Has the government been informed that these companies promise to pay to the depositors from 250 to 700 per cent interest per year ?
3.	Have these companies given any guarantee to the Department of Finance ?
4.	Is it the government's Intention to stop these speculations ?


Mr. LEFURGEY.: 
LABOUR COMMISSION-BRITISH COLUMBlA
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 
Hon.   S@: The evidence is being P1. ^iVfoi' it is expected that it will be avails3 distribution during the present sessio [DOT]


P. E. I. RY.-BRANCH LINES-
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 
Hon.  H. R.@: 
APPOINTMENTS OF MEMBERS COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN asked
[Stage Direction]
US®
-VJ1 * o.iounn*..	[DOT]	„nOOintlV,
upoji aP* JU''
1.	Have the following persons *>
gil>ceh.c° ' lo positions, at the salaries name ^ so® ^e, 1896, as follows :-Francis G. \"vergne'ngvli?: lector of customs, $120 ; Joseph L g V Superior Court, Quebec, $5'?00,'9 nn0 ;
Langelier, judge, Superior Court.
M. C. Cameron, lieutenant S°Av®'eals, °%drt' F. Lister, judge, Court of APSpperi°r S5.000 ; P. A. Choquette, judge,

of inland4'000 ' C' 1' Rinfret>
district inspector s°leil n„Jevenue>
Quebec, $2,500 ; C. A. Beau-bier, 'mV^Lraaster>
Montreal, $4,000 ; M. E. Ber-?ioners sanLof the board of railway -commis-b°arcj 7, .,9 [DOT] A. G. Blair, chairman of the "titton n allway commissioners, $10,000 ; B. M. ontario' «f!Lof the High Court of Judicature, Superior 7,'000 ; H- G- Carroll, judge of the eav'es	rt' Quebec, $3,500 ; Sir Louis
Qesmol. * ' Supreme Court, Canada, $7,000 ; "[DOT]000 * Ip 'c [DOT]iu<ise' Superior Court, Quebec,
Coi
Per;
Simons'" «?-„„Flint- Clerk of the House of . rior A ' ?3>4°0 ; T.
Judge i,urt' Quebec
T. Fortin, judge of the Su-*ymge of7n" Y Quebec, $4,000 ; D. C. Fraser, o A. C Sr® PuPreme Court, Nova Scotia, $4,000; iPcbec (/!,	[DOT] judge of the Superior Court,
tis6t Sol * E- C. King, Senate ; B. R. ?*%e c nate i John Yeo, Senate ; A. M. DeGodat the time they the House of Comi 'cue	i go, senate , ivi
b°Ut, Soul46 ; W- c- Edwards. Senate ; J.
Wr.rfaf? * J- H. Legris, Senate ?
, re an,„- e said persons lll0ns of^p^hted, members of 3. it t,Canada ?
Panicular fforeS?ing list is not correct, in what Rt i ls 14 ineorrect ?
^ihister^ Sh' WILFEID LAURIER (Prime l11 this ,':n 4." the information sought for *J|Hili(, ^hegtioi^ is already to be found in
**88 To ,T tS'
u McCarthy, osler, hoskin and j.	harcourt.
* asked :
a*!aiisarg ?*F' Qsier referred to on page 679, ,Jee 0f *' by the premier, as having received tn® ®rm of a trom the Dominion, a member of Urt, bar,) McCarthy, Osier, Hoskin and Har-lj0n risters, of Toronto ?
hr °t .WARLES FITZPATRICK (Minis: Yes tlce^ The answer to this question
jIr AY harbour branch railway.
1. W^RGEY asked :
LhfiI'aJ' Harho11® total cost °f the Belfast and Hat' trom <vU.L Hallway, Prince Edward Is^
«at
of
2	thf°UtJ1.p°rt to Murray river ; and
at p,esti®ated cost
* ««u iq	""^u uuat of same ?
So,,?6 first e t°tal cost, and cost per mile, 3 2!P°n, eoj®Veu m'l®s of said railway from
ere 5°.ng 6ast 7
1bile!1's °f the ™aJes made by competent en-4. aUd what * °£ cuusttuction of said eleven We't*>
m 1 was the amount estimated ? bo;6'1 and tak mUes 0£ this railway are com, 5- m,any tn i 1 6n over by the department ; and Jhig jhat kj, ,s Remain to be completed ?
*he '°aa, anU o£ ballast was to be used on
*. Harsk Cl Under whose supervision was ^hiheT? °f the ballasting
or gravelling been
IthnfQgatn c intention of the government to
[DOT] ."tin™ Le cVi,.. - ul L1,K government; to frwf' Sates „„.fes made, that ballasting, to**' Wi)11 7	* ® culverts are of inferior con-
0£ satnre Ught 'I'p amount paid in lawyer's fees m51. If. anti the Way 7 wbat were the names the Lk® sVms bald each ?
-os btiieg Lof construction for the first lai*f)',Hy Were ?ee<Ie<i the government esti-of tenders not Invited for the re-
3o
the
work T
Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals.) I think my hon. friend will have to move for a return. The information is quite voluminous.


CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	Is the government aware of the following article, which appeared in the Nanaimo * Free Press ' some days ago ?


