And the company is building the road ?
They have undertaken to build twenty miles this year, but that is a very small portion considering that the people there have been waiting nineteen years to get this railway communication. Now, as to another remark of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I would be the last to wish any harm to come to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I believe that the interests of Canada are largely bound up with those of that company, and if that is the fact, then the interests of the North-west are even more closely bound up with those of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As a representative of the Northwest I should be very sorry to see any unjust demand made upon the Canadian Pacific Railway or anything done that would be harmful to their interest. But, when they come here asking for privileges and concessions, I submit, the members of this House have every right to look seriously into their demands and see if the interests of the Dominion are going to be
detrimentally affected, and I say that tlie interests of the people north of the Qu'-Appelle valley, who are represented by my hon. friend from Bast Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) and myself will be detrimentally affected If the company be permitted to build through that part of the country where, my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) himself admits there are few settlers. If the company spend money in building-
What money does the hon. gentleman refer to ?
Money to be used in building from Teulon to the Narrows of Lake Manitoba.
Whose money is it ?
The money of the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation, the company that applies for the charter to build this road. If they use their money in building that hundred miles of road, they will not have money to extend the North-west Central. Now, one of the reasons why 1 would like to get delay in this matter is that I understand intimation was given by a prominent officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway-no less prominent than the president himself before he left Montreal for Bug-laud the other day-that is, if this Rill was allowed to pass, he would undertake that the sixty miles that we are talking about should be built this year. All I ask is that the Bill be delayed a day or two until the gentleman to whom intimation was given is in his place and is prepared, as I believe he will be, to state that If this Bill is adopted the people north of the Qu'-Appelle valley will be given the extension of sixty miles. I suggest that the Bill be allowed to go through the committee stage, but that the third reading be held over until the next occasion when private Bills come before the House.
I can tell the hon. gentleman'that I have inquired, since the Bill came up, from Mr. Drinkwater, Who is the acting president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, whether such an intimation had been given as that to which the hon. gentleman refers. He tells me that no such promise has been made, no such intimation has been given, but that the company are ready to proceed with the construction of the North-west Central road as rapidly as possible, and they expect to build forty miles of the road during the coming summer.
My authority for the statement is not present. I think that no leal harm will be done if the Bill is allowed to stand until Wednesday night.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has surely done enough posing for his constituency
I rise to a point of order.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
I am perfectly in order. Here is a Bill for the purpose of building a railway from a place called Teulon to a place called Gimli, or some other place in the neighbourhood, 100 miles ot railway. When this Bill is passed without a single objection to the principle, without any fault found as to the construction of this line of railway, this hon. gentleman wants to tack on an obligation to build a portion of another railway, a railway which was fully considered before the committee, and to which a charter was given on condition that certain things should be performed, it I remember rightly, the building of twenty miles of railway each year for three years in succession. That was the bargain solemnly passed in this House ; and does the hon. gentleman think he is doing anything else but posing ? Why does he not give notice of an amendment ? If he is serious, why does he not follow the rules of the House and give notice of an amendment ? He could not make an amendment if he wished it. He has to be content with a promise by some one that it is to be delayed for a week or two, he is content if some one shall "*et up in this Housd and make a promise that at some time the charter rights which they have under the North-west Central Railway shall be accompanied with a promise to build thirty or forty miles more. If he was in earnest in seeking the interests of his constituents he would have given notice of an amendment, and he would have pressed it to a division. That is the reasoD why I say the hon. gentleman is doing nothing but posing. This Bill is for the purpose of building a railroad in a direction entirely different from the one which he proposes to build, and he asks that there shall be tacked on to it an amendment, or that a promise shall be given, that thirty or forty miles of another railway shall be built. The Minister of Public Works said he had a railroad down in Quebec to be built, some one in Halifax wants a wharf built. I know that in my section of the country there are railroads that require to be built, and that are more in the interests of the community at large than this particular railway the hon. gentleman advocates. I might as well get up and ask this committee that before this Bill passes there should be tacked on to it as a condition, without even a notice of an amendment, some statement by the promoter that in my section of the country this particular railway shall be built. That would be sufficient for my purpose. No solemnity in the shape of an Act of parliament is required, no amendment is required, nothing but a conversation, or a word passed in the committee, a simple promise by some one which will enable me to go and pose before my constituents and to say that before an expenditure can be made in another part of the country I have the promise of a promoter of a Bill that a certain sum of money shall be expended in my section.
Will the hon. member support such an amendment as he outlines ?
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
1 have a right to a full consideration of any amendment the hon. gentleman proposes. He should give notice of it, and it should be on the Order paper. I want to see the wording of it, and then I will be prepared to express my opinion of it.
Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
The hon. gentleman from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has had a slap at the wharfs in Halifax. I do not know what connection they have with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Northwest. i Perhaps, however, he feels his sympathies excited because the wharfs in Halifax, which are under the Railway Department, were burned down when he was Minister of Railways and Canals.
This question is well worthy the earnest attention of this committee. As has been said here, the company that preceded the Canadian Pacific Railway has had a charter for twenty years. X remember well, years ago, being one of a deputation that waited on the government of the day in the interests of these very people. We were then seeking further aid for that company to enable them to construct that road. I remember the argument was used with regard to the settlers. We said : There are settlers in that district who were brought in there by the pledges and promises of your immigration officers, and the late lamented Sir John Thompson said : That is the one conclusive argument you have produced to-night. Now, Sir, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has procured that charter, and their aim is and has been to procure every charter between the Red river and the Rocky Mountains, and that is what the people of the North-west and Manitoba are opposed to. They are opposed to assisting in the construction of a railroad where there are no people to be benefited by it; and when the Canadian Pacific Railway come to this House and ask the people of the Northwest, who know the position of these settlers, to support a railway scheme and record their votes in favour of it, is there anything wrong about these men standing up and pointing out what they think is in the interests of these unfortunate settlers ? The hon. member for Lanark says that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) should propose an amendment. My hon. friend from Assiniboia is a new member in this House, and men older in parliamentary experience than himself are probably ignorant of all the rules. But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are asking for a charter for a line in a territory where there are no settlers who want to be benefited by it : they were met in the committee with a proposition that the railroad should be built to another portion of the territory, and that 1264
was conceded. Now my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) was so successful that he thinks he will have a few more miles tacked on, and his amendment is no different from the one proposed by the member for Assiniboia. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to introduce any new precedent or do anything that will seem like a hardship to that railroad. X have been a friend of the Canadian Pacific Railway ever since I entered public life, and very often to my own political detriment. It is true, as has been stated by the hon. member for Eastern Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), that it is about as much as a man's political life is worth in the North-west to advocate the interests of that Railway Company. For my part, from this time onward, while I am a member of this House, when this company or any other- company from the Northwest comes here seeking a new charter for building a road where there are no people to benefit by it, and holding charters that they are not actively endeavouring to complete, and as in this case that are urgently needed, those railway companies may look for my opposition.
I want the members from thei North-west to understand that as soon as they bind themselves together and stand together in this House they will get their grievances in the North-west remedied, and not before. There) is only one way to remedy them, and that is why parliamentary tactics like these are adopted here to-day. I like to hear the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) lecture this House on the right way to introduce a measure, and how to rectify a grievance, but there is only one way, and that is pub-' lie agitation on the floors of parliament. If these hon. members from the North-west have substantial grievances now is the time to bring them forward. Get together and they will have them rectified. Let them make a proposition, but they must not put party before their professions. They have to come here as representing the people of the North-west and not the rag-tail of the Grit party.
Now is the time to have this question fought out, and I want [DOT] to fight alongside of the North-west men. I am prepared to stand up against any party in dealing with this railway question. If the North-west members will only get together, if eight members will stand up, eight members can have justice done. There have not been eight members from the North-west standing up for this question to-day. We have had more get up to-day than for a long while, but if the whole of the North-west members would stand together the grievances of that country would be redressed. Every alternate block of land in the North-west Territories is tied up to some railway proposition, but these railway
propositions are not going ahead and the settlement of the country is not going ahead. We are wondering why we have no new provinces in that country, why we have not four Manitobas instead of one. There is something wrong and the cure of that wrong is in this House. The cure of it is in agitation by hon. members from that country standing up together and battling for the rights of the west. If they will only come to 'the issue I will be only too glad to join with them and make an issue of this question. There are other hon. members on this side of the House who will do the same thing. In a year or two we will have a great many of these grievances rectified, and, most of all, the great grievance that was ventilated here the other day, that of the exemption of land held by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west Territories. I hope the government will reconsider the question of referring it to the courts.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flinty. Order.
This is in order. It is in connection with the railway question in the North-west. I have made my point anyway. There has to be a party in this House to take up this railway question. It must not be composed of either of the two political parties, but it must be a party of those who are determined to agitate these grievances and to stand together until they are remedied. I am not going to take my ideas of the parliamentary tactics that I should adopt from the doctrines laid down by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), because that is the way they jolly every question along. I have seen these questions jollied from year to year when they come forward. It is a question of holding up any Bill if it is necessary in order to have justice done. I am certain a good impression will be given by me to Mr. Drinkwater, if he is within hearing of my voice now, and I hope he will find his way clear this year to building the other forty miles of road,