Then if that be so, for many years to come the large American manufacturers will use that pulp-wood, and the vessels carrying grain to Quebec at three cents per bushel will have return cargoes and their business will be profitable. Judging from what was said by the Minister of the Interior, that the 'bulk of the grain of the Northwest will be carried to the head of Lake Superior, we will have a regular procession of vessels carrying grain on the lakes, and then good-bye to your transcontinental road as a grain route. Look what is happening in the United States with regard to the Erie canal. It is said that the Erie canal controls the freight rates on the railways, and we know that just so soon.as navigation closes in winter the railways combine, and up go the rates. The people of New York are to spend $100,000,000 in deepening the Erie canal.
Thanks very much for the correction. $110,000,000 would be a mere bagatelle in Canada, where everything is
done on such an extravagant and wasteful scale by this government, but in the United States, where public money is spent in the interest of the country, $110,000,000 is quite a handsome sum. We remember that last year the leader of the opposition challenged the ministers to tell him within $30,000,000 of what this road would cost, and they had to sit in their seats and profess ignorance on the subject. I mention this to show that in the United States, despite the fact that they are greatly maligned here-in fact, I remember that the First Minister a short time ago. in speaking of the United States, used some rp ther offensive epithets in regard to them -and I am going to stand here as a champion of the people of the United States- ministers and governments there in entering upon expenditures of $100,000,000 are bound down and guarded as to what they intend to spend it on. But to return to the Erie canal, if, with a depth of four or five feet, they have been able to hold these railways in check and to keep them down to a low rate, what will the rate be when the canal is deepened to 14 or 15 feet ? If the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals, who knows all about these things, but the sea! on whose lips we cannot break, were here he could tell us this at once.
I rise to a point of order. I think I see an hon. gentleman transgressing the rules by having his feet on the top of the desk. I want a ruling whether or not it is proper for an hon. gentleman to sit in his seat with his feet on the desk.
I was not directing my attention to the hon. member for West Ontario because he is one of the gentlemen who do not expect to again ghace this chamber. He hopes to go over into that charnel house of decayed politicians, the Senate, to use the description I have heard from members of the government and the party opposite. After this unseemly interruption, the presence of these feet, which I may describe as the cloven hoof, I am going to return to the situation of the province of Ontario in reference to this enterprise. First we are to be saddled with the major portion of this huge expenditure of $150,000,000, then we have to pay the $60,000,000 which the Ross government is to give and then we are told by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that the railway will not be of any more benefit than a road to the head of Lake Superior. There is not a doubt in the minds of thinking men that the deepening of the canal systems is going to revolutionize the carrying trade of this country. Take for instance the deepening of the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals ; before we had
Before I sit down, I purpose moving, seconded by Mr. Leonard, that the debate be adjourned. But, before doing so I desire to make a few remarks and I purpose placing on the records of ' Hansard ' a true account of the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway in London. Early in the debate some quotations were made from this document, and they were criticised by lion, gentlemen opposite on the ground
that it was a ' fake ' report. My hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) read the report from the 1 Railway News,' and I want to place alongside of it this other report, which the people will find is verified by the Grand Trunk official report, except for some words which the Grand Trunk people did not care to have published.
But, before I take this up 1 want to refer to an agreement we made here about half past ten o'clock. I went across the floor to see the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) who was the acting whip on that side of the House. I desired to discuss the question of an adjournment, because the Minister of Customs, by refusing to give the opposition the information they were intitled to had kept us here until three o'clock this morning.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning. While the hon. member for Cape Breton and I were talking about an early adjournment the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) beckoned me over to his place and commenced discussing the matter.
