It coincides with the explanation which the hon. member attempted to make last night, but in which he failed utterly. What is the difference between tbe location of the Trans-Canada Railway, as contemplated at the moment he made that utterance, and the location of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as contemplated at present.
About 150 miles, the hon. gentleman says. I do not think he is in a position to tell whether it is 50 or 150 ; but suppose it is 150, it is that many miles further up in this wilderness they have been talking about, and it is carrying that road back of Lake Winnipeg through an uninhabited country from Quebec all the way across.
Sub-Arctic was the expression used. These gentleman, when they first started out against this scheme began to belittle and abuse the country ; and when the Finance Minister went on to prove that this was a good country and to make use of certain official reports, the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) said that these reports were cooked.
We will not go to the summaries, but we will see if the reports were cooked or not I turn up page 36 and I find a summary of the character of the soil made by aa explorer :
As regards the soli of this whole area south of Lake Abitibi and extending in a south-westerly direction to the. Black river, we can say that it is excellently suited to agriculture, being a fine sandy clay loam, just sandy enough to be easily workable.
This report is signed by M. B. Baker. I would ask the hon. member for Centre Toronto if he knows Mr. Baker. He does not know him. Well, Mr. Baker has sworn to this report as being true before Mr. J. A. G. Cuozier, commissioner, can be say aintyf-thing against that gentleman ? Let me turn to another report by Mr. J. M. Bremner and Mr. James M. Milne, who have examined 3.840,000 acres of land. Does the hon. member know Mr. Bremner and Mr. Milne ? He is silent. Does be know anything against them 1 Does he know anything to their discredit ? They have sworn to the troth
of their report. In what particular is it wrong ? I would refer next to the report of Mr. E. L. Fraleck, does the hon. member know this gentleman or anything to his discredit ? Mr. Fraleck tells us about the railway facilities, is there anything the hon. member can say against him ? Is he a man who would swear to a lie ? Will he tell the truth or not ? Would he put a statement on paper which is false and swear to it and let it be published throughout the world ? Here is the report of Mr. Daniel Proctor, does the hon. gentleman know anything against him or not ? He has appended his name to a report in this book. It is a sad spectacle that in opposing this scheme these gentlemen find it necessary, not only to decry their country, but to abuse and slander public officials.
W7ill the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt ? I defy him or anybody else to show that I hare attempted to defame any officer connected with the whole thing. I merely spoke of the summary read to the House. I did not allude to a single individual ; and did not intenl to do it, as the hon. gentleman well knows.
I am glad the hon. gentleman sees the error of his ways. Repentance may be late, but not too late. When the Finance Minister quoted this report and said it was a report emanating from the King's Priuter at Toronto, an official report, what did the hon. gentleman say ? He used these words : ' The whole thing) is a humbug.' These gentlemen, when out of office, are dangerous parties to deal with ? They abuse every public official almost in every province. They have abused and slandered the judges upon the bench. Truly, as has been said of them, when they are out of office. they are like a she-bear robbed of her cubs the she-lion, robbed of her whelps. They can see no good in any body or anything. Ijf It be necessary to gain their end that they should decry their country and abuse this that or the other man, they do not hesitate a moment to do it. They started out first to assert that the country traversed by this railway was valueless. It has been shown beyond question that it is magnificent country all the way down from Winnipeg to Quebec. The hon. gentleman shakes his head. But we have a mass of testimony to show what kind of a country .1 is. Is it patriotic on the part of these gentlemen to circulate throughout the world the statement that this great portion of Canada is a wilderness, that it is not fit for cultivation or habitation ? Is that a patriotic thing to do ? Is that the way they are aiding the building up of Canada ? What are they doing it for ? Simply for more party exigencies. I know that the common sense of the Conservative party does not commend this course. I know that hon. gentlemen take this course reluctantly. I know it is sad for them to be compelled to adopt ft.
If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) will permit me-he has made a pretty strong statement with regard to some hon. gentlemen on this side. Will he give the name of any hon. gentleman on this side who has indicated the course he speaks of or who has said one sentence in the direction of which he has spent some minutes in describing ?
