1904-04-28

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Nia gara) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No 88) to amend the Railway Act, 1903. He said : The object of the Bill, shortly stated, is to restore the law to what it was up to last session in regard to the filling and packing of frogs, guard-rails and switches on railways for the protection of the men working them. The law up to last year was that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council could dispense with the packing during the months from December to April. Last year, in some way, before the Railway Act was finally passed, the section was amended so as to give the Railway Commission power to dispense with this entirely. The object of this Bill is to provide that the Railway Commission may have power to dispense with the packing during the time provided for in the old law, but not to virtually render the section nugatory. The object, in fact, is to make the law what it was up to last session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1.	What amount was paid to the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' by the government, for all purposes, for the year ending June 30th,' 1903 ?
2.	Also the Winnipeg ' Der Nordwesten ' ?
3.	Also the Winnipeg ' Loyberg ' ?
4.	Also the Winnipeg ' Canada ' ?
Rt. Hon. Sir "WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Roche, Marquette) if he could make this question more precise ? Does he mean pay-

ments by the Department of the Interior or payments by the departments generally ?


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Payments by all the departments.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I will ask that the question be allowed to stand.


LOBSTER CANNERIES IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Have any new licenses been granted for the establishment of any new lobster canneries in Prince Edward Island, other than the two mentioned in an official letter of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated April 22nd, 1904 ?
2.	If so, what is the location of the same, and the names of the persons to whom granted ?
3.	What applications have been received for reopening of the canneries closed for two years, and the names and locations of same ?
4.	Have any been granted ; and if so, what are the names and locations ? If not, is it the intention of the government to reopen any of these ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	No.
2.	Answered above.
3.	William Moore, Wood Islands ; William Sudsbury, Sea View ; William Adams, Sea View ; John T. McKay, Sea View ; Arnold Malone, Miscouche.
4.	No licenses have been issued for any of the canneries referred to in the answer to question No. 3.



LOBSTER FISHERMEN AND PACKERS IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: Referring to an official letter from the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated-A.pril 22nd, !J04, the following statement appears :-' In explanation of the authorization of two new lobster-canning licenses on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island, I may say that, after carefully considering urgent representations, I recognize the fact that under the circumstances the fishermen of this particular locality were placed at a great disadvantage by reason of a practical monopoly by lobster packers, who fixed the prices to be paid for the lobsters, and compelled the fishermen to supply them on their terms.'
1.	What is the usual arrangement between lobster fishermen and packers with regard to prices paid and basis of payment ? /
2.	Do not packers arrange with fishermen at stated prices for lobsters delivered at factory ?
3.	What was the price paid by the lobster packers in the section referred to in above letter of April, 22nd, 1904, during the season the monopoly was complained of ?
4.	What were the average prices paid in other parts of Prince Edward Island during the same season ?
5.	Where are the two factories, mentioned in said letter of April 22nd, 1904, on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island, located or to be located ?
6.	What are the names of the fishermen who applied for authority to pack in this section ?
7.	What are the names of the fishermen who
were being coerced to dispose of their lobsters at the packers' own price ?
S.	What are the names of the parties to whom said two licenses mentioned in said letter of April 22nd, 1904, were or are to be granted ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: There is no positive information in the department to enable the minister to answer the questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The answer to question 5 is : Only one license applied for at Priest's Point. In answer to question 8 : One license to Hughes & Ryan.



HILLSBOROUGH BRIDGE AND MURRAY


Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	What amounts were expended on the Hillsborough bridge, Prince Edward Island, for the several years since it was commenced, and including surveys, giving the years, and amount respectively each year ?
2.	What amounts were expended on the Murray Harbour Branch Railway, Prince Edward Island, for the several years since it was commenced, and including surveys, giving the years, and amounts respectively each year ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Amount expended on the Hillsborough bridge, Prince Edward Island, is as follows :
1899- 1900	? 6,338 75
1900-	1901	
92,028	431901-	1902	
177,595	531902- 1903	, . . .. 459,139 28
July 1st, 1903, to February
29th, 1904	 231,079	61

2.	Amount expended on Murray Harbour Branch Railway, Prince Edward Island is as follows :
1899- 1900	$ 20,970 86
1900-	1901	
73,673	031901-	1902	
237,193	731902-	1903	
331,326	20
July 1st, 1903, to February
29th, 1904	 73,037	06

Rolling stock for Murray Harbour Branch Railway, Prince Edward Island :
1899- 1900	$ 7,531 81
1900-	1901	
41,990	851901-	1902	
35,210	741902-	1903	
9,526	26
July 1st, 1903, to February
29th, 1904	 15,952	52



$110,212 18 ACETYLENE GAS AS LIGHTHOUSE ILLUM-INANT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KAUiLBACH asked :
1.	Are any lighthouses in Canada illuminated with acetylene gas ?
2.	If so. where are they located ?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the government to use acetylene gas as a lighthouse il-luminant ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mauger's Beach, Nova Scotia ; Father Point, Quebec ; Baskin's Wharf, Ontario : Aylmer, Quebec ; and the lighthouses on the Upper St. Lawrence, between Montreal and Kingston.
3.	The answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2 cover this question.



PURCHASE OF SUBMARINE SIGNALS.

Mr. KAUBBACH asked :: 1.	Has the government purchased from a Boston firm, or company, a number of submarine signals ?
2.	If so, how many have been obtained ?
3.	What was the price paid for them ?
4.	On whose recommendation were these submarine signals purchased ?
5.	In what countries are they in use, and to what extent ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Three have been ordered.
3.	Cost $1,200 each.
4.	On the recommendation of the deputy minister, the commander of the marine service and the commissioner of lights.
5.	In the United States, and on the American lightships between New York and Boston.	.



C BATTERY-ARREARS OF PAY.

Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. R. L. Borden-asked :
1.	Has any notice recently been issued by the Militia department concerning arrears of pay claimed to be due to members of C Battery for service in South Africa ?
2.	What is the nature of such notice ?
3.	Are those members of C Battery who were denied the extra pay accorded to other corps in South Africa to receive such pay now ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	It requests ex-menlbers of C Battery to make application to the Officer Commanding, R.C.F.A., for payment.
3.	Presumably this question refers to ' deferred pay.' Members of C Battery drew pay in South Africa at a higher rate than the Canadian rate, and, therefore, were not entitled to deferred pay.



TEMPORARY BONDS OUTSTANDING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE-by Mr. Taylor)-asked :
1.	What are the amounts of the temporary bonds outstanding now, including those negotiated lately by the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Courtney, to meet interest on maturing liabilities ?
2.	At what rate of interest is the money borrowed, and on what terms of repayment ?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 


Mr. KAULBACH.: 

REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and also the report of the Board of Civil Service Examiners.-Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the state of the mail service in the Saskatchewan district. I received a telegram to-day from the secretary of the Board of Trade of Rosthern. in my constituency. It is as follows :
Rosthern Board of Trade requests you to urge Postmaster General to hasten transportation of mails, none since fourteenth delays unreasonable for months business men and general public greatly inconvenienced also as to freight situation desperate do what you can.
DR. A. B. STEWART, President Rosthern Board of Trade.
I might say in connection with this matter that I have received by telegram during the past two or three weeks communications of a similar kind from the Boards of Trade of Prince Albert and other places. I can quite understand that owing to the snow blockade of last winter, there might be some reasonable excuse for the company then not being able to deliver the mails. But I am given to understand from the same localities that the company is short of coal, and that that is one of the reasons for the present delay. However I think that at this season of the year the fault rests largely with the company, for the simple reason, that while no mails have gone into or out of that country for fourteen or fifteen days, passengers

have come down and have brought mail with them. If passengers could come down and bring mail matter with them 1 would think that the railway company 'should be forced by the Postmaster General to deliver the mails. I know that the bridge at Saskatoon has been swept away by the flood but there is a ferry on the river and the mails could have been transported on it. The company have quite a number of locomotives between Prince Albert and Saskatoon and also between Saskatoon and Lumsden where I believe the trouble is, as the Qu'Appelle Valley is flooded. But they could get the mail across by boat if they took the trouble. The Canadian Pacific Railway, however, will not take any action and while passengers are able to get through they refuse to take the mail out, and I think they should be forced to do so. I draw the attention of the government to it, and I think the administration should see that the railway carry out their contract, and perform the services for which they are paid.



STRAITS SETTLEMENT CURRENCY.

Mr. W. P. MACLEAN (East York).: Before this motion is carried I would like to call the attention of the Finance Minister (Mr. W. S. Fielding) to the circulation in this country of the silver of the Straits Settlements. It is exactly similar in its appearance to the Canadian silver coinage and has on one side of it the Queen's head very much like our own coinage. But it is a depreciated coinage. The 50 cent piece I am informed is not worth 20 cents in value and there seems to be an organization, almost a conspiracy-and I am told it is an Oriental conspiracy-to unload great quantities of this silver in Canada. The business men of Toronto, Montreal and other places are complaining of its circulation. It if passed in rapid circulation and every one takes these coins for 50 cent pieces, but when you come to examine it, it is found to be depreciated money of the Straits Settlements. I think it should be the duty of the Canadian government to protest against the use of the Sovereign's head of a depreciated currency, in such a way as to mislead the public and injure tbe silver coinage of colonies whose silver is up to standard. A protest from this government to the home government might be effective. It has been suggested that this 50 cent piece should be made much thicker, or should have some distinctive mark on it such as the square hole which we find in the centre of Chinese coins. In some way our people should be protected from this coinage. I simply wish to ask the Finance Minister (Mr. W. S. Fielding) to consider whether it would not be wise to enter a protest against the circulation of this depreciated silver coinage which so closely resembles the Canadian coinage.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid we would be hardly justified in entering a protest against the action of another colony which might claim the right to manage its own currency. If there is a dangerous similarity between the coinage of the Straits Settlements and our own, possibly we might have to adopt some alterations in our own coinage. No one is obliged to take silver, which is not a legal tender, and the people have it in their hands to refuse it. But I know that by the practice of commerce the mere fact of its not being tender is not enough ; people take it as they do American coinage. I should be glad to take the matter into consideration, and if the similarity is so dangerous that it requires attention, we may be able to find some solution of the difficulty.	,



ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

Mr. SPEAKER.: May I take this opportunity of asking hon. members to keep better order ? Talking in the House, I am sorry to say, is getting from bad to worse. It is very unpleasant to the Speaker to have to shout at the top of his voice to request order. I do not wish to do so : it is undignified and certainly, the Speaker ought not to be put under that obligation. The order is so bad in the House that the example is followed in the galleries. Hon. gentlemen on the floor of the House talk at the top of their voices and naturally ptople in the galleries follow their example, so that, when the order is bad in the House, we find that it is bad in the galleries. I desire to make a special and earnest appeal to all the members of the House to preserve better order.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 72). To amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 1,
1. The agreement made between His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company (hereinafter called the ' Pacific Company,') dated the eighteenth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and four, a copy of which forms the schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty and the Pacific Company ; and His Majesty and the Pacific Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada (hereinafter called the ' Grand Trunk Company,') and all others concerned, are "hereby authorized and empowered to do whatever is necessary in order to give full effect to the provisions of the said agreement and of this Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Looking at section 1 of this Bill, I observe that it omits certain words

I presume by inadvertence-which were contained in the second section of the Act of last year which is sought to be amended by the present Bill. If my hon.

friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will look at section 2, of the Act of last year, he will see that it reads as follow's :
The agreement, a copy of which forms the schedule to this Act, (hereinafter called ' The Agreement ' is hereby ratified and confirmed, and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Railway Company (hereinafter called * the Company ') subject to the provisions of this Act.
I would suggest that similar words should he introduced into the first section of this Bill and that section 1, of the Bill should be amended by inserting after the word ' company ' where it first appears in line 10, the words ' subject to the provisions of the National Transcontinental Railway Act and of this Act.'


Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: I should not like to amend this Bill which has been very carefully drawn without very careful consideration, but I am prepared to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend. I would like my hon. friend to consider whether or not this is necessary, this being simply an amendment to the original agreement, the terms of the original Act, except in so far as they may be changed by this Bill, will remain and be applicable to the. present agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I quite follow my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. Am I to gather that he suggests that'the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act,' would also be embodied in the amending Act by reason of the fact that they are in the original Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. However, I quite appreciate the importance of my hon. friend's suggestion, and if it is necessary to make it clearer, I shall not object. We cannot get through with this Bill to-day, and I shall consider it between now and the next sitting of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall not move it at present, so that the hon. Minister of Justice will have an opportunity of considering it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This Bill has been somewhat carefully prepared and I do not like, without careful consideration, to add or take anything away from the Bill as it now7 comes before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize, of course, that the Bill has been very carefully drawn, but if the insertion of the words I have suggested wTere necessary for greater caution, I would think it possible that there would not be a great deal of objection to them. However, what the hon. Minister of Justice said is satisfactory at the present time. He will take it into consideration.


Charles Fitzpatrick: AYould it not oe better to take up in connection with section 1, the agreement, paragraph by paragraph?


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: If we have to take up the agreement at some time, I do not see why we should not take it up now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We could not give effect to the clause, without considering the agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: The agreement comes in immediately after section 1, and roust be considered before section one can be passed.
On section 1 of the schedule,



SCHEDULE.

[Stage Direction]
This Agreement made this eighteenth day of February, 1904, between His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada and herein represented and acting by the Honourable Henry Robert Emmerson, Minister of Railways and Canals, of the first part ; and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, of the second part.
Whereas a contract bearing date the twenty-ninth day of July, 1903, was made and entered into between His Majesty the King, of the first part, and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and others, acting on behalf of the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and providing, upon the terms and 'Sonditions in the said contract mentioned and set forth, for the construction and operation of the line of railway therein described ;
And whereas the said contract w7as afterwards confirmed by an Act of parliament of Canada, chapter seventy-one ' of the statutes of 1903, known as The National Transcontinental Railway Act ;
And whereas the parties hereto have agreed, subject to ratification by the parliament of Canada, to make certain modifications of the said contract.
Now therefore this agreement witnesseth that the said parties have contracted and agreed with each other as follows :-
1. Notwithstanding anything in the said contract contained, the time for completion of the western division of the railway shall be and the same is hereby extended to the first day of December, A.D. 1911, and thb tenth paragraph of the said contract is amended accordingly and by inserting the word ' strikes ' after the word ' floods ' In the seventh line thereof.
William James Roche: Mr. Chairman, in
reference to this clause which is a clause providing for an extension of time, I desire to oiler a few remarks, and very few they will be. In view of the fact that the right lion. Prime Minister, when he introduced this supplemental agreement practically gave us no reason why the clause contained in the original contract, should be changed so as to grant an extention of time, other than that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company asked for an extension of time, I would earnestly protest against an extension of time as far as it relates, at any rate, to the prairie section. I could understand, that, in view of one year practically having been lost, an extension of time would be asked to cover the mountain section, but I think this clause, if it is designed more particularly to apply to the mountain section,

should specifically say so. It was claimed last year by the Prime Minister that this road was urgently needed to relieve traffic congestion in the west, and that therefore we could not wait for surveys or for information in regard to it. But this year the Prime Minister in introducing the amendment, had only this to say, in connection with section 1, of the amended contract:
The first of these modifications relates to the time within which the line is to he built, and the proposition to which we to-day ask the assent of parliament is in these terms :
Sec. 1.-Notwithstanding anything in the said contract contained, the time for completion of the western division of the railway shall be and the same is hereby extended to the first day of December, 1911, and the tenth paragraph of the said contract is amended accordingly, and by inserting the word ' strikes ' after the word ' floods ' in the seventh line thereof.
By the terms of section 10 of the contract submitted to parliament last session, it is provided that the western section of the line, the portion from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, should he built within the period of five years commencing December 10, 1903. The company thought that this limit of time was perhaps a little too short and the only modification which they asked was that in case of failure on their part to comply with this condition of the contract, the deposit of $5,000,000 should not be forfeited. Their application- was in these terms :
Time for the completion of the construction of the western division, fixed as December 1, 1908, is considered short. Failure to complete within the time should at least not create a forfeiture of the deposit.
We did not altogether agree to this, but we provided that the time should be extended by three years so that the company will have until December 1, 1911, in which to complete their line.
These are all of the concessions which have been made except that to the legitimate causes for delay, such as floods, disturbances, &e., strikes are added. I am sure that our hon. friends on the other side of the House will have no objection to agree to this modification of the contract.
The only reason that the Prime Minister assigned for tlie extension of time was, that the company thought that three years was too short. The company did not offer any very strenuous objection to the five year limit, but the Prime Minister thought it well to grant the extension for three years longer, and so he dissipated all his arguments of last year in favour of immediate construction. I, as a western member, am most anxious to see the road constructed to meet the wants and requirements of our people at the earliest possible date ; I protest against this extension of time so far as it relates to the 1,000 miles of the prairie section. There is no reason why the road should not be constructed on the prairie within the time fixed in last year's Bill. The Canadian Pacific Railway did not take five years to construct its line on the prairie, at a time when the facilities for quick railway construction were not nearly so modern 70
as they are now. It may be, that the mountain section would require a longer time to build, but the prairie section through the grain-growing country, can be very well completed by the 1st of December, 1908.
1 wish also to ask the Minister of Justice, if the government can give any information, relatively speaking, as to where this road is going to be constructed west of Winnipeg. The company have had survey parties out during the past year, and we would like to know if reports have been made indicating where the road is going to run ; or is it the intention of the government to leave this an open question until after the general election. Recently the Liberal candidates in Manitoba have been going around with maps pretending to show the proposed location of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and of course as each member points it out as running through his own constituency, the thing is reduced to an absurdity, but nevertheless it is held out as a bribe practically to the electors. Indeed, one of the leading Liberal papers in the west has declared that the electors have it in their power to say where this road is to be constructed, and their opinions on the matter would be largely judged by the result of the elections. That is very candid, but at the same time it is very unjust, very unfair, and very misleading. I protest against the location of this line being postponed until after the general elections, and I hold that this Bill should not pass until the government declares what will be the location of the line west of Winnipeg. Surely they can at least tell us whether it is going to run north or south of the Canadian Northern. Last year when the member for North Simcoe (Mr. MacCarthy) who had charge of the Bill, was asked whether the line would run north or south of the Canadian Northern, he said he was not sure, but he thought it was north : and when we pointed out that the map circulated by the Grand Trunk Railway "located the line to the south, he candidly admitted that until the surveys were made that could not be ascertained. If the government desires to have the time extended for the completion of the mountain section, let them say so, but there is no reason on earth why that line cannot be constructed within five years through the prairie country, where relief is needed at the earliest possible moment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman will realize that it will be to the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to have that section of the line constructed at the earliest possible moment, because it has always been described in this House as being the fat section, or the revenue-producing section, so far as local traffic is concerned. Under the original agreement, it is provided that the western section is to be finished within five years from the last of December. 1903, and it is also provided that a sum of $5,000,000 is to be deposited, which will be



219G
forfeited In case the road is not completed from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, and equipped with respect to the whole road. The gentlemen who have put up that deposit are naturally somewhat anxious that no forfeit should take place in the event of non-compliance with the strict terms of the agreement, and the suggestion was made, that we should declare that the deposit would not be forfeited in the event of the non-completion of the road within that time. We thought it infinitely preferable in the interest of the country, that instead of releasing the deposit we would extend the delay, and instead of declaring that the $5,000,000 should not be forfeited if the road were not constructed, we should declare the $5,000,000 should not be forfeited, if the road were completed within eight years. My hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) has referred to the rapid construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I would ask him to bear in mind, that as it was the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway to construct their road as rapidly as possible, it will be the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific to complete this part of the line at the earliest possible moment.
My hon. friend will remember that the Canadian Pacific had authority to extend the construction of its line over a period of ten years. As a matter of fact, the first sod on the main line was turned on the 2nd of May, 1881, the last spike was driven on the 7th of November, 1885, and the first eastbound through train arrived at Montreal on the 12th July, 1886, or a little more than five years after the road was first begun ; and I am quite sure that with the facilities for railway building that now exist in the Northwest, this road can be completed within the same length of time. At the same time, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to expect that the gentlemen who are depositing their $5,000,000 will see to it that such precautions are taken on their part, that that deposit will not be forfeited by the country in consequence of the non-fulfilment of the contract in that respect -that is, if they do not completely construct the road and completely equip it, not partly, but ready for operation within the time specified. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. friend will see that this is a very reasonable request. The location of the line has to proceed in the same way and under the same conditions as any other private railway built by a private company. The company will, in their own interest, endeavour to locate it in such a way as to derive the greatest possible amount of revenue from the local traffic. On the other hand, the government will have something to say with respect to the location ; and it will be the duty of the government to consider the location from the standpoint of the general interest of the country at large as well as from the standpoint of the local interest concerned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


William James Roche: Will the Minister of Justice read that portion of the Bill which says that the government will have the approval of the location of the road in the province of Manitoba. I think it refers to the Northwest Territories.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 122' of the General Railway Act applies to this road as well as to any other private enterprise, and not a mile of it can be constructed without the plans of the location being deposited with the Minister of Railways and being approved by him acting for the government. So that this road in its entirety must be controlled by the government. Therefore, it will be in the interest of the company to locate the road so that it will be of the greatest advantage to the country and develop the greatest local traffic. It will also be the duty of the government to see .that the location of the line is such as will not only be advantageous for local traffic but in the interest of the country at large. It will be our duty to see that these two interests are harmonized; and 1 am quite sure that in the location of the line, the only two interests concerned-that of the company with respect to the revenue-producing power of the road, and that of the government with respect to the interests of the country at large-the interest of the people of Manitoba and the Northwest will receive a large share of consideration. It is impossible to say at present just where the road will be located. The measure of last session was not through parliament until the close of the working season, and very little has been done this season. So far as my knowledge goes, no report has yet been made by the company with respect to their intentions as to the location of the line.


