April 26, 1904

CON

Uriah Wilson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox).

Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire of the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) when I may expect the return to be brought down respecting the dismissal of the postmaster at Wilton, in the riding of Lennox, which was moved for on March 17th.

Topic:   INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Permalink
LIB

William Mulock (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

I will make inquiry and inform the hon. member tomorrow. [DOT]

Topic:   INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Permalink

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

CON

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).

Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call attention to a matter relating to myself personally and in that connection I will quote an article which appears in the 'Globa' of yesterday. The article is as follows

There are certain conventions and amenities recognized in parliament that are necessary to the conduct of its business in a civilized way. There seems to be an element both at Toronto and Ottawa-disposed to ignore this. One of the matters arranged between the whips is the order of speaking. This had been settled between Messrs. Calvert and Taylor for Wednesday night last. Mr. Alcorn was to be the last speaker on the Conservative side and the premier was to close the debate. Mr. Bell, the member for Pictou, however, chose to ignore the disposition made by the authority of his own whip and achieved the highest form of fame he will ever achieve.

So far as this Is a personal matter, I might perhaps absolutely ignore it. At any rate the rather insolent suggestion contained in the last sentence is one which I think will be most properly treated with entire and complete contempt. At the same time, it is necessary that I should offer some explanation to the House as to what some members may perhaps have thought an irregularity. My understanding was that the

lion, member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) was to close the debate, and with that understanding, I and a number of others on this side of the House who were prepared to speak, consented to withhold our speeches for the time being. After the hon. member for Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) had concluded, the right hon. the premier proceeded to make a speech. X had no knowledge that such an arrangement had been made ; it had not been communicated tc me by my whip, and I thought l was at perfect liberty to go *on and reply to the premier's speech. X do not now feel inclined to give any other reason for doing so, although I might suggest some such in the general tenor of the premier's speech, but I do not think it would be to the advantage of the House at the present time to raise these points. I will simply say that when I consented to withhold my speech on that occasion, it was with the understanding that Mr. Alcorn was to close the debate, and later when the premier made his speech, I felt myself at perfect liberty to follow him and would not have been at all surprised if the debate had gone on for some time afterwards. I am sure that no man in the Houke is more anxious to obey the rules and conventions of the House than am ,1 ; I should regret very much in any way to impair the regularity of the proceedings. Apparently some right seems to have been claimed that the premier could make not only a reply, but a final reply and close the debate. I do not know on what grounds that claim was made, but apparently the paragraph in the ' Globe ' would seem to indicate that the right of closing the debate, rested in the premier for the time being. As this is a proposition to which I am not prepared to accede, I shall move the adjournment of the House in order to accord an opportunity for any explanations that may be offered, because I think it is important that we should have a clear and distinct understanding not only of what the rules are, but also of just what arrangements the House is disposed to agree to, and to live up to. I should be the first man to regret that I should have done anything to break through the regular procedure. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Topic:   PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Permalink
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).

Before the motion is carried it may be well that I should make an explanation to the House. I have served for 20 years in the position of chief whip for the Conservative party both in power and in opposition. I have served under the late lamented Sir John Macdonald, Sir John Abbott, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper, and our present able find gifted leader, Mr. R. L. Borden, and this is the first occasion on which it has ever been intimated to me that any agreement made by me with the whip of the opposite side had been broken. It is not

Topic:   PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Permalink
CON

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

pleasant to be twitted by the hon. the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) that I have broken such a bargain. It is well known that whips have to make certain arrangements aud must have private and confidential conferences. For years, the late lamented Mr. Trow, chief whip for the opposition, served in that position, he was succeeded by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) and with these gentlemen my relations were always most pleasant and satisfactory, and they have been so with the present chief whip of the government (Mr. Calvert). No person who has ever served in that capacity can intimate that any violation of any confidence or arrangement we have made has taken place. The arrangement now spoken of was first talked of on Tuesday the 12th, when the chief government whip asked me when the debate would close and he asked if it could possibly be closed on Thursday or Friday of that week. I told him I did not think it possible. He asked how many speakers I had and I showed him this list which he examined. He said he had three and mentioned the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne). He also thought that there might possibly be a speech from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and he expected, although he had not consulted the premier, that the premier would want to say a few words. I said I would discuss the arrangement with my leader and meet him again the next day. We met on Wednesday, and after a discussion decided to close the debate on Tuesday if possible, and if not then on Wednesday for a certainty. The debate went on that day and at night on Wednesday, after the agreement had been made, the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) moved the adjournment of the debate, although his name had not been submitted in the conference or given to me as one of their speakers. Had it been, knowing the number of speakers I had on this side of the House I would not have consented to a division on Wednesday.

The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) moved the adjournment of the debate on Wednesday night. Then he took the floor on Thursday on the order being called, and did not conclude his speech until ten o'clock at night. The hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) followed. These two hon. gentlemen occupied the whole of Thursday. On Friday morning I said that the agreement was violated, because here was a speaker whom he had rot counted upon. On Friday I had. to go home, and I left the matter in the hands ol the whip on our side for Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), to.look after affairs during Friday

and Monday until my return. I gave him the list of speakers, which included : For

Thursday Messrs. Broder, Bennett and Henderson ; Friday, Messrs. Roche (Marquette), Alcorn, Bell, Lavell, Wilmot and Clare ; for Monday. Messrs. Maclean, Pringle, Lefurgey and Pope ; for Tuesday, Messrs. Kemp, Fowler, Hughes (Victoria) and Ball ; and for Wednesday, Messrs. Barker and Clarke. On Friday, a side issue was interjected which occupied all the afternoon. The result was that the only speeches on our side disposed of were those of Messrs. Roche and Pope. On Monday another side issue was interjected which occupied the House until six o'clock. As soon as I got back and had a conversation with my colleague (Mr. Roche, Marquette) I went to the chief whip of the government and told him that it was impossible to get a vote on Wednesday. He put up the hon. member for South Essex, also the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and Mr. Lavergne (Montmagny), the hon member for Halifax (Mr. Roche), as well as the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes). These were in addition to the three names he had given me, although the Minister of Justice had not spoken. I told him it would be impossible to dispose of the vote on Wednesday. But he told me he thought we would have to get through and that he would have a consultation with the Prime Minister. On Wednesday he told me he had had that consultation and the Prime Minister had insisted on the vote being taken on Wednesday. I said I would consult the speakers on our side and cut off as many as we could ; if the Prime Minister really wished to dispose of the matter, we would close it in the small hours of the morning. Then I had a consultation with him as to the speakers. He informed me that the debate must close, and we parted at that. After the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had spoken, we had another consultation. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) was going to follow. I asked if we could not join in going to the hon. member for Winnipeg to get him to abstain from speaking, so that we could get the vote earlier. We had tii at consultation with the hon. member for Winnipeg, but that hon. gentleman insisted on his right to speak. While he was speaking, you, Mr. Speaker, called me over to your chair, and in conversation with you, you suggested that if we could get the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) not to speak, we would have the vote then. While we were engaged in that conversation, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) came and stood at my Side and we discussed taking the vote as soon as the hon. member for Prince 641