Certainly. I would not make a statement of that sort if it were not borne out by facts. The first gentleman to speak on that side after the leader of the opposition on the 30th of July last, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), told us that this country was a series of muskegs and granite ridges, that there was no timber and that the region was unfit to habitation. That was virtually repeated by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) took the same position. I would ask my hon. friend from Both well (Mr. Clancy) to read the earlier speeches of hon. gentlemen on his own side before their Moses returned from Mount Sinai and cracked the party whip over them. Let the hon. gentleman read those speeches and cull from the remarks made derogatory to the character of the country through which this road is to run, and he will find that he has scores of pages of such statements. I am reminded that the hon. leader of the opposition from the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk) stated that this was a sub-artic region. The hon. member for South Lanark said it was a wilderness, and speaking of the country traversed by the road between Quebec and New Brunswick, he said it was a wilderness and a worthless country. But these hon. gentlemen have found it necessary to abandon that position. They were driven from it; they became ashamed of it. And now they undertake to say that they never said these things. They will wish they had never said them when they get before the people. As to this country between Quebec and Moncton, I refer to the statements of the ex-Minister of Railways when he said that this was a splendid country. But this was in the days before the hon. gentleman had commenced to dicker With gentlemen on the other side. He al-, ways spoke the truth in these days. He said then that this was a splendid country and a grand place for a railroad. And we say so to-day.
Now, I wish to make a statement with regard to the building of the road from Quebec to Moncton. The hon. leader of the opposition made some sneering remarks about Moncton being the terminus and the port for this road. These remarks were quite unnecessary. Nobody contemplates
Moncton as the end of the road. But Moncton is the objective point, and from Moncton it can run to Halifax over the Intercolonial. and from Chlpman It can run to St. John over a line to be built down to
Norton. I wisli to make a statement with regard to this. There has been a great deal of disputing here as to whether this would shorten the line or not. Hon. gentlemen on the other side say it will shorten it by forty or fifty miles. It is contended on our side that it will shorten it by from 120 to 140 miles. I will take this position, and I am ready to demonstrate it to any competent railroad authority, that even if this project does not shorten the road one mile, it is necessary, first in the interest of the country, and second in the interest of the project itself, that this railway should be carried to Moncton and should not stop at Quebec. We are told that there is no security for the operation for the extension of this road. If we compel the company to build their road to Moncton and make a through connection to St. John and Halifax, that is the strongest kind of security that we can have that the road will be operated over the whole eastern division, because when we have got them there and obliged to operate their trains, they must bring their business that way in order to make the line pay, and it will be profitable for them to do so.
In the maritime provinces, we are a million of people, we are the older provinces. We are ready to help all other parts of the Dominion, but we want to share in ail national movements. And we have a right to do so. We in Nova Scotia did not seek to get into this confederation ; we were pitch-forked into it without being consulted. It was unwise for the hon. member for Pictou to refer to the strained feeling at that time. I venture to say that
if any other part of the Dominion had been treated as Nova Scotia was treated when it was brought into confederation there would have been a rebellion. The fact that there was not a rebellion in the case of Nova Scotia is proof of the extreme loyalty of the people of that province. We were forced into confederation, but, having obtained better terms we have accepted confederation ; we are here to stay a nil to take our part in working out the future of this country loyally and to the best of our ability. We are prepared to spend money for the development of the great west, for we know that from the great west we have a right to expect a large measure of the prosperity and success of this Dominion. We are prepared to spend money on our waterways and on every other desirable public work. But, while we are prepared to do that, we feel that we have a right to demand to be taken into account in any national scheme that is formulated. Not a mile of this proposed road will be in Nova Scotia, not a mile of it comes within twenty-four or twenty-five miles of our border. But we see the advantages that will accrue to us from the operating of the road, and we have a right to demand those advantages. There was an attempt made in
this discussion to foment jealousy between St. John and Halifax. It failed. Members from the province of Nova Scotia, from the province of New Brunswick and from the province of Prince Edward Island, came together and agreed that here should be no jealousy and no bickering, but that we should all unite in promoting the welfare of our maritime ports.