EXCLUSION ACT HAS FLAWS.
[Stage Direction]
* The astute Chinaman seems to have discovered a way to get into Canada without paying the $500 tax. A considerable party passed through Sydney, N.S., in charge of a secret service man. They were on their way to St. John's Newfoundland. After a short stay there they can easily become British citizens, and can enter Canada free. A large number are expected by way of Vancouver during the summer.'	f
2.	Is the above article correct in saying that, through flaws in the Act, Chianmen get into Canada without paying the $500 tax ?
3.	If Chinamen pass through Canada in bond, must not thq person in charge of them pay the tax ?
4.	Can Chinamen, by becoming British citizens outside of Canada, enter free on that account, as the ' Free Press ' assumes ?
5.	Has the government any knowledge of any number of Chinamen having arranged for coming via Vancouver to Canada during the coming summer ?
Rt. Hon. Sir R. CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	No.


MECHANICAL VENTILATION ON STEAMERS.
Mr. E. D. SMITH asked :: 1.	Referring to answer to question, on April 6th, the Minister of Agriculture said : ' The system of mechanical ventilation upon the steamers Pretorian, Kensington, Southwark, Canada, Ontarian and Montcalm is cool air.'
2.	Were the compartments referred to the only ones on these vessels carrying perishable cargo ?
3.	If not, how were the other compartments ventilated in which such cargo was carried, if ventilated at all ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 2.	No.
3.	The ss. ' Ontarian ' carried tuples in No. 4 hold and in No. 5 'tween decks, which were ventilated as follows :-
No. 4 hold : Four 12-inch ventilators, and two 22-inch wooden trunks built up through the hatches to the main deck. (This extra ventilation was provided specially for the apple shipments.)	-
No. 5 'tween decks : 2 sirocco fans.
The ss. * Kensington ' carried apples in her 'tween decks, each of which was fitted with two 30-inch ventilators.


IMMIGRANTS DEPORTED.
Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	How many immigrants were deported from Canada from the 30th June, 1902, to 15th March, 1904 ?
2.	For what reason were they deported ?
3.	How many diseased persons were deported, and what were the diseases ? .
4.	How many were deported because they were paupers, or likely to become paupers ?
5.	From what countries did the diseased and pauper immigrants come to Canada ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	405.
2.	Because afflicted with some loathsome, dangerous or infectious disease or malady, or physically or mentally incapable, or otherwise undesirable as immigrants.
3.	399. Insanity, tuberculosis, cardiac-disease, septicoemeia, epilepsy, pulmonary disorder, heart affection, chronic dysen-try, convulsions and vertigo, sarconia, general debility, varicose veins, losing sight, insomnia, senility, cataract, pleurisy, paralysis, syphilis, hernia, rheumatism, idiocy, piles, sciatica, trachoma, favus.
4.	6.
5.	Great Britain, Sweden, Iceland, Italy. Norway, Austria, Denmark, Roumania, Russia, Armenia, Finland.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of 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 8t,h day of March, 1904 and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto,
Mr. FISHER.: 


Mr. ARCH.: 
Mr. TARTE.: Will my hon. friend be good enough to give us a list of the articles and the points of shipment ?


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Take agricultural implements, the present rate from Montreal or Toronto to Vancouver or Victoria, is $1.38 per hundred pounds. Prom Boston and New York it is only $1.30, and from Buffalo, Pittsburg or Chicago it is also $1.30. Then take pianos and organs, the present rate is $2.43 per 100 pounds from Montreal or Toronto to Victoria or Vancouver, and from Boston and New York to these same ports it is only $2.25. And from Boston and New York to Seattle or Tacoma, the rate is still lower, $2.20 per 100 pounds, against $2.43 over our own Canadian road. On rubber boots and shoes, scales, sewing machines, stoves, furnaces, radiators, wagons, windmills, woodenware, &c\, the freight is from 15 cents to 20 cents per 100 pounds more to Victoria and Vancouver from Montreal or Toronto than if they were shipped from Boston or New York over American roads. It is in fact a scandal and an outrage that railways built by Canadian money should be in a position to charge so much for carrying these goods. Take 20 cents per 100 pounds on 40,000 pounds, and that amounts to $80 per carload, which would go a long way towards paying the duty the Americans are charged on their goods. This state of things we cannot hope to remedy until we have our own transcontinental line. We will then be able to place our manufactures on the same plane as the Americans, which is an additional reason why we should proceed without delay in building this now line.

Having shown that this new line is a necessity, I wish to say a word or two on the route selected.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Before the hon. gentleman passes from this point, would he be kind enough to give us the lines on which he says these cheaper rates are charged ?


Archibald Campbell: The American lines running out to the coast and thence by water to Vancouver and Victoria.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What lines are those ?


Archibald Campbell: There are only two or three.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We are discussing a very important point, and my information in the past was to the contrary. I therefore would like my hon. friend to name the lines and the points from which they start and to where they go.
'Mr. CAMPBELL. The Northern Pacific Railroad is one, the Union Pacific and the 'Southern Pacific are two others. These roads carry the freight to the coast, whence it is carried by water to Vancouver and Victoria. I am not sure but that the Canadian Pacific Railway also carries from Boston and New York to these points at less rates than from Montreal and Toronto. I have it from a manufacturer of pianos that it is actually cheaper for him-if he wants to send his pianos to Calgary, for instance- to send them right to the coast and then bring them back 500 miles through the Rockies to Calgary.


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put him a question ? From what points in the east to what points in the west are the rates that he has just spoken of quoted ?


Archibald Campbell: The rates I quoted were from Montreal and Toronto.


Samuel Barker: I mean the low rates.


Archibald Campbell: From Boston and New York.


Samuel Barker: Yes, from one sea point to another. That, of course, affects the rate.