Edward had ended his speech. While I was listening to the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) the chief whip of the government came and told me that the Prime Minister was going to say a few words. I did not say anything, one way or the other. But, instead of the Prime Minister saying a few words, he made a speech of an hour's duration, including a strong attack on the leader of the opposition. It is hardly to be wondered at that more than one hon. gentleman on this side thought that the arrangement that had been made, was not to be carried out. As soon as I understood that the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) was to close the debate, I went to see Messrs. Bennett, Bell-Mr. Maclean was not here- Fowler, Hughes (Victoria) and Clarke and said they would have to bottle up their speeches because the government was insisting on a vote that night, and we might as well have it early. They agreed to that, believing that the vote was to be taken when the member for Prince Edward sat down. You, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, understood that that hon. gentleman was to close the debate, because you asked me not to have him speak, and we would have the division at once. When the Prime Minister ' instead of saying a few words,' made a speech of an hour, and. in the course of it assailed our leader, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), evidently felt free to reply. So, notwithstanding the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) that I had violated my agreement, if there was any violation at all it came from the other side. I want the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Annapolis, and the House and the country, to understand that I have never made a bargain as whip, whether my side was in power or in opposition, but I carried ir out to the letter.

Topic:   PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Permalink
LIB

William Samuel Calvert (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. WILLIAM S. CALVERT (West Middlesex).

I am very glad that this question came up, because I must confess that I felt, at the time when the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) got up to speak after the Prime Minister, that the agreement entered into between the chief whip on the opposition side and myself had been broken. I can concur in what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side so far as the agreement about the vote was concerned. We agreed on Wednesday, a week previous that the vote should be taken on Tuesday, if possible, and at latest on Wednesday. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), the chief whip on the other side, told me that this arrangement was concurred in by the leader of the opposition. The hon. gentleman blames us for having extra speakers. We did have the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) and the hon. member for King's P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes) but, on the

other hand we did not have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) who was expected to speak or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who also was expected to speak. We put up other members only in order to keep up our side of the debate, so that hon. gentlemen opposite might not be able to charge our members with being afraid to speak on the subject. We on this side were perfectly willing to keep up the discussion. But, when it came to Wednesday, the day agreed upon for the vote, the members bn this side had been informed and were ready for the division. We did not object to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), or the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) or the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) speaking. But when X returned after dinner, I happened to go up to your chair, Mr. Speaker, and was informed that none of the members on the opposition side except the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) would speak. I went to the chief whip of the opposition, and he informed me that the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for West Toronto, the hon. member for North Victoria had decided that they would not speak ; and that after the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) had concluded, the hon. member for Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) would be the last to speak on that side. That is what the chief whip on the other side tolcl me when I told him that the Prime Minister would close the debate. I heard, before the Prime Minister had spoken, that the hon. member for Pictou was likely to speak, and I could scarcely believe it. When the member for Pictou rose, I went to the chief whip of the opposition and asked him how it was that that hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) was speaking after we had decided that the Prime Minister should close the debate. And the chief whip of the opposition told me then that the hon. member for Pictou was speaking against his wishes, that he had not. agreed to his speaking, but that the hon. gentleman was speaking on his own account. Yet, he had informed me only an hour or two before the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for North Victoria and the hon. member for West Toronto had decided that they would not speak at that time. The only thing I objected to and the only violation of the course we had agreed upon that the debate should close after the Prime Minister was that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) spoke after that agreement.

Topic:   PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).

Inasmuch as I happened to be one of the parties concerned in this matter, and chanced to be standing here when the arrangement was made between the chief whip of the government side and the chief whip of the opposition, I may say that the understanding was that the member for Pictou, the member for Toronto and myself were to withhold our speeches until possibly

Topic:   PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Permalink
LIB

William Samuel Calvert (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. CALVERT.

some other occasion during the session, in order to carry out an agreement, entered into by the two whips. I may say that I objected to the two whips coming to any such agreement, that they should assume power to close the debate whenever it suited their wishes. However, at the request of the whip on this side I acquiesced in the arrangement. The distinct understanding in my mind at the time was that the member for Prince Edward was to close the debate. Eater on the chief whip of the government side informed me that though there were to be no more addresses, but of course, he said, the Prime Minister may say a few words. I knew nothing more about it. But I may say that the understanding was that the member for Prince Edward alone was to close the debate, and there was no talk at the time of the Prime Minister making a speech, or an impassioned appeal such as he did. I may say that after the Prime Minister had spoken I was very much annoyed, and felt much inclined to get up, because I felt the compact had been broken, and I felt inclined to go on, late as the hour was, and make my address on that occasion, because the arrangement, to my mind, had been violated, in spirit at all events, by the speech of the Prime Minister on that occasion. These are the facts as I understood them when the arrangement was made between the two whips. I know for a fact that it was the chief whip on our side who induced the member for Toronto to remain in his seat, and I know that he asked the member for Pictou to remain in his seat. I may say that I think it is hardly the proper thing for the two whips to come to any definite understanding that the division on a question shall take place at a certain hour or on a certain evening.

Motion (Mr. Bell) to adjourn, negatived.

Topic:   PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Permalink

GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 72) To amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.


CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).

Mr. Speaker, after the statements which have been made by the hon. gentlemen who occupy the position of whips of the respective parties, I need not offer any explanation or apology to the House for taking up some time in a further discussion of a matter of national importance. I hoped to have the privilege, in common with my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell), and some other gentlemen whose names have been mentioned in connection with that discussion, of saying something before the division was taken on Wednesday evening. But that opportunity having been denied me. and the matter appearing to me of such pressing and vital importance, I deem it

my duty to take advantage of the motion for the second reading of the Bill to oifer some remarks on this proposal.

The debate which has taken place during the last two weeks has been interesting and instructive. It has been interesting because of the number of eloquent speeches which have been delivered by members on both sides in connection with this proposal, and it has been instructive, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that a flood of light has been thrown upon the motives which prompted the government to take such decisive action, to take such speedy action as they took last session. Since this discussion commenced we have been enabled to see more clearly the real causes which impelled the government to refuse the Grand Trunk Railway Company permission to proceed with its original proposition. We are in a better position now to judge of the importance and value of the grandiloquent sentences which were uttered by the Prime Minister in introducing the measure to the House. There was no time then, in the estimation of the Prime Minister, to consider, to reflect, to weigh well the steps to which the country was being committed. Not a moment was to be lost. It was absolutely essential, in the best interests of Canada, that we should proceed immediately with the undertaking which was presented to us. So serious, so critical was the national position represented to us by the Prime Minister, that the reasonable requests which were made by hon. members on this side of the House that we should proceed deliberately, that we should have some further and more accurate information as to the country through which the proposed line was to pass, that we should have some more accurate and definite information as to the cost of this great undertaking, were all brushed aside, and were -not deemed worthy of being entertained by the government.