William James Roche: The hon. minister has stated one thing in which I do not concur ; that is, that it would be in the interest of the company to have the road constructed at the earliest possible moment. In view of the fact that Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson has stated that the liability of the company does not begin until after the road has been completed, I think it will be to their advantage to delay construction to the last moment, so long as they get it completed within the eight years. The Minister of Justice refers to the completion of the line as a whole ; but I am dwelling on the most important part of it, the prairie section. I am not objecting so much to a certain extension of time for the construction of the mountain section ; but I am directing my objection to the extension of time so far as it relates to the 1,000 miles of easy construction across the prairie, that part of the country which requires relief at the earliest possible moment; and in view of the fact that the liability of the Grand Trunk Company under their guarantee does not begin until after the road is completed, I do not know that

they will be anxious to have it constructed very quickly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot agree with my hon. friend as to the company not being liable until the road is completed. I think it is the liability of the government that does not begin until after the road is completed, not the liability of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
I am not concerned as to the construction put upon this agreement by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson; I am concerned about the construction that the words bear and that we are going to put upon them ourselves. It is perfectly immaterial to me how Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson may have interpreted the agreement at a meeting of his shareholders ; what is important is how we are going to interpret it. Now, I do not want to separate the two parts of the western division more than is necessary ; I want to treat them as a unit. With respect to the forfeit, we will deal with the revenue-producing centre as well as with that portion of the road which has been considered to be the lean section. I want the section from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast to be considered as a unit, and any departure from that I will endeavour to prevent. Undoubtedly it is to the interest of Manitoba and the Northwest that the prairie section should be completed at the earliest possible moment. Undoubtedly that is in the interest of the company also. But it is in the interest of the people at large that the road shall be constructed from the Pacific coast to Winnipeg at the earliest possible moment, and that is what we want. We do not want to distinguish between the two portions. We do not want to give the impression that we consider one section of immediate and vital importance and the other section as being of remote importance. We want the whole railway constructed as rapidly as possible ; and we hope that by giving this reasonable extension, the company will realize that it is the wish of the people of Canada that the road shall be constructed in its entirety from the! Pacific to Winnipeg at the earliest possible moment.


William Findlay Maclean: Passing from the completion of the* road for a moment, can the minister tell the House and the public when the commencement of the road is likely to take place ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The intention is, and this contract provides, that the construction shall be begun immediately.


William Findlay Maclean: What does the minister mean by immediately ? Has he not some progress to report, or some information to give as to what steps the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are now taking to start work immediately ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not any information beyond the casual information that has come to me to the effect that surveying parties have been out and have ex-701
amined the country from Winnipeg westward and from Winnipeg eastward for a certain distance. That is a general sort of information which my hon. friend has as well as I, but on which I cannot ask the House to rely. The position, I take it, is this, in so far as the company is concerned. Until such time as they have a binding contract-a contract binding upon the country as it is upon the company-we cannot expect them to enter into any very large works of construction.


William Findlay Maclean: Will this contract be binding on the company once it has passed this House ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will read the agreement, he will see that we insist that the contract shall be ratified, in the first instance, by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway before we submit it to the House at all ; and having obtained the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the ratification of the Grand Trunk Railway, then we ask the approval of the House.


Mr. BOYD.: I cannot see that the hon. minister has given any good reason for extending the time for constructing that portion of the road to which my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) has referred. We all know that the Canadian Pacific Railway built its line over the prairies at the rate of one mile per day. If it be in the interests of the people, as lion, gentlemen opposite urge, that the whole of this road should be completed as soon as possible, then this portion, which is to be the fat portion and the portion which they say furnishes the main reason for building this road at all, ought to be pushed through without delay, and I can see no reason why the government should extend the time for building it. Certainly the hon. minister has not given any good reason why the company has been given an extension of time. There is no doubt t(mt there are portions of that western country to which this proposed road will give relief. I have been shown maps indicating two or three different directions in which supporters of the government say this line is to go, starting from Winnipeg, and no doubt if it be built through some of these places it will do a great deal of good. I therefore cannot see why the government should give the company three years longer in which to build that line, especially when it might be built across the whole of the prairie in two years or possibly three years at the outside. While this proposition is not one that I am in favour of-and I made that very clear last session when I moved a resolution for the extension of a government railway across this continent, which resolution the whole Conservative party supported and the en-

tire Liberal party opposed

while that is the ease, I can see no reason why the government should extend the length of time as it is doing.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does my hon. friend wit realize that the selfish interests of fli*' company will prompt it to construct /this road across the prairies within the /shortest possible time ? My hon. friend I from Marquette referred to the liability I of the government. As I read this contract, | the liability of the government to endorse 1 the bonds of the company begins only after 1 the road is completed-after it is built I from the Pacific ocean to Winnipeg and S equipped in its entirety. The interest of | the company-if we have succeeded in identifying the Grand Trunk Railway with the Grand Trunk Pacific, as we think we have-is to complete that road at the earliest possible moment, because in the interval, except in so far as the government may be pleased to come to their assistance, they are obliged to finance the whole enterprise. In their own interest, therefore, they will construct this portion Cj the road at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. COCHRANE.: If it be both in the interests of the company and of the people to have that road speedily constructed, why not make the limit of time four years ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because that is not necessary.


Edward Cochrane: The hon. gentleman is relying on the selfish interests of the company, which he says will compel them to build this road with the shortest possible delay. If that be the case, why not put it in the contract ?
Mr, FITZPATRICK. I am depending upon something that in my experience has never failed-the selfish interests of public corporations.


Edward Cochrane: That is a new doctrine for the Liberal party.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is depending solely on that consideration, he might strike out some other portions of the contract, for example, the clause with reference to the operation. Yet that has not been eliminated. I am inclined to think that the promoters) of this scheme did not press very strongly for any such extension of time as is to be found here. At least I should judge so from the correspondence. As my hon. friend from Marquette has said, the only suggestion which came from the promoters is this :
Time for the completion of the construction of the western division, fixed as December 1st, 190S, is considered short. Failure to complete within the time should at least not create a forfeiture of the deposit.


Nathaniel Boyd: You will observe that they do not put it very strongly, rather very mildly. Then it must not be forgotten that they have very ample safeguards against any difficulties which may ar'ise during the progress of construction :	For example,
by clause 10 of the agreement, it is provided as follows :
The work of locating and constructing the said western division shall be commenced forthwith after the ratification of -this agreement by the parliament of Canada and shall proceed with the utmost despatch and shall be completed within five years from the 1st day of December, 1903, unless prevented by the act of God, the King's enemies, internal disturbances, epidemics, floods or other causes beyond the control of the company.
To those causes have now been added, by this proposed enactment, the word ' strikes,' so that the company is safeguarded in every respect against any possible cause which might arise and prevent completion of the road within the time limited. My hon. friend says that the Canadian Pacific Railway, although a much longer period was given for its completion, was completed in four years from the time of its commencement ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In five years.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was from 1881 to 1885.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If we take the turning of the first sod and the driving of the last spike, the road was open for operation within five years.


Robert Laird Borden: I will accept my hon. friend's correction. It was opened within five years. And, at this day, conditions for the building of railways are improved. There are better opportunities in the Northwest, I imagine, to build a railway now than there were then-greater facilities at hand. Then, within the last quarter of a century, I fancy, the progress in the art of railway building has been very considerable. Now, if the Canadian Pacific Railway could be completed in about four years and opened for traffic in less than five years, why is so long a period allowed for the completion of this line ? Important considerations arise. The first is, what time will you fix for the completion of the line from Winnipeg to the coast ? And the second is, if you are to extend the time, would it not have been practicable and would it not have been better so far as some portions of the line are concerned, to require they should be completed within much shorter time? I realize that the proposal of the government-and I am looking at it from their standpoint-is a proposal for a line from ocean to ocean. But, even looking at it from that standpoint, we must not shut our eyes to the fact that the traffic to which the company looks, the

larger portion of that traffic arising in the west, for a good many years will probably be eastward bound. Therefore, it seems to me there is, as pointed out by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) possibly more urgency in respect of the prairie division than the mountain division. I am not minimizing for a moment the importance of the mountain division, but we have to recognize the conditions and if the mountain division is more difficult, we must necessarily allow more time for its completion. Under the circumstances, it would seem to me to have been a very proper thing on the part of the government, in proposing an amendment to this clause, to have had regard to the importance of its eastern connection. So far as the eastern division of the road is concerned, the date of its completion is entirely within the power of the government. It can complete it as rapidly as the resources of the country will permit. Then, to connect with the eastern division, you have what is called the prairie section of the western division. The company is allowed, under the terms of the contract, a period of eight years within which to complete the line from Winnipeg to Edmonton. Now, how far is that a reasonable allowance ? Has my hon. friend the Minister of Justice any information as to what would be a reasonable time to allow in respect of the prairie section ? It seems to me that in considering the proposed extension of the time, and especially having regard to the qualifications that are imposed by section 10 of the original contract upon the liability of the company,, the government in making this proposed amendment ought to afford the House some expert information as to what would be a reasonable distance per year for the company to build, it has been suggested to me by gentlemen who profess to be familiar with these matters-who certainly have more experience than I have-that a period of three years would be ample time for the construction of the road from Winnipeg to Edmonton, unless the company were impeded by some of the causes which are excepted under section 10 of the original contract. Well, these exceptions do not stand in the way, because section 10 expressly provides that, where the company is delayed, by any of these causes over which they have no control, the delay so caused shall not be counted against them. Therefore they have eight years, under the provisions of this contract, eight years of good working time in which they can proceed with the construction not only of the line to the Pacific coast, but of the line from Winnipeg to Edmonton. I would again suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that some expert opinion ought to be furnished to the House before this committee is required to pass upon
so important a portion of the contract as this. I do not wish to go over matters of ancient history ; but it would not be out of place, perhaps, for me to remind not only the Minister of Justice, but the Prime Minister that we had very strong language from the Prime Minister on this question last year. I will not quote at any length from my right hon. friend's (Sir Wilfrid Laurier's) speech, because he does not like me to indulge in too lengthy quotations. But just a few lines may better illustrate what I mean. He said :
Now, Sir, we lay it down as a principle, upon which we are to he judged by friend and foe, that we are to have a transcontinental railway, that its terminus must be in Canadian waters, and that the whole line, every inch of it, must be in Canadian territory. We say further that such a line is a necessity of our commercial independence.
And further on :
What are your minds running to when you have facts staring you in the face which show you that at this moment Canada is not commercially independent of the United States ?
And further on :
But my hon. fpiends opposite are aware that this privilege

referring to the bonding privilege :


has always been held over our heads by the
American authorities as a sword of Damocles.
Now, if there is a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, and if we can get rid of it within a period of four years, as, we can according to the Minister of Justice, why should we trust merely to the interest of the company, and why should we not impose upon them a stipulation which is to be regarded as a fair stipulation according to that statement ? This was regarded as a matter of great urgency last year, not only so far as the western division was concerned, but so far as the entire line was concerned-and I shall refer to the eastern division a little later on. Instead of the very great urgency which confronted us last year, instead of the very great haste which we are told at that time was necessary, we have the government coming down with an amendment, apparently not very strenuously insisted upon by the gentlemen who are promoting this line, which adds three years to the period fixed for the completion of this road. Now, if the position taken by the Prime Minister last year was a correct position- and upon that position he staked his policy and this measure-then, I venture to submit that there has been no justification shown for the extension provided for by this amendment. Further, let me say to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that, when he spoke in response to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) with regard to the commencement

of the construction of this railway, he perhaps did not bear in mind that it was the duty of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to begin the work of locating and constructing immediately after the Act of last session had passed. There can be no doubt about that. The agreement of last year was ratified by parliament on the 21th of October and the 25th of October was the day for commencing the work of locating and constructing the said western division should have commenced. So, the inquiry of my hon. friend from East York is an entirely pertinent and just one, and one which should have a more definite and pertinent answer than the Minister of Justice has given.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr. CLANCY.: Why either ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because, although the country has made some progress since 1880, and has advanced since that time, there is to-day an element of difficulty in the construction of railways that did not exist in 1880, the difficulty of obtaining labour. It is more difficult to-day to get labour than it was in 1880, although there was no road to the prairie in 1880 and although there is to-day a road extending from Montreal to St. John, N.B., to the Pacific ocean, every one knows that it would be more difficult for the Grand Trunk Pacific to get labour in that country to do that work than it was for the Canadian Pacific in 1880. For example, the Canadian Paci-Ific in' 1880, could get Oriental (labour, there was no objection to Oriental labour in 1880 ; to-day there is a prohibitory tax against Oriental labour. Mongolians cannot come in to work without payment of the tax of $500, but in 1880, they could be imported free and for this reason alone the Grand Trunk Pacific will be at a disadvantage as compared with the Canadian Pacific. Apart from the question of Mongolian labour, if we speak only of the question of white labour, every one knows that to-day one of the difficulties of all kinds of industry, is to get labour, and the Grand Trunk, as prudent men, have to see to it that the difficulties they might find in their way owing to the very prosperity of the country, jwere guarded 'against and for this reason they took some latitude in order not to jeopardize the $5,000,000 they put in our hands, as an earnest that they would go on with the work as speedily as possible. However, if I rightly apprehend the motive which has prompted the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) and the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) to put as strongly as they did the question of time, it is the desire to hace an immediate location of the road. They have not put this forward but it is evidently in the back of their minds. The amendment which has been made does not affect by one iota the immediate location of the line. My friends point to the map and ask whether the railway is to pass here or there. I suppose that every one west of Lake Superior, wants to have this line at his own door. We find that when a railroad is to be built every one wants it as near to his own premises as possible. This condition will exist until the line is located,

but the extension of the time will not affect that question at all.


William Findlay Maclean: The statement made by the Minister of Justice and also used by the Prime Minister throws a lot of light upon the situation. They speak of the selfish interests being the impelling motive with the company, and every company. Perhaps the selfish interest of the company suggested that this agreement and this new agreement is simply catering to the selfish interest of the concern. That admission may also go a long way to explain the non-performance of certain things by companies of that kind, notably the Grand Trunk, that company is on record to-day as having given a solemn undertaking to give the people between Montreal and Toronto a penny-a-mile rate. I asked the Minister of Justice about this last year and he did not say it was not the law. He gave evasive answers. I believe that according to bis own words, selfish interests is the impelling reason why that law is not carried out. It is a good confession to have here to-day, that selfish interest is lie impelling motive of corporations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the world a corporation ?	.


William Findlay Maclean: The world is a corporation, but I do not define corporations in the way both of the hon. gentlemen have done. As to this question of labour, should not some steps be taken to attract white labour to this country if we have not that labour ? The question is a serious one, there is a cry for labour in this country, and I would ask if the government have any policy or any proposal to suggest to the country whereby this labour difficulty may be overcome? It is true that legislation has been passed which prevents Chinese labour coming in-I do not think it applies to the Japs.


Wilfrid Laurier: It applies to the Japs in so far as the Japanese restrict their own emigration.


William Findlay Maclean: But I do not think our law would prevent them ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Oh, no, but my hon. friend knows that the Japanese government does restrict its own emigration.


William Findlay Maclean: But they may withdraw their restriction any day and the country may be- flooded with Japanese labour just as the Japs have covered this country with the depreciated silver to which I referred a minute ago. The Prime Minister has confessed that there is a scarcity of labour ; what does the government propose to do to supply labour to build the road at an early date ? We know that the Canadian Pacific Railway contractors built the road in half the time specified, and I have no
doubt that this road can be built at the rate r.ot of one mile, but of five miles a day, without costing the company anything more. This would relieve the congested state of traffic that they say now characterizes the Northwest. This road can be constructed in a much shorter time than in 1880 as railway construction has now been brought down to a fine art. There are any number of improved contrivances for building railways and the government, especially in view of the statement that time could not wait, should insist upon having the contract of such a character that the road would be completed in a very short time. It can be completed much more quickly than the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed, and if that is the case, why should it not be put in this contract ?


Mr. INGRAM.: I cannot understand the reasoning of the right hon. gentleman when he says the Canadian Pacific Railway were given ten years to construct their line of railway, and that the first train was run over the road on the 12th of July, 1886, six years after the commencement of the road.
We all know perfectly well that in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway through that country in those days they had no facilities for bringing in rails, ties and other materials necessary in connection with the construction of the road. The difference between then and now is very great because we have two lines of railway that can assist in bringing in material for the purpose of the construction of this railway. Then, there is the question as to labour. Admitting the hon. gentleman's argument that labour is scarce, see the difference in the amount of labour it would require to bring the material into the country in the days of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and now. The material would be brought in over the lines of railway already constructed. The result will be that owing to the changed conditions, the same amount of labour for the transportation of materials will not be required now as was required in the days of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then, as to the class of labour to be employed on the railway, will -the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company employ what we call natural white labour '-not at all. They are employing to-day very largely Polacks, and Chinamen who are engaged in railway construction year in and year out. They do this work as a matter of choice. These men are railway labourers and do practically nothing else year in and year out and railway contractors prefer that class of labour. They send to the United States and import that class of labour into this country notwithstanding the fact that we have an alien labour law.	.
I was a little mystified as to the discussion that took place in regard to the location of

this line in the west. I merely drew the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the fact that certain persons in the west are claiming that this line of railway is going to run through such and such a district. The hon. Minister of Justice replied to that by referring us to section 122 of the general railway Act which contains provisions in regard to ' map,' ' application for approval of map,' 'application of proceedings,' 'plan, profile and book of reference ' and so on, meaning that the location of the line will have to be submitted for approval before it can be determined upon. That would therefore go to prove that statements made by any persons at this date that this line of railway is going to run through any particular section of the west are entirely unwarranted and must simply be regarded as being manufactured out of whole cloth. The right hon. leader of the government says that every man wants to have the railway run through his district. That may be true but every man cannot have the railway through his district. There can only be one line of railway wherever it may be located. Certainly it has not been located, and I am glad that it has been made plain that any person claiming that this line of railway will run through any particular dishict is not justified in making such a claim.


Mr. NORTHRTJP.: I think the hon. Minister of Justice might well inform the House on one point and that is whether or not, when this application was made to extend the time for the completion of the western division, the government made any attempt to secure the earlier construction of the prairie section than will result from this extension of time. When we find that practical men of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the president, the general manager and almost all the directors of the company were prepared to sign a contract pledging themselves to build the road in a shorter time, and when, in order to allay the apprehensions of their shareholders they asked for an extension of time, surelv it would have been a proper thing for the government to have endeavoured to have secured the completion of the prairie section at as early a date as possible.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think there would have been any difficulty in inducing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to consent to an earlier construction of the prairie section, but we felt that the object of the people was to secure the construction of a through line from Winnipeg to the coast. We felt, in regard to the construction of the prairie section, that there would be no difficulty whatever, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would take care of that. They will get into the fat section, into the wheat lands of the Northwest Territories and they will take care to have their arrangements made in such a Mr. INGRAM.
way that they will get their fair share of the abundant traffic which that country will afford. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition referred a moment ago to the exemptions that were contained in clause 10. These exemptions are the usual exemptions to be found in ordinary contracts. I cannot say, speaking from memory, that the words used here are the words used in all contracts, but they are the words generally used in contracts made with the Public Works Department or the Department of Railway and Canals. I think they are the usual words to be found in these contracts.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As to the expert opinion as to the time in which this road can be constructed, of course, the suggestion made by* my hon. friend is the natural suggestion that comes to a man who considers matters of this sort. I must confess that at the time these modifications were being considered, I discussed the question with those acting for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I had in my mind that there would be no difficulty in inducing them to agree to the construction of a large part of this railway extending as far as Edmonton within a reasonable short delay, but when I endeavoured to fasten them down to the exact delay within which they would be prepared to do it, and when I pointed out what had been accomplished by the Canadian Pacific Railway the answer they made to me was : We have to take into consideration clause 11 of the contract which read as follows :
The company shall lay out, construct and equip the said western division of the said railway to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada between Montreal and Toronto

That is not the standard which the Canadian Pacific built up to


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that the Prime Minister has any justification for regarding me as a convert. I am entitled for the purpose of my argument to view this contract from the standpoint in which it was regarded by the majority of the House last year, and so I shall regard it. The view of the right hon. gentleman last year was, that there was a tremendous crisis in the country; that the sword of Damocles was hanging over our heads, and that we could not afford to say :	wait, wait, or to consider
to-morrow. We were told by my right hon. friend that it was a time for action, but having last year announced these patriotic sentiments, this year he extends for three years, the time during which the sword of Damocles is to hang over us. The Minister cf Justice says that the Grand Trunk managers and shareholders would be fakirs If they did not carefully consider all their responsibility, but what about the gentlemen who signed their names to this contract last year ? Didn't they know all about the question of labour then, and was there any change in labour conditions between the month of October, 1903, and the month of February, 1904 ? I am aware of none. There was the same restriction on Oriental

labour in both months, but nevertheless in the interval, we have the time for the completion of this line extended for three jears. The Minister of Justice says to-day, that it was the duty of the Grand Trunk Company to carefully consider all this, but last year we were told again and again bj the ministers of the Crown, that the men who had Signed the contract, were the ablest railway men in the world, that they had carefully considered and carefully weighed every difficulty that could be presented. I have here quotations from the speeches of the ministers avowing in the strongest possible language to the House and to the country, that every line and every sellable of that contract had been weighed and considered by the ablest railway men of the country, and that they agreed with the government in the interpretation of the contract, and had decided that these stipulations were reasonable and easily carried out. But to-day, we have an amendment offered to the House, and offered without any satisfactory statement of the reasons which lead the government to consent to it. Viewing it from the standpoint of what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said, it does not seem to me that there is any justification for the government taking this course.