Archibald Campbell: 
Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: May I ask tne ^ gentleman (Mr. Campbell) a question we to infer from his remarks that tn ^g ber limit he refers to was anywhef ay? this proposed Grand Trunk Pacific , 1 Was it within a hundred miles of venture to say it was not within a h and fifty miles of it.	. it


Archibald Campbell: 
Archibald Campbell: 


Samuel Hughes: What was length of that prairie section that the gentleman stated ?


Archibald Campbell: should be built through there, a colonization road, and that we should develop all the resources we have in that country. We have heard a good deal about there being nothing there except jack pine. There must be something there, at any rate, and it is worth while to ascertain what is in it, and to get a straight _road from Port Simpson to Quebec. We are told that the government are going into partnership with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. 1 have always had an aversion to partnerships all my lifetime. They are very necessary sometimes, and perhaps do a great deal of good ; but a partnership, as a general thing, is a poor ship to sail in. I have heard of two men who went into a partnership on a hunting expedition, and when they got through at night the game bag contained only two birds. The one was a big fat turkey and the other was a crow. So when they came to divide the spoil they found it difficult to arrange it, but one sharp fellow said : ' 7 will tell you how we will do it; I will take the turkey and you take the crow, or else you take the crow and I will take the turkey. That is just the way this railway contract is arranged between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and our Canadian government ; we are going to get the crow. It seems to me that we should see that we do not get the crow, but get the turkey, or have it fairly divided. As it is, we are going to give the Grand Trunk Pacific Compam nine-tenths of what it costs to build the road and they will give one-tenth. I do not think that is a fair division.


Mr. TAYLOR.: And they get all the pro-


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: 
An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Jabel Robinson: buf^cotuit
ke ii- ly'. i hope the government will amiss if i tell them, and tell
them plainly, that it is time for them to see to it that we get justice. It is twenty years last winter since I had the honour of leading a deputation to wait upon the then Prime Minister of this country asking him to appoint a commission to control the railways so as to do away with the grievances from which the farmers suffered. We waited upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the tower room, if I remember well. The Prime Minister told us that they were aware of the facts of the case, and that they would appoint a commission. Sir, that government went out of power, without appointing that commission. But, something less than a year ago we had a commission appointed, and I am beginning to hope that that commission will remove some of the burdens and difficulties under which we labour.
We desire to build up this Dominion into a great and glorious part of the British empire, to bind the several provinces and territories together not with a rope of sand, but with bonds that can never be broken. In that work we can be greatly helped by a real national railway. We have such a railway running through two of the provinces and part of a third. But all the other provinces have no government railway but are obliged to submit to the roads that exist and pay whatever rates are demanded. If there was no other argument but this, there would be sufficient reason why we should extend the Intercolonial into the other provinces. I do not think there is a constituent of mine who will benefit to the amount of ten dollars if the transcontinental railway is built as proposed. At the same time we are willing and anxious to see this country developed. We want to make Canada something more than a fringe along the American border. There is not a man in my county who would say anything against the building of a national transcontinental railway ; but they all want the government to own and control it. It is not too late yet. It may be too late in a week or two. But there is time now for the government to take a sound position in this matter. It won't cost them anything to do so. We have been told, by the way, that this road will not cost us anything, that all we have to do is to endorse the notes of the Grand Trunk. I would like the government, if it is going into the endorsing business, to endorse my notes. I do not think they will do it, because they know they would have to pay them. But if you endorse the notes of this company, you will have to pay them. And, if you are going to build the road yon should own it. That is a plain proposition, and I do not ask any credit for advocating it.


Mr A T. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: Mr. pea'ker, after the very strong indictment iiich the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. obinson) has made against the policyof le opposition with regard to this tianscon


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Might I ask the hen. gentleman when this meeting of the shareholders took place to which he has referred ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I have not got the exact date, but I can supply the hon. gentleman with it after I have finished my speech. Very well, then, the shareholders lid not say : We will have none of this transcontinental project. They simply, said. We will not sanction this contract under the terms of the original agreement, but we will sanction it if you will allow ns to supplement it by these new terms, the new terms which I have briefly touche upon. Three courses then were open to the government-in the first place, to accept the new terms, in the second place, to build t e road themselves, and in the third place.
Vive UP the project of a national transcontinental railway To accept the new


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: We are the people who will in future enjoy and control in tlie largest measure the trade of the Orient. We shall enjoy it because we are on the direct line between the Occident and the Orient. We shall enjoy it because we raise the commodities which they purchase in the Orient and will buy their products in return. So if we in Canada, by a great public work of tills kind, can sustain the hands of Great Britain in demanding reasonable freedom of trade in tlie east we are doing nothing more than we should do in our own selfish interests, apart altogether from what we owe to the motherland for the protection of her army and navy and the use of her consular service. We are doing nothing more than we should do in our own selfish interests when we implement a power that will be used for our own good and our benefit in the east. It lias struck me as passing strange that the party which for so many years proclaimed itself to be the custodian of Canadian loyalty to Britain, should have been so silent on this point; that the party which claimed to be the custodian of British loyalty should have been so short-sighted as to have opposed this scheme with all its great benefits to the empire, and to have suggested in lieu thereof a scheme which is almost useless, from a British standpoint. How have the mighty fallen. I was almost tempted to say : O tempora ; O mores. The great old Conservative party, blind opponents to imperial interests and leaving to the Liberals, so long held up to suspicion from the standpoint of loyalty, the development of imperial interests ! So much for the political aspect of this question. I may be pardoned for dealing, at the expense of a few moments, with the financial aspect of the case. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden) has spoken of the obligations about to be incurred by this country in the building of this new transcontinental line according to the government's plans. And here, Sir, it is well to note the difference between ' obligation ' and ' cost.'
I suppose that if a man backs the note of a millionaire for $100 he is assuming an obligation, but the chances are that the cost to him will be nothing at all. We must carefully distinguish between obligation and cost. I believe the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) did not wish in the slightest degree to confuse, although he succeeded to some extent in doing so as one can easily see by reading the subsequent part of his speech. He puts the total obliga