So far as this parliament was concerned, the contract which was entered into last year between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company was ratified. The people of Canada were held and firmly bound under the provisions of that contract; but so carelessly, so recklessly, if I may be permitted to use that expression without being offensive, was the contract drawn, that within one month after the prorogation of this House the contract was practically at an end ; because while the people of Canada were bound under its provisions, it was made perfectly clear to us that the other party to the contract, the company, was not bound at all. And so, Mr. Speaker, after having rushed this project through the House last session we have been called to-, gether this session principally to ratify a new contract entered into between the government and the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We were given assurance after assurance during the debate of last session that the companies with

whom we were negotiating, that the gentlemen with whom we were dealing, were men of honour, that there could be no doubt as to their ability, no doubt as to their intention to carry out in so far as they were concerned, the contract entered into with them. But I repeat that the first condition to show their bona tides, the first act which they were called upon to perform to show that they meant to fulfil that contract, was left unperformed, and, according to the statement made by the president of the Grand Trunk Company in London, this session of parliament is being held practically for the sole purpose of passing an amended contract which has been prepared by the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and which we are now discussing.

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the government have been placed in a most humiliating position. I take it that they could not have expected to have been treated very much better by the persons with whom they were dealing. They have been placed in this most humiliating position because of the piecipitancy of their action and because they refused, without good and sufficient ground, in my humble judgment, to permit the Grand Trunk Railway Company to obtain access to the west by the means which ihc Grand Trunk Company at first proposed. At the opening of last session of parliament, on March 12th of last year, we were solemnly assured out of the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General that the whale question of transportation, a question far reaching and of the most vital importance to the people of Canada, was to be referred for consideration, for report and for advice to a transportation commission. On the 18th June last, when the House was discussing the question of granting substantial aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, to enable that corporation to extend their lines through Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, we were given an assurance by the right hon. Prime Minister that the government contemplated subsidizing only one transcontinental railway. He said that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was not then an entity. It was a mere project in the air which might or might not be carried out. In his speech the other day, upon the resolution introduced precedent to this Bill, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) declared that the government only commenced to frame the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on the 1st of July, or thereabouts. The time which elapsed from that date until the Bill was introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister last year was so short that, with all their business acume.i, with all their legal ability, with all their experience in dealing with railway magnates, it could not have been expected that hon. gentlemen opposite could have framed a contract in that period of time 1 tnat would have safeguarded, as it should

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

Dominion. And mark you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says that the first fight for the extension east-[DOT] ward was put up last year when the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was before the railway committee. It is then to the hon. gentleman from Annapolis and to those associated with him in the fight for the extension of the road eastward that we are to give the credit for the extension to Moncton. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade), therefore, not only slanders the members from the maritime provinces who sit on this side of the House, but. evidently without meaning it, he robs his leader the Prime Minister of the honour and the credit and the distinction of being the originator of this second ocean to ocean railway. We know now that it is the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and his fellow-Libera'ls from the maritime provinces to whom we are indebted for the paternity of this scheme ; we know now that it is they who conceived this second ocean to ocean railway, and we know that the Prime Minister is sailing under false colours and is being presented in a false light to the people when to him is attributed the credit of being the father of this scheme. After the modest declaration that has been made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wa'de), it is only fair and just to suggest that the halo which now surrounds the head of the Prime Minister in connection with this project should be transferred to the head of the membe" for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), because it is to him and not to the Prime Minister that the country owes this second transcontinental railway.

We were told last year that it was treason to Canada to suggest that reasonable delay should take place in the prosecution of this work, even until some definite information could be obtained as to the character of the country through which this railway may run and the amount of the expenditure that will be required. We were told that time was the very essence of the contract, and that any one who suggested a moment's delay was antagonistic to the interests of the Dominion. Well, Sir, this parliament, so far as it could, bound the people of Canada to the contract which was entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government. The government of Canada u ere given carte blanche ; and let me ask .you, Mr. Speaker, and let me ask any hon. member in this House, what action have the government taken since October last to prove that they were in earnest, or that the matter was as urgent as they represented it to be ? Six months of the most valuable period of the year have been allowed to lapse, and yet, when the House is called to ratify the amended contract made with the Grand Trunk, the ministry have not been able to lay one particle of new information before us respecting the region through which the railway may run. or respecting the expenditures that will be necessary to

Mr. CLARKE

carry It to completion. (Last year we were told that we had mountains of information at our disposal.

In the speech which he delivered in introducing the measure eight or nine mouths ago, the premier told us we had mountains of information available. That speech was reprinted In very handsome 'paffipSIet form, illustrated-w IIh^irtTTiurrrls, up umTer the head of * complete information ' was repeated the statement made last year as to the steps taken 150 or_2()0 years _agn to find a passaga-to-the-PScifi'c Ocean :

Samuel de Champlain devoted years to the task in the hope of finding a passage to the sea. Robert Cavelier de La Salle lost his life in the attempt. Another man, LaVerendrye, took an overland journey to reach it by exploring the prairies, and his two sons, on the 1st January, 1743, were the first Europeans to cast eyes upon the Rocky Mountains. LaVerendrye himself lost his life like Robert, Cavelier de La Salle in the attempt to get to the Pacific ocean. After the country had passed under the sovereignty of the British Crown the task was resumed by Scotch traders established in Montreal, and in 1793, Alexander Mackenzie was the first white man to reach the Pacific ocean across the mountains by the overland journey. Many private individuals subsequently attempted and performed the same feat. The last of them was Captain Butler, of the British army, who in the winter of 1872 crossed the continent from Port h-la-Corne at the forks of the Saskatchewan by way of the Peace river to the Pacific Ocean.