Yes, the Liberal members, but we were aided to a certain extent by the Conservative members. Now, I wish to make a declaration. I expect that when this road is built to Moncton it will be necessary to double-track the Intercolonial into Halifax. That would be of enormous value to the city of Halifax, for in its wake will come, if it does not- come before, the much-desired fast Atlantic service. A part of the project is to build from a point on Ibis line near Cliipman to Norton on the Intercolonial, so as to connect St. John. And I, for one, as a representative of the province of Nova Scotia, will refuse to accept the advantage of The Halifax connection unless the St. John connection is provided at the same time. Let there be absolute fairness between us. We are working together for the common good of the lower provinces, and I believe that there is an honest intention on the part of every member from the maritime provinces to do so. And I make this public declaration that I will stand by my agreement with regard to the city of St. John. Will any man rise and tell me that if we build this road down to Moncton and get the connection from Chipman into Norton and so to the east side of the Harbour of St. John, that that city is not going to be greatly benefited by it ? I believe the bulk of the heavy freight trade will go to the city of St. Johu. I have never been one of those who decried that port, nor am I going to. We have two splendid ports in the maritime provinces. Shall we close them, or fail to take advantage of them ? Or shall we shape our national policy so asto develop these ports and bring to them the traffic of Canada ? We have in Halifax a harbour capable of receiving the united fleets of the world, a harbour fifteen miles in depth. Is that not a heritage worthy of our pride ? Is it not an advantage to the Dominion government to have it there ? In St. John we have a harbour nearer to the producing parts of Canada by some miles, and capable of doing an immense business. All she wants is the facilities, and by this project we shall give her the facilities. We are going to give both these cities a chance to live. We shall not give them ns the hon. leader of the opposition suggested, a ' fighting chance.' He said that if the road lie proposed should be built, it should give them a ' fighting chance.' We are going to give them more than a fighting
chance; we are going to insist on their having an equal chance with the other parts of the Dominion.
Now, let us look to the province of Nova Scotia; how are we to be benefited? Halifax will be benefited by ah increase in her population, an increase in her commerce, an increase in her business, an increase in every way. We have within a few miles from our province, St. John, which will certainly advance with rapid strides if this' scheme is carried out. We will have these two cities doubling in population, in communication with the outside world, with lines of steamers running from both of them as this contract provides. Let me refer to the county which I represent. Annapolis is forty-five miles from St. John, one of our natural markets aud like all of the counties of western Nova Scotia it is in sympathy with St. John. We want to see St. John built up and we will do anything we can to build it up, because it will give a larger market to the people of these counties than it has done in the past. Halifax, too, will give an increased market to the farmers in the county I represent. To-day we are about to build a railway from Middleton, connecting with the south shore system to a point on the Annapolis basin which will give closer connection between St. John and Dlgby, Yarmouth, Shelburne ard Queens counties. These counties will all be benefited by the upbuilding of St. John as well as by the upbuilding of Halifax. Then we are building on the railway along the south shore to Halifax and we are about to build one along the same shore to the eastward. Think of the advantage this road will be in the connection it will give to the fishermen along the shores. To-day the products of the fisheries of Nova Scotia are worth about 88,000.000 a year and they are increasing rapidly from year to year. But where do we sell ? We have no market at home and we cannot get into the west now because the rates are prohibitive. We have to send our fish to the West Indies and to South America, we have to seek markets abroad, and these markets are failing. We desire another market and this will be given to us by the Grand Trunk Pacific. As feeders for this line we will have, going west from Halifax, the Halifax and South Western, and the Dominion Atlantic Railways, and the Middleton and Victoria Beach Railway connecting with it. and we wTill have the other road which is projected eastward to Guysborougli. Thus we will have the whole fishing district of the province of Nova Scotia brought at once in touch with this line that runs through into the west. Today we are not selling any of our fish products to the west at all. Why ? Because the freight rate is prohibitive. A member of the other chamber told me that he had paid freight on fish from St. John to the territories 83 a hundred pounds. 83 a hundred !. Almost the first cost Mr. WADE.
of the fish. It is prohibitive. We now get only a small quantity of our dried fish into the western markets and that is tlie only fish we can sell in those markets. If this road is constructed, it will open an enormous market and we can send one-half our fish products into the west. This will give mutual trade and will provide the railway with freight to carry westward. Heretofore the trade has been all jug-handled, it has been coming from the west to the east, the people of Ontario and Quebec have been sending freight to Nova Scotia, but they have taken scarcely anything from us in return as the figures will show. When this road is completed we purpose changing that condition of affairs to a certain extent and propose sending our products into the west in fair exchange.
Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for recess, I was speaking of the advantages to be derived by the province of Nova Scotia from the operation of this railway, aud referring particularly to the fishing industry, which is such an important one in that province. I did not finish saying quite all that I intended saying in regard to the fishing trade. Thes products of our fisheries at the present time do not bring the returns that they will bring when this scheme is perfected and when the western trade that I have spoken of is developed, because fresh fish will be shipped west in refrigerator ears and the produce of the fishermen will bring very much higher prices. This trade has already started in a small way with the limited amount of refrigerator cars we have on the Intercolonial Railway. of course, the trade has not been carried as far west by any means as we anticipate, but I know that at a single station in the county of Guysborough during the first year the refrigerator cars were put on, the amount collected on the freight traffic from fresh fish alone was $17,000. The trade is one capable of enormous development, and we have a right to expect that with this scheme we shall be put in the position to take advantage of it. I will say in regard to my own county-while I take a general and broad view of these things I have a right to look to the interests of the county that I represent-that we have a great fruit trade growing up in the Annapolis valley. It is increasing by leaps and bounds. During the present year. I believe there will be a shipment from there of 500.000 barrels of splendid apples, and in the course of five or ten years that will be increased to a million. A great drawback to the industry is the lack of adequate transportation from the province to the London market. That is owing to the fact that they have not the proper steamship accommodation. With this scheme perfected and with the com-
pauy running lines of steamships from St. John and Halifax, as they are obliged to do under the terms of this contract, this difficulty will be removed. I could go on and enumerate numerous other things that will be of advantage to the province of Nova Scotia. They were detailed at great length and with carefulness by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), and I will not delay the House further on that subject.
Now, I wish to say a word about the line of this road from Quebec to Moncton and to show how everything has been perverted by the other side. It has been represented that we projmse to build a line which is to run up over the mountains to Riviere du Loup. We do not contemplate anything of the sort. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has stated in the House and the newspaper controlled by him has led the people to believe that we are going to run an air-line from Edmundston to Moneton. We do not intend to do anything of the sort. Nobody has ever said anything of that kind, and the figures and distances which have been presented to the House show quite differently. The course of the road as proposed will carry it through the following counties in New Brunswick : Madawaska, Victoria, Oarletou, York, Sun-bury, Queen's and Westmoreland to Moncton, and then with the branch from Chip-man to St. John, it will traverse the counties of King's and St. John. Thus, it will traverse nine out of the fifteen counties of New Brunswick. That is the course that is adopted. Hon. gentlemen opposite have cited Sir Sandford Fleming as giving an opinion in his report and in his conversation against that line. I say that Sir Sandford Fleming has never reported against it and that uo line can be found in bis report against it, and further than that, I say that the bon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who has had a conversation with Sir Sand-ford Fleming, as he says, entirely misunderstood that gentleman. He does not know the locality, and lie is not in a position to understand what Sir Sandford Fleming does say. I have had conversations with Sir Sandford Fleming. I do not feel at liberty to give these conversations here in the House without consulting him, but I can say this much, that Sir Sandford Fleming never expressed an opinion against that line and I will undertake to say that he never will express an opinon against it, and further 1 would say that if he is consulted about the line I have pointed out he will give it his entire and absolute approval. The distances presented by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) show conclusively the line we are going to take. The line will start at Chaudi&re Junction and go to Connors Station, from Connors to Edmundston, from Edmundston to St. Leonard, from St. Leonard to Plaster Rock, from Plaster Rock to Boiestown, from Boiestown to Chipman. and from Cbipman to Berry's