William Findlay Maclean: Probably these modifications have been made because of. the conditions of the money market in England as well as the condition of the labour market here. In view of the recent experience of the Minister of Finance in the English money market, has he any information to give us as to whether the existing financial condition has had anything to do with the extension of time for the completion of the contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: One of the amendments relates to financial matters, and the reason for it having been fully discussed in the House. Certainly, the question of finance had something to do with it.


William James Roche: 
Mr. SCOTT.: Is it not a fact that considerable assistance was given by this parliament ?


William James Roche: No, not for hundreds of miles of the Canadian Northern within the boundaries of the province. That was the only guarantee, and it practically paid for the road.


Thomas Walter Scott: What parts of the line ?


William James Roche: The Rossburn extension in my own constituency, the Carman extension, and a number of other lines. By the way, the other day the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) interrupted me to state that the original cost of the Canadian Northern was $20,000 a mile. I would not wish a better argument. That line had been built and in operation for ten years ; it was fully equipped ; towns had been built along the line ; it was a splendid going concern ; and yet the whole business was secured by the provincial government for $20,000 a mile. I would not wish a better argument than that comparison to show that the estimated cost of the prairie section of this road is excessive. Then, corporations can juggle with their accounts in such a way as to make the government's guarantee to the extent of $13,000 a mile cover almost the total cost. The Prime Minister who was so very anxious last year for the' completion of this road that he could not wait, appears now to be the obstructive power, for he is throwing difficulties in the way to show why it would not be fair to expect the company to construct the road within the original time limit of five years. Any of the arguments used to-day would have been equally strong applied to the Bill as it passed the House last session. Since the road is going to be constructed, we are anxious to see it constructed at the earliest possible moment, and not used, as it is being used in my constituency, as a political factor, not only by the gentleman who is contesting Marquette in the Liberal interest, but by the gentleman who is contesting the constituency north of that as well.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let me make my meaning clear in what I said about Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson. The position I take is that this contract is to be construed according to the terms used in the contract itself, and not according to the construction which Sir- Charles Rivers-Wilson puts upon it or the construction which we may put upon it. Neither of us by the terms we use make the rule of construction to be applied. The contract itself is the law of the parties. If Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson used the language which my hon. friend puts in his mouth with respect to the obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway as distinct from the Grand Trunk Pacific, he is right to this extent, that neither of the Grand Trunk Railway nor the government is under any legal obligation to incur any liability whatever with respect to this road, until such time as it is completed, but in the interval the money for its construction must be found somewhere. The Grand Trunk Pacific may provide it with the help of the Grand Trunk Railway or out of its own resources, but there is no obligation on the government to do anything. If the Grand Trunk Pacific has put up $5,000,000, which will be forfeited should the road not be completed within the time fixed, have we not an assurance that the road will be built at the earliest possible moment ? Is the Grand Trunk Pacific going to run the risk of having that deposit forfeited ? Will that company allow that money to remain unused all this time and pay interest on it and not proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the road ?	.


James Clancy: They lose nothing. They pay no interest on the $5,000,000.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is much stronger in financial matters than I am. I have only the experience of an advised financier, and not of one who has to do financing himself. But I can say that any man who goes to a bank and borrows $5,000,000 must pay something to get it, and I happen to know what is paid in this matter. These gentlemen did not get it for nothing.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman need not be quite so sarcastic. He is a good lawyer, but has not lost his common sense by reason of that fact. He knows perfectly well that there is an undertaking on the part of the government to pay interest on that deposit. True, there is an understanding that there is no interest to be paid by the government in the meantime, because the deposit in the bank is simply on call and may be used by the bank, but there may be also a very good understanding with the Grand Trunk Railway that that company *shall not pay any interest.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The government pay no interest to the Grand Trunk Railway, and the government get no interest on its deposit, but how about the bank ? Who is paying the bank ? Not the government. My hon. friend some time ago said that the estimate for the cost of construction is rather high. My information is that $20,000 a mile is not an exaggerated estimate for a road of this standard.


Mr. CLARKE.: For the prairie section ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, for the prairie section. This is not to be a road consisting simply of rails put on ties across the prairie, but a road of a standard equal to that of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I would like to point out is that if you were to spend $100,000 a mile on this road across the prairie section, you could not make it equal to the Grand Trunk Railway between Toronto and Montreal. That would require time. Year after year the Grand Trunk Railway is ballasted, and that is what makes the quality of that road between Montreal and Toronto.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have, of course, to defer in this matter to the judgment of my hon. friend, but I take it for granted that the Grand Trunk Railway authorities knew what they were doing when they entered into this contract. Perhaps they were entirely in error, but I was under the impression that when they spoke of a road of a certain standard, that meant a road with so many ties per mile, rails of a certain weight-, embankments of a certain quality, and also ballasting of a certain quality. If you consider the question of embankments, ties, rails and ballasting, you have all you need take into account, apart from the grades and curvatures, in order to fix the standard of a railway. In any event, we are not called upon to determine whether these gentlemen Mr. CLANCY.
knew what they were doing or not, but whether or not, under the contract, they are obliged to do that, and I say the terms of the contract are absolutely clear on that point.


Andrew B. Ingram: They evidently knew what they were doing when they put in the words ' so far as practicable.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not putting my opinion against that of the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend from Marquette said that this company might juggle the accounts in such a way that the government would in reality be called upon to guarantee, instead of 75 per cent, the total cost of the road. Has the hon. gentleman considered the effect of clauses 15 and 19 ? If he will look at clause 15, he will find the cost of construction defined, so that there cannot be any dispute or juggling as regards what is meant by the term * cost of construction.' We say exactly what that is to be. Then we go on further and provide by clause 19 a means of ascertaining what that cost of construction has been. We can employ an expert to examine into the accounts of the company. We can practically take possession and control of the books of the company for the purpose of determining how it is carrying on this work. We have besides an additional guarantee in the appointing of a director by the government, who is to look after the interests of the government, and whose duty it will be to prevent the perpetration of the fraud which my hon. friend from Marquette says may be possible.	-


James Clancy: Is the Minister of Justice prepared to say that the Grand Trunk Railway is paying interest on this $5,000,009 V


Charles Fitzpatrick: I know of my own personal knowledge that they are paying the bank. An amount of $5,000,000 is not advanced by a bank to a corporation without the bank getting some return. The original contract provided for the deposit of the money with the government, and in that event the government would have paid the company 3 per cent. As the matter now stands, the money is instead in the hands of the bank, to the credit of the government, and the government neither receives nor pays interest. But in so far as the security is concerned, while we do not pay interest, we still have the security.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The money Is in the bank ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The money is in the bank at our credit. As my hon. friend the Minister of Finance suggests, it is not in our desk.


James Clancy: I am somewhat amazed at the reasons which the Minister of Justice gave for refusing the request of .my hon. friend from Marquette. Was that request

an unreasonable one, or would it inflict any hardship on the Grand Trunk Pacific ? The hon. minister declares that it is in the interests of the Grand Trunk Pacific to construct the road within the period fixed, or even a shorter period-even so short as five years. If it is in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific to construct it within five years, is it a hardship to require them to do it ? He will scarcely say that it is.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is not a hardship, if it is in their interest.


James Clancy: That answer of the hon. gentleman puts an end to the contention that it is a hardship. Surely, the hon. minister would not propose that the only security that the public are to have for the performance of a contract is to be the interest of the other parties to that contract ? That would seem a novel feature of legislation to a layman. When we suggest that this company ought to be bound, the answer given us is that there is no use in binding them, because it is to their own interest to do what we wish. Surely, that is not the security the hon. gentleman would have us depend upon in such important legislation as this. If we are to depend upon it being to their interest to do these things, why have a contract at all ? The question then arises whether the request of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) is a reasonable one. It does not alter the condition which allows eight years for the construction of the western section, but only provides that the construction of the prairie section shall be prosecuted a little more rapidly. It is to the interest of that section of the country that the prairie section shall be completed early. And the Minister of Justice declares in the most emphatic terms that it is to the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific to construct that line as quickly as possible. If, then, it is to the interest of both parties, a person is at a loss to find a reason for refusal to make it a condition. It is the most extraordinary thing I ever listened to.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) that a good way to hasten the construction of the road would be to pass the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: We did that last year.


James Clancy: That is about the kind of argument that the right hon. Prime Minister has been using from the first. Whatever objection is raised, the hon. gentleman thinks it a sufficient answer to tell us: hurry the Bill through. Well, we happen to take a different view. We think that the interests of the people are of greater importance than the hurrying through of the Bill. We think that if the measure makes reasonable progress the rights and interests of the people are not likely to suffer, even though the rate of progress may not exactly suit the right hon. gentleman. I wish to point out
to the First Minister and to the Minister of Justice that the one feature above every other that has marked the discussion of these amendments to the charter is that hon. gentlemen have stubbornly refused to give answers even to the most urgent question. We have one of them before us now. I have asked the Minister of Justice to state the reasons for refusing to accede to the request of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) when he himself (Mr. Fitzpatrick) declares that it is not against the interests of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and acknowledges that it does not affect the question of the time allowed for the completion of the whole western division. That is a reasonable question. And what is the answer we receive ? The answer is : Push the Bill through.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is not right in saying that reasons have not been given when asked for. On the contrary, whenever reasons have been asked they have always been given. I do not say that we have satisfied hon. gentlemen opposite with reasons. Were reasons as plentiful as berries in summer, they would not be satisfied ! We have given the reason why we agreed to this extension of time. The reason may have been good or it may have been bad. In our estimation, it was a good reason. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is not satisfied with it. What, then, can we do ? I will appeal to him again and ask him to consider the reason why this extension of time is agreed to. And, by the way, what do we hear about that ? We are told that the Grand Trunk put the request for the extension of time very mildly and did not press it very much. This is what they say :
Time for the completion of the construction of the 'western division, fixed as December 1, 1908, is considered short. Failure to complete within the time should at least not create a forfeiture of the deposit.
It is true the Grand Trunk did not froth at the mouth in placing their demands ; they put it in a moderate way, appealing to the reasoning power of those to whom it is addressed, my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) included. I would ask him if the application of the Grand Trunk in this respect would have been bettered by being put in stronger or more violent language ? It is true that, last summer, five years was thought to be sufficient time to allow for the completion of the road. Conditions are not changed from what they were then-that is very true. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that the Grand Trunk directors had to go to the shareholders to satisfy them that the contract should be ratified. Those who have read the report of the proceedings of the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk, as every hon. gentleman in this House has, will remember that it was shown very plainly that the shareholders

were very tender on the point as to what should become of this five millions of dollars. Under the circumstances, the directors thought that the contract would have a better chance of being approved if this were agreed to. They have proceeded with an abundance of caution. I hope, and believe, and everybody hopes and believes, that the work will be completed far inside the eight years. But they would not be caught napping, they would not take any risks, but that, as we could not agree to release our hold upon the deposit of $5,000,000, they should be given ample time so as not to jeopardize their money.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Does it at all affect the question of this deposit, does it endanger the deposit to say that one portion of the road is to be completed in less than eight years, if we still allow eight years for the completion of the whole section ?
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. As to that, I do not think it fair to ask the Grand Trunk to proceed with this part or that part of the road. They ought to be left to their judgment as to how and where they will build. My hon. friend, perhaps, is aware that the legislature of British Columbia have passed a resolution in order to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to commence operations not at Winnipeg alone, but simultaneously on the Pacific coast. If they were forced to build in that way they could not finish the prairie section as rapidly as though they devoted their energies to that section. That is a question as to which they should be left some latitude, keeping in mind always the statement of the Minister of Justice that their selfish interest ought to be a sufficient guide.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) ought not to state that I have been stubbornly refusing to give information or reasons for what is proposed. My reasons may be indifferent, or even bad, but such as they are, I have not kept them back. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to repeat what I said. I said that to secure the completion of this road at the earliest possible moment you have, first the terms of the contract as given in clause 10 :
The work of locating and constructing the said western division shall be commenced forthwith after the ratification of this agreement by the parliament of Canada and shall proceed with the utmost despatch and shall be completed within five years from the first day of December, 1903.
The second is that the company have deposited to the credit of Canada $5,000,000. This $5,000,000 must remain where it is now, to the credit of the government until such time as the road is completed. When you take $5,000,000 out of the pockets of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and put it into the bank to the credit of this govern-S'ir WILFRID LAURIER
ment you have withdrawn that much money from that company and they, it seems to me, are not quite so rich that they will have a reasonable desire to get that money back.


James Clancy: Did you say that is from the pockets of the Grand Trunk Railway Company ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: At the present time, yes ; there is no question about that- directly or indirectly.


James Clancy: Suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific were to say to the government, we want you to take over this deposit and to pay interest on it during the period of construction or such other time as you may agree to release the whole or a portion of it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I presume we may suppose almost anything, but I myself prefer not to deal with suppositions bjjt-with hard cold facts "such as we have here. We have now got the money Where they cannot touch it; we have it where it must remain until they have completed their undertaking under this contract. That is the second reason I give for assuming that they are going to expedite this work. Then in addition to that we have the other reason that they must of necessity realize the importance of getting into that western country. They have two great competitors, the Can-adian_^Eacifie__and the Canadian Northern, both live corporations, branching out in all directions, opening new avenues of trade, reaching out in all quarters, to pick up all the trade of the country. It is in their interest to get into that country at the earliest possible moment. They must get there if they want to do business, so you have, first, the terms of the contract, second, the terms of the deposit, and third, the law of trade and competition and self interest, all of which operate to bring about the object my hon. friends seek, the extension of the road into the west country at the earliest possible moment. In so far as I am concerned, having had something to do with the negotiations which resulted in this contract, I say that I want to deal with the western extension of this road from Winnipeg to the ocean as an entity, as one enterprise. I do not want it divided up ; I do not want to have anything in this contract which will give to the Grand Trunk or to the public at large the impression that it is the intention to allow these gentlemen to build into the heart of the Northwest and then open a line south to the great lakes and leave the balance of the enterprise untouched. I say that this is a unit; it is one enterprise, one scheme, and we want to deal with it as such. These reasons may not be good ones, I offer them, such as they are, but at all events my hon. friend cannot accuse me of remaining stubbornly mute.


James Clancy: One cannot but give credit to the Minister of Justice for giving all the reasons he has.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right, I could not do any more than that, could I ?


James Clancy: No'. The second reason on which he lays stress was the deposit on which he said the Grand Trunk would have to pay interest. As I understand the contract, the government of the country on the completion of this agreement in a few months may be compelled to pay interest on that deposit so that the Grand Trunk would pay out with one hand and receive with the other, and therefore that would cease to be a factor altogether. With regard to having the whole western section regarded as an entity, the hon. gentleman knows well that under the contract the prairie section is to be regarded as a security that the mountain section would he built, therefore that cannot he a reason. The hon. gentleman's answer summed up is this, that those healthy safeguards which we have in practically all legislation are abandoned on the sole ground that it is not in the interest of the Grand Trunk to violate its contract. No contract should depend for its fulfilment on one party or the other. I wish to refer for the moment to the reason the hon. Minister of .Justice gives for refusing, as he says, to. revise this contract. When he speaks in his very eloquent way, he may perhaps carry conviction to some of his followers, but I venture to say that when that statement is examined by people outside of this House, and even when it is coolly examined by people in this chamber, it will be found not very convincing. A deposit is made to secure the performance of a contract by a company, namely the building of a railway from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. It has been urged upon this side of the House that when the company asked for an extension of time, that extension of time should be confined to the building of the mountain section. The Minister of Justice says :	I
object to dividing that section or that contract in any way. How could the security be less in the case we propose than in the case proposed by the Minister of Justice ? If we provide in the contract that so far as the mountain section is concerned a forfeiture shall not arise in regard to the deposit until the expiry of eight years, how can it be said that the ultimate completion of the whole enterprise is in any degree jeopardized ? The Minister of Justice puts it very strongly when he says we propose to make any division of the western section. I say we make no division; we give a specific definite time as provided in the former contract for the completion of the prairie section. We say to the Grand Trunk : If you have not the prairie section completed in five years you shall forfeit your deposit. That is the old contract as regards the whole line. We say now that notwithstanding what was in the old contract, we will give you an extension of time to this extent, that if you have the prairie section completed within the
five years you shall then have the option of having three years further for the completion of the mountain section, and if within that three years you have completed the mountain section there shall not then be a forfeiture of the deposit ; the deposit will remain under the control of the government for these additional three years, but if within those three years you have not completed the whole line, you shall forfeit the deposit.


William Findlay Maclean: In regard to the location, the evidence as to the location of the line brought out in the discussion of this clause,
I would like to ask the government whether, if the Grand Trunk Pacific saw fit to buy the Canadian Northern and to bring it up to the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto that would be a fulfilment of this contract ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I certainly would not consider that the company had the power to do that.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there anything in this contract to prevent that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This contract calls for the locating, construction and equipment of a line of railway. The acquisition of a line of railway would not be a compliance with its terms/


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know. This is probably on the carpet. Instead of getting more railways into the Northwest there might be a purchase of the Canadian Northern, a bringing of it up to the standard set out in the contract and that would be a compliance with the contract.


William James Roche: When the Canadian Northern Railway Company were asking for aid for the line from Grand View to Edmonton from this parliament a year or two ago, the question that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) has just brought up arose. There was a clause in the agreement which prevented the Canadian Northern Railway Company from being acquired t>v lease or purchase by the Canadian Pacific Railway. At that time I asked the then Minister of Railways and Canals : Why not include the Grand Trunk Pacific as well 5 He refused to do so and the right hon. Prime Minister acquiesced in that refusal ; in fact be justified it on the ground that it would not be a bad thing, that it would be in the best .interests of the country if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should acquire the Canadian Northern Railway Company as it would ensure the construction of another transcontinental railway. I pointed out that by putting in a clause to apply to the Grand Trunk Pacific similar to that which applies to the Canadian Pacific Railway it would ensure the construction of a third transcontinental railway. But, the right hon. gentleman would not Incorporate such a clause and there is therefore nothing in the agree-

ment which will prevent	the Grand Trunk
PacififiJlaliway-Co'ffipany froBo-acquiring the Canadian Northern Railway.
M t-PIT Z PAT RICK. I must qualify the remark that I made to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). I said undoubtedly that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not have the right to acquire the Canadian Northern Railway. They would not have the right to acquire the Canadian Northern Railway under the terms of the contract with the government for assistance, but I am not sure whether, under section 28 of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company charter, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not have the right to buy if the Canadian Northern Railway Company have the right to sell. But, if they have the right to do that they would merely do it as a private corporation In respect to aid by the government they cannot possibly get any aid from the government under this contract if they purchase th"^Vinfltiinn North nm -R-nilmy
Mr. 'Puttee. There is a consideration in connection with allowing eight years for the completion of the prairie section that may be mentioned. It may be that five years is too short a time for the construction of the section in the mountains, but no one questions that the prairie section can be constructed within five years. As soon as construction is started, and it should be started as soon as possible, and the locality through which the line will go begins to settle up, there will be a clamour from the settlers for railway connection. If the company have the power to delay, there may be reasons why they may wish to delay. For the sake of getting some leverage, some power in matters affecting legislation, some further concessions, they may want to delay and it may perhaps necessitate the government doing something that it would not otherwise do. If we had power, as we have under the contract as originally agreed upon, but which it is proposed to amend, of calling for the completion of the line within reasonable time, as far as the prairie section is concerned, the reasonable time being five years, such delay might be avoided. I believe that the inclusion of the word ' strikes ' in this section may also be used to give the company some further power of delay if they desire to delay at any time. It has been said, and I think rightly said, that there is not much difference between this clause and the clause which is usually included in public contracts. The agreement now provides for the completion of the road within the time limit.
Unless prevented by the act of God, the King's enemies, internal disturbances, floods, strikes, or other causes beyond the control of the company.
I wish to point out that strikes, according to this Act of parliament, are beyond the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
power of the company. They can reduce wages, they can endeavour to force their employees! to deal at the truck stores, they can charge them fare on the line that is being constructed, they can pay them in time cheques only payable at some distant point, yet, under this Act it is declared that strikes are beyond the control of thet company. Strikes can only arise in consequence of some action on the part of the men. The construction company know very well that if they do certain things then1 action will result in the cessation of work, and if they want delay, not desiring to shut down, not wishing to have placed upon themselves the onus of having stopped construction work, they have simply to do certain things knowing that of course a cessation of work will follow. I am not complaining so much that the word ' strikes ' is going to be put in. It may have been left out by mistake, perhaps it was only an oversight, but it does seem that all the attention, in the matter of strikes, has been paid to the company and none to the men who are going to build the road. We have some light that we can refer to in the matter of the construction of a railway in an unknown or remote district. In 1897, a commission was appointed to inquire into the troubles that arose in connection with the .construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. That commission reported and the report cost a good many thousands of dollars. That report is available and it should receive our attention. It seems to me that when the request was made by the company for the insertion of this word ' strikes ' it would have been proper to have expected that some provision would have been made for the proper protection of the labour involved in the construction of this road. On the eastern section the construction will be under the control, as I understand it, of a commission. The commission may construct the road themselves or they may let the work to contractors. Then, it will be in the power of the commission to say what the regulations and conditions shall be that shall govern. Would it not have been reasonable to have asked, when they were putting in this word ' strikes ' that the same conditions and regulations that will be drawn up for governing the construction of the eastern section shall apply to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in the construction of the western section ? The hon. minister has not said whether this matter has been dealt with or considered. Such a provision as I suggest should have been included in the contract. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) seems to be already somewhat afraid that there will not be sufficient labour to construct this road.


William Findlay Maclean: It was the right hon. Prime Minister who spoke of that. But, the criticism is in order and I would like to hear it.