This is some of the information we find immediately under the subheading of ' complete information.' This was given to us by the Prime Minister last session ; but notwithstanding the urgency of the work from a national standpoint, what have the Prime Minister and his associates done since then to give the people of Canada further enlightenment on a matter of such vital importance ? In introducing the resolution containing the amendments we are now discussing, the Prime Minister a few days ago made reference to an expedition which went from Tadousae to Hudson's Bay more than 200 years ago. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Daurier) ransacked the library, poured over tlie ponderous tomes of the volumes of the Jesuit Relations, turned back the pages of history more than two centuries, and discovered in the 50th volume of these Relations that Rev. Father Albanel started on an expedition in August 1671, from the Saguenay River up to Hudson's Bay. Of what particular value is that information to us? Can we form a more intelligent opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of building this Transcontinental Railway oyer the route proposed because of this additional information which has been vouchsafed to us ? What advantage is it to us to be told that :

On the 23rd and 24th of June we found a less mountainous region. Its atmosphere is much milder, and its fields are beautiful; and the soil would bear abundantly and he capable of sup-

porting a large population if it were cultivated.

But Rev,_JntJier Alhanel was not out for the purpose of exploring the country "to ascertain its capabilities and possibilities in connection with railway construction ; he was out on an evangelizing tour and was traversing a country hundreds of miles away from the route over which this road is to pass.

At page 205. another quotation is made from the record of that pioneer missionary :

I can assert that on the 15th of June there were wild roses here, as beautiful and fragrant as those at Quebec.

What does that prove ? That it is a wise and judicious policy for us to construct this transcontinental road ? Xo, it proves absolutely nothing ; and the fact that the Prime Minister would resort to these quotations is in my humble judgment-and I say it with the greatest respect-the strongest possible evidence of the dearth of information at the hon. gentleman's disposal, and of his desire to take every fair advantage possible of any information respecting any part of that great northern country which he may be able to find to his hand. In speaking of the voyages of exploration, of the privations, of the heroism, of the fortitude, of these pioneer missionaries, I desire to do so with the greatest possible respect. The story of their voyages, of then- travels, of their sufferings and heroism will always be read with intense interest by those who desire to make themselves acquainted with the early history of this country. But when the simple annal of a voyage of exploration from the Saguenay to Hudson's Bay is made to do dutv in this discussion. I also feel at liberty to make further quotations from the same page and volume. The first quotation made by the Prime Minister was from page 181 of volume 56. On page 181 I find the following :

On the 19th we arrived at Makonamitk'ie-that is ' the bears' fishing place.' It is a flat region with very shallow water, and also extremely rich in fish-small sturgeon, pike, and white fish having their haunts there. It is a pleasure to see the bears walking on the shores of this piece of water, and, as they go, catching with a paw now one fish and now another, with admirable dexterity.

Is this passage not as germane and as valuable to the inquirer respecting the territory through which this proposed Transcontinental Railway will pass as that quoted by the Prime Minister ?

The next quotation used by the Premier was from page 205, and turning to that page 1 find :

I say nothing of the abundance of wild fowl in the region. On the island of Onabaskouk, if the savages are to be believed, they are so numerous that in one place, when the birds shed their feathers at molting time, any savages or deer coming to the spot are buried

in feathers over their heads, and are often unable to extricate themselves.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal +o any bon. gentleman tbat the fact that the Prime Minister makes quotations that are not germane to this subject and that have nothing whatever to do with the construction of this road, is beyond peradventure proof of the paucity of the information which the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have to lay before the House and the country. If the hon. gentleman had quoted these additional paragraphs, and they are to oe found in the same pages from which he did quote, we might have pointed to the fact that this new territory to be opened up by the Transcontinental Railway would be an ideal place for anglers, or for tourists who would like to have an opportunity of seeing bears catching fish now with one paw and again with another. Further, if it was intended to prove that the country was unsuitable for settlement, the hardy pioneers who would brave the rigours of that country might in some measure be consoled by the knowledge of the fact that there were mountains of feathers available for then- use, so tbat after the toil of the long day they would be able to rest their weary limbs on beds of down. If any hon. gentleman desires to obtain an accurate estimate of the country through which the Rev. Father Albanel and his associates passed in their journey from the Saguenay to the Hudson's Bay and of its value for settlement, he must read the whole story, and I am satisfied that every independent, fair-minded man who reads the story of that voyage will come to the conclusion that so long as there are within the four corners of this Dominion prairie lands available and awaiting occupation, no great body of settlers will be found willing to locate In the country far north towards Hudson's Bay.

Mr. Maeoun, of the Geological Survey, gave evidence before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization last year. He was sent lip into that northern country in 1902, by the Minister of the'Interior. He appeared before the committee on the 17th of April last. He made the statement to the committee that he had been sent up by direction of the Minister of the Interior to examine the Yukon country for the government, and he said further :

I would not go from here until late in June, for the reason that I had been in northern countries and I told our director, ' I am only going to waste my time by going so early, for nothing can be growing.' I did not leave until the latter part of June, and I reached Dawson on the 10th of July last year. Dawson is over 20 degrees north of where we sit, in latitude 64 degrees, 15 minutes. When I reached there I found red currants, blueberries and strawberries, perfectly ripe on the hillsides on the 10th of July. Well, of course, I was more than astonished. There is a rose that grows here, that we know as rosa aeicularis, and on the 3rd

these statements were doubly reprehensible because they were made on the eve of the time when the government proposed to challenge the verdict of the electors on the great issue we are now discussing.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments which are made in the contract with the Grand Trunk Railway Company are very far-reaching. A local journal has summarized the amendments which the government are seeking to make in the contract of last year. The matter is put tersely in that journal, and I will take the liberty of presenting its views, which are my own, to the House :

1. Throo -joanjoiial time for the syndicate TtPbuild the road.

2. .Government liability for millions more of

mouey"In cost.

opposite in 1874 were prepared to give for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway at least $177,940,000, whereas that road was constructed four years afterwards, according to their own estimates, and under Conservative auspices, at a cost of $135,000,000. So I say that if a comparison be made in that matter it would not redound to the credit of the Liberal administration which was then in office. It may be said there was no offer received for the construction of a road under Mr. Mackenzie's terms. No, because no person had any faith in the bona fides of the offer which was made, no one would undertake to construct a road under those conditions. But that road wag built under Conservative auspices, and if the West has progressed so rapidly that another road is now desirous of sharing in the prosperity it has created, it is the greatest possible tribute that can be offered to the genius and patriotism of the men who carried through the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1879. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to refer at any greater length to these comparisons which hon. gentlemen are making between the terms they are giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the terms which were given by the Conservative party for the construction of the Canadian Pacific in 1879. But, let me just quote one extract from a speech made by the late hon. Alexander Mackenzie when this Canadian Pacific Railway scheme was under discussion in 1879. He said :

Does the hon. gentleman imagine that settlers will go to the Northwest Territories and buy land at $2 an acre when there are millions of acres of land offered for nothing in the United States ?

Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the 25,000,000 acres of land given to the Canadian Pacific Railway were worth, when earned, $3 an acre. Mr. Mackenzie pointed out, which was a fact, that in some of the great states of the union, Texas, Kansas and others, vast areas of land were being given away for nothing to settlers, and there was a great rush of settlers in that direction instead of to our own Northwest at that time. Mr. Mackenzie proceeded :

We have found it very difficult indeed in Canada to promote settlement, even where the land was given away by the government. It is still more difficult to send settlers to the far off western country, where they have the initial difficulties of a new country to contend with, not less in amount, though different in kind, than the settlers of our own wooded districts. They have a long winter, absence of lumber and building materials, and difficulties of transportation. We must, therefore, make up our minds, if we are to settle that country, that it will be done only at the expenditure of a large amount of money to aid settlers in going in, and giving them land free after they get in.

This is the evidence of the difficulties which Mr. Mackenzie appreciated were in store for those undertaking to build that road, and I repeat that taking all the cir-Mr. CLARKE.

cumstances into consideration, the government of Sir John A. Macdonald instead of being condemned are to be congratulated upon the action which they then took, because we see abundant evidence on every hand of the results of that action in the condition of affairs existing in the Northwest Territories to-day.

My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has been bitterly assailed in the course of this debate, because he has dared to express an opinion in opposition to the views which are held by the

gentlemen opposite as to the wisdom of proceeding with this contract. One hon. gentleman, if I remember rightly, asserted that if the Canadian Pacific Railway were making advantageous terms with the government, my hon. friend and colleague from West Toronto would not be found taking any objection to these arrangements, but that because it was the Grand Trunk with whom the government were dealing he was opposed to the Grand Trunk and did not desire to see that great company get access to the northwestern part of this country. I make the assertion, and I challenge contradiction, that neither in this House nor out of it since this proposition was first made public has one word fallen from the lips of my esteemed colleague against the extension of the Grand Trunk Railway into Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I say that every utterance he has made has been in favour of extending the GrftinT'TItl'fni; liailway sysTCTn into that great western country. I. say that instead of finding fault "with the proposition that they should get into that country my colleague has advocated that they should be permitted to go into the country-apd that reasonable assistance be given to them ; but because he has the audacity, the temerity, or whatever word you like to use, to oppose the proposition of the hon. gentlemen opposite a nasty slur-it is nothing but a slur- is thrown at him ou account of his connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. He holds the confidence, as one of its representatives, of one of the largest and most influential constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, and statements of that kind made by hon. gentlemen opposite will harm him most where he is least known. His life and his conduct in this matter are before the people of Canada and before the members of this House, and I say that the only objection which he has made to this proposition is that the terms cannot be justified, and that in view of the original intention of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the declarations made by those responsible for the management of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, it is little short of fatuous folly on the part of the government to jeopardize $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada, when the Grand Trunk Railway Company were prepared to finance a scheme which would have

given them practically all the access that the present scheme is going to give them to the most profitable part of the western territory. But, my hon. colleague seems to have been singled out as the one gentleman in Canada connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway who ought to be abused by hon. gentlemen opposite. A director, and a most important director of that company, Lord Stratheona, has been honoured with the confidence of hon. gentlemen opposite for years. He has been called to occupy the position of our representative at the heart of this great empire. He is the Canadian High Commissioner at London. Has anybody ever asserted, because he is a director of and interested largely in the Canadian Pacific Railway, that therefore in matters affecting the well-being of Canada, even when the Grand Trunk Railway Company is the other party to the agreement proposed to be made, his opinion would be biased ? Not at all. As soon as these hon. gentlemen came into office they saw fit, and the public have supported them in that action, to have a knighthood conferred on the managing director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, who wears the honour well and worthily, because as an officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway and as one who has been identified with #Canada and become a British subject he has shown his great ability in the conduct of that magnificent road, and is entitled to recognition at the hands of his sovereign, and nobody has ever found fault with hon. gentlemen opposite for having made a recommendation to that effect. Sir Sandford Fleming, another director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is quoted with approval from time to time by hon. gentlemen opposite. tV by ? Because they think that they can find a grain of comfort for their scheme in some of the utterances that have fallen from the lips of Sir Sandford Fleming. And though Sir Sandford Fleming, Lord Strath-cona and Sir Thos. Shaughnessy are directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway, these gentlemen are regarded with favour and the opinions of some of them are quoted with approval, but because my hon. colleague had the hardihood to dissent from the scheme of hon. gentlemen opposite, his connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway is a barrier to any such confidence being extended to him. and his words are not to be treated with the consideration which the words of a man occupying the position which he does in the business and financial life of Canada are entitled to receive at our hands. I said that Sir Sandford Fleming's opinion was quoted with approval by hon. gentlemen opposite. A predecessor in office of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party, the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, attached great importance to the opinion of Mr. Fleming. In the debate from which I have already quoted in this House, which took

place in 1879, he quoted Mr. Fleming's opinion to this effect:

Supposing we finished the road in seven years, we have Mr. Fleming's authority-assuming him as an authority, and I think he is very much within the bounds, that until at least three million dollars per annum, and they have still habited territory, it is quite impossible to expect the road to pay its running expenses. Mr. Fleming estimates these at not less than eight million dollars per annum, and they have still further to be supplemented by the proportion of money required each year to renew the road. The road will require renewal of sleepers and rails every eight or ten years on an average. No doubt if steel rails are substituted for iron the time for this renewal would be considerably enlarged.

This statement was made in 1879. The Canadian Pacific Railway was completed, I think, injffin Sir Sandford Fleming made the dSCTaration that until at least three million people were drawn into that uninhabited country, it was quite impossible to expect that the road could pay its running expenses. Mr. Mackenzie made the mistake that the hon. gentlemen opposite are making to-day. He quoted Mr. Fleming's opinion. They are quoting his opinion to-day. Fifteen years after that road was built, in 1901, when the population of British Columbia, of the Territories, and of Manitoba, Algoma and Nipissing, of every foot of the territory through which that road runs from Lake Nipissing out to the Pacific coast, was less than one-quarter of three millions, less than 750,000, what result was shown by that great national highway, the Canadian Pacific Railway ? In 1901 the gross earnings of the road were $30,000,000 and the net earnings were $18,000,000. Fifteen years after the last spike was driven in the road, and when the population of the district which was served was less than one-quarter what Mr. Fleming estimated would require to be there before the road would pay running expenses, there was a surplus from earnings of no less than $5,750,000 available. And Sir, the gentlemen who then banked on Sir Sandford Fleming's statements, and the gentlemen who bank on his statements to-day, are doing so not because he is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but because they think that the statements he makes harmonize with their own views, and support the policy which they have laid before the people of this country.