Mills, on the Intercolonial Railway, with the alternative of going from ChaudiSre Junction to Connors Station, from Connors Station to Edmundston, from Edmundston to the Nashwaak bridge, from the Nashwaak bridge to Chipman, and from Chipman to Moncton and St. John, both of the routes going down the valley of the St. John river, the only question being as to where the road should turn off to go to the eastward. The distance that would be saved by this route would be over 120 miles. I believe that a line of railway can be secured with these distances, and as I said before, if the distance was only 50 miles less, as a matter of railroading, as a matter of transportation, it is absolutely, necessary that this road should be built down to Moncton with a dividing of the line at Moncton, from Moncton to Halifax, and from Chipman to St. John, in order to perfect the scheme. But, let us look now at other distances in connecti >n with this line. When this read is completed, with steamers bn the Atlantic Ocean and with steamers on the Pacific Ocean, we shall then have a distance from Liverpool to Yokohama of 10,135 miles. By the Canadian Pacific Railway the distance is 10,445 miles, and by New York, 10,830 miles, so that we are making a saving in the distance between Liverpool and Yokohama by way of Halifax of 700 miles over that of the route by way of New York. The distance upon the Atlantic must be taken into consideration in connection with this matter. From Liverpool to Halifax the distance is 2,450 miles, from Liverpool to St. John 2,700 miles, and from Liverpool to New York 3,050 miles. While I am upon the question of distances, let us look at the distances in connection with the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition. From Quebec to Winnipeg by this proposed line the distance is substantially 200 miles greater than from Quebec to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk Pacific line. If we save 200 miles in the distance between Quebec and Winnipeg and save 120 miles between Quebec and Moncton, then we save 320 miles between Winnipeg and the ocean ports. Now, there was a statement made here that the Intercolonial Railway was going to be destroyed, that it was going to be put out of business. The hon. leader of the opposition went out of his way to try to twist and pervert the words of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), and he stated that the hon. member for Hants had stated in effect that we would either have to give away or sell the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman was not in the House when the hon. member for Hants made his able speech here. If he had been, no doubt he would have heard the hon. member for Hants for ten or fifteen minutes ably demonstrating that this scheme would not injure the Intercolonial Railway in the slightest, but on the contrary would be a benefit to it. That was the position that
the bon. member for Hants took. Now, let us look at this question of injuring the Intercolonial Railway, I mean to say here that this scheme is entirely separate and distinct from the Intercolonial Railway in the purpose for which it was designed and in the purpose which it will serve. It has nothing to do with the extension to the Georgian bay and the Intercolonial Railway one way or the other. Neither has it anything to do with deepening the waterways or the Georgian Bay canal scheme. It does not interfere with any of these projects in the slightest degree. It is an enterprise standing by itself. I want to draw hon. gentlemen's attention for a short time to some figures which I have here in regard to the Intercolonial Railway, obtained from the manager, Mr. Pottinger, in regard to traffic returns, which are as follows :-
Traffic originating in Montreal and vicinity, and between that and
Lfivis $ 563,177 37
Traffic originating in Levis and
vicinity 128,959 92
From maritime provinces destined for Montreal and vicinity or points
west of Ldvis 304,975 20
From maritime provinces destined
Levis and vicinity 56,326 39
(A.) Traffic from Drummond and joint section, including Montreal, and from Levis, Point Levis and Quebec to maritime provinces.. .. 374,101 00 (B.) Traffic from maritime provinces to Drummond and joint section, including Montreal, and to Ldvis,
Point L6vis and Quebec 361,301 59
(A.) Traffic from Ontario from west
via Montreal, G.T.R
671,740 87From west via Ste. Rosalie, C.P.R. 29,307 08From west via St. John, C.P.R... 79,938 07
(B.) Traffic to points in Ontario and
west via Montreal, G.T.R
154,694 66To west via Ste. Rosalie, C.P.R.. 71,407 18To west via St. John, C.P.R 11,115 69Total $2,807,045 02
Now, I make bold to say that the only portion of that traffic which will be affected by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be that portion emanating and terminating in the vicinity of Levis. That is all. All the freight that is gathered up at Montreal, or which is delivered to the Intercolonial at Montreal by the Grand Trunk Railway, will, when received by the Intercolonial Railway, be carried on the Intercolonial Railway to its point of distribution at the maritime provinces, and not one dollar's worth of that freight will be affected by the new road. All the freight that is gathered up on the Drummond County section of the Intercolonial Railway will be retained upon the Intercolonial Railway and carried to the point of distribution, which is also true of the freight coming back. Therefore, the only traffic of the Intercolonial Railway which we will have inter-Mr. WADE.