APK1L 28, 1904

Mr. PUTTEE.: I gathered that the hon. member for East York had some fears and 1 not only gathered that from his statement, but I sometimes read in a paper that is in the reading room sentiments to the same effect. In this connection I may say that as far as the work has proceeded on both the eastern and western sections of this line the circumstances have been such as to make some people fear that there will (be hardly any doubt as to the need of labour, because Canadian labour does not seem to be getting any show in the matter. There have been a, number of statements made and it seems to me that we are entitled to be informed as to whether they are true or not. As far as the surveyors and engineers are concerned the statement is made that during this last winter there has been more surveying' and engineering work done in Canada than in many years past and that it has nearly all been done by aliens. There is a line now being constructed in the northern part of the province of Ontario ; and probably: this matter has been brought to the attention of the hon. minister. In the contract which the commission having in charge the construction of this line have made with the contractors they have inserted a clause which it has been proposed should be inserted in this Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. I suppose this matter has been already brought to the attention of the hon. minister and that is not necessary for me to read this clause through. But, seeing the bad start that has been made ; seeing the causes of complaint we already have had, this clause 21 might very well be forced on the acceptance of the Grand Trunk Railway. Instead of making the contractor do so and so, we should make the Grand Trunk Railway Company do so and so.


William Findlay Maclean: What does that clause provide for, in a word ?


Arthur W. Puttee: It provides, that the material, &c., where practical shall be of Canadian manufacture, and that persons shall not be employed in contravention to the Alien Labour Act. Although we have an alien labour law, at the present time, it is held by the government that that law can only .be enforced by a private citizen, and therefore it would not be inconsistent at all to state in our own agreement, that no labour shall be employed in contravention of that Act; remembering always that the Minister of Labour has power to waive the enforcement of that Act in such case as he may think necessary.


Mr. POPE.: I would point out to the Prime Minister that a solemn promise was given by Sir. Hays in the Railway Committee of this House, long before he signed the original contract, that the work would be, undertaken simultaneously on the western and central sections. We also pressed 71
upon him the simultaneous commencement of the eastern section-that was before the government undertook to! build this section themselves-and even as to that, Mr. Hays promised that as soon as the surveys would be completed, he would push the work on the eastern section simultaneously with the other sections. Therefore, Mr. Hays had an opportunity of considering, even before he signed the first contract, whether he would undertake this construction within the time specified. I would point out that this contract reads very differently from any other contract made by the government. There is an unwritten understanding that if a contractor does everything that it is possible for him to do, he may depend upon the fair play and equity of the other contracting party, to look for necessary modifications. I'n this particular instance the equity of the case has not been taken into consideration by the contracting parties. Every argument advanced by the Prime Minister for the construction of this road, has been based on the ground of urgency, and it is not fair to that western country which awaits development, nor is it fair to the argument of the Prime Minister himself, that the time for the completion of this railway should be extended to eight years. I have visited the prairie section of the country, and I know that there is urgent demand for railway facilities. We recognized that last year when, in the hope of affording immediate relief, we granted extraordinary aid to the Canadian Northern Railway. I regret to say that that company has not done as much work during the last year as we had hoped they would do. We have settlers away up above Battleford and in the Barr colony, and further in the interior, who are anxiously expecting the advent of a railway, If we are going to give these corporations all the latitude they ask for, we cannot expect much equity from them ; we can only expect to get the cold letter of their contract. It may be in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific to build that road rapidly, but nevertheless, the report of the meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders shows, that they banked more or less on the .fact that, they will have eight years instead of fivei years in which to complete construction. If it be the case, as we were told Inst year, that we cannot alter a word or a line in this contract, it may be idle talk for us on this side of the House to point out the duty of that government, but be that as it may, it is incumbent upon us to emphasize the stipulations which should be introduced into that contract in the interests of the people of Canada. In all probability, eight years is not too long to allow for the completion of the mountain section, but it is undoubtedly a fact, that they should complete the prairie section within a shorter delay. The Canadian Northern Railway Company have got to the great lakes, and



222?
they have become a factor in the transportation problem of this country, and once the Grand Trunk Pacific gets to the lakes we know that it will have its effect in aiding the settlement and development of the west. The Grand Trunk Kailway are not handicapped in raising money as other private corporations have been handicapped, and as perhaps the Canadian Northern Company has been handicapped during the past year, and if this country has accepted responsibility for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the extent of three-quarters of the cost of the road, we could only have done so on the ground that the line would be rapidly completed. I urge upon the government that they should compel the Grand Trunk to construct this line from the great lakes to Edmonton within a period of five years.
I believe that is not asking too much of the government. I recognize, as well as the Prime Minister, that there is no object in asking a contractor to do more than he can possibly do ; you do not accomplish much by doing that : but we have financed this business for the company, and the only argument the Prime Minister can have for our assuming this extraordinary responsibility. is rapid construction. We are not requiring this road to be constructed through that portion of country as rapidly as the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed when the facilities for construction were not nearly so great as they are to-day. The plant of the contractor to-day is far superior to anything that could be obtained in those days. Today a contractor can do work very much cheaper, easier and faster than he could at that time. So that, taking everything into consideration, there is nothing that warrants us in allowing the Grand Trunk eight years time before it brings wheat down from the Northwest to the great lakes. The Minister of Justice says they will not take eight years. If they will not take that time, then they do not require it, and why should we give them the opportunity ? If they had three years in which to build the road from the Great Lakes to the prairie country, that is all the time they ought to have, since their finances are provided for. And that country requires the railway. If we are going to have the influx of population into that country that we all hope for, the amount of stuff that will come out three years from now will be far in excess of what it is to-day, and three years is long enough time to allow for the building of the railway if it is going to give relief to that country. We all recognize, as well as the Prime Minister, that it takes two men to make a bargain ; but at the same time the equity of a government qiust be taken into consideration. While the Prime Minister says that the letter which has been referred to was just as strong as it would have been if its language had been stronger, there is nothing in that letter to indicate to me that these gen-Mrf POPE.
tlemen made those eight years an absolute requirement for the construction of the road ; and I do not find anything in Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson's speech before his shareholders to indicate that the Grand Trunk people consider that they have not got from the government a first-class contract in every particular. If we are justified in contracting with them at all, I think we should give them a fair contract, and they should understand that we intend to use them fairly ; but we should not find ourselves in such a position that it will be eight years before the company shall be obliged to lay the iron and have the track completed and the road operated between Edmonton as a western point and the great lakes as an eastern point. I mention the great lakes because we are desirous of keeping the traffic inside of Canada rather than letting it go southward for any length of time.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. KEMP.: I understood the right hon. the First Minister to say that the British Columbia legislature had taken some action which would render it impossible for the Grand Trunk Pacific to build the prairie division before the mountain section.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend misunderstood. What I stated was that the British Columbia legislature had passed resolutions urging that the Grand Trunk Railway should be compelled to begin the work on the mountain section and the prairie section simultaneously.


Albert Edward Kemp: That was only an expression of opinion. There was nothing compulsory in it.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Mr. KEMP  .@: Therefore, we are perfectly free to change the agreement so as not to extend the time for the construction of the prairie division. Whatever difference of opinion there may be with regard to the whole scheme, all parties are agreed that it is absolutely necessary to furnish transportation facilities to the newly-settled parts of Manitoba and the Territories. It is not so important to British Columbia whether they get transportation facilities in the mountain section in five or seven years, and of very little importance whether railway facilities are provided beyond the Laurentian mountains in that time, but it is very important that transportation facilities should be furnished as soon as possible to the newly-settled districts of Manitoba and the Territories. Last year we heard hon. gentlemen opposite, who represent constituencies in the Northwest, urge that this new road was necessary because of the congested

condition of traffic. WilJ these lion, gentlemen submit tamely, and dumb as oysters, to the extension of time from five to seven years from next December for the completion of the prairie section ? I hope that the government will consent to have the agreement restored to what it was as regards the time for building the prairie section. I do not see any reason why the Grand Trunk Railway should object. We are told that it will be in their interest to complete the road as soon as possible. That may or may not be the case, but if so, why not put it in the agreement ?


Mr. BARKER.: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the question put by the hon. member for Marquette and the replies given by the Minister of Justice and the First Minister. As I understood the question put by my hon. friend from Marquette, it was this : Why has the time for the construction of the prairie section been extended to eight years ? And I have not heard from either the Minister of Justice or the First Minister any reply to that question, unless the statement made by the Minister of Justice may be considered a reply. But knowing that hon. gentleman as I do, I can hardly conceive that he made that statement seriously. The reason I understood him to give as that which induced the government to extend the time for the construction of the prairie section was its anxiety that there should be harmony in the provisions of this agreement. He was so anxious about the harmonious arrangement of the contract that he would not allow any difference to be made between the time limit for the construction of the prairie section and the mountain section. I can hardly doubt that the hon. gentleman laughed in his sleeve when advancing that as a serious answer. Why, the whole contract from beginning to end differentiates the conditions on which the mountain section and the prairie section are to be constructed. Take, for instance, the terms of the guarantee. There is one state of things provided in regard to the mountain section and an entirely different state as regards the prairie section. These two sections must of necessity be constructed independently. So far apart are they from each other in every respect that they might well be constructed by two distinct companies. It is absolutely essential that every dollar expended on the one section should be kept distinct from that spent on the other, so that we may know what the cost of each may be. Yet the hon. gentleman, so anxious is he that the whole western division should be one entire system without any possible distinction or difference between them, that he must insist even that the contract time limit for the two sections of that division shall be the same ! I cannot believe that the hon. gentleman was serious. Does his right hon. leader say that it was because of any regard for the harmonies of that beautiful contract that 711
he could not ask any difference in the conditions as regards the time for construction in each case ? No, the right hon. gentleman was actuated by other motives. To him it was a question of whether the company would be able to find labour. These hon. gentlemen do not seem to go upon the same ground. There seems to be uo common thought between them with regard to this most important contract. But does the right hon. gentleman mean to tell this House that the Grand Trunk Company asked eight years to construct the prairie section because they would not be able to get labour ? If that is what the right hon. gentleman wants this House to understand, I should like to know it. I think the people of the Northwest would like to know whether the First Minister advanced as a reason for allowing the company eight years in which to build that prairie section that they would not be able to get labour. But that is the only answer which the right hon. gentleman has given us. The Minister of Justice deals with the harmonies and the right hon. gentleman deals with the practical question of labour.
Now, what is the fact '< In the original agreement five years had been allowed the Grand Trunk Pacific in which to build the western division. I speak of it as the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We need not trouble to specify the Grand Trunk Pacific. They are the same. The Grand Trunk Railway Company asked the ministers for three additional years. I do not suppose that anybody in the House would have made any great complaint about allowing them eight years for the completion of the mountain section. But when the Grand Trunk Company asked the government to change the time limit of construction of the western division from five to eight years, did the government ask the Grand Trunk their reason for making that request 7 I presume hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches would not at once bow to such a request from the Grand Trunk Company. I presume the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues would ask the reason why the extension should be granted-any business man, under similar circumstances, would put such a question. And I have no doubt that the answer would have been : We cannot construct the mountain section in five years. And what would be the natural reply of the government to that 7 It would be : Well, take eight years for the mountain section, but it does not follow that you should have eight years for the prairie section ; we will grant the extension as to the mountain section, but we will leave the contract where it is as to the line over the prairies. Is .it not clear that is what hon. gentlemen would have done had they been considering the interest of the people who occupy the Northwest 7 But that is not what the Prime Minister

and Ills colleagues did. When this request for three more years was made, they bowed and submitted-that is all. I cannot understand what they were thinking of that they did not at once say : We will grant eight years for the mountain section, but, in the interest of the people in the Northwest, we cannot grant you such an extension for the prairie section. Why did the government grant this extension of time over the whole division ? That is a question asked by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) and, up to this time, we have had no answer, no possible excuse presented. Why, in contrast with the work done on some portions of tli? Canadian Pacific Railway this building of a railway across the prairie is mere child's play. You can construct a mile a day without trouble ; and'if there had been all the urgency that hon. gentlemen opposite imagined last year, even a mile a day would have been nothing to men who wanted to meet that urgency. But, so anxious were the government to make an agreement, they did not pause to consider, when tills request of the Grand Trunk was submitted, that it might be reasonable to grant it for one section of the division and not for the other. No, they gave the Grand Trunk Company what they asked without a moment's consideration. In giving his answer here, the Prime Minister has not pretended for a moment to give a reason for this extension of time as regards the prairie section. Every time he referred to the subject, he spoke of the western division-the whole 1,500 miles, 1,000 miles to be constructed over a tableland and 500 miles through the mountains. And they allowed the Grand Trunk to have thei same time for construction of the line across the table-land as for the other. British Columbia wants the mountain section built soon. But I have no doubt that they would be willing, as reasonable people, to grant eight years for the completion of that mountain work. But what about the people of the Northwest who, hon. gentlemen say are pressing for relief ? Why allow 'the company to keep them waiting for eight years ? Why grant this extension as to the mountain section without even a word being said in favour of more rapid construction of the prairie section? I think that is a very important question to be answered in this House to-night. It is important for this reason-and I desire to bring this particularly, to the attention of the right hon. gentleman, and of the country, and more particularly to the attention of the people of the Northwest-if the right hon. gentleman and his government had not interposed last year when the Grand Trunk proposed to build the line from the Pacific to North Bay, the work of construction on the prairie section would be going on at this moment ! But not a sod has been turned. There is no reason why the work of construction on the prairie sectiqn should not have been com-Mr. BARKER.
menced last August, and we could have had a good deal of that road in operation at this moment. But the right hon. gentleman saw the opportunity for a great political coup, which induced him to interfere with the project of the Grand Trunk. And, in consequence of that interference, the people of the Northwest are to-day just where they were a year ago as regards this most urgent and pressing matter. Now, Sir, 1 say that we are entitled to know from the right hon. gentleman, in definite and specific terms, whah it was that induced him to agree to the extension of the time for the construction, not as regards the western division, but as regards the prairie section of the western division. It was to that that the question of the hon. member tor Marquette was directed, and to that only. But, every time that the Prime Minister purported to answer tha,t question, he carefully avoided saying one word about the section ; it was always about the western division, as if it were impossible to distinguish between the two sections of that division. And yet, these two sections are distinctly and differ ently dealt with from beginning to end. Whien the right hon. gentleman entered into arrangements to give a specific and particular subsidy for the mountain section and another for the prairie section why should he not also have arranged as to the time of construction of these two sections V Surely they can be as easily distinguished on one point as on the other. But it never occurred to him ; that is quite apparent, and they quietly concurred in the request of the Grand Trunk. And so it has been from the beginning to the end of this supplemental agreement. Everything has been most cautiously and carefully stipulated for on behalf of the Grand Trunk-and cleverly stipulated, be it said to the great credit of the officers of that company-and not a word in the interests of the people. That is why the question asked by the hon. member for Marquette calls for an answer, and a specific answer by the Prime Minister. It is not merely that the prairie section has been delayed by the interposition of the government, by their interference with a private Bill introduced into this House by parties who were willing to undertake this great work, but we see not the slightest exertion on the) part of the government to advance the project that they themselves have fathered. What about this eastern division ?
The hon. the Minister of the Interior had to admit in his place in this House that it was to be regretted that we were not in possession of the plans and surveys. The Grand Trunk Railway, with their usual alertness, are not altogether without plans and surveys. They are to-day. and have been for months in the past year, surveying the very section through which the government are undertaking to construct a railway. They have been spending large sums of

money in surveying that section and tiie government have actually not turned a finger in promotion of what caused the right lion, gentleman such anxiety in July last. He has not given an order, he has not employed a surveyor or an engineer, nothing has been done. Everything that has been done has been done by the Grand Trunk, and according to the right hon. gentleman they are doing it at their own expense, they are doing the work of tire government of Canada and the right hon. gentleman would have us believe that there is no understanding whatever that they are going to be repaid for the expense. Well, we are bound to have a good deal of faith, parliamentary faith, but I do not believe that there is a man in this country who believes that there is no implied understanding-I do not say express understanding ; I can quite believe that there has not been a word between the right hon. gentleman and the general manager and second vice-president of the Grand Trunk on the subject-but I believe there is not a man from one end of Canada to the other who believes that there is not a perfect tacit understanding between them that every dollar expended by the Grand Trunk iu surveying the route over which the government has undertaken to construct a railway will be repaid to the Grand Trunk, and yet this House, which has to act on behalf of the people of Canada in deciding these questions, is to be deprived until too late for action of the information for Which the people's money will sooner or later pay. That is the position. I say that such questions as that put by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) should receive serious consideration from the government and a reply so explicit that hereafter there may be no misunderstanding about it. We want to know, on behalf of the people of Canada and especially on behalf of the people of the Northwest, on what ground the Grand Trunk Railway Company asked that the time for the completion of the prairie section should be extended to eight years, and on what ground the right hon. gentleman assented to that request.
SIR WILFRID CARRIER. After having listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. friend from Hamilton. I am convinced that I cannot satisfy him by anything I say or anything I do not say. When we were negotiating with the Grand Trunk Railway Company I had all the time before my eyes, I must admit, the power of obstruction that can be developed by the opposition. I must confess that, much as I knew of their powers of quibbling and pettifogging I was never within the mark ; I never realized that the powers of pettifogging and quibbling could be carried as far as they have just been carried by the hon. gentleman.


Samuel Barker: Does the right hon. gentleman mean that the observations I have made are pettifogging ?
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. I do.


Samuel Barker: You do ?
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. Yes.


Samuel Barker: I will not attempt to characterize the conduct of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) ; my remarks would not be within the rules of this House.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. It is quite possible that the observations of the hon. gentleman would not be parliamentary, but mine are : that is the difference between him and me, and I tell him the speech he has just made is mere quibbling and pettifogging and nothing else. The hon. gentleman would have us think of possible objections which no man of common sense, entering upon a bargain such as this, would ever think of. The hon. gentleman finds no fault because we extended the time given to the Grand Trunk Pacific for eight years in so far as the mountain section is concerned. The hon. gentleman admits that he and his friends would be willing to permit an extension of time for the mountain section, but he says : What about the prairie section ? Does he believe that we thought that all parts of the mountain section and of the prairie section would be completed at the same time ? We thought that some parts of the road would be built before the others, and that the prairie section would be built before the mountain section. The prairie section must be built first, and therefore if it was not improper of the Grand Trunk to ask an extension for eight years for the mountain section, it is quite possible that there is practically no extension for the prairie section. It goes without saying that the prairie section would be built first, and therefore there was no reason to limit the time for the completion of the prairie section. It went as a matter of course that the prairie section would be built first, and in regard to this I rely on the common sense of every man in this House. If this is not understood by every man, I call it nothing more than quibbling and pettifogging to question it. I have been told in this House again and again, that I am not a business man.


Rufus Henry Pope: Hear, hear.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. I do not pretend that I am, but when I hear the assertions of some of the men who pose as business men, when I see the assumptions put forward by some men posing as business men, why, Sir. I am surprised at my own modesty. When we made this contract we did not think of things except what a reasonable man would think of, and we never thought of what a quibbler and pettifogger would think of. Therefore. Sir, the hon. gentleman must understand that whilst we are prepared to give him every satisfac-' tion in reference to every reasonable objec-

tion anti to answer his reasonable questions, lie cannot expect that when he wants to obstruct under the name of discussing legal objections we shall answer his argument.