Sir, you remember that during the last session' of this parliament appeal after appeal was made to Sir Wm. Van Horne, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to induce him to take the chairmanship of the transportation commission. The announcement was made in the speech from the Throne that this complex and important question of transportation was to be referred to a commission. The government could not deal with it themselves, (they have since shown their incapacity to deal with

Mr. Blair explained a few days ago to the Halifax Board of Trade how improbable it was that either the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific would hand over to the Intercolonial at Montreal any considerable portion, if any portion whatever, of the traffic originating on those lines. The grain carried as far as Montreal by the Canadian Pacific when not shipped at that port, will continue to be carried over the Canadian Pacific until it reaches its ocean terminus at St. John, and the traffic originating on the Grand Trunk will under like circumstances continue to be carried over the Grand Trunk until it reaches its ocean terminus at Portland.

These are the deliberate expressions of the hon. gentleman. He concluded as follows:-

The Intercolonial must as to this class of business for ever continue to play second fiddle to these great company lines, until it can establish a connection that will plant it right in the heart of the great distributing centres and emporiums of the west. Not until then will it ever be in a position to compete on even terms with its rivals for the grain carrying business of the Dominion. If anybody can suggest a better move in this direction than the acquisition, if necessary, of the Parry Sound road, he should have the floor. .

I think, Mr. Speaker, I should give the floor to the hon. member for Hants just now in order that he may give some explanation for this volte face, this great change in his opinions since he penned and made public his letter. It would be interesting to have him explain how he came to take his present position after putting himself on record as strongly advocating on business, patriotic and national grounds the very scheme which the leader of the opposition is now presenting to this country.

But there is just one word more in connection with this matter which I would like to say. The Minister of the Interior and some other gentlemen who took part in this debate have pointed out that there is a difficulty in the way of utilizing the Intercolonial Railway instead of building a parallel line, and it is that the route would be so much longer. The Minister of the Interior the other day estimated that the additional mileage under the scheme of the leader of the opposition, of carrying the Intercolonial Railway west to Winnipeg and on to the coast would he .32" miles as eomnnred with theliresbllTproposition. After the Minister of the Interior, I think the hon. member for Hants and the hon. member for Annapolis have between them taken up the mantle which has fallen from the shoulders of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). They are to-day the chief spokesmen and experts on matters connected with railway administration who are not members of the cabinet. My hon. friend from Hants, in a speech last year on this very question of the value of a shorter route, made a declaration in reference to a statement by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). The hon. member for Mr. CLARKE.

Victoria said that a matter of three or four hundred miles in the length of a railway does not make any difference in rates. And the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) approved of that, and said :-

Anybody who knows anything about railroads has had that fact brought to his attention.

Last year the argument was presented to us that, in a transcontinental railway such as the one we are discussing to-day, a matter of three or four hundred miles did not make much difference in rates. That statement was made by the hon. member for Victoria, and was approved and endorsed by the hon. member for Hants. When the hon. member for Hants was asked why, if that was the case, he did not approve of the proposition to hand over the traffic at Quebec to the Intercolonial, instead of building another line for it to run over, he said :

The Intercolonial is a different thing altogether. It is a short piece of railway which does not connect with the great centres of the west. The principle does not apply to a short line as it does to a long one.

So, the hon. gentleman has an argument to meet any and every emergency. Yet he stands beside his colleague from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and joins in denunciation of the leader of the opposition whose object is to perpetuate the Intercolonial by extending it westward as a most important factor in the regulation of freight rates throughout Canada for all time to come. What did the motion of the leader of the opposition say ?

2. The extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian Bay and thence to Winnipeg, and the extension and improvement in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces of the government system of railways.

I believe that policy commends itself to the people of this country. I believe it will especially commend itself to the people of the maritime provinces. And notwithstanding the attacks, the unfair attacks as I claim, that are being made upon the leader of the opposition in the maritime provinces, the people will appreciate his services, they will appreciate the sacrifices he is making, and when the opportunity is given them they will endorse and approve his policy. The leader of the opposition is being opposed, he is being misrepresented in the -maritime provinces because, it is charged, he is unfaithful to their interests. The same method of attack is followed in the west where the leader of the opposition is also being misrepresented because it is said his policy is inimical to tlie interests of the west and especially of the great city of Winnipeg. During the Inst session the leader of the opposition defined his position quite clearly, and I desire to put on record the statement he then made. It disposes effectually of tile unmanly and unfair attacks that are resorted to by friends of hon. gentlemen op-

posite and by newspapers of the west that support these hon. gentlemen, as to the position the leader of the opposition occupied last year and occupies this year with respect to the connections to be made by this new road at Winnipeg and other western centres. The leader of the opposition supported his amendment last year for these and other reasons :

To assist in improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Fort William, upon the condition that the complete control of rates is obtained and that the Grand Trunk Railway, as well as the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Fort William to Winnipeg It will give the people control over

rates by the mere fact that the Intercolonial Railway has power to enter Winnipeg. It will place the people in a position to own and oper-_ ate their own line through the west to thp' coast, in ease of oppressive rates, or in ease control of rates by the railway commissioners should not fulfil our expectations, or in case the development of the country, within a few years,

may point to that as a desirable policy I

regard it as of the utmost possible value to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian Bay and thus to secure a considerable portion of the products of the west for transportation upon the people's railway to our own ports of Quebec, Montreal, and the ports in the maritime provinces.

These paragraphs which I have quoted from the speech of the leader of the opposition prove to a demonstration, I submit, that nothing was further from the hon. gentleman's desire or wish than that the great city of Winnipeg should be ignored or sidetracked in the plan extending the Intercolonial westward to the Pacific ocean. And the newspapers of hon. gentlemen opposite must be hard up for arguments to hurl ,against the leader of the opposition when they charge him with such an offence.

There are a few words more I wish to say with regard to these attacks on the leader of the oposition before I sit down. When Hon. Mr. Blair resigned the portfolio of Minister of Railways and Canals, the Prime Minister selected the hon. gentleman whom be considered best qualified to succeed the Hon. Mr. Blair and to discharge the important, responsible and honourable duties in the cabinet which Hon. Mr. Blair had discharged. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) was selected to occupy the seat which Hon. Mr. Blair had vacated. That hon. gentlemen is a political godson, I understand, of Hon. Mr. Blair. He was certainly a great admirer of Mr. Blair and approved that gentleman's policy and advocated the same policy with regard to the extension of the Intercolonial that Mr. Blair had advocated. And I propose to refresh the memory of the House by quoting a few paragraphs from the speech of the hon. member for Westmoreland two years ago in this House. Speaking on April 25th. 1902, the hon. member for [DOT] Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) said :