fered with at all 'will be the portion of the traffic at Levis, which emanates there and which terminates there, and which is comparatively very small. Now, as a compensation for that to the Intercolonial Railway, let us see what we have. I say that in my judgment the building of this road is going to materially increase the traffic upon the Intercolonial Railway. Nobody on this side of the House has any idea of putting the Intercolonial Railway out of business, or of destroying its efficiency in any way. We hope to see the Intercolonial Railway go forward and progress and become a paying institution, instead of being a drag upon the country. Let us see then what advantages the Intercolonial Railway will get by the scheme that is being propounded. In the first place, we will have a rental from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for the running rights over the Intercolonial Railway from Norton to Halifax and from Norton to St. John. That will be a very considerable item, and that is something that will not cost the country a cent ; it is like that much money found. Then we will have all the traffic emanating upon the new line which is carried to Levis and is destined for Montreal and points in the west, because this road cannot touch that. This new road will have to deliver to the Intercolonial Railway at Levis or Chaudiere all the freight which It has gathered up from or down to the maritime provinces and which is destined to points upon the Intercolonial Railway and the Drummond County section of ft, for Montreal and other points west of Montreal, and vice versa. Then all the traffic that emanates upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for a long distance west of Quebec upon this through line-and it will be large-and which Is destined to points on the Intercolonial Railway along the River St. Lawrence or around the north shore of New Brunswick, and up from Levis towards Montreal ; all that traffic going and coming must be delivered to the intercolonial Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway will get the advantage of it. The great theory in railway business at the present time is that the more railways you have the more traffic is created, provided, of course, that railways are not in actual competition with each other. In addition to this, if this scheme accomplishes what I expect it will -and we have a fast Atlantic service coming into Halifax, and we have the lines of steamships I have spoken of-by how much would that increase the business that will be carried on the Intercolonial Railway ? I think it is safe to predict that when this road has gone into operation that the business of the Intercolonial Railway from the start will be increased very, very largely, indeed, and that that increase will continue. The talk of the new road injuring the Intercolonial Railway, or putting the Intercolonial Railway out of business, is to my mind ridiculous.
There is one striking thing about this whole matter, and that is, that it is not the friends of the Intercolonial Railway who are talking about any trouble of this sort. That talk comes from the very gentlemen who have been raving against the Intercolonial Railway for years and years. These gentlemen never had any love for the Intercolonial Railway, and they have no love for it now, but they insincerely profess this love in order that they may base on it an argument against the government scheme.
I would like to say a word, Sir, concerning what will be accomplished for the province of Ontario by the construction of this road, so far as its extension to the maritime provinces is concerned. To-day these provinces by the sea are the best markets that the people of Quebec have for their manufactured goods and other commodities. Go to the freight sheds in the city of Halifax and see the immense quantities of material that come down from the province of Ontario-agricultural implements and machines of all descriptions ; mowing machines, reaping machines, carriages, carts and everything in the shape of manufactured goods. In addition to that, the provide of Ontario ships down to us enormous quantities of hams, and bacon, and beef, and pork, and butter, and flour, and pease, and beans, and other such products. We are the great market, and we have always been the great market for Ontario. If, Sir, by this scheme the maritime provinces are made more prosperous and their population is increased, is not that market made much larger for Ontario, and will not Ontario be benefited to that extent ? That is a simple proposition, and it is a matter of surprise that any man living in the province of Ontario and interested in that province should not be anxious, and deeply anxious, to have the maritime provinces prosper so that the market for Ontario may be extended.
I shall have now, Mr. Speaker, to refer, for a few moments, to some criticisms on this Bill, but before proceeding to that, I would be doing an injustice to my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) and to my hon. friend from Colchester (Mir. Gourley), if I did not cite them as authorities in connection with this proposition to build to Moncton. When this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway charter was before the House on the 22nd of June, the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) delivered himself. These two gentlemen were anxious then to have a provision put in the charter compelling the Grand Trunk Railway to commence the work at Moncton at the same time as they commenced at Quebec and the west. Nobody at that time ever thought of proposing Moncton, except these gentlemen from the maritime provinces, and here is what the member for King's (Mr. Fowler) said :
I have no objection whatever to the extension down to Moncton. I am in perfect accord
with that, but I want something more than a mere provision in the charter to show me that it is going to be built. That may suit the hon. gentleman for Annapolis but it does not suit me.