Mr. BENNETT.: The crossing from this side of the House to the opposite side and his installation as Prime Minister has brought out an attribute in the Premier which he was not known to possess, a temper. When the hon. gentleman was in opposition, no matter how hard the blows rained from ministerial benches on his followers, he never came to their rescue and he never attempted to castigate anybody. But, Sir, he has assumed a new role of late, and one can see he is rather smarting under the castigation he received from the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) last night. However, we have one thing from the First Minister, and that is that he disclaims being a business man, and I am sure the Minister of Justice will have to make a similar confession if no other reasons can be adduced for the extension of time for three years for the building of the prairie section. This section will be about 1,000 miles in length, and we were told in the committee room a year ago by Mr. Hays and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson that when this work was commenced it would be carried on and expedited in a way that would dazzle the people of Canada. The puny, pigmy efforts of the Canadian Pacific Railway were to be outclassed. Mr. Hays said they would bring to the building of the road that superior equipment of the Grand Trunk before which everything would have to wither and quail as grain before a cyclone.
And yet what is the admission to-night ?- that this powerful organization is unable to go into that country and attempt to perform what the Canadian Pacific Railway did some years ago. As pointed out by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) there have been two reasons assigned and they are as different and as far apart as the poles. The hon. Minister of Justice was a little more fertile in his resources and his imagination when lie put up his reasons. His reason, in the first place, was that it was not necessary to compel a man in law to do anything which he was bound to do and it was aptly suggested to the hon. gentleman that he had better tear up the agreement altogether. Does the hon. Minister of Justice expect that any common sense man will believe that they extended the time simply because they knew that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would not take advantage of it ? As to the reason given by the right hon. First Minister I can only say that while I do not pose as a railway expert at all, I have seen some works of railway constructed in this country and if the right hon. gentleman, some day in passing a work of railway construction, will deign to look at those who are performing the work he will find that they are not Canadians or Americans but Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
that they are Italians, Poles, and other foreigners of the same kind, and as his colleague the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) has been so kind as to import a great many Doukhobors, Galicians and other pet friends of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), there cannot be a doubt that there will be almost myriads of these foreigners in that country ready to perform that labour.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman should issue an epistle to the Galicians.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps the hoii. gentleman could issue an epistle to them interspersed with blanks. What is the difference between the conditions existing at the time the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed and those which will confront the Grand Trunk Pacific to-day in the work of constructioin ? When the Canadian Pacific Railway commenced their march westward from Winnipeg there was not a single railway track upon which they could carry one pound of their supplies. Their equipment had to follow up as the work of construction progressed. Here, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company commence with the advantage that for over half of the distance, for over 1,000 miles, their line runs almost parallel with the Canadian Northern system. They can take the magnificent equipment of the Grand Trunk Railway Company proper out of Ontario and the older iiro-vinces, they can take their locomotives and cars and run them over the Canadian Pacific Railway and after leaving Winnipeg they can proceed by either the Canadian Northern Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway with their equipment while the work of construction is going on. But, more than that and better than tliat, when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being constructed, the company were not in a position to forward one pound of the supplies beyond the end of their track. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have placed before the public a certain map outlining a certain route which they propose to follow. Look at the superior position, that vantage ground they have to-day. If the right hon. First Minister will only look at the ordinary printed folder of the Canadian Pacific Railway he will see the superior advantages that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are to have. First and foremost they can reach Winnipeg by 'the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Pacific Railway and start their work at a dozen different points on a line paralleled by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Nay. more than that, they can go on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway as far as Regina and then take the line between Regina and Prince Albert, they can start and work from there eastward and in that way meet their line which is building from the east to the west. But, not only have they the advantage of being able to send

their equipment from Winnipeg out to a point north of Regina and then working from Regina towards Winnipeg and both working to the centre, as it were, but they have this further advantage that they can go as far as Calgary with their construction trains, then go north to Edmonton and start working from Edmonton westward. Here is a railway which has the Grand Trunk Railway Company behind it, and the company have an advantage in the matter of construction in that way. In to-day's ' Globe ' there is an interview with Mr. Wm. Mackenzie, of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and Mr. Mackenzie, interviewed at Winnipeg, makes the statement that the Canadian Northern Railway Company are going to build no less than 600 miles of road this season-no less than GOO miles in a single season. Yet, the right lion. Prime Minister is tacitly admitting that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company cannot do the work at a quicker rate than 300 miles per year. This little effort of the Canadian Northern Railway Company of 600 miles a year is a greater undertaking, than, apparently, the government imagine this company can accomplish. Look at the superior advantages they will have compared with those which the Canadian Pacific Railway bad. The country north of Edmonton is being opened up. It is a timber country ; it abounds with spruce. Bringing in the ties was one of the greatest difficulties that the Canadian Pacific Railway had to contend with in the construction of their road, because, I think that most of the ties were taken from a point east of Winnipeg or in that direction. The Grand Trunk Pacific can take their ties from Edmonton. They can be floated down the river and taken in to the different points where this line of railway will be under construction. The fact of the matter is that the government hope to temporize with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and they do not want to force them to do what the country expects. During the course of this debate, as also during the debate of last year, it was openly asserted that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company expected for many years to come, not to have to construct the line on the north shore of lake Superior and that it was not the intention to require the Grand Trunk Pacific for many years to even construct the line to the head of lake Superior. It was asserted that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company could build their line westward from Winnipeg and then from Winnipeg they could extend their line to Emerson and by making connection with American lines they could send their grain out by way of Duluth. More than that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will be in this position that they need not keep on extending their main line in a westerly direction but that instead of going in a westerly direction they can build their brarieh lines and use their capital for extending their laterals north and south of their main line. This is a matter of some local interest to the constituency which I represent. We have been told that this railway is going to be a great benefit to the province of Ontario. We have been told that all these towns, Midland, Collingwood, Goderich and the rest of them are to reap certain advantages. If we are to reap them, let us have them at the earliest period possible. Let us force this company to build this line with the least possible delay and bring their grain down at once whether they bring it to Duluth or a point on the head of Lake Superior. It is rather amusing to see these hon. gentlemen from the Northwest on the government side of the House who have been crying out for the last six or seven years for railway accommodation are the very first to throw a wet blanket over the proposition that this railway should be forced through to Edmonton in the quickest time possible. Edmonton is the end of the prairie section. We have had this afternoon the experiences of hon. gentlemen who lived in the province of Manitoba during the period of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and we have had the statement from them that the Canadian Pacific Railway with all its disadvantages and drawbacks was built at the rate of one mile a day and even faster. I have been informed that prairie railways can be built at the rate of from three to five miles a day. Superior appliances are to be had now. Whereas in years gone by track laying was done by hand there is machinery now for that purpose and there cannot be a doubt that this railway can be forced through, not in five or eight years, but that the work can be done even in from two to three years. And yet, the government, for reasons, best known to themselves, are interposing conditions between the settlers of the Northwest and the construction of this railway which will retard its; completion for several years. The people of the west now see that men like my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) and from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) are their real champions, and not the Liberal members from the Northwest who support whatever the Prime Minister may propose.


Rufus Henry Pope: I regret that the Prime Minister has lost that control over himself that he usually possesses : I regret that the right hon. gentleman did not rise in that dignified manner which becomes the Prime Minister of a nation which he created in a night. Indeed, Sir, I regret that he did oeate this Canadian nation so rapidly, because he might better have taken a little more time, and pared off some of the defects which he and the government are responsible for, and which the people of Canada have reason to deplore. The right hon. gentleman has described the arguments used by hon. members on this side, as pettifogging. That term may be parlia-

u.entary, but it is not polite, and it does not carry with it much conviction. The contract made last session and torn up, and the contract made this session and whicu may be torn up again, are enough to indicate to the people of Canada just exactly where they may seek pettifoggers, if they want to find them. I would ask the right hon. gentleman-not that 1 expect him +o answer-have we not a right on this side of' the House to be inquisitive, in view of the broken promises and pledges anent this contract with the Grand Trunk Railway, which have been made by himself and his colleagues. If the Prime Minister's argument was not pettifogging, it ought to be as good this year as it was last year. He told us last year, that we could not afford to wait: that he had no patience with the man who .would say : ,to-morrow, and tomorrow ; but we have waited for several to morrows, and we are still waiting, and e\ en though I should run the risk of incurring Itliie anger of the Prime i'MJinister, I tell him, that acting in the interests of the people of Canada, I will fight against this contract just as long as I can. If the right hon. gentleman thinks that by calling us pettifoggers or demagogues or any other ' gogs.' he will scare us from our defence of the public interests, he is making a mighty big mistake. Under our constitution, one man is selected to be the B'irst Minister of the government of the day, but even though he holds that high and honourable position, he must remember that he never ceases to be a common member of parliament. just the same as, the rest of us. He can dictate to his own followers and he can make them do as he pleases, but he has no right to dictate to the free and independent members on this side of the House ; and the sooner he learns that the better. In the speech delivered by Sir Rivers-Wilson, we find the following statement:
As a result, however, of negotiations with the government another Bill was introduced by the government itself for insuring the construction of the contemplated line from New Brunswick to the Pacific in joint partnership between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
I have already stated that such a partnership was an immoral partnership. We have a partnership here between the government of Canada and a private corporation, both being jointly and severally interested, and how can we expect the government to make an independent bargain in the interests of the people of Canada, with their co-partners the Grand Trunk Railway Company ? The moment that that partnership was signed, no longer was there an independent government, and no longer was the government able to protect the rights of the people. The immorality of that partnership will be demonstrated time and time again, and If I mistake not the courts of tlie country will furnish us with plenty of Mr. POPE.
evidence in the days to come, of the immorality of that partnership between the government of Canada and the Grand Tiunk Railway Company, which has only a mercantile sordid interest in the transaction. We need not expect to find patriotism in the Grand Trunk Company ; they are after the almighty dollar. The right lien, gentleman has linked himself with a corporation that has only the one desire, namely to make money, to make it fast, and to make all they can out of Canada. Wlierv is the Minister of Railways and Canals to defend this contract ? Day In and day out, he has sat in his seat, engaging the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister and a few others to defend a measure which belongs to his department, and he is no more use than


An hon. MEMBER.: Last year's bird's nest.


Rufus Henry Pope: Yes, thank you for the word. There never was such a spectacle before in a parliament, and there never will he such a spectacle again. Mocked at by his own party, mocked at by the people of the country, mocked at by the press of the country, ridiculed and snuffed at out of sight, there never was such a spectacle and I trust there never will be again. The Minister of Railways and Canals has at his command engineers of great experience, numbers of men operating a railway, and he ought to he able to bring to bear the great experience of his department to explain this contract, but he is silent as the grave.
Notwithstanding the pettifogging argument of the hon. member for Hamilton, I am going to venture, even iff the presence of that august gentleman who sits as the Prime Minister of-Canada, to say that the contract is weak in permitting the company to take eight years in the work of construction. But the right hon. gentleman says they are not going to take eight years. If not. why not put that in the contract ? The people of Canada would then feel that the right hon. gentleman and his government were more keenly alive to the public interests. The whole product of the prairie country does not go eastward ; a great deal of it goes westward ; and even to pierce the mountains eight years is a long time. The products of the prairie country that go to the Pacific coast are increasing every year. The people of the section around Edmonton are importers of wheat, as they grow less thau they consume. They have great oatmeal mills, the product of which goes to the Pacific, and from there to different parts of the world. We have been for years urging on this government the speedy development of that country by the construction of railways ; and the necessity of doing something never seemed to dawn on their minds until the hour arrived when some man could not wait, whose name was mentioned

to us last year by tlie ex-Minister of Railways and Canals on the occasion of his retirement. As the right lion, gentleman knows, the surveys through that country were made by the government In days gone by, and those surveys will now become the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, so that the construction of the railway could go on there without delay. I believe that we are making an honest plea in the best interests of the prairie section. I have no doubt that the hon. gentlemen who come here from that country will say : We have confidence that the company will build it earlier.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Certainly.


Rufus Henry Pope: If the hon. gentleman were making a contract with me for a work that I could do in three years, would he make the time eight years? Not at all. He would say: If you can do it in three years, let the contract say three years. The people of Canada are paying a high price for this road by guaranteeing three-fourths of the cost in order that we may have that rapid construction ; and when they do that, they have as much right to have terms written as the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. But in this contract you will find no clause written in the interest of the people of Canada. Every clause is written in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Thomas Walter Scott: They cannot reap any benefit until they begin hauling traffic from the prairies to the lakes.


Rufus Henry Pope: It is not going to take you eight years to build to the lakes. How long were Mackenzie & Mann in building from Winnipeg to the lakes ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: They are building yet.


Rufus Henry Pope: How long were they building ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: About four years.


Rufus Henry Pope: That is not absolutely correct. The hon. gentleman is now proving my case. Making allowance for statements made by lion, gentlemen opposite, it was probably two years or two and a-half years at the outside. That is the way we have to discount statements made by these hon. gentlemen. The company could carry on the work of construction all along the line as far west as Edmonton. The supplies could be carried in by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Does the hon. gentleman know how much the Canadian Pacific Railway charged the Canadian Northern Company for carrying one locomotive to Edmonton ? About what the locomotive was worth.


Rufus Henry Pope: Yes, and I will guarantee that the Canadian Pacific Railway will make a contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry in supplies at as low a rate as they would for me. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company intend to make money out of this railway, and they are not fools. They will take the opportunity of carrying then-freight, and make money out of it. There is no comparison between the conditions under which the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway were built. If you consult Mr. Hays or Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, or any other man connected with the Grand Trunk, you will find that they estimate that the opportunity for speedy construction in that country is to-day far better than it ever was.


Thomas Walter Scott: Certainly.


Rufus Henry Pope: Then, why not put in one clause for the people of Canada ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Why not pass the Bill, and let them go to work ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: You stopped them for two years.


Rufus Henry Pope: Why, the contract was only introduced last July, and it went into force, so far as this House was concerned, in October. Under these circumstances, how can the hon. gentleman say-, when the government found they had to amend the contract, and when they went into this immoral partnership, that we kept back the work for two years ? That is just about as true as the hon. gentleman's statement that it took four years to build the Canadian Northern road from Winnipeg to the great lakes. That is about the style of argument put up by these hon. gentlemen. What has become of those gentlemen who were clamouring for speedy development of that country some y-ears ago. and appealing for additional railway facilities ? They are to-day as silent as the tomb. Not one word of protest dare they utter against this proposition to retard the construction of this prairie section three years longer than the time provided in the original contract. So thoroughly whipped into line have they been, that, far from being pettifoggers, they dare not call their souls their own. Sir, what would have become of that country had it not been for the Conservative party ? We cannot find a railway existing in the Northwest, except the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, which was not promoted by a Conservative administration.


Thomas Walter Scott: What about the Canadian Northern ? That was not heard of in the time of the late government.


Rufus Henry Pope: The Canadian Northern never built a mile in the Territories until this year, and then it received the unanimous support of this side of the House. There has not been a spike driven in any railway in the Territories which has not had the faithful support of hon. gentlemen on this side, whether they were the governing body-or in opposition. When hon. gentlemen opposite are not in a position to make any- such claim, they take credit for railway construc-I tion and development in that great western

world. We know their past history. We know the past history of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House. We know the position that he took in former days on railway construction in that country, and we have the admission to-day by any number of Liberals in the country and by some hon. gentlemen on the government benches that the Liberal party then followed a mistaken policy. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to show any independence and any desire to benefit their country, let them give us some evidence of it on this clause of the contract. I have no doubt that the First Minister acted in the best of faith, but the moment we confirm this supplemental agreement, we are enabling the Grand Trunk Railway to hold back the railway development of the Northwest. Even five years is too long a time to take to build that prairie section. That railway should be built from the great lakes to Edmouton in three yekr's time at the very furthest. Why not put a condition to that effect in the contract? The right hon. the Prime Minister himself gave us last session to understand that there was danger ahead if we did not have speedy construction of this road. He said that no one could tell what the morrow might bring forward, and it was on his personal pledge to this House that we would have a speedy construction of this railway, that his followers agreed to accept the contract. But now he is having the time limit extended three years, and we on this side ask him to consider the solemn promise he made last year, and compel this corporation to construct that prairie section within reasonable time, say. three or four years. But when we urge this view upon the right hon. gentleman, instead of attempting to argue, he charges us with being pettifoggers. How dare hon. gentlemen on the other side, he exclaims, so far forget themselves as to talk pettifogging nonsense in the presence of myself, the Prime Minister ?
The right hon. gentleman has laid great stress on the prospect that the people in the east will be well repaid in the shape of cheap freight rates on the manufactured goods they send to the west. Well, does not the right hon. gentleman see that that plea turns against himself ? Undoubtedly there is no time in the history of the settler when he so much requires cheap goods as when he has started in a new country, with but little money and has to meet all the conditions which make success difficult. But here we have the right hon. gentleman retarding by three years that desired period, when the completion of tills projected railway across the prairies will give cheaper rates of freight.
Then take the North Bay section. We have no promise from the government when the eastern section is going to begin. We have no promise from the government that they are going to push through that section Mr. POPE.
at an early date. From North Bay to Winnipeg will be an important feeder for the Brand Trunk Railway. It has been stated over and over again that the Grand Trunk Railway cannot utilize the prairie section until they get to North Bay so as to make connection with their eastern lines. Consequently the construction of the line to North Bay is essential to the west as well as to the east ; yet we have no information as to when that will be begun.
I notice that in the speech made last year by the right hon. gentleman he took pains to refer to the amendment which he proposed when the Bill to incorporate the Canadian Pacific Railway was before the House. At that time he said
Iu the opinion of this House, additional surveys are requisite in order to come to a sound decision for the short line railway, and it would be premature to adopt any line before further surveys have been made.
If that argument was good then, it is good to-day. The right hon. gentleman shakes his head.


Wilfrid Laurier: The conditions are not parallel at all.


Rufus Henry Pope: In what particular ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The project then was to build a short line through the state of Maine.


Rufus Henry Pope: And the right hon. gentleman wanted surveys.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before going through a foreign country.


Rufus Henry Pope: Why, the hills and mountains and dales were made by nature, and they are just the same whether they happen to be in the state of Maine or the province of New Brunswick. That section of road through the state of Maine was a rough section just as is the section through the maritime provinces. When you leave Quebec and run north, you have a difficult country suih as was described by that missionary some 250 years ago. He took a diagonal course in his journey. He started from Saguenay and went to Lake St. John, where he wintered and from Lake St. John he went to James Bay. That is not the route to be traversed, it is a route to be crossed, somewhat diagonally, by the road coming up from Quebec. If you take a description of that journey as read here the other night, you will see that the traveller refers to a mountainous region with waterfalls, and he tells of the difficulties he encounters in making progress. If that is the section to be gone through, I say there cannot be haste, if we are to observe the principle of the resolution of the right hon. gentleman of some years ago. And this country is in Canada ; it is not under the American flag ; and consequently it has not been interfered with since the missionary was there two

hundred and fifty years ago. Traversing that section of the country we find ourselves making our way to a point opposite North Bay, where the Grand Trunk Company intend to build a branch from the government road to North Bay. Then you travel on to Winnipeg. We know the difficulties that the Canadian Pacific Railway encountered between North Bay and Winnipeg. And nobody has any information today-if there is any information it ought to be on that table ; it has no right to be anywhere else when this question is being discussed-that would warrant the assertion that this road from North Bay to Winnipeg can be constructed for one dollar less than it cost to build the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Winnipeg. There may be greater difficulties even-we do not know. Under these conditions, it is important that the government should say to us when they are going to begin this eastern section ; when they are going to begin the construction from North Bay to Winnipeg, in order to give the Grand Trunk connection with their line in the east; and when they are going to begin the construction from North Bay to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton. But the right bon. gentleman says we are pettifoggers. Why are we pettifoggers ? We are asking for the same information that he asked for in this resolution, information that he said he ought to have even before a route was selected, to say nothing of making a promise to build a road. But before parliament might even vote that money should be spent in a country similar to this-except that part of it was in the United States-he demanded that a survey should be made. And, forsooth, though he made that statement eighteen years! ago and quoted it in his speech last year, and because we to-day hesitate to vote $175,000,000 of the people's money to build through a region that has never, been surveyed, he says we are pettifoggers. The hon. gentleman refers us to his so-called ' mountains of information.' He refers us to the book of the old missionary of two hundred and fifty years ago. And when we read that book, every line of it condemns, as the hon. gentleman's own resolution condemns, the action of this government in deciding to spend $175,000,000 of the people's money without securing further information.


Mr. LANCASTER.: At the risk of being called a pettifogger and quibbler and other nice names by the Prime Minister of this country-names that go down in our records and will stand as examples to future generations of the parliamentary language used by the Prime Minister of our country at this time-I am going to ask a few questions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who are jointly in charge of this Bill before the House. It may be that by asking them in a more humble way and
with less force than was thought necessary by my respected colleague and friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) I may get back to the sunny ways that were supposed to characterize us in this House, when that expression was used to describe the hon. gentleman who was not then Prime Minister, but was hoping to be. And, from these sunny ways, we may get some sunshine thrown upon the darkness of this contract, so that the ordinary people of Canada may understand it.
I do not know exactly what a pettifogger or a quibbler is. We do not grow such things among the peach trees and grape vines of the county of Lincoln. But I imagine, from the expression on the face of the Prime Minister when using the words, that they are not very nice things. The Prime Minister looked as if he thought he was saying something nasty and something offensive. I am going to try and get along without saying anything that will bring that expression to his face when answering me. One question that I would like to have answered is the question! put by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche), the question that we have been trying to get an answer to all afternoon-why, when the mountain section is differentiated from the prairie section in regard to the subsidies and the guarantee, it is to be counted as pettifogging and quibbling when we desire to know why they cannot be differentiated as to time of construction ? Now, I desire to point out one or two things in this contract to the Prime Minister-who may not have read the contract ; I do not know whether he has read it or not. In section 15 of the contract, which is just before the signature, it is agreed :-
This agreement shall be submitted to and be subject to ratification by the parliament ot Canada.
We are in the parliament of Canada now and we are asked to ratify this contract. We must ratify it before it can become effective even though it has been signed by the Minister of Railways and Canals-who appears to have been afraid of it ever since. The first thing in this agreement is that the time of construction is to be extended. The original contract is being amended in this respect, and we must read the original contract before we can understand this provision. Section 4 of the contract deals with the western section. It will not take me very long to read it, and I think I must read it to the Prime Minister to show him what it is he is calling pettifogging and quibbling. This section) provides :-
4. The said western division is further, for convenient reference, considered as being divided into sections, one extending from the eastern terminus thereof westerly to the eastern limit of the Rocky mountains (herein designated as the ' prairie section '), and the other extending westerly from the said eastern limit of the Rocky mountains to the western