The Intercolonial Railway has been one of the most splendid assets that the government of Canada has ever possessed. . . . When the fathers of confederation framed the British North America Act they recognized the fact that it was essential for the consolidation of these provinces that there should be an iron band connecting the provinces which then constituted the Dominion of Canada. . . . The idea must have been dominant in their minds that in the future, as our Dominion came into its vast western territory, it was quite as essential that that road should travel beyond the lines of the St. Lawrence and go west and unite whatever might then be the provinces of Canada. ... I venture to say that the Intercolonial Railway will yet prove to be one of the richest dividend hearing concerns in this great Dominion. . . . That it will one day justify the efforts of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) to make this railway worthy of this great Dominion. He found it a tramway and he has left it a railway. He has equipped it in a manner which I need not describe. This is but one evidence of the value of the efforts which the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) has been putting forth to make a railway out of what seemed to be the intention or the result of an intention to side-track at least a portion of the Intercolonial Railway. ... If the terms of confederation are to be carried out in their entirety

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, especially to this paragraph :

-that the Intercolonial Railway shall he extended, it shall crawl further west year after year until possibly it shall extend to the prariries of the west, and our seaports shall be the ports whence sail the rich products of the great western country.

The words of the hon. gentleman were prophetic. He divined what was in the minds of the fathers of confederation. He saw that the fathers of confederation felt and believed that the mission of the Intercolonial would not be fully discharged, that il would not have rendered the services to Canada that it was designed to render until it united not only the older provinces, but the newer provinces, and bound the Dominion into one harmonious whole. The hon. member for Westmoreland, advp-cated that policy. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in all conscience, there must be some time limit for the changing of their opinions by hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely they are called upon to give the country some leason for the changed positions that they assume. Dante saw over the gate of the infernal regions the inscription,

All hope abandon, ye who enter here !

Can it be that there is a legend over the council chamber of hon. gentlemen opposite-

All principle abandon, ye who enter here !

Must a man ignore all his pledges and promises and agree to change his mind on every thing he has advocated before he can become a member of this government ? I submit it is a spectacle that we ought not to witness in this House. I draw attention to the fact

that this gentleman, selected by his leader for so important a position as he now occupies, less than two years ago was a staunch advocate of the extension of the Intercolonial westward; that last year, as my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) quoted him, he declared himself unequivocally in favour of government ownership and of the extension of the Intercolonial. Is it not a spectacle for gods and men that the hon. member for Westmoreland, who has been elevated to the important and responsible position which he now occupies, has been absent from this House practically during the entire time of this debate, that he has not once opened his mouth or raised his voice to give us one reason why he has changed his opinions, if he has changed them ? If he now concludes that he was wrong in advocating the extension of the Intercolonial, he should be frank enough to say so; if he thinks the present scheme is more favourable, he should have the courage to express his opinions. It is not fair to the House or to the country that this gentleman, following in the footsteps of Mr. Blair, approving of all that Mr. Blair did up to the time of his resignation, should now turn around and swallow his previously expressed convictions.

Just a few words more before I sit down. The contention has been made again and again that if the Grand Trunk had been permitted to carry out its original scheme the result would have been that all the freight gathered at Winnipeg from the west would have been brought down through the Ontario system and find its exit to Europe via Portland. Addressing the shareholders of the Grand Trunk on March 8th, 1904, Mr. Hays said :

We are to-day handling from flfleen-to-twenty million^Ust ^ear~TT~reached 24,000,000-bushels of grain, which came across the lake from Lake Superior down to our ports, feeding the whole Grand Trunk system locally throughout Ontario, and this gives us the whole of the way from Montreal, thus contributing a very large portion of our earnings. We cannot hold that to our system if we do not take some means of fastening it to us. . . . That traffic will be lost to us if we do not tie it up, so that to-day the question is not what your position Is going to be if you embark on this enterprise, but what it is going to be if you do not embark on this enterprise. That is the question that this meeting must decide to-day ; that is the question to which you must give serious consideration. Your directors and your management have spent eighteen months at it.

That is one of the reasons why the Grand Trunk Company were so anxious to go on with their original scheme. Mr. Hays says they wanted to retain the traffic they now handle which comes to their Georgian Bay ports and goes over the Ontario system to Montreal; and they wanted to have access to the west so as to be able to secure the long haul on the vast traffic they now gather in Ontario and Quebec which is destined for Mr. CLARKE.

the west. Mr. Hays is still steadily pursuing that policy. He has not deviated one hair's breadth since November, 1902, In the prosecution of the object he then had in view. He is still trying to reach the goal which he proposed to himself when he first made the announcement as to the intention of the Grand Trunk to gain access to the west. On the 25th of December last he says :

/ Our first obiect will be to get the east con-(nected with the great lakes for summer traffic and then to give Winnipeg connection with the

(east. The people of the west want more railway facilities and we intend to give it to them as quickly as possible.

' Well, Mr. Speaker, after they have made connection between the great lakes and the west, what then ? Every pound of freight which comes down to Port Arthur is lost to the Grand Trunk Pacific, every pound of freight from the west when it reaches Fort William or Port Arthur is, according to the statement of the Minister of the Interior, absolutely and irrevocably lost to the Grand Trunk Pacific. That freight will be diverted from the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific near Winnipeg and conveyed by a branch line to Port Arthur, it will he conveyed in vessels from Port Arthur to Midland and other Grand Trunk ports on the Georgian Bay; it will be taken by Grand Trunk trains over the Ontario system and find its exit at Montreal or Portland. So far then as the summer traffic is concerned, and I challenge contradiction of this statement, every wish, every aim the Grand Trunk had in view when presenting their original proposition can still be carried out by them, and will be carried out by them under the proposition submitted by the government. If we had any doubt about that, our doubt would be removed by reason of the statement made by the leader of the government of the province of Ontario on the 8th of this month when presenting his scheme to the legislative assembly for aid to the Grand Trunk Railway. What did he say ?

The premier said it was propesed to aid a railway to be constructed from a point at or near Thunder Bay in a northwest direction about 200 miles, to intersect the Grand Trunk Pacific. The subsidy was $2,000 and 6,000 acres per mile. It was agreed that the Grand Trunk Pacific should give immediate attention to this line, so that by way of the lake ports the province could have connection into Winnipeg perhaps four or five years before the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed. The Grand Trunk Railway by this connection would be able to deliver over its own route to the west what is now going by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port Arthur. They wanted to encourage the Grand Trunk Railway to make Sarnia and Goderich distributing ports to the heart of the Northwest. There would be Grand Trunk Railway steamers to Port Arthur, Grand Trunk Railway trains to Winnipeg and the west. A system of 2,600 miles would be connected with 2^600 miles west of Winnipeg. The growth of the connecting trade would provide freight for all the steamers on the lakes. The Grand Trunk

Railway would secure the advantage oLtbe long hatilr~wliU;ll~is the secrAf. ht railway success.