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Then there is to be-
3.	The development and improvement of our canals and inland waterways, and the thorough and efficient equipment of our national ports and terminals on the Atlantic and Pacific as well as on the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes.
We are also to have-
4.	The thorough examination, exploration and survey of the country between Quebec and Winnipeg, with a view to the future construction of such lines of railway as may be found in the public interest.
With that I have already dealt. I have laid particular stress in my remarks on what this scheme means to Ontario, speaking as a representative of that province. I have also tried to lay particular stress on what the alternative system of the opposition means to this great province of Ontario. I have expressed surprise, which is honest surprise, that Ontario is to get so little under the scheme proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, and so much under ours. I wish, in conclusion, to say in all sincerity, that I thank Heaven that hon. gentlemen opposite have not that political control which would enable them to implement their folly.


Mr. M. K. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: *0
railroads would be altogether unfair, in the light of the conditions as they exist today. The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was a magnificent enterprise, caused by the necessity of bringing into the confederation the province of British Columbia. In that case we had to face some comparatively unknown difficulties, and we were perhaps warranted in doing so. But, we had some courageous men who were willing to risk all they had to carry that project through, and everything the government did in that direction has been fully warranted by the results. The building of the Intercolonial Railway, too, was one of the political necessities which arose out of confederation. So that the construction of neither of these roads is at all on a parity with the construction of a transcontinental railroad to-day.
The danger of the abrogation of the bonding privilege, of which so much was made last year, is not mentioned to-day. No one has dared to bring it out of the dark except the gallant colonel from Haldimand, in the speech which he has just delivered. There was never any real danger in that direction; it was not a real factor in the problem, but was merely a bugaboo which we thought had disappeared, and disappeared for ever. It was generally expected that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would want access to our great west. The development of the great wheat-growing belt in our western territory has been a revelation, not only to ourselves but to the world. We have one of the grandest and richest territories of that character which is perhaps to be found in the known world to-day. But it is not being neglected in the matter of railroad accommodation. The complaints of congestion last year were not due to any lack in that respect. Only last session we subsidized over 700 miles of railroad in the great Northwest, and there are at present under construction or under contract, I believe, double that extent of railway in the west. The trouble was not the lack of railroad accommodation, but the lack of sufficient equipment ' of the railways that do exist for an abnormally large harvest. But these difficulties are being got over every day, the large demand for rolling stock increased the facilities for supply.
But let us look for a moment at the proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They asked for a charter to build a railway from their own system at North Bay into the west, and possibly through the Rocky Mountains to the coast. What would that have involved in cost under ordinary circumstances if a charter had been granted ? For a distance of say 2,400 miles, with the usual grant of $6,400 per mile which is given to railroads, it would have involved a cost to this country of possibly $15,000,000. But with the provision which has been made for the Grand Trunk or other railroads wanting access to the west to obtain it over


Matthew Kendal Richardson: 
REPORT ON THE YUKON CONCESSIONS.
Mr.   I@: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the government whether any report has been received from the commissioners who were appointed to investigate certain concessions in the Yukon. If the report has not been received and is not likely to be received in the near future, I would suggest that the government might at least print the evidence that has been taken and submit it to the House, as that is something upon which the House will probably like to pass judgment, and possibly express an opinion, even in the absence of a report.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will be able to answer my hon. friend to-morrow.


REPORT ON LABOUR TROUBLES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Hon.  H. R.@: L, BORDEN (Halifax). I would like to inquire at what date the report of the commission and the evidence taken before the commission appointed last session to inquire into certain labour difficulties in British Columbia, will be printed and placed before the House. I understand that this report and the accompanying evidence were received during the past session, and I would suppose that they might have been printed and placed upon the table of the House at the commencement of the present session. (My hon. friend the Postmaster General said that they would be placed before the House some time during thel present session. That is not a very satisfactory statement. They should have been placed on the table of the House and been in the possession of members from the beginning of the present session, certainly they should not be delayed any further. I do not know any possible reason why they have not been placed on the table or why they have not been printed.


Hon.   S@: The leader of the opposition misunderstood my answer yesterday. There was a question upon the order paper inquiring when the evidence would be laid upon the table. The report itself was printed and distributed last session. The evidence was very voluminous and could not

be printed during last session, but it -was forwarded to the Printing Bureau many months ago, and we have not yet received it from the Printing Bureau. The delay is at the Printing Bureau. We have pressed for it, and the answer that I gave yesterday was given after the Department of Labour had made inquiry at the Printing Bureau.


COASTING TRADE ON THE PACIFIC.
Robert Laird Borden: I would also inquire from the government whether it has, during the past few months, rescinded an Order in Council issued some time ago with respect to the free entry of Canadian goods carried by foreign vessels from ports in British Columbia to the Yukon, and whether, >
since the 1st of March, the original Order in Council has been restored. I am led to make this inquiry by reason of a report which I have! seen in the ' Colonist ' newspaper, under date of April 1st, 1904. If there has been any such Order in Council issued as I have referred to, may I ask that the government place both the rescinding Order in Council and that which restores the original order, upon the table of the House at the earliest convenient moment. If there has been any correspondence with regard to the rescinding of the original Order in Council or with regard to its restoration, I would think that also ought to be placed upon the table of the House, along with the two orders to which I have referrred.