224S
terminus of the said division (herein designated as the ' mountain section '). The said eastern limit of the Rocky mountains shall be established after the location of the line, and after actual surveys have determined the profile thereof upon such location, and shall be fixed and agreed upon by the chief engineer of the company and the chief engineer of the government as the result of such surveys, having regard to the physical features of the country, and to the cost of construction, and endeavouring as fairly as possible to determine where the more easy and less expensive work characteristic of prairie construction comes to an end, and the more difficult and expensive work characteristic of mountain construction begins, and, in case the said engineers shall differ, the question shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen by them, in the event of their inability to agree on a third arbitrator, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada may appoint the said third arbitrator, and the decision of the majority shall be final. .
Special provision is made in order to determine where the prairie section begins and where the mountain section ends. Is it pettifogging and quibbling for these gentlemen to go to all this trouble to make a distinction between the mountain section and the prairie section ? And are we properly to be called pettifoggers and quibblers because we ask why no distinction is made between these two sections in respect of the time of construction 7 When we say that the part which costs less than the other should be built earlier than the more expensive part 7 The Prime Minister talks about common sense. That is a word that I am not so unfamiliar with as with 'pettifogging' and ' quibbling.'	[DOT]
I have heard the words * common sense ' used once or twice in this House, and the Prime Minister found no common sense in the question of the hon. member for Hamil-tcn (Mr. Barker). I can tell the Prime Minister that the people of the county of Lincoln, and people who used to support the Prime Minister, are asking me this question every time they can catch me, and asking why we cannot induce the government to change the contract so that the gi eat wheat fields of the west can be tapped earlier than the mountain section. If we are pettifogging and quibbling and not talking common sense, the people of Canada, whom we represent, are quibbling an# pettifogging and not talking common sense to the members who represent them in this House. The whole people of Canada are asking that question and expect the members of the Dominion parliament where the contract is being sought to be perfected, to induce the government to give some satisfactory reason, if any exists, for not making this stipulation. What was the answer of the Minister of Justice, for instance, to the reasons advanced why this distinction should be made, and an earlier time fixed for the constructon of the prairie section than of the mountain section, instead of Mr. LANCASTER.
treating it all as one section ? He said that different clauses of the contract would not harmonize. He also said the company could be depended upon to commence operations as soon as possible, that the business was there waiting for them, I do not suppose any one would have been justified in accusing the Minister of Justice of quibbling and pettifogging in giving these answers, but I must say they are not such answers as should have been given to members on this side, and it will be inferred by the people of this country that the reason he gave them was that there was no better answer to give. This matter was not thought of in making the contract, it never entered the mind of the government until the members of the opposition asked a question, but instead of being frank enough to stand up and say : that never occurred tr us, we will do our best, although we have signed the contract, and have really no power over the Grand Trunk left, to get them to build the prairie section first and thus accomplish, in a roundabout way, what we could have accomplished in a direct way, if we had thought of it in time. The Minister of Justice has suggested that they can be depended upon to build the prairie section first, and as to the quality of the road, they know very well what the contract means and so it does not matter to us. For instance when w e are told that the contract calls for a road of equal quality with the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto, the Minister of Justice, being asked what sort of road that would mean, answered that the Grand Trunk knew what the contract meant in that respect, he was not a railway builder, and did not know. Now, that is not pettifogging or quibbling, I do not say it is, but it is not answering the question in such a way as to satisfy the people of this country, whom we represent. That is not an answer that will clear up the anxiety of the people. It would have been more fair if the Prime Minister had turned to the Minister of Justice and said : if you go on answering in that way, I shall have to accuse you of pettifogging and quibbling. The Prime Minister knows well that the Northwestern members insist upon clauses of the most stringent character being inserted in every Bill for the construction of railways through the prairies providing for the immediate building of the lines authorized. Everything must be done at once in the prairie section. Hon. gentlemen from the prairie section on both sides of this House, have joined hands in this demand, but why is it that the Liberal mem bers from the west are not supporting their colleagues on this side^ of the House in urging the government'T'or a more speedy construction of this prairie section. Is it because they have been called pettifoggers and quibblers, or accused of not talking common sense ? Or is it because they do

not like the expression on the premier's face when such a question is asked and is that why his majority was cut to 19 the other day ? The people of Canada want some other answer than that. Those reformers who. voted for me at the last election and who are going to vote for me at the next election, because they believe that the government has not lived up to their pledges, will want some other answer. They know that the government have broken all their pledges, but they have thought they had still the sunny ways to fall back upon. They do not want me to tell them that the premier is always angry and will not answer the questions of the opposition without flying into a passion. I want to be able to tell them that no matter to what party the premier belongs he is still a Canadian, and a courteous man, and one who will not call the members names. I wish to call attention to a matter referred to by the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), which was received in utter silence and was apparently considered altogether below the notice of this government. The member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) pointed out the effect of the position of the word ' strikes ' in the first section of the contract. I do not wish to repeat what the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) said, but I wish to reiterate his idea, because it seems that he was not able to speak loudly enough to attract the attention of the Prime Minister to his case or else his subject was not of sufficient importance to this country to receive any notice or even to obtain a scolding for the hon. gentleman for having raised it. He pointed out that the insertion of the word ' strikes ' in this contract might have the effect of giving the Grand Trunk a very easy excuse for breaking the contract.
They can treat their labourers employed upon the construction of the road in such a way as to bring on a strike. They can treat them in such a way that no labourers, no matter how good natured they might be, could endure it, with the result that a strike would be brought about, and in that way they could break the contract with impunity. There is no provision in this contract by which any tribunal shall decide whether a strike which may occur is a bona fide strike or the fault of the company or not. There is no provision made by the government should anything happen, to protect them against the necessity of submitting to any conditions which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company choose to impose. They can say : We have a strike, as a result of which this contract is at an end ; we are under no penalty, and you cannot do anything to us. That is a matter which ought to have been considered. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Sir. Puttee), representing, perhaps, in a little more special degree than the rest of us, the labour interests
1 of this country, was certainly within his rights in drawing the attention of the gov-eminent to that matter, and I think the government ought to have given some answer in | regard to it. He also mentioned the fact that i alien labour might be brought in if a strike did take place ; yet the government have not answered that point at all. I wish to point cut that when it suits the right hon. Prime Minister to use the labour question to show how certain clauses of this contract were adopted, for instance, he stated that the scarcity of labour was the justification for something that had been put into this contract, he uses it. The labour question is used by the right hon. Prime Minister where it suits him to justify some unreasonable clause in this contract, but when the question is raised for the purpose of protecting the labourers of this country, and not allowing the question to be used as a foot-ball to allow a big corporation to break its contract with the government, no attempt is made to explain how it is that the omission referred to by the hon. gentleman who has raised this question was permitted to occur, and no attempt is made to show that the suggestion offered by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House is not for the best. The right hon. Prime Minister has also had pointed out to t iin that there is no comparison between the ability of the Grand Trunk Pacific to construct this road and the ability of the Canadian Pacific Railway to construct their road.
L myself desire to say that I know not much about the western country except what I have learned by hearing hon. members of this House describing it, but I can well understand that there can be no comparison as to the ability of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to construct their line more quickly than the Canadian Pacific Railway were enabled to construct their line, which was built twenty-odd years ago. TV hy is that ? The Canadian Pacific Railway not only have a large trunk line through that country, but we know that they have almost innumerable branch lines running across the country, which are able to carry everything that is required for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific to within perhaps a few miles of any point on the prairie section of the new road. Now, what is the effect of that ? The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company can be building their line in twenty different places on the prairie. They can have twenty construction gangs working at the same time. They Can build ten miles at a stretch and couple them together in a day or two. The Canadian Pacific Railway bad to make their own trail and stick to it. There was no railway at that time on which to carry anything required for the construction, except their own railway as it was built, and they were obliged to build only in one place at a time, gradually crawling forward and increasing the mileage of their line, 'on which they carried all the materials necessary for the construction. But the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to-

day have the benefit of the Canadian Pacific Railway main line and of all their branch lines to carry everything necessary for the construction of the road, and they can construct it in ten, fifteen or twenty-mile sections. Therefore, there is every reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should be bound to build at once on tha prairie section, instead of making the construction of that section contemporaneous with the building of the mountain section. At the risk of being called names and of making the right hon. Prime Minister angry, we have to ask ourselves why this matter was not attended to. We have to explain to the people of this country why it has not been attended to. If we do not get an answer from the right hon. Prime Minister when we ask for information, we are justified in inferring that there was some reason which the right hon. gentleman does not desire to give. As we cannot find out by a direct question what the people ought to know, in the absence of that answer we are justified in assuming that this arrangement was due to the incompetency or indifference of the government. I do not know what the reason may be, but I am inclined to think that it was due to their carelessness or their disregard of the people's rights, the right hon. Prime Minister not troubling himself as to whether he was making a good bargain or not, but simply desiring to have a railway constructed so that he may be in a position to bring on the elections. The voters who go to the polls in the elections will vote to suit themselves. They want to know what is the best to do for themselves. They want a railway constructed into the Northwest Territories, but they want it constructed in a reasonable way. They want a contract made with some reasonable idea of protecting their interests in the ordinary way, in the same way that they themselves will think of doing. When the request was made to have this clause amended so that the time would be extended, the right hon. Prime Minister no doubt said : I will not say that I will divide it into two sections for the purpose of construction, although I will divide it into two sections for the purpose of paying the money upon it, because of the fact that I may be accused of pettifogging and quibbling if I do so. When this request was made to him, he might have been expected to have said : When you ask for this extension on both sections, what are you prepared to give for it 1 What is the consideration you will give in return for our allowing you three years more time to build the prairie and mountain sections together, and to give you, to that extent, a better contract than you have at the present time with the people of the Dominion ? One would have thought that he would have considered the question in that light. I do not know whether he did so or not. I would like to know if the right hon. gentleman would be kind enough to tell us whether he did so or not ? If he will not, we cannot help our-Mr. LANCASTER.
selves. I would have thought that he would have said : Seeing that you want so many advantages and that you want three years more to construct this railway, particularly the prairie section, we have to fight a general election some time within three years or less, and I think, Mr. Hays, that you should allow me an opportunity of going to the people and finding out whether they want this contract or not. You should give me three years to do that, instead of asking me to give you three years' extra time in which to construct this railway. If the right hon. gentleman assumes that he is going to be premier always, and that the people cannot do anything to prevent him from being premier, we can understand why he did not think he ought to ask Mr. Hays to give him an opportunity of ascertaining whether the people wanted this contract or not; but this we can assume, that the people really do own Canada, and that the voters are really the people who have the right to say whether they shall have this contract or not. Now that the right hon. gentleman's attention has been drawn to the matter, it may not be too late yet, because this contract has not been ratified. It is subject to the ratification of parliament. I would suggest that the right hon. gentleman should send a cablegram, or write a letter, to the Grand Trunk Railway people explaining the circumstances under which he is placed, stating that the hon. gentlemen of the opposition have been asking questions which he is unable to answer, and asking for further time in which to consider this contract.
Why should not the government beseech the Grand Trunk Railway to help them out of the difficulty ; why should they not go to the Grand Trunk and say : we are not able to answer a question about even the first clause of the contract, give us a couple ' of years to reconstruct our cabinet, and find a Minister of Railways who will defend the contract, and then we can appeal to the people and find whether they want this contract or not. After all, it is not the Prime Minister who has to pay the shot; it is the taxpayers of this good Dominion of Canada who will have to put up the money to meet all the responsibilities assumed by us under this contract. I hope that the Prime Minister will not call me the hard names he called the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), but even at that risk I would point out to him with all due deference, that seeing that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has discarded last year's contract, the people of Canada, the other partners to the contract. should have an opportunity of saying whether they will endorse it or not. Under all these circumstances, we should have some more light thrown on this contract by the ministers.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) made a very strong statement when he declared, that there was a tacit understanding between the Grand

Trunk Railway Company and the government with respect to the surveys east ot Winnipeg. There was a question asked in the House some days ago about this matter, and I say that the answer given by the government is not in accord with the statement now made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker). If the Grand Trunk Railway are making surveys east of Winnipeg, probably with a view of building their branch lines to Port Arthur and North Bay, these surveys will be made for their own purpose of getting the most convenient route from the transcontinental railway to these two points. Why should the government pay for these surveys ? This is a very important feature of this whole transaction. If the line is to be built from Winnipeg tb Quebec and Moncton, the government should see to it that the Grand Trunk surveys for their branch lines should in no way be such, as might effect the grades or curvatures on the main line. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to reply to that statement of the hon. member for Hamilton.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to answer the statement at the proper time, but I would ask my hon. friend, if this question has any relevancy to the clause under discussion ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I believe it has great relevancy and great concern for the people of Canada. It is a simple question, and it can be easily answered if the right hon. gentleman wants to expedite business. If the government does intend to pay the Grand Trunk Railway for surveys they are making the right lion, gentleman can say ' yes.' and if not, he can say ' no.'


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say ' yes ' or ' no.' I do not know if the surveys will prove to be useful and if they are useful I suppose there would be no reason why they should not be paid for, but if they turn out to be absolutely useless, I do not see yvhy we should pay for them. I may say that at the present time there is no understanding whatever with regard to these surveys.


Andrew B. Ingram: We should have from the government a plain statement of what they propose to do, and what they do not propose to do. Like the Prime Minister, I wish to be a little modest about my business ability, but it does occur to me that the businesslike way would be for the government to take charge of the surveys from Winnipeg to Moncton. The Minister of Justice told us to-night that all railway companies were selfish, and that being so their selfishness would lead them to make the surveys in their own interests, and not in the interests of the people of Canada. We should guard against that. I may not be very long in parliament, and other gentlemen may not be long in parliament, but I
am immodest enough to predict, that if the government ever does build this line from Winnipeg to Moncton, so far as the operation. of it goes, the Grand Trunk Railway will be more exercised about getting the freight from Winnipeg to Port Arthur or North Bay, than in bringing it east to Quebec.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I trust that gentlemen will confine the discussion to the question before the chair, which is, the propriety of extending the time for the construction of the western division. '


Andrew B. Ingram: I am sorry you have not given this matter the consideration you ought to give it, as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, allow me to say that we are now considering this whole agreement.


Peter Macdonald: The question is on clause 1 : the extension of time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My understanding is that we are considering the first section of the Bill.


Peter Macdonald: No ; the first clause of the schedule.


Mr. TAYLOR.: If I* understand it aright, my hon. friend from Hamilton did discuss the first section fairly, and the right hon. the Prime Minister wandered away from it and called him a pettifogger anil used other words not at all applicable to the first section ; and yet the chairman did not call him to order.


Peter Macdonald: During the discussion of these matters there are frequently little flurries between members, and when these pass over, the members get back to the question. But when a distinct question is brought up, of course I must rule upon it.


George Taylor: That is quite right ; but my hon. friend from Hamilton did not say a word that did not apply to the first clause ; and yet the Prime Minister got up and abused him and the chairman did not call him to order. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I said, Mr. Chairman, did not meet with your approval.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is under a mistake. It was agreed at the beginning, instead of taking up the clauses of the agreement, to take up the schedule ; and the first clause of that was read, and the discussion was supposed to be upon that.


Mr. OSLER.: Was that agreement in writing ?


Peter Macdonald: It was between the members across the floor.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understood that after the other night all agreements were to be in writing.


William Stevens Fielding: That was between the whips. There is no need of agreements made between members across the floor being in [DOT] writing. We have ' Hansard ' to put them on record.


William James Roche: The Prime Minister, by the personal remarks which he addressed to the hon. member for Hamilton, is not likely to facilitate the passage of this Bill through Parliament. He rather invited discussion by the manner in which he addressed members on this side of the House, and if we wished to retaliate in kind, we might say that as representatives of the people who are here to perform their legitimate duties, we do not object to being lectured by the Prime Minister, but we certainly object to being bulldozed, and we propose to discuss this question even though our opinions may differ somewhat from those of the Prime Minister ; but because of that difference I do not think we deserve to be characterized as pettifoggers or quib-blers. The Prime Minister has said that it would be an onerous condition to impose on the Grand Trunk Pacific Company that they must construct the 1,000 miies of the prairie section in a shorter time than the whole of the western extension. But, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) before six o'clock, Mr. Hays, when getting his charter through the Railway Committee, was quite willing to promise almost anything in order to get it through. When asked by some members if the company would commence construction on the Moncton section simultaneously with the Quebec to Winnipeg section, he answered in the affirmative. It will be no more onerous to have that stipulation imposed with reference to that portion of the line which is going to be the easiest to construct and the most profitable, namely, the portion between Edmonton apd Winnipeg. Therefore I think the Prime Minister was not offering a very good reason for not imposing on the company the stipulation for the completion of that section in five years. I do not think we should accept the mere word of the Grand Trunk Company that they are going to construct that line before the expiration of the eight years, when they are not bound to do so in black and white. We know exactly how much dependence we may place on the word of mouth of any corporation, and the Grand Trunk Company are probably no better or^ worse in this respect than any other. We have already had experience of the manner in which this corporation keeps its written contracts with parliament; and the Northwest members display a degree of gullibility and innocence not excelled by Mark Twain's * Innocent Abroad.' in being willing to extend the time of construction to eight years, on the pretense that they Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
know the company will complete it long before the expiration of that time. If they think the company is going to complete it before the eight years expire, this is the time to say so in black and white. The company have already caused an infraction of their agreement in the matter of making the deposit. The government used just such arguments last session in regard to that matter; and yet we found that before thirty days elapsed, the company refused to put up their deposit in cash or government securities. They did this, not because they could not raise the money, for Mr. Hays said they could get plenty of it, but they resorted to the bonds of the Grand Trunk Railway Company simply as a matter of convenience to themselves. If they so treat their written contract with parliament, why should we be asked to take their word of mouth that this road will be completed long before the expiration of the eight years ? I think it is unreasonable for them to expect that, in view of our experience with them in regard to the deposit. The Prime Minister states that the prairie section of the railway will go through a country where it will be very remunerative from the first day of its operation. I agree with him if we know where it is to be located ; but at present we do not know. It may go through that part of the country between the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific, which is already pretty thickly settled ; and if so, it would be imposing no onerous condition upon the company to require them to construct the line in five years, as was provided in the contract adopted last session. We cannot tell what contingency may arise to cause the company, in their business interest, to refuse to implement their contract in this particular ; and in a few years we may find them doing what they are doing this year-coming back to parliament and asking for an extension of time even beyond the eight years. Therefore, as a western man I refuse to agree to extend the time for three years, for that portion of the road which is to be constructed through a country that is badly in need of railway accommodation, and where the railway is going to be very profitable to operate. Now, the objection that has been taken to the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition by some hon. members from the west is because it means delay. Why do they say that it means delay ? Simply because the leader of the opposition proposed that he should take the best expert opinion he could possibly secure as to where the road should be built, as to the character of the road and all matters pertaining to the construction of a profitable line, viewed from the country's standpoint. This could have been done in a few months, but simply because the leader of the opposition wanted that matter referred to a commission of

experts, we had these hou. gentlemen from the west making the objection that that meant delay. Yet now we find them supporting the proposition of their own leader for greater delay, by extending the time limit of construction from December, 1908, to December, 1911, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. gentleman had asked an extension of time for fifteen years, we would have found these same gentlemen giving him their solid support. They are bound so closely by their party interests that they wou 1<1 certainly sacrifice the interests of their constituents rather than refuse to acquiesce in the decision of their leader. And if the government desired to cut down the limit from five years to three, they would equally herald that as the very acme of statesmanship. No matter what the government may propose, it will always receive the enthusiastic support of these gentlemen. But, however much they may be counted upon to support any government measure, it is quite evident that the cloture has been applied to them in this matter. It is quite clear that the policy of silence has been deemed most fitting to the situation in which they find themselves, and (that they think it more prudent not to commit themselves by any remarks in this House, not to bind themselves down to any utterances that may appear in 'Hansard,' and thus avoid having to answer for their words to their own constituents.
" hen the discussion was up last year, the same argument which these hon. gentlemen used with regard to delay in construction, they used with regard to the question of rates. A motion was presented from this side providing that this company should not impose any higher rates to the head of the great lakes than would be charged by the Canadian Northern Railway, but these gentlemen voted down that resolution and gave as a reason for their action their full conviction that even cheaper rates would be charged by the Grand Trunk Pacific than would be exacted by the Northern Railway, The hon. member for West Assiniboia went so far as to state that if he thought the contention of the opposition was correct, if he thought the Grand Trunk Pacific would charge higher rates than the Canadian Northern, unless this amendment were passed, he would support it, but such was his confidence that the Grand Trunk Pacific would charge - lower rates, that he felt bound to record his vote against it. How very gullible are these hon. gentlemen. What innocent trust they display in the good faith of this corporation, which has already broken faith with the people of Canada, is exemplified to-day in their willingness to extend the time limit to eight years for the building of this prairie section. They are willing to extend that time limit because they are convinced that the company will 72
build the road in less time. Well, I have not the same childish faith in this or any corporation which is not bound down hard and fast by statute.
We had the question of the location of the road discussed briefly this afternoon. I have here a map circulated by authority of the Department of the Interior, which shows the proposed location of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Hon. gentlemen will notice the very wide extent of country which the red line on this map covers. It scales 100 miles to the inch and covers a strip of territory 25 miles broad, so that the people are being deceived to the extent of 12 or 13 miles on each side, and every farmer is being persuaded that he will have the road running right along side his farm. We have heard from the right hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that no plans, specifications or profiles have so far been submitted to the government for approval, yet here is a map authorized by the Department of the Interior, circulated in the county of Marquette-because the line runs through that county-and we have the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' the inspired organ of the Minister of the Interior, trying to persuade the people that the member for Marquette is opposing the construction of another line through his constituency, and possibly of one if not two branch lines, which may be constructed as feeders to the main line. How is it that the Minister of the Interior and the organ which supports him have so much knowledge when the government know practically nothing? The surveys *which the Grand Trunk Pacific have been carrying on have not yet been submitted to the government, they do not know .where the line is going to run, yet here is a map sent out by the Department of the Interior for the purpose of deceiving a section of the people of the west into the belief that then1 locality is to be served by the construction of that line. It is to this we take exception. We take exception to this map being made use of by the Liberal candidates in Marquette and Dauphin. The Liberal candidate in Dauphin, not only carries his map around, but goes to tlie extent of saying that if the Grand Trunk Pacific line is not constructed north of the Canadian Northern Railway, through his constituency, he will not be the government candidate. Well, Sir, the line cannot serve all the districts these gentlemen are trying to persuade the people it will, and when we ask the government to tell us where the line is going to be located, surely we are only making a reasonable request. Surely, after all these months during which the surveyors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have been out, the government should have more definite information regarding the location of the road, and be able at least to inform us whether it is going to run north or south of the Canadian Northern Railway.