I suggested that we could get into committee some time to-morrow if he -would allow an early adjournment. He and the Minister of 'Finance discussed the matter and then had a consultation with the Prime Minister. I came back and consulted with my leader (Mr. R, L. Borden) and said that the suggestion was that if we would agree to go into committee by six o'clock tomorrow they would agree to adjourn when the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) finished. The leader of the opposition said we could not agree to that because we did not know when the hon. member for Toronto and some others who wished to speak would get through. But we would promise to get through before twelve o'clock to-morrow night and get into committee. Further consultation took place with the Minister of Justice outside. I met the chief whip of the government and he wanted to know what the arrangements were. I stated the arangements and came back and reported to my leader and then told him that I was going to retire. The arrangement with the Minister of Justice was that we were to adjourn when the member for Pictou resumed his seat, and to-morrow we would go into committee in the afternoon if possible, but, if not, then as early after eight as possible and not later than twelve o'clock. Then I went home and went to bed. Shortly afterwards I was telephoned to that the agreement had been broken. I went to see the Prime Minister. I suppose he had lost his temper somewhat because his majority had deserted him, that he could not keep his members here to support him in this measure so that he was left with only nineteen of a majority. And he says this mea-I sure mvist go through, even if we sit up
night and day, and the agreement made by the chief whip of the government and the Minister of Justice, concurred in by the Finance Minister
I did not say that the Minister of Finance had made an agreement. I notified the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that I intended to refer to this matter and asked him to remain in his place. The Miniister of Justice and the chief whip of the government will not contradict a word I say, and the Prime Minister's chief whip told me after I eame back : No, unless we agree to go into committee before six o'clock the debate will continue. There was no such arrangement between the Minister of Justice and myself.
I made no agreement with the chief whip of the opposition. The proposition was made in the presence of the Minister of Justice, as the hon. gentleman has stated, but before I had time to consult the Prime Minister in reference to it the chief Whip of the opposition had gone home. I made the statement of the proposition as made by the chief whip of the opposition to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said, no, that if the opposition would agree to close at six o'clock that would be carried out. When I went to find the chief whip of the opposition he had gone home, and I did not see him afterwards.
I did not say that the chief whip of the government and I made an agreement ; the Minister of Justice and I made an agreement, and I reported it in the presence of the chief whip of the government just as I have stated. I make no statement in my place or out of my place that is not true. Then the Prime Minister, acting on an impulse, I presume, because his majority deserted him to-night, was going to force the opposition to come to his terms and consent to going into committee before six o'clock, while the leader of the opposition promised to do so early after eight. When his Minister of Justice made the bargain I have stated, is he going back on that bargain simply because his majority was
decreased to 19 to-night ? Now I want to ask the Prime Minister if he purposes bringing about this state of affairs ? I have been in this House for 20 years, and every bargain of this kind to which I have been a party has been carried out. If the Prime Minister is going,to adopt these tactics then I have to say that from this day forward, so far as I am concerned, there will be no more conferences and there will be no more pairs, but the opposition will fight as best they can, take every advantage thev can of the government. But if the Prime Minister will carry out -that bargain, even now I know the leader of the opposition will agree to go on and conduct the business in a fair, straightforward and manly way. and every bargain made either by iiis whip or any other member will be carried out to the letter. Now if the right hon. gentleman wants by brute force to compel the opposition to stay here, not only will we stay here to-night, but we will stay til] six o'clock, or eight o'clock, or ten o'clock tomorrow night and perhaps for a week, as my hon. friend behind me says. But even though this incident has gone thus far. I will make this statement on behalf of the members on our side, that we will go into committee to-morrow night before 12 o'clock if the hon. gentleman will allow me to move the adjournment of the debate and let the House rise now. But if the Prime Minister forces me to go on, then from tomorrow will go into force a rule cancelling every pair on the book, and no further conference will ever take place between the government whip and myself.
My hon. friend wrought himself into a very useless pas- * sion. The time has come to adjourn and I am quite willing to adjourn without any agreement at all. I have only this to say. that the Minister of Justice never reported to me that he had made any bargain at all. He reported there was a tentative agreement, and my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) wanted to consult his own leader.