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I may say with reference to that matter that there was an Order in Council passed a few years ago which waived in a measure on the Pacific coast, our coasting arrangements, and American vessels were allowed to convey goods from one British port to another. Concessions were granted to us by the United States, and for that reason a concession was made to them. The port of Skagway was opened as a sub-port by the United States at our request. That arrangement has been in force, and there has been no question with reference to the right of American vessels to carry goods from a Canadian port via Skagway designed for Dawson. That arrangement also applied to goods carried by Skagway to Dawson by way of St. Michael. The practice has been, so far as the route by St. Michael is concerned, that the Department of Customs have renewed by instructions to officers from year to year the privilege granted to American vessels to carry freight between say, Vancouver or Victoria and Dawson by that route. These instructions were not issued until applied for in previous years, and when brought to the attention of the government, and a request made. The instructions renewing the privilege had not been issued, but when a request was made and Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
105&
the subject was considered, the priyl py has been renewed, for the time beings g St. Michael as well as by Skagway-privilege by way of Skagway has alL,hj, been permitted and has not been inter! with in any way.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Paterson: I have no objecti011'


FLOODS AT VERDUN.
[Stage Direction]
Hr-
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: 10*9


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ' That Mr. Speaker no now leave the Chair, for the House to go into committee to eon-aider a certain resolution concerning the rati-ideation of the agreement between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, dated the 8th day of March, 1904 , and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
George Taylor: 
a sling at present. He hopes, with the help of that right hand and this large campaign fund which the Hon. Mr. Parent expects to collect, that he will be able to bid defiance to the people of Canada and come back here with a majority. But I do not think the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company can furnish enough money to buy the government into power again at the next election. It is true, the government made a contract with the Yukon Railway people, which was cancelled, and the country had to pay $328,000 of damages as the result to the parties with whom they had made the contract. We do not know what work they did ; but somebody got that sum of money in connection with that Yukon Railway contract. If they did, it was a grand thing for the country that that contract was cancelled, as this contract will be cancelled just as soon as an appeal is made to the country, and the Conservative party are returned to power, as they will be. This iniquitous contract will be cancelled, and if some damages have to be paid, it will be money well spent in the interest of the country rather than carry out the present scheme as proposed by the government.
Let me ask the right hon. the Prime Minister when he received a mandate from the people of this country to go into partnership with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The Grand Trunk Railway people say they have gone into partnership with the government of Canada. The Prime * Minister does not admit the corn ; but it is a fact nevertheless, as is proven by the statements made at the annual meeting of the shareholders of the company, as reported in this document which I hold in my hand. If the government have gone into partnership with the Gand Trunk Railway, why not with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, the Canada Atlantic, and all the other railways that we have in Canada ? If it is a good thing to go into partnership with one railway, why not with all of them ? The president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, at the annual meeting of the shareholders the other day, said :
Having arrived then at the conclusion that the best interests of the company necessitated some early measure in the direction I have indicated, we caused a Bill to be introduced into the Canadian parliament for securing a charter of incorporation for the creation of a company, with an independent organization, but in close connection with and under the control of the Grand Trunk Company, for the purpose of building a line of railway from a point of junction at or on the Grand Trunk line, passing through the most fertile districts of the Northwest, and terminating at a port on the Pacific coast.
These are the words of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson in addressing the directors and shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway, and he went on to say :


George Taylor: politicians throughout the country have told the members of the cabinet that this scheme is going to kill them when they get before the electors. But the ministers, one after another, shrug their shouders and say ; It is not my baby : I have nothing to do with it: The Prime Minister will have to father this child. I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and the Postmaster General (Sir Wm. Mulock) if these rumours are true, and if it is a fact that they are trying to throw the whole responsibility for this scheme on the Prime Minister in order that they may escape scot free. It is notable that these gentlemen have not risen to their feet to defend this scheme ; and I do not think they will. But I will say this, in conclfiding my remarks, that if the members of the cabinet are agreed, and if they will undertake, as soon as this session is over to go to the country, to appeal to the jury, to ask the taxpayers to say whether this bargain which the government has made is a wise one or not, the electors of Canada will not send a corporal's guard back here to support the Prime Minister who is attempting to rush this scheme through the House.


Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: west we should not stay our hand now, we should not content ourselves with what we have been doing in the past, instead of spending money uselessly on this railway between Winnipeg and Moncton, we should spend it upon our ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, and upon our waterways, so as to give us all the advantages which may be derived from the carriage of this immense traffic from the west to the Atlantic.
Now I come to the second argument which is used by our hon. friends opposite to induce the people of the country to support their scheme. They say that' this line of railway, if it does not bring down a fair proportion of the traffic of the west through Canadian channels to our seaport towns, it will at all events develop the undeveloped regions of Quebec and Ontario. However, before dealing with that point, let me give the House what I think to be the opinion of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company itself upon the question as to whether this line from Winnipeg to Quebec and Moncton is going to be anything like as successful as our hon. friends pretend. Let me recall for a moment what took place in the Railway Committee of this House last session. We all know that by the notice which was first given by the Grand Trunk Pacific, their intention was to build a line from North Bay westward ; the first notice given in the official ' Gazette ' on the 10th of January, 1903, was to that effect, the railway was to start from some point near North Bay or Gravenhurst in the province of Ontario, and to be carried fvest. Well, Sir, the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) when he addressed the House the other day, told us that this plan had been adopted by the Grand Trunk Pacific. The minutes of the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company were read before the House the other day, in which we saw that Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson said in unmistakable terms that the policy of this company was to build a line from some point near North Bay westward towards the Pacific Ocean. So there can be no doubt on that question. Afterwards, however, it is in the memory of everybody that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, through Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays as their spokesmen, told the committee that they had decided to change their plans and extend their line from North Bay or Gravenhurst or, at all events, from some point near there, eastward as far as Quebec. Afterwards, if I am to believe the hon. member for Annapolis, such pressure was brought to bear upon the government that the line was . not only to be extended from North Bay to Quebec but from Quebec to Moncton. I do not know what the reasons were. I do not know whether this was a condition imposed upon the government to carry out this scheme of aiding the Railway. I do not know whether members