We have had to-night a certificate of character given by the Prime .Minister to himself. We have had him tell us in the past that he was a free trader, but he is so ho longer. He has also been a protectionist, but neither is he that now. He is simply a practical man. He admitted to-night that he is not a business man. I do not think we require to be told that, because this contract carries that impress on it in almost every line. This contract is the result of negotiations between the right hon. gentleman and Mr. Hays, one of the best business men in the railway world to-day, and it certainly gives the conviction that the general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway is a business man. The Prime Minister is quite correct in his estimate of himself when he lays no claim to being a business man, but fancy this important contract, involving an expenditure of some $150,000,000, a large portion of which will have to be paid in cash, being negotiated all through on the part of Canada by a gentleman who is not a business man. For weeks and months the right hon. gentleman was closeted in negotiations with one of the best railway managers on the continent, and did not even call to his assistance the only business man in his cabinet, so far as railway matters are concerned, I refer to Mr. Blair, a gentleman who could have given my right hon. friend valuable advice, which, if followed, would have resulted in a saving to the country of many millions of dollars. However, Mr. Blah' stepped out from the right hon. gentleman's cabinet, and would no doubt be to-day an active opponent of the present scheme had he not been shelved with the splendid emolument of $10,000 per year for the next ten years. But there is another gentleman who ought to be the business man on railway matters of the present cabinet, the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson.) Where is he? We rarely see him in this House. I think it is a most humiliating position for any gentleman to occupy, who signed this contract on behalf of the people, that he should not be even in the House to defend a single clause of that contract. No explanation has been offered by the Prime Minister or his colleagues why the Minister of Railways is not here to defend the policy of tne government and the contract to which he himself attached his own signature. But probably the hon. gentleman, having put himself on record last session in ' Hansard,' as being in favour of government ownership of railways, finds the time too short in which to swallow himself. After having last session advocated the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the shores of Georgian Bay, he probably finds it difficult to explain why he to-day takes the very opposite position and condemns the leader of the opposition for proposing that very scheme. Realizing his embarrassing position, the hon.


Edmund Boyd Osler: gentleman no doubt regards discretion as the better part of valour and prefers to remain entrenched behind the lines of Torres Vedras.
The hon. members for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) and Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) discussed at some length the question who are employed on those surveys. I do not know how much credence to place on that circular sent out by the Canadian engineers; but inasmuch as it has been brought up on several occasions and has never been contradicted by members of the government, I take it that the information it gives is accurate. And, when we are talking about this road opening new avenues of employment for our young men and so keeping them within our own borders rather than allowing them to go to a foreign country, I think we have a right to ask how it comes that Canadian engineers, perfectly competent for this work and desiring employment, are passed over and aliens are given the preference. I do not wonder that the company are asking for an extension of time for three years wheu they are employing alien engineers. I am informed that these engineers are the laughing stock of that western country. They are floundering about in an effort to get a suitable location. But they do not know that country.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) has come in, and that he looks so smiling. I have no doubt that, when I ask him for his opinion as to the extension of the Intercolonial to Georgian Bay, he will be only too glad to rise, after I have taken my seat, to explain his position and defend his speech of last year.
I was explaining that the alien engineers employed by this Grand Trunk Pacific Company seem to be making but slow progress. I do not wonder that their progress has been so slow, and that, so far, they have had no specifications to lay before this government. Not knowing the geography of the country, not understanding the surveys they have been largely following the old Fleming survey, as I am informed. They have not been able to make the progress with the surveys of the road that would have been made if Canadian engineers had been employed on the work. For my part as a western member, I think the question that has been brought up with regard to the construction of the prairie section is most important ; and I for one, express dissent when I am asked, in the face of the experience we have had with this company, to take the word of mouth of members of the company as sufficient assurance that they will finish the prairie section within five years. If the government think that their statement that the prairie section will be rapidly built is sufficient, and if they think it will be in the interest of the company to build the prairie section within five years, it will impose no burden upon them to bind them to finish

within that time. If the government will do this, they will find that, so far as I am concerned,'the section will go through with very little discussion.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since the Minister of Railways has come in, I am sure he will be a good listener while I explain to him the arguments that have been put forth. In the absence of the hon. gentleman certain re a-sons have been given whyi there should be no extension of time for the construction of the prairie section. It is said that there is a scarcity of men to engage in railway construction, and that this may delay the work. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals comes from the province of New Brunswick, where population has been stagnant for ten years because there has been a steady exodus of its people to foreign countries. Surely the hon. gentleman will interest himself in bringing sufficient men from that province of New Brunswick to the Northwest to engage in the work of railway construction. It must be remembered that, though the Minister of Railways and Canals is a man of few words, he is a man of great resource. Let me remind the House of an incident of last session which showed the hon. gentleman to be a master of unlimited resource Complaint was made that, throughout the whole Dominion, there was a great deal of American silver in circulation which, by reason of age and use, had become worn and deteriorated. In the absence of other silver, Canadians were forced to receive this depreciated American currency in the course of trade, but, when they took it to the banks they found that it would not be accepted at its face value. This question staggered even the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding)-he was speechless, powerless, paralyzed. Nor was the First Minister able to come to his rescue. Then arose that man of genius the Minister of Railways and Canals and gave a solution of the problem in the twinkling of an eye. True, he was not then Minister of Railways, but only a quiet and unobstrusive member of the House. He was not then bowed down with weight of woe-as he appears to have been since-and with the responsibilities of office. But, when this problem of the American silver was brought before the House, his gigantic brain power, his massive intellect, his wonderful fertility of resource, enabled him to point the way out. i He said : Pass a law to make the banks take American silver at par. And what do you think happened then ? Why, when the hon. gentleman sat down smothered with the applause that greeted his magnificent idea, somebody pointed out to him that banks were only collections of men and women holding stock in these concerns, and that to compel them to take a depreciated dollar and give a gold dollar for it would be to take money out of their pockets.
I am going to appeal to that hon. gentleman, translated as he has been to a higher
72}
sphere of usefulness. I hope nobody said * uselessness.' I say 1 usefulness.' There are times when one can appear very wise by keeping quiet. I do not mean to insinuate that the Minister of Railways has a monopoly of that. Because I am willing to concede that, if, throughout this whole discussion he has looked wise, he has been outvied by the ministers from Ontario who have looked even wiser and have been as completely silent as the hon. gentleman himself. I intend to direct my argument to him. It has been argued, and argued very strongly, that there will be difficulties in the way of railway construction within the next few years and so it will be fair to allow these railway projectors a further time of three years in which to finish the road. Does the Minister of Railways and Canals think that is right ? Remember that this whole scheme is in the interest of the people of the Northwest. In part of the country through which this projected railway is to run, we have already a tide of immigration setting in. The Minister of Railways and Canals knows that, at a point west of Battleford, there is what is known as the large Barr colony. The country attracted those colonists there. The colonists went in last fall ; they are plowing this spring and it is to be hoped they will be reaping magnificent crops this harvest. How are they going to get their grain out ? I know perfectly well that the Minister of Railways and Canals has all in his mind. If not, I will pass over to him a folder of the Canadian Pacific Railway that 1 have here, which explains all the circumstances. What an outcry there would be if these people are unable to get out their grain. They will say : Here we were attracted by assurances of a railway communication at an early day, and the parliament of Canada has done nothing to compel this company to live up to this understanding, but has granted them a further extension of time. I am appealing now to a practical railway man, because the Minister of Railways and Canals would not have been installed in his present office had not he been a practical man. I am going to ask the minister, with his practical knowledge of engineering and railway matters, if he does not think it possible, with all the modern facilities, to construct a railway over a prairie at the rate of three miles a day. The Minister of Railways acquiesces in that. So, we are at one in that respect.
I know that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) has a most exalted opinion on the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ; in fact its greatness has staggered him into silence. That is the only reason he has not defended it ; he is awed by its very appearance on the horizon. I asked the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) what he thinks of this as a proposition. Mr. Mackenzie, president of the Canadian Northern, was

interviewed in Winnipeg yesterday, and be made tbe statement that the Canadian Northern will this year build no less than 600 miles of prairie railway. If this compari-tively small concern, the Canadian Northern, are going to build 600 miles, does he not think that this fondling of his should be able to double or treble that. I am not much of a Shakespearian reader but I remember that in the great play of Julius Ceasar. when an actor appeals to a high magnate, he uses that famous phrase :
I pause for a reply.
Now I pause for a reply from the great Caesar. If the Minister of Railways and Canals will not answer me. I am sure he will disappoint his admirers on this side of the House and we will have to look upon him in the light of the lines in Grey's Elegy as being :
Some mute, inglorious Milton here may rest Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice that on the supplementary agreement the name of Henry Robert Emmerson, Minister of Railways and Canals is used. Either that hon. gentleman's frank has been used or he has signed this document and if he has signed the document surely he will tell us why he has signed it, and why this change has been brought about as between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific. If the hon. gentleman refuses to do that, I can only remind him that he must have been reading some of the speeches made in this House last session. Probably he has been reading the speech of the hon. member for Huntingdon, who, speaking cf the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, because the late minister took the opportunity of explaining his position on this Transcontinental Railway, said :
After the pettiness, smallness and temper which the hon. gentleman showed in the speech he made in this House, I have come to the ' conclusion that he is not as large a man as 1 thought he was.
Probably he has been reading that speech and has concluded not to say a word in connection with this, but to allow the First Minister and the Minister of Justice to handle this Bill in the House. The position which the hon. gentleman occupies is the most humiliating spectacle I ever witnessed. Here is a gentleman occupying this position, who has signed this document making these changes, and yet he cannot say a word in the House as to why he did so. It is essentially a Bill which he should explain. While the Minister of Justice is a good lawyer, this is not his line of business, nor is it the special line of the right hon. the premier. Therefore, the Minister of Railways and Canals is the one to whom we should look for an explanation, but be says nothing. The opposition have treated Mr. BENNETT.
this measure extremely kindly. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition, the rafters of this building would rise with condemnations of the opposition of that day against anything of the kind. We were told that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was simply a fifth wheel on a wagon, neither useful nor ornamental, and what would they have said if we had a minister who was afraid and declined to state why he signed a public document involving a cost to this country of $170.000.000. I do not wish to use unparliamentary language, but I must say that if the hon. gentleman had the spirit in him which he ought to have, he would rise in liis place and state exactly why he signed the document and whether he justifies it or not. Personally I have the very highest regard for the Minister of Railways, and I believe he is possessed of greater abilitv than his silence now would lead ns to believe. That being so, I say it is his duty to rise in his place and give some explanation and I trust before the matter is closed, he will do so. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will make the platform of this country ring with this statement, that the government have a Minister of Railways and Canals who has not the courage to get up and explain his signature. Hon. gentlemen opposite will talk about this being a good project and about this being a business government, but we will be able to reply :	imagine a business
government having a Minister of Railways and Canals, who dare not rise in his place and tell the people why he signed a document. Talk about pettifogging, talk about quibbling. My hon. friend was not even quibbling, but I am bound to say it was a good deal like pettifogging. This will do him a great deal of harm. Let me again draw the attention of the First Minister to the fact that there are many men on his side of the House competent to occupy positions in the cabinet. There can be no doubt about that. Here we have an hon. gentleman who held a prominent position in the local government of the province of New Brunswick, who has been but a short time in this House, who, during that short time, made remarkable headway as a private member, and who has now been placed In the important position of Minister of Railways and Canals. Now, Sir, there is one of two things ; either this hon. gentleman was possessed of the ability and experience necessary to induce the right hon. leader of the government to appoint him to that position, or there must be some political reason outside of his ability that caused the right hon. Prime Minister to select him. Unless the right hon. First Minister gives the reason why his Minister of Railways and Canals does not do this, or unless the right hon. gentleman himself explains, the government will be in a very bad fix. The right hon. First Mims-

ter liad a competent Minister of Railways and Canals in his government. There is no man, either on the government side or on this side of the House, who questions the ability of the Hon. Mr. Blair. But the right hon. First Minister did not treat the hon. gentleman as very much of an expert when he entirely ignored Mr. Blair in framing the first agreement. He ignored his Minister of Railways in bringing about that agreement, and now he has either ordered his present Minister of Railways to say nothing, or he is ignoring him in the same despicable way that he ignored the other one. It is a very unhappy position that the government are in, and I will tell the right hon. First Minister that when they go to the country, because we are going to the country before long, this will be one of the strongest things that can be urged against the government. The people of the country, and the farmers especially, will ask if this is the kind of government they have, if this is the govern ment who are paying enormous salaries to ministers of the Crown-because they look . upon the salary of a minister as something extraordinary, more than we as members of this House do-who has failed to open his mouth on a question involving $171,000,000 of the people's money. This is the most humiliating spectacle that I have ever witnessed in this House, and I go further and say that it is the most humiliating spectacle that has ever been known in this world.
The CHAIRMAN {Mr. A. Johnston). Shall this section be adopted ?


Rufus Henry Pope: You seem to be in a hurry ; there is lots of time. Time was made for slaves, not for members of parliament who have to consider great questions. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid i.aurier), in presenting this Bill, laid great stress upon the prospect of the development of that section of the country to the north of Lake Superior and down to Quebec. He told us about the quality of the timber growing there-jack pine and poplar-and expressed his opinion that in the future a great pulp-wood and lumber business would be developed. The right hon. gentleman did not turn that great practical mind of his to good account in considering that question, because we will remember that the right hon. gentleman has told us that he was a practical man above all other things, that he did not pretend to be a man of great business experience or capacity, that he was not a free trader, that he was not a protectionist, that he had been both and now he was neither, but that he was a practical man. As such he should look upon the question of the settlement of that northern country in a practical way. You cannot remove the timber rapidly from that country through which you are going to build this railway, because if you undertake to clear that country rapidly, you have to go back to the old system of burning up the Umber. There is
no other way that you can bring about rapid colonization or turn that northern country to account as a practical country for settlement unless you go back to the old-fashioned way of fifty years ago and destroy the forest by burning it. The slow process of removing the timber for the market as the demand will require will not permit settlement in that district.


Wilfrid Laurier: As a practical man, my hon. friend (Mr. Pope) is not speaking on the question at all.


Rufus Henry Pope: Certainly, the question is on the first clause.


Wilfrid Laurier: No ; the first clause of the schedule-the extension of time.


Rufus Henry Pope: Let me have the first clause. Well, Mr. Chairman, is it true that we have been talking on the wrong clause all this evening ? Is it a fact, Sir, that we have to begin this thing all over again ? I would like to know from you whether I have to take those two speeches back that I have made ? I think it is unkind of the right kon. First Minister, who has now returned to his pleasant mood again, that he should have allowed me to go on with that laboured effort and then tell me that I was not talking on the right clause. We knew on this side of the House that we were not talking on the right kind of a Bill. We knew that last year. The right hon. Prime Minister did not, but he found it out after we prorogued. He has discovered that the whole of the speeches delivered last year on both sides of the House were wasted. I am not so certain. But when I look at this Bill, i wonder who signed it-' Henry Robert Em-merson, Minister of Railways and Canals.' Mr. Chairman, I wonder where he comes from. I would like to know what part. The right hon. gentleman objects to my referring to that northern country and to the forests of jack pine and poplar, and I suppose he will even object to my referring to that rose that bloomed up there 250 years ago. It must be somewhat faded now. In view of the fact that under this amended contract the government have eradicated from the old contract of nine months ago every provision which they said protected the interests of the public ; and in view of the fact that this new contract has been dictated by the officials of the Grand Trunk, and every clause of it drafted to satisfy the most skeptical shareholder of the Grand Trunk, I will leave it to some other hon. member to characterize this document as it deserves.


Robert Laird Borden: In the course of his speech delivered some days ago, the Minister of the Interior regretted that the surveys which had been made were not returned from the Grand Trunk Railway to the government so that they could be * laid before the House; the hon. gentle-

man gave to the House an abstract of these surveys which he said had been procured from the Grand Trunk Railway Company in Montreal by the geographer of his department. I wish to know from the government, what the nature of these surveys was, and especially how it happens that the Grand Trunk Railway is making surveys of the eastern division, which according to the contract, is to be built by the government. It would appear that notwithstanding the haste which the right hon. gentleman emphasized last year, the government has in the interval done nothing with regard to making surveys, and for some reason the Grand Trunk Railway Company have been making surveys from Winnipeg as far east as North Bay. Why is it that the government has not made surveys of the eastern division, and why have they been compelled to resort to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for information as to the practicability and cost of a railway which is to be built by the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to answer that question at the proper time, but does my hon. friend think that it is relevant to this question which we are discussing.


Robert Laird Borden: I would answer that question, by asking my hon. friend another. If it does not come under this section where does it come? It comes up somewhere, because it was introduced by the Minister of the Interior, otherwise he would have been out of order in bringing it before the House. I am not particular about bringing it up now, if the right hon. gentleman will point out when it can be brought up properly, and answered by the government ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It can come up in many ways ; it can come up on the second reading, and in concurrence on the resolutions, but it is certainly not relevant to the question we are now discussing.


Robert Laird Borden: I am entirely at the service of my right hon. friend as to the time and place of discussing this matter, but I submit that the proper time to discuss it is during the committee stage.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would come up on the first general section which has been suspended, but now we are discussing the question of the extension of time.


Rufus Henry Pope: Are we not discussing the whole Bill ?


Peter Macdonald: No ; the schedule.


Rufus Henry Pope: Then the clerk of the House deceived me by putting this Bill in my hand. I appeal to the Prime Minister for protection.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to give it to my hon. friend ; either Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
the clerk of the House or my hon. friend have been too green.


Rufus Henry Pope: I plead guilty but I thought the clerk of the House was not so green.


Peter Macdonald: There was an arrangement made between the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice this afternoon as to how they would proceed .and the arrangement was that the first section of the schedule would be taken up.


Robert Laird Borden: The chairman has slightly misunderstood any arrangement which was made. The Minister of Justice suggested to me that the best time to take up the schedule was in connection with the section which ratified it, but as to limiting the discussion upon any particular clause, it is news to me that I assented to anything of the kind. I am perfectly willing to enter into any arrangement which would be regarded as convenient, but the view I take is that the schedule is ratified by the section, and that everything is open for discussion when you are considering the schedule. That I understand to be the rule, apart from any arrangement.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand it, the Minister of Justice stated that before we declared the first section carried, we should take the schedule clause by clause. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) assented to that and we are now on the first clause of the schedule.


Robert Laird Borden: I certainly understood that it was a question as to the time for discussing the schedule, and not as to how we should discuss it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The intention was to take the schedule paragraph by paragraph.


Robert Laird Borden: That would follow as a matter of course without any arrangement.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We had no agreement, further than that we acquiesed.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not gather from the Minister of Justice that we would be limited in discussing the first section when we returned to it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There was no agreement of that kind at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not say that was the agreement, but I submit as a matter of parliamentary practice that if you take a Bill up section by section, on the preamble we may discuss the whole Bill ; but we are now discussing the first section of the schedule, and I think the discussion should be confined to that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a mere matter of convenience. It will all come up again

when we come to the first section of the Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When we reach the clause of the agreement that concerns the eastern section of the road, the discussion of the survey may go on.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not insist on discussing the subject now, but I do insist on discussing it at some time.
' Mr. POPE. I am glad to know that I am not the only green one in this House, but that I have a good deal of company. The effort to ripen some people seems to have made them greener than before, and with the permission of the House, X will return this Bill to the Clerk.


Mr. BELL.: I understand that the matter more immediately under discussion at present is the amendment relating to the extension of time ; and the point that seems to be important is the effect it may have on the condition and prospects of the people living in the prairie portion of country through which this railroad is to be extended. The great objection to the extension of time is that it applies to that portion of the road which in the opinion of most people interested in the question is the part which requires immediate consideration and immediate service, that is, provided any one is prepared to admit that the Bill is providing a public work of necessity. I listened to-day with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice in reference to this matter. As nearly as X could gather, his argument was . that this extension of time was not objectionable, because the interests of the company would lead it to construct that portion of the road in the shortest possible time. To follow his remarks to a logical conclusion, there would be no reason why the company should npt have an unlimited extension of time. If the whole matter were to be decided in that way, then it would be sufficient to make the contract with the company without putting in any restriction whatever, but leaving it entirely in the hands of the company to build the road whenever they saw fit, relying upon their selfish interests to build it promptly. It would be most extraordinary for the parliament of Canada to favour arguments of that sort, because no contracting parties ever make contracts on these terms-the one party being bound and the other being left free. Business arrangements always bind both parties. In illustration of the correctness of his view, the hon. Minister of Justice cited the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which was bound to build the railway within ten years, and which actually did build it in five years or less than six years; and he argued, if I understood him aright, that if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, being bound to build their road in ten years, built it in five years, therefore, the Grand
Trunk Pacific Company, being bound to , build their road in eight years, would build it in four years. That may be a perfectly legitimate conclusion, and the result may justify it. At the same time, the question would very naturally arise in the minds of the people of Canada that it is an extraordinary thing that the government, in making such a contract of such a character as this, should not make it in such terms as would express the expectation of the country. The country will naturally ask, if the government expect the road to be built in four years, why should they make a contract to have it built in eight years? But I would remind the hon. Minister of Justice that his memory of that matter is not altogether accurate, because, although the Canadian Pacific Railway Company contracted to build their railway in ten years, and built it in five years, the expectation of the country at the time was that it would take them ten years to build it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Did I make any statement different from that?


John William Bell: There was no reliance on the selfish interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build it in less than ten years. The Minister of Justice made a statement entirely at variance with that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not.


John William Bell: I think I can persuade the Minister of Justice himself of that. He said that as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had built their road in less than half the time in which they contracted to build it, this company might be expected to build their road in half the time in which they contracted to build it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I never made any such statement.