Tlie reasons given by the premier of the province of Ontario for bringing down his scheme of aid to the Grand Trunk Railway demonstrated, if demonstration were necessary, that it is to enable the Grand Trunk to feed their ports on the Georgian Bay with traffic from the west. He desires to build up Sarnia, he desires to build up Goderich, What for ? Neither Goderich nor Sarnia is within 500 miles of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and this proposition of the premier of the province is designed to give the Grand Trunk Company the advantage of the long haul, because it brings their Ontario and Quebec system into touch with the lakes and into touch with Winnipeg. And yet, notwithstanding these facts, hon. gentlemen opposite would lead the people of Canada to believe that they have devised a great scheme that will develop the Canadian Atlantic ports, and increase the business through all parts of the country. Whereas in reality they are simply playing into the hands of the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway, at the expense of the people of Canada, and at the expense of the people of this province in particular. The aid that is being given will enable them to do what they intended to do. The Minister of the Interior says :

But during the winter months, during the four and a half or five months when rolling stock would otherwise he idle and when ships are coming to our ports and demanding cargoes, then the railways will and do haul wheat allrail. My hon. friend knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway hauls millions of bushels allrail to make cargoes for these ships and the Grand Trunk Pacific will have a certain portion of that traffic during that season of the year.

So that all we can hope to get out of the enormous expenditure which we are involving the people of this country in is our chance of securing for the ports of Halifax and St. John a portion of the grain that may be carried all rail from the great western wheat fields to the Atlantic ocean. Sir, what proportion of the total output of the grain intended for export to hon. gentlemen think will come down all rail ? What percentage of the great and growing export business of the prairies and of the western territories will come down all rail to St. John and Halifax ? It will be only a fraction of the total quantity. The great bulk of the trade will come down by rail and water, and there is nothing in the contract which we have discussed for the last two weeks to prevent it from coming that way. The hon. Minister of the Interior says :

My hon. friend knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway hauls millions of bushels already to make up cargoes for its ships.

Yes, the Canadian Pacific Railway haul that grain to make cargoes for their ships

that are coming into St. John. They have to stiffen these ships, they have to complete the loading of these ships; but their position is entirely different from the position that the Grand Trunk Railway would be in, because the Grand Trunk Railway Company do not ship at Halifax or St. John, but at Portland. To Portland, as hon. gentlemen know very well, they will carry the freight to stiffen their ships and to complete their cargoes, and there will be every possible incentive to the Grand Trunk Railway Company to take the freight to Portland rather than to Halifax or St John. Am I not in the judgment of the House when I say that even if we do succeed in bringing some of the freight to Halifax and St. John the cars that bring it will have to go back empty or else compete with the Intercolonial Railway for the traffic that now goes over that road 1 I say that every bushel of grain and every carload of freight that goes over the Grand Trunk Pacific to be shipped at Halifax or St. John means, under the scheme of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the Intercolonial loses and will lose the whole of that freight from Montreal and Quebec, as hon. gentlemen know. The only haul eastward that the Intercolonial Railway can have is from Moncton to St. John or Halifax, and the only haul westward under this proposition that the Intercolonial Railway can have is the haul from Halifax or from St. John to Moncton. It is for the chance of getting a share of the all-rail freight for four or five months in the winter to St. John and Halifax that the people of the province of Ontario, if this road is to cost $150,000,000, will have to be responsible for $60,000,000, the people of the province of Quebec will have to be responsible for $45,000,000. and so on. It is for the mere chance of getting a portion of the grain that may go all-rail for four or five months in the year delivered at St. John or Halifax that we are involving this country in this enormous expenditure. If it were anybody else but the Grand Trunk Railway Company that we were dealing with we might have some hopes of obtaining a considerable proportion of the all-rail traffic for Halifax and St.John; but I repeat, and every hon. gentleman must know it, that every interest of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is involved in carrying that traffic to Portland so as to secure the long haul over the Grand Trunk's own line, and to fill their ships and enable them to sail promptly with full cargoes.

What is the situation in regard to freight going west ? Every pound of freight originating in the province of Quebec from the great city of Montreal westward, every pound of freight originating in the province of Ontario will go, under this new proposition, by the route that Mr. Hays intended in his original proposition. Every pound of freight, and every hon. gentleman who I studies the thing must know it, gathered up

in Montreal will be baulecl by the Grand Trunk Railway as far as they can haul it- in the summer time to Midland and Sarnia to be despatched by boat up the great lakes to Port Arthur, and in the winter time to North Bay and thence westward to Winnipeg if the freight is intended for Manitoba and the territories. But if it. is intended for British Columbia Eow wfiTit go ? It

win on just- |ia it ynoa It will gO

by tne Gratia Trunk. Railway _ta Sarnia or \v7nrfgj^_tiieiir~ tn fnTicago and thence by the (Treat Northern Railway to British Columbia. So, I say, and I say it with the greatest possible respect, that the more this scheme is examined, the more one looks into this scheme, the more one examines the details in connection with it, the stronger, the more indubitable is the evidence that this scheme has been hastily and inadvisedly entered into, and that the people of Canada cannot by any possibility reap the advantages from it which lion, gentlemen opposite fondly believe that they will reap. I say that we only need to examine the details of this scheme to be perfectly satisfied, unless we are hidebound partisans, that this scheme is not in the interests of the people of Canada and that even at this late hour it ought to be abandoned, because by a much smaller expenditure we can obtain greater, more lasting and more beneficial results for all parts of this country, whether the maritime provinces or the provinces of the great west.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) allow me to put a question to him which I propose to ask him now because I will not be here this evening ?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

I understand that during the course of his speech the hon. gentleman stated that I was slated for a position immediately after the close of this parliament. Will he kindly tell me what the position is ?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

I will have great pleasure in answering the hon. gentleman's question if he will take his seat. I had the pleasure of reading that the hon. gentleman was slated to be chairman of the commission for the construction of the eastern section of this new transcontinental railway.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

As the hon. gentleman does not care to do me any injustice I am sure he will be prepared to allow me to make a statement.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

I say that the statement is absolutely without foundation. I say that I have never applied for that position or any other position ; neither has anybody on my behalf and no intimation has ever been made to me that I am to be offered any position at all at the close of this parlia-Mr. CLARKE. -

rnent, or at any other time. On the contrary it is my full determination to run at the next election in Annapolis county and I purpose coming back here as the representative of the county. As a matter of fairness I want to say one word more. Another report in the same connection has been circulated by the Conservative press that my health was so bad that I would not be able to run again and that I would have to resign. It seems to me that these gentlemen are somewhat alarmed and that they desire for some reason or other I should not be able to run again.

At six o'clock House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink

April 26, 1904