Mr. CASGRAIN.: 
Robert Laird Borden: They had nothing to do with the case.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There was a good deal of poetry in that, but very little business. I believe it is true that this part of the line will cost at least $50,000,000, and when I say that I am putting a low estimate upon the line 900 miles long in the province of Quebec alone, through a territory about which no one knows anything.
I ask my hon. friends if they cannot find, from the standpoint of colonization, better lands on which to spend $50,000,000 than these wild lands, which are further north than the Laurentide hills. What is the policy of the opposition upon this point ? I am speaking now more especially for the province of Quebec, although this is not a provincial question. I say that if we had in view the colonization and development of the province of Quebec by the building of railways, we can find enormous tracts of land in the developed portions of the province where we can more usefully spend this $50,000,000.
.Air. SAM. HUGHES. And build railways.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, and build railways. Bet me point out that in the province of Quebec we have millions and millions of vacant land, awaiting settlement and cultivation. The ' Guide du Colon ' for 1903, speaking only of a very small portion of the province of Quebec, says :
In the higher valleys of the Rouge, the Lidvre, of the Little Nation and the Gatineau alone, there are 250,000 acres of .arable land of the best quality.
That statement is to be found in a book published under the authority of the Quebec government. It speaks of the northwestern region of Montreal and the St. Lawrence valley, and it goes on to say :
The extent of land- surveyed and actually offered for sale In the agencies of the Lake St. John district amount to more than 2,000,000 acres.
In addition to that we have the Lake Temiscouata valley, the Metapedia valley, and the GaspC peninsula in which my hon. friend the Solicitor General is so interested. If we have money to burn ; if we have $50,000,000 to spend on a railway which will not develop the province of Quebec

nor bring the trade of the Northwest to our ports of Quebec and Montreal ; why not spend $10,000,000, or $20,000,000, or $30,000,000, to develop these regions which are now awaiting settlement, and the establishment of railway communication? It is estimated by competent authority, that in the province of Quebec we have land actually available for settlement, the climate and possibilities of which we know of, that will provide room for two hundred new parishes, and for at least 2,000,000 inhabitants, and that land is not north of the Laurentian range either. Why is not some of this money spent to benefit the known and settled parts of the province, and to help bring in these two million more inhabitants for which we have ample accommodation. My hon. friend from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Monk) has pointed out the necessities of the province of Quebec from a colonization point of view, and my hon. friend from St. John's and Iberville (Mr. Demers) who followed him, did not attempt to answer his argument. The hon. member (Mr. Demers) did not answer that part of the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) which referred to the development and colonization of certain portions of the province of Quebec ; and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) said nothing, or almost nothing, about the railways that should be built in that province if we have so much money to spend. I understand that the Solicitor General is to follow me, if I am to be favoured with a reply, and we know that he is very much interested in the question of increasing the federal subsidy to the provinces.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The Solicitor General made a very eloquent and elaborate address upon that question last year, and he announced his belief that the subsidy from the federal government to the provincial governments should be very materially increased. This is the time for him to act. If it is not the policy of the present government to increase the provincial subsidy, let him insist that they should do something for the province of Quebec on the lines he laid down laid last session. If we can spend $50,000,000 on this transcontinental railway, which will be useless to develop the province of Quebec, why does not the Solicitor General insist that the government shall aid the construction of railways which will develop those portions of the province of Quebec which are to-day settled, and which will afford communication between the great commercial centres and the rural districts of that province ? We know that there are many railways which can be constructed in Quebec, to the great advantage of the people of that province. Take the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Session after session demands have been made upon the government to build a


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House at any length on this very important question. Last year, it was my good fortune to address the House when this subject was first brought up. This year, after the many speeches we have heard, I do not think I shall be warranted in adding much to what has been said. If the speech of my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), were accepted as being the opinion of the majority of the electors of Quebec, one would believe that there are many dark clouds over that province to-day. But, with the indulgence of the House I will try to point out to that gentleman the silver lining that one can see spreading out on the fringe of every cloud.
But, before answering tbe very able ana I hope, very earnest argument, that lias been adduced by my hon. friend, let me at once answer the remark made the other day by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). He referred to a speech I made in Montreal before parliament was called for the present session, in which, he states, I predicted that the general elections were near at hand. He stated also that there been on the part of the government
had
what he called a conspiracy of silence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend I think is not serious in that.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Oh, yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. GOURLEY.: No, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Seymour Eugene Gourley: He is opposed to your scheme.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is not.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He is opposed to it, as I am opposed to it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think I will be able to show from the words of Sir Sanford Fleming himself, that he is in favour of this scheme. Speaking before the Canadian Club at Toronto, Sir Sandford Fleming said [DOT]
The railway development in and beyond Manitoba is an indication of the rapid settlement of that portion of the Dominion. Looking forward into the future, it is easy to be seen that the population of the west will be rapidly increased. It may be regarded as a certainty that the time is not remote, when there will be as many inhabitants west of Lake,Winnipeg as east of Lake Superior. What then will follow
ItEVISED EDITION