John William Bell: In that case I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, and must modify the argument I inteude(d to make on that point.
The Conservative government, when it made a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway and gave ten years to construct their road, believed that they would require all those ten years. If the government of that day had thought that the company could have done the work in five years, they would have made that the limit and required the company to complete it within that period. But the general opinion then was that all the ten years would be required. The late Mi'. Alexander Mackenzie, no mean authority on the subject, said all the power of the British empire could not build that road in ten years, the time in which the Canadian Pacific Railway had undertaken to build it. I am therefore safe in arguing that if the government of that day had anticipated that the Canadian Pacific Railway could have built the road in less than ten years, they would have made the time limit

shorter than that period. But here you find the government extending the time to eight years, and then telling us that they do not believe the company will take that long. But the objectionable feature is this, that the limit of eight years is made to apply to the whole undertaking of the company, that consisting of the entire line from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. We must bear in mind that the government in this contract has carefully distinguished the prairie section from the mountain section. And we find gentlemen interested in the prairie country objecting to this provision as not being in the public interest. The object of building this line was to give immediate relief to the people who are suffering for want of railway accommodation, but by this extension we are enabling the company to occupy eight years in traversing a country through which railway construction is comparatively easy instead of the five years provided in the first contract. What is the reply of the government to the arguments of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) and Macdonald (Mr. Boyd)? They argue simply that the company having put up $5,000,000, they represented to the govern-men that possibly this money might be jeopardized by delaying the construction of the road, and the government, without considering apparently the real conditions of the contract, acceded to that request and agreed to delay the construction of the work on the prairie section. What reason is there why the government should give this extension, ns far as the prairie section is concerned ? There seemed to be every inducement ou the part of the government, not to relax the original conditions, but rather make- them more stringent. We all remember the arguments advanced by the First Minister last year. His principal argument was the danger of the bonding privilege being abrogated. His next argument was the urgent necessity of affording relief to the people suffering from the evils of congested traffic. In the most emphatic way, he endeavoured to convince the House that there was no time for delay, and in fact gave us to understand that if Canada did not provide this railway at once, a great deal of our western traffic would be diverted over United States lines. Yet we find the government to-day acceding to the demand of the company for delay. It is impossible to reconcile the different positions taken by the right hon. gentleman. Either there was not that urgency which last year he said existed, or he has lost every particle of his desire to meet that urgent demand. What does the contract require of the company with regard to the prairie section V It requires that they should build about a thousand miles of railway. Over what kind of country ? Over one of the most suitable countries for rapid railway construction to be found in the world-a prairie country, a Mr. BELL.
country far different now from what it was in the days when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. Then it was uninhabited and without any railway facilities, whereas to-day it is filled with people and served by railways, so that there will be no difficulty in the Grand Trunk Pacific bringing in both labour and supplies. There can be no doubt that this company will be able to build their line much more rapidly than the Canadian Pacific Railway did theirs. The experience' of the Canadian Pacific Railway is at their service ; the very engineers who did that work for the Canadian Pacific Railway in some measure are available for the use of this company to-day. All the experience, all the errors, all the failures of the Canadian Pacific are spread out for their instruction. The untold advantages of the experience not only of the Canadian Pacific but of the Canadian Northern as well will enable them, if they choose to do it, to make a record-breaking speed of railway construction across that country. What would be a reasonable rate of railway construction there now that labourers, materials and supplies can be deposited easily at different points on the line of construction ? Would it be too much to believe that the company, commencing at various portions of this line and employing various bodies of men, could build at the rate of three miles a day ? Commencing at half a dozen points if they please, they should be able to complete the road at the rate of at least three miles a day. They could have three gangs working at different points, or they could subdivide the work as much as they please, as every portion could be reached. How long, then, should the company require to build this prairie section of 1,000 miles ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Fifteen years.


John William Bell: Allowing three hundred working days in the year, and three miles a day. we find that 900 miles could be built in one year, and not fifteen years as has been suggested by an hon. gentleman. And yet we find the government allowing eight years to complete the contract; because this is an- extension of time to eight years not for the mountain section or for the prairie section, but for the whole, division. And so, they are allowing eight years for the construction of a work vrhich could be easily, and without extra cost or exceptional effort, finished in one year. That being the case, is it surprising that hon. gentlemen who represent constituencies in Manitoba a r d the Northwest, raise their voices in protest against the proposal to extend the time to eight years ? Is it not natural that they should ask the government that has introduced this measure, and is calling upon the people of Canada to make enormous sacrifices for this road on the ground that it is to be built for the purpose of removing the disabilities now resting upon the people

of the Northwest Territories, why is it that they propose to allow eight years for this work ? The situation really becomes far-cial and ridiculous when you regard it in that aspect. And, when this question is asked, what is the reply vouchsafed by the government ? Practically there is none. We have the Minister of Railways under whose department the work is supposed to be carried on, who is to be advised, we are told by a director who will supervise the work, and will report to the Minister of Railways, and from the Minister of Railways the government will receive information as to the progress of the work. What does the Minister of Railways have to say to the reasonable proposition put forward from this side ? He has been appealed to over and over again to give his opinion on this subject, to explain this anomaly in the contract ; and, on every occasion when he has been in the House and has been appealed to he has replied at once with a broad smile. Apparently the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Railways has never in his life heard any jocose proposition so entirely to his liking as the idea that he should know anything about railway construction in which the government of Canada is interested and for which the people of Canada are supposed to supply all the money. It appears to be, in the estimation of the Minister of Railways, representing in this respect, the government, and the Prime Minister of Canada- the hugest of jokes that he should be supposed to know anything at all about this enormous and expensive railway contract. If the object is to give the position of Minister of Railways to a gentleman wTlio can wear the honour most gracefully and with the least expenditure of time and trouble, I must say that the position has fallen to a gentleman who lias qualifications that simply cannot be surpassed. But if the cabinet is to be supposed to carry on fairly the business of the country, if it is to be composed of men gathered by the Prime Minister as representative men and possessed of the greatest ability for the discharge of their duties, and the serving of the people, I say that to the people of Canada who regard the spectacle from day to day in this House, there can be nothing reassuring and satisfying. The gentlemen on this side who are asking these questions, who are here to try to learn from the government why certain things are not provided for, will look with surprise and disapproval upon the spectacle of a government that has, apparently, no reasonable answer to give to reasonable questions addressed to them by the opposition, who represent the people. The government do not represent the people in this matter to as large an extent as do the opposition!. The government represents a policy which, so far as we can learn from our observation, is entirely a pet policy developed and carried out by the Prime
Minister, apparently without the support and sanction of his colleagues in this House, because he cannot induce any of these gentlemen to support his policy by speech or even to answer reasonable requests of members on this side. The opposition represent all the people who are not In the confidence of the government-and I need scarcely bay that that seems to be all the people of Canada, outside the sixteen or seventeen gentlemen who constitute the cabinet itself. There are anomalies and peculiarities abojt this contract that are entirely incapable of solution by any one who is not in the secrets of the government, and the government apparently are determined not to unfold these secrets in response to any kind of reasonable request, Now, if it be that this is a policy of the Prime Minister himself, if it is a policy that he is following out of his own volition and by the power he exercises over the people of Canada, the parliament of Canada and the gentlemen he has gathered about him as a government, then, to him would we appeal rather than to anybody else. And what is the result of appealing to him ? He does not give us information ; but he does occasionally give us criticism which we on this side do not consider altogether fair. He denounces arguments which we consider reasonable and fair, as pettifogging, as carping, os simply embarrassing criticisms addressed to bim for the purpose of impeding the course of this Bill through the House, whereas I maintain that the criticisms from this side are reasonable requests of the people of Canada as voiced here by the opposition, as the representatives of the people.
Now, why should the company be given this time ? Why should the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, the Grand Trunk Company-for we have every reason to believe that it is the Grand Trunk-be given this extension of time V Is it because the company cannot raise the money to build this road ?
The right hon. gentleman knows that there are provisions in the contract by which that company can come to his government and compel it to supply them, by an issue of interim bonds, with enough money to build the road. The credit of Canada'is at the back of their scheme and as soon as this contract becomes the law of this country the company will not be hampered for the want of money. If the company were compelled to finance this scheme and raise the money there might be some excuse for having that extension of time and to make allowance for the fact that there might be times when the money market would be unfavourable. But that is not the position of affairs. The government of Canada have to supply the money for the building not only of the eastern, but of the western section of the road. That being the case, it cannot be for want of funds that this

great extension of time is granted. Why then is it? Is it because the right lion, gentleman has made up his mind to furnish to this country an absolute refutation of the statement with which he introduced this Bill a year ago, when he urged the rapid construction of this road? Does the right lion, gentleman wish to proclaim to this country and to the world that when he made these passionate appeals he was playing on the ignorance of his hearers, the supposed ignorance of this country? Now that the scheme is being launched as a fact it will be shown by the course of events that there is not one atom or tittle of sincerity in any one word which the hon. gentleman uttered in urging the necessity for the rapid building of the road. There can be no Justification for the spirit in which the right hon. gentleman introduced the Bill. If there is. urgency for relief in the west the government could easily induce the company to undertake the completion of the western prairie section, not in eight years, but in two years, because the Grand Trunk Pacific is able to make use of the whole credit of the Dominion of Canada for the building of its road from Winnipeg to Edmonton. Nothing could be more reasonable than the criticism of this clause of the Bill. We all know that great national interests are involved in having this railway built into the prairie country as rapidly as possible. If there is any part of this country on which it would pay Canada to spend money freely it would be in that prairie country, because as any one can see, every dollar spent on improving the means of communication in the west must quickly bring in golden returns to the treasury and promote the general prosperity of the country. Why then will the right hon. gentleman not abate one feature of this contract, objectionable to the people of the west, or vouchsafe a reasonable explanation of this part of the contract or allow one member of his cabinet to give such an explanation? The western section is divided by the government into two sections, and why should the government insist on applying this extension of three years to the whole western section instead of limiting it to the part of the road which lies between the foothills on the eastern edge of the Rocky mountains and the Pacific coast. If any part of this work is to be proceeded with hastily it unquestionably is' the part from Winnipeg west, and yet this may be delayed for eight years. This is simply a case of a party holding power with a large majority dictating a certain course to an opposition, and refusing absolutely to vouchsafe any explanation in reference to it. I need scarcely say that the whole project as outlined to this House and to the Committees of this House last year is important not only to the provinces or territories of the west, but to the whole of Canada.
But I do clearly remember that to the young men of Canada, to the people of Can-Mr. BELL.
ada generally, this scheme was unfolded as a great scheme, as a scheme requiring the strength of a powerful government, as a scheme intended to aggrandize the people of Canada, to give us a new Canada, to relieve the hardships and burdens of the pioneers of the west, and to promote the welfare and prosperity of the manufacturing interests in the east by binding this country more closely together by an iron bond. That was represented to us as being a matter of the greatest possible urgency. We were told that we were in such a position that the greatest possible amount of the wealth that we might develop by our industry in this country was liable to be at any moment diverted from us by our enterprising neigh hours to the south for all time to come ; and yet we find the government in reference to the easiest possible part of their scheme, that part of the scheme which unquestionably can be constructed with a less amount of cost and difficulty than some other parts of the scheme, binding themselves to a period of eight years within which that work is to have its completion. To the people of the east this is a great object lesson. If it is a fact, in the opinion of the right hon. First Minister and of his advisers and supporters, that the prairie section cannot be built hi less than eight years, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman in what time he thinks he can construct the road from Quebec to Winnipeg and from Quebec to Moncton, and at what period of time he is going to hold out hopes to his supporters in the cities of Halifax and St. John that the great tide of commerce is going to reach those cities. It will not be within the reign of the right hon. gentleman who is now premier of Canada. It will be at a time so far removed that the events of to-day will have grown as hazy to the people of that day as the events of the time of the conception of the Canadian Pacific Railway seem to us to-day. The fact is that the government have undertaken to legislate, not for the people of this generation, but for the people of the next generation. It is not statesmanship, it is not practical politics. It goes to show that when the right hon. gentleman introduced this measure into the House last session he had no clear conception of what the government were undertaking, but he had in his own mind a fiction, a figment, a dream, and in the representation of that dream he hoped to bewilder the mass of the people of the country so as to bring to himself for the time being a specious kind of glory, a specious advantage that might perhaps enable him to snatch an uncertain success at the polls. What does it all amount to when you come down to examine it ? Nothing more than that. The right hon. gentleman apparently was trying to place himself upon a level with that great man, that honourable and great statesman who really gave us a transcontinental railway-the late Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald. Before passing off the stage he

wished to immortalize himself as the projector and constructor of another transcon tinental railway. He wished to build himself a monument which would span the whole continent, resting upon the Atlantic and the Pacific, so that he would go down in history and in the memory of the people who are going to follow us as a companion figure to that great man Sir John Macdonald who did give to this country a great constructive work which has made Canada a nation-the Canadian Pacific Railway. With the assistance of his majority in this House and a very reasonable amount of criticism from this side of the House, every portion of which was intended to better his scheme, to free it from its objections, to make it more valuable to this country, the scheme passed through the House and if it resulted in failure it was not the fault of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. There is no reason why the right hon. gentleman should lose his temper with hon. gentlemen on this side of the House because his progeny proved a frail bantling incapable of successful life or growth. But, why should the right hon. gentleman have taken the trouble in the amendments which he has introduced into this scheme to demonstrate not only to the members of this House but to the people of the country as well, to the commonest observer, to the simplest man who can say that two and two make four, that every word that he said last year was tainted with insincerity and betokened an ignorance of the conditions that attach to a well considered and practicable scheme.
Now, it is very possible ~ that the right hon. gentleman could put any kind- of a scheme through this parliament and could do it by sheer force of numbers, by the sheer weight of votes, that without the utterance of one word or one argument he could force any measure he chose through this House, but if he should succeed in doing that he must fail in obtaining the support from the country that; ought to be given to a government that can give a reason for the faith that is in it. In all the discussion that has taken place in reference to this great measure-because it is a great measure when you regard it in reference to its extent, although it is a measure which is perhaps greater in its breach than in its observance- I have not heard addressed to this House from this side.one single argument against that measure which seemed to be based on anything but sound reason tendered to the House in the spirit of honest and earnest criticism intended to improve that measure for the benefit of the country. How has that conduct on this side of the House been met by hon. gentlemen opposite ? It has not excited in their breasts a great deal of admiration. They must have learned from their experience in this House to admire patriotic, generous sentiments even though they see them in their opponents. But, it places them in a most extraordinary position
because we find a collection of hon. gentlemen-reverend seigneurs, some of them possibly the representatives of the best brains of the Liberal party, sitting absolutely dumb and silent utterly unable to furnish answer, argument, demurrer or reply of any kind whatever to the most reasonable proposition that could be addressed to them in attack of the measure that they have brought before the House. An extraordinary spectacle such as this almost looks as if that system of machine government, beginning in the province of Ontario in the election of their representatives, is now to be found in the halls of parliament as well and that the whole system of government has become one huge voiceless machine. There is great pressure in the weight of numbers. A measure is introduced and forced through parliament. There is no illuminating intellectual explanation to us why it should go through. There is no intelligence in its progress. It is simply, apparently, a return to the time when force was the only argument in the world that was of any value. Here you have a cabinet which we were told in 1897 and later was the greatest cabinet that had ever been assembled-a collection of choice spirits representative not only of the intellectual ability and power of the Liberal party as reported in the Dominion parliament, but of the Lib'eral party as represented in the parliaments of the provinces as well. Facilis descensus averni. In the course of their eight years of power they are apparently converted into a collection of inarticulate counters in the hands of the master player who pushes them here and there on the checker board as he pleases. It is not our part to quarrel with this amazing spectacle, if the right hon. gentleman chooses to play this game and his followers allow him to continue at it. If something supernatural had given to the opposition in this House the power, to hold up the government of Canada as a spectacle of actual imbecility, the opposition could not have succeeded better, in exhibiting to the people of Canada the spectacle which we now behold, of a government which was lauded eight years ago as the greatest and strongest that had ever been, fall into such a condition of palsied uselessness. It is not in our hearts to find fault, but still, as Canadians we must regret what is occurring in this House at this moment. Is it possible that parliamentary government in Canada is such, that reasonable argument can be addressed by the hour, and by the day, and by the yard, to the government


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. BELL-and by the half yard, in order to suit the gentleman from Cape Breton ; I have no objection to giving him a smaller measure. Is it possible that this parliament is reduced to this: that the government will deliberately sit there helpless and silent

and voiceless, absolutely unable to devise one reasonable answer to the reasonable arguments that are addressed from this side of the House? If the right hon. gentleman and his followers choose to adopt that role of voiceless, absolutely responseless conduct, then I should think that the common-sense of the people of Canada will at a very early day restore them to a position in which they can develop their capacity for holding their tongues to a much higher degree than they can here. It is not the part of tlie opposition in this House to furnish brains to the government, but the government should realize that when they choose to muzzle the Minister of Railways, who is properly charged with the conduct of this measure, the people will come to the conclusion that there must be some most extraordinary reason to account for such an extraordinary state of affairs. I ask the Prime Minister why it is that he cannot furnish to the representatives of Marquette and Macdonald, some reason why they can go back to their constituencies and explain to them this proposition to delay the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific for three years? We as an opposition are doing our duty, but how is the government doing its duty? Apparently the government has made up its mind to give no answer at all to the legitimate requests from this side of the House for reasonable information, and that being the case, it seems to me that the wonder is that the opposition'has been able to display such great patience in criticising this measure.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: If I could do anything to bring this discussion to a close, I would make the strongest effort I ever did in my life, because we have been here talking on this measure for three weeks, and we are just about where we started so far as converting the government and their supporters is concerned. I have spoken three times before on this question, and I have used all my energy to try and convert the Prime Minister and his followei-s to the ideas of government ownership over this transcontinental line. I have not talked privately to them of course, and I have not used any undue influence, but so far as my voice would go, I have endeavoured to get them to build and own this railroad, for I believe that we must have another railroad in that section of the country, and that right away. 1 thought when the government appointed a new Minister of Railways, that they would go in for government ownership, because if they are going to hand all the railroads of the country over to private corporations, what do they want with a Minister of Railways. We have a commission appointed to look after the railways of this country, and although that commission will cost |30,000 a year, I have no objection to it so long as the commissioners do their duty, but I do not think that there was any neces-Mr. BELL.
sity to tack on to the end of it a Minister of Railways. I do not like to say this because I do not see the Minister of Railways in his place, but if I were the Minister of Railways and had endorsed the plan of the government as warmly as that minister is supposed to do, I would not have allowed any man on this side of the House to rise and _ abuse that contract without getting on my feet. If that thing is worth anything, it is worth defending, and he should be ready to stand up and defend it like a man. When a man has any project and cannot defend it, certainly it is not worth much. Now, I do not want to say a word against this project, because it has been decided that this railway shall be. built, and that the Grand Trlitik^sTiiiTrbTrH'trTT;^ ~THSr e t o re; I do not want to throw any cold water on it. This House has decided the matter three times, and on every occasion I voted for ^yoyrmioH)- nwnoyship, MUl I ASLlIl dO SO again-dfanother vote takes-piace. But they have carried the project; so let them go on and do the work, but let them see that they get value for the money ; let them see that the people of this country are not cheated. We have already created large-Mirnowrtlons, and some of otfr friends here are helping to run them. We want no more millionaires. Canada is disgusted with them. This government said to contain all the virtues -some would say vices-may not be perfect ; and I would save that $8,000 which the railway minister is getting because he is of no use to you-he has not defended you. I do not think I ought to say anything of that because the thing speaks for itself. You do not want anybody in your government who will not stand up every time and defend you. You want to discharge them. I do not want to say any more, but I want to bring this matter to a close and allow these people to go on and build this railway. They have the brute force at their back. Whether they have the country at their back is another question. However, I am not going to be like some of these people who are challenging the government to bring on the elections right away. The fellow that does that has perhaps a large majority at his back. He is anxious to have an election, because he is already as good as elected ; his party is strong. My party is not strong, though it is growing stronger all the time. And let me tell the First Minister that if this country had an election to-morrow and we had a system whereby the independent men could cast their votes together, you would have thirty independent men in this House the next parliament, and we would need cross benches for them. I can prove it, if necessary. So you see how you should court the independent men of this country. They hold the balance of power, and from this time forward they are going to vote for the question, and not for the party.


Edward Cochrane: Hear, bear.


Mr JABEL ROBINSON.: Some of you wbo say * bear, bear,' know that many Conservatives are disgusted with party too-and the same on the other side. But they say : What are we going to do about it ? There are no such first-class, independent men as you running, and we have to vote for one of these fellows. I would talk for another hour if I could bring this thing to a close.


An hon. MEMBER.: Sing.


Jabel Robinson: I could sing too. but I am going to sing a song that will
people in that country who are looking for our protection. They have been under the control of the railroads long enough. I have sometimes spoken very harshly about the ministers and the party that gives such powers to these railway companies to rob the people, as they have been doing. Now you have an opportunity of curtailing their power and giving the farmers who have settled there for years an opportunity to get their produce to market, for its proper value and if you lose this opportunity, you may never get another. You will be under the heel of these large corporations, and you are standing up and helping them. Now is the time to get free from their power; if you allow this Bill to go to a third reading, you will be done for ever.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Touched by the appeal of my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), perhaps we might give him an instalment by letting this clause pass ; but before doing so, I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice as to the introduction of the word ' strikes ' in this section. It does not seem to be referred to in the correspondence. Would my hon. friend be good enough to say what is the occasion of it ?	'


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know that it is referred to in the correspondence ; but our attention was drawn to the possibility of strikes occurring in connection with the enterprise, and my hon. friend will remember that at the present time it is very usual to find in contracts of this description the word ' strikes,' in consequence of the frequency of labour difficulties.
Section 1 of the schedule agreed to.


Wilfrid Laurier: As we have done a very good day's work and have passed one clause, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Friday.

Friday, April 29, 1904.