He wanted to make it perfectly sure and . certain ; he wanted to have a cast-iron provision put in ; he wanted it put in the charter that the company must build to Moncton, and that they must build to Moncton at the very same time that they were building west of Quebec. That was his position then.
Now I must cite another celebrated authority on the other side of the House to show what his ideas were in regard to this matter. I refer to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley). Hon. gentlemen will remember a discussion which came on in the House over this charter, when an attempt was made to change the terminus, from Moncton to St. John. A similar discussion had previously taken place in the-Railway Committee, and an amendment was moved to that effect. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals voted for that resolution to build a railroad to St. John, although he now so violently opposes building on to Moncton. The arguments were so strong against his position in defending St. John Harbour that I found it necessary to go to his rescue to a certain extent, and I stood beside him and upheld St. John as a good port, which could do good business for this Dominion. After I had finished and had spoken of our right to. have the road to Moncton, the hon. member-for Colchester rose and said :
I have been delighted with the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). They have the right ring. I think a maritime province man should be big enough to say : Let any port in the maritime province win in the game ; bring your route to the maritime provinces and let God and nature determine the port. People are easily caught by catch phrases. Start a catch phrase up in this country and it takes away all the argument you can make in a year. One hon. gentleman deprecates paralleling the Intercolonial. Why, we want railways in this country paralleling every eight or ten miles. Parallel railways every eight'or ten miles and you bring in population, you bring in industry, and you produce wealth.
That was the position of the hon. gentleman at that time. He went on to say further :
I do not want to have to argue that the Intercolonial Railway is a disadvantage to Nova Scotia or an advantage to Ontario, but I waut the people of Ontario to understand that we in Nova Scotia regard it more as a national necessity in favour of Ontario than in favour of Nova Scotia.
Let me cite another authority in this connection, an authority which we usually respect, and which I think hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House respect. On this memorable 26th day of May, when the hon. leader of the opposition presented and
endorsed the resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Halifax, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) made use of this language :
As I said before, we have a choice of deciding between two companies for the building of this road. My opinion is that if the government should decide to give any assistance for that purpose, the company which is entitled to the preference is the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That compaay has done a great deal to open up this country, they have spent a great deal of money, and have received very little return for it. It may be the fault of the management of the company, but the fact remains that for the vast sums of money which that company has invested and which have had the effect of developing this country more than any other railway except the Canadian Pacific Railway, it has received very little return in the way of profits. I think the policy of the government should be to have this road built as far north as possible, to pass as near as 'possible to the height of land in order to tap n region of country which has not been opened up at present.
Now, may I be permitted to refer to some criticisms of this contract ?-and 1 will deal with them just as briefly as I possibly can. One great criticism made is that the capitalization of the company is too great; and the argument is advanced that the freight rates will be based on the capitalization. This fallacious theory has been put forward in this House on several occasions, and also in tlie Railway Committee. The only authority ever adduced iD support of that argument is that is was advanced before the board of railway commissioners somewhere in the United States. But there cannot be found a solitary word or line -to show that the decision of any board or tribunal fixing the toils on a railway has ever been based on its capitalization. How ridiculous that would be. For my part, X would not care what the capitalization of the railway was. If anything enters into the determination of the tolls, of the railway, it is the actual cost, and not the capitalization ; and with the provisions in this contract, by which the government can ascertain to a cent exactly what the road cost, they have full control over the fixing of the rates. There is where government control comes in. So long as you have the company under the control of the government, not only by tlie general laws of the Dominion, but by a special contract their rates will be under the control of the government. One of the greatest hardships which have existed in the west in the past has been the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were given a free hand to charge any rates they saw fit until their profits amounted to ten per cent, not upon their capitalization or upon what the railroad had cost them, but upon its whole cost, both the portion built by the company and the portion built by the government and given to the company.
I find that the rate of freight by rail and water at the present time from Chicago to Montreal is 3A cents per bushel, and that the rate from Winnipeg to Montreal by rail and water is 13i cents per bushel. Now, I am beginning to believe that these gentlemen from the North-west who have been contending about these rates for so long knew what they were talking about. It is a very anomalous condition that grain can be carried from Chicago to Montreal for 3J cents, while it costs 13J cents to carry it from Winnipeg to Montreal. I do not pretend to be able to discuss these different freight rates, and X shall not attempt to do it. I think it would have been as well if some of the gentlemen on the other side of tlie- House had been as modest about that matter as I am.