if meanwhile no sufficient effort be made to reclaim the vast intervening territory. Obviously, our people would be geographically divided within the limits of the Dominion. There will be two great groups distinctly separated by a vast unpopulated wilderness, constituting a dangerous area of cleavage. It is impossible to forecast the outcome of this separation of the Canadian people. We are unwilling to think that political separation will follow, but we must not hide our heads in the sand and remain in a fool's paradise.
Again he says :
I have indicated in a few words that there is a vital problem presented for solution ; a problem which cannot with safety be neglected. Ordinary foresight points out to us a real and a double danger. First, under certain circumstances, the unity of the Dominion it may be said, will practically hang on a thread. If the unity of the Dominion be 'left insecure, the integrity of the empire will be imperilled. I would ask by way of Illustration : how could the globe girdling British telegraph be maintained if disjointed at Lake Superior.
Sir Sandford Fleming goes on to approve of the scheme, and he says it is the duty of the Canadian government to build that road as soon as possible. I shall later on refer to that part of his speech, in which he compares the water route with the all rail route. As I said, Sir, I prefer to accept the opinion of Sir Sandford Fleming, a man of imperial fame and prestige, to the opinion expressed by some gentlemen on the other side of the House, who claim to be strong imperialists, but who are ready to defeat the government on such a national measure as is now before the country. I prefer also to accept the words of Dr. Bell, of the Geological Survey, who speaking in Quebec last February, gave my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) all the information he is seeking about the northern district of the province of Quebec. I should not quote this speech of Dr. Bell, but I refer my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) to the Quebec ' Chronicle ' of February the 26th, where he can read Dr. Bell's lecture on the northern region of Quebec.
We are asked by gentlemen opposite: why is this question again brought before parliament; was it not settled last year ; and the government is accused of ill-matured judgment in having to submit this modified agreement. Well, Sir, the reason for that is very obvious. Last year the contract entered into between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company did not bear the name of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The contract was passed between the Dominion government and certain gentlemen representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but the government exacted in the contract the condition, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would undertake to get the guarantee and endorsation of the Grand Tiunk Railway Company of Canada. In the agreement passed on the 29th of July, 1903,


Rodolphe Lemieux: ber for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), wbo said that the very moment the rolling stock touched the line of railway, it became by destination real estate and part of the road and could not be touched, my hon. friend interjected the remark :	That is French law ! Well,
the hon. member for Annapolis established beyond doubt that it was not only French law, but English law as well, and I undertake to say that the very authority cited by my hon. friend this afternoon shows that it is not only French law and English law, but also Canadian law. My hon. friend quoted a decision well known in the province of Quebec and the Dominion. The case was one of the last argued before the Supreme Court of Canada by that great advocate and ex-Minister of Justice, the Hon. Rodolphe Laflamme. I refer to the well known case of Wallbridge vs. Farwell. Let me now quote from the considerants of the judgment:
In virtue of the provision of a trust conveyance, granting a first lien, privilege and mortgage upon the railway property franchise and all addition thereto of the Southeastern Railway Company and executed under the authority of 43 and 44 Vic. (P.Q.), chap. 49, and 44 and 45 Vic. (P.Q.), chap. 43, the trustees of the bondholders took possession of the railway. In actions brought against the trustees after they took possession for the appellants for the purchase price of certain cars and other rolling stock used for operating the road, and for work done for and material delivered to the company after the execution of the deed in trust, but before the trustees took possession of the railway.
It was held-and this is the law of the land ; it is not only tbe obiter dictum of Sir Henry Strong, wbo was the only dissentient iu the case, and against whose opinion we have that of the other judges.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The ex-Chief Justice Strong was not a dissenting voice in that case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He dissented on that particular point from the other judges, although he concurred with them in the judgment


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No

Mr. LEMIEUX-Which makes my point all the stronger. It was held, affirming the judgments of the court below, that the trustees were not liable, and
That the appellants lost their privilege of unpaid vendors of the cars and rolling stock as against the trustees, because such privilege cannot be exercised when movables become immovable by destination (as was the result with regard to the cars and rolling stock in this case), and th'e immovable to which the movables are attached is in the possession of a third party or is hypothecated.
The court did not say it was simply French law. But here is the most important point, and the one which bears on the question at issue :


Rodolphe Lemieux: But even considered as movables s rged and rolling stock became affected ana	niade
by virtue of the statute and mortgas ffjt* thereunder, as security to the bondhoiae [DOT] jir right of priority over all other credi eluding the privileged unpaid vendors.	,


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: By a statute of bee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Cannot a statute
of CflD'
Mr. jumviiiiiu a., ttumui	n
ada be passed having the same eue '


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There is not one pa ^
ft


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
Mr. INGRAM.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) to say that the government have kept their pledge with respect to land grants ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the Calgary Railway, by Order in Council passed since 1896 had its land grant renewed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The answer Is in the very words of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) ' -the land grant was only renewed.


Samuel Hughes: How about the Yukon ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, according to hon. gentlemen opposite we were going to make Mr. Mackenzie and, Mr. Mann rich by the Yukon Railway. When I read the predictions of these hon. gentlemen of what will be the outcome of the present railway contract, and consider how the predictions they made with Regard to the Yukon Railway were so completely falsified by events, they can hardly wonder that I am not ready to admit at once the accuracy of their statements.
My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) stated this afternoon that this route could not compete with a water route. I am not an expert in transportation. But others who may fairly claim to have some acquaintance with the subject have given their views. We have been told that if this road is first class in points of grades, weight of rails and general construction, it will easily compete with the water route. All first-class railways in America have been spending money during tlie last ten or fifteen years, correcting mistakes made in their original construction. They have been reducing grades, correcting alignments, taking out (curves and so on. The Grand Trunk Railway has done it, and so has the Canadian Pacific. The Grand Trunk Pacific road will be built for the specific purpose of transporting the products of the west to our seaports and therefore we are bound to build It in such a way as to secure that trade. But, Sir, while I cannot


Mr. JOHN W. DANIEL (St. John City).: Mr Speaker, I feel some embarrassment, following as I do the learned and hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Lemieux), because a very large part of his argument has been a legal argument and consequently I do not find myself at all in a position to


John Waterhouse Daniel: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: portion of the line from North Bay to Winnipeg.
I do not propose to go oyer the financial
portions of this agreement, as that has already been done by some hon. members on this side. I do not profess to be sufficiently a financial critic to carry on such a discussion as that, and do not wish to attempt it. But X must say this, that after listening to these gentlemen who are able to discuss this phase of the question, after listening to the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition, and, more especially to the speech of the hon member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), I have heard many replies to these speeches, but I think I can safely say that, so far, I have heard no answer whatever. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that this scheme may be summed up by saying that the country pays nine-tenths of the cost of it from the Atlantic to the Pacific and then gives away half of it, that half which the promoters themselves concede will pay from the very beginning, as soon as the rails are laid upon it. That to my mind is a short statement of the scheme we are asked to support. I do not think that the country is making a very good bargain, I do not think it is making as good a bargain as it might make, even with this company, and I do not think such an agreement should be adopted by the House.
Now, Sir, the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) made a very fervid appeal to the House, and especially to his maritime colleagues, to support the contract because it provided for the carriage of our products through Canadian channels, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific were practically bound to use our own ports. Well, Sir, I think that is exactly what it does not do. There is no clause in this agreement which compels the Grand Trunk Pacific to do anything of the kind. In fact, there is every inducement for them not to do it, because the rate of freight is made the same to all ocean ports, that is, they get just as much for making the short haul to Portland as they would get by taking their goods to St. John 01 Halifax. I think it must be evident to every member of this House that under these circumstances the only thing we can expect this company to do, unless there is a compelling clause and a penalty attached to it, is to carry their goods in future as they have been carrying them in the past, where they will make the most money out of them and that is by taking them to Portland. The hon. member went further and said that he and his maritime colleagues had put pressure on the government^and forced them to put in the Bill a clause to extend this railway through the northern part of New Brunswick to Moncton, in that way making as we supposed, a shorter route to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Now I would like the hon. member for Annapolis to con- 1


John Waterhouse Daniel: 
Seymour Eugene Gourley: Mr. Speaker, I have not been present and have not had the advantage of hearing the debate up to this time. I regret that, for I have not the opinion held by some people that the debates in this House are not instructive. I am always instructed by the debates in this parliament and I always have pleasure in hearing the opinions of our friends supporting the government. I listen to those opinions with deference, because nobody can be an intelligent Canadian who is not broad enough to listen to opinions uttered on all sides of every question. I have listened with great pleasure to the argument of my colleague, the hon. the junior member for St. John (Mr. Daniel). I have listened with pleasure to his arguments in this debate. He seems to think that the legal men in this House have some advantage over laymen. I do not think

that the want of practice at the bar has been any disadvantage to him if we may judge by his speech. I congratulate the Conservative party on his acquisition, and I think that the panic to which my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) referred is largely due to the appearance of such a strong man in this House as a member of the Liberal Conservative party. Before I conclude I shall again refer to my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) and X think if he visits his county which marches for forty miles with my own, he will find much reason for thought. I find that the plain people, the common people, are the people who have the intelligence of this country, and not the lawyers or the manufacturers, or the cabinet ministers. The plain people, I find, give me true wisdom on all questions. I have been looking through the county of Colchester and mingling with these men who come to the fences with their forks in their hands and leaning on their forks give me more instruction in five minutes than any cabinet minister can give me in an hour. I have been over the county of Colchester listening to the remarks of Liberals and Conservatives alike.
In these journeyings, I met many constituents of my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell), and I can tell him, that it would be better for him to visit his county, than to be talking here about the city of St. John, for if he visits Hants, he will find a panic in that county that menaces his future political life.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (N. S.) A little louder please.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If it is noise you want
I can give you some.
I delight in the amenities of debate. I think nothing is gained by roughness of expression in this House, and therefore, I want to congratulate the Solicitor General on the splendid way in which he uses the English language. He uses it with precision, and as I am a little bit of a student of that language, I tell him, he uses the language with great grace and force, and I wish to commend his example to the English speaking people on his side of the House. They can improve their speech making by copying the English language, which the Solicitor General, though it is not his mother tongue, uses. I made my argument on the Grand Trunk question last year, and I do not intend to repeat it. I abide by that argument. It may not have been on all fours with the argument made by many members of this House, but I am persuaded that it will be the argument that ultimately (when the people thoroughly understand this whole matter) will defeat this government at the polls. I am a railway man ; I believe in the development of this country by railways, and I believe that Canada, when she reaches her full development, will have railways almost as plentiful


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 
Mr. W. S. CALVERT.: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adj°ul1 ,,
On motion of Mr. Fielding the H0lise Journed at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
*i 11 1°°4'
Wednesday, April 1 -