The Georgian Bay canal, as I have explained, is a scheme that stands by itself. It is not affected by this project in tile slightest degree. The mere fact that the proposed railway will be constructed does not injure the prospects of the Georgian Bay canal any more than it affects the question of deepening our waterways and ports. We are simply building an all-rail highway across the continent, to connect with two lines of steamships on the two oceans.
Another criticism brought forward was by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Samuel Hughes). He says the grain cannot be carried over this railway. Well, the company are willing to undertake to carry it. They are willing to undertake to build the railway and operate it, and to give security that they will do that. It is a matter for the company; they have to accomplish this. But there is a peculiar fact in connection with the speeches made by some hon. gentlemen from Ontario. Why, the valiant member for Victoria declared that it was impossible to carry grain by rail to the lower provinces; but he showed that it was the most feasible thing in the world to carry it to the Pacific coast, and then put in on vessels and take it around Cape Horn and so on to Liverpool or to divert it to the United States, and take it by way of the Mississippi to Liverpool. It seems that these gentlemen are possessed -with the idea that if they can only get the grain out of that country in some way so that it will not go to the maritime provinces, their purpose is accomplished. I do not see why they feel that way about it.
The next criticiser oif this contract to whom I wish to refer is the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and we will see what his criticism amounts to.
I wish to refer to the speech which he delivered on the 11th of August. He has referred to the section of the contract regarding running rights. He spoke as follows :
If it were possible to produce the most conclusive and striking evidence that some features of this contract were framed without consultation with and without the advice or the opinion of anybody who knows anything at all about railroading, these clauses in the contract and this clause in the preamble afford that evidence. A more absolutely unworkable, and, in the opinion of every railway man in the country, a more senseless suggestion it would be difficult to make. The idea of commencing a scheme involving all the millions of expenditure which it is proposed that this scheme shall involve, and then saying you will do it in order to establish a common railway highway, so that ' a ' company, ' b ' company, ' e 1 company and ' d ' company may travel thousands of miles over this railway. I have endeavoured to urge the view, but without the slightest success, that that was not railway usage or practice or possibility ; but it is here all the same.
In other words, he said that this idea of allowing running rights was impossible and Impracticable, and he went on to state that the dominant railway would impose on the servient railway and there would be all sorts of trouble. Some hon. gentlemen on this side suggested that there was a railway right in Ontario, over which two railway companies had joint running rights. Of course we do-, not presume to know all about railways, but the hon. the ex>Minis-ter of Railways and Canals evidently does not either, for he was not aware that there are two railways right here in Canada operating the same line jointly. I refer to the Wabash Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway. Some question was raised here as to how the railway is operated by these two companies, and I have taken the trouble to get a copy of the contract between them. I find that this is the agreement between the parties. They operate 229 miles in common. The train's of both companies run over that road. There is but one train despatcher, who is the joint officer of both companies. The station men and the permanent employees at the stations are joint officers of both companies. The trains of both companies are given the same privileges, and there is one despatcher for all the trains. Stallage is rented to the Wabash Company for its engines, and the Grand Trunk Railway sells coal to it at cost and charges if it wishes to buy, or it can buy its own coal. Here is a line 229 miles long, with two divisions, and it is operated by both these railway companies in harmony. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) undertook to say the other night that the Wabash was not interested in the local freights. He is entirely wrong. I have the contract under my hand, and under that contract, the local freight is carried on joint account, both companies getting the advantage. The working out of this arrangement is as simple as it can possibly be and has been going on for years without the slightest trouble. If you can operate 229 miles of railway in the way I have Indicated, why not a thousand ? What is the dif-309*
Terence ? The hon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) drew a most ridiculous picture here of a train starting from Moncton or Halifax for Winnipeg. He supposed that the same train hands went all the way through to Winnipeg. Whoever heard tell of a railway being operated in that way ? This railway will be operated by divisions, just the same as any other road.
The hon. gentleman, I understand, has the contract between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Wabash for running rights over the southern division of the Grand Trunk Railway between the Detroit and the Niagara rivers ?