Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

tive party of the province of Quebec, refuses to send to the British parliament a humble prayer in favour of the poor victims of this imprudent war in South Africa, asking for mercy in their favour, when this very prayer was called for by an English-speaking member, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I do not believe that this attitude of the lieutenant-leader of the Conservative party will ever be highly appreciated by the Conservative party in that province.

Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, while not explicitly finding fault with the hon. member for Labelle for joining hands with the hon. member for North Norfolk, referred to the fact with a certain ironical smile covering his lips ; and it was very easy to see that he was amused at such a spectacle being given in this House. But if the hon. member for North Norfolk has been converted to the ideas that have been expressed by the hon. member for Labelle on the question of the South African war, he is'not the only member of tnis House who has been.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier himself, in his capacity of lieutenant-leader of the Conservative party, is a convert to the views of the hon. member for Labelle. In the by-election that took place since the last session of this parliament in the county of Laval-and I see the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) sitting close to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and I challenge him to deny the assertion I am going to make- is it not a fact that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in his capacity of leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, said that he blamed this government for allowing England to recruit soldiers in this country to go to the front in South Africa ? This is the very attitude that was taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in the by-election in Laval, and I ask him and I ask the hon. member for Laval to tell me if the hon. member for Labelle has ever gone further in that direction ? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier took the very same attitude in the byelection that took place in St. James Division. Montreal, where Mr. Bergeron, an exleader of the Conservative party, was candidate. He said there that he would have supported the motion brought before this House by the hon. member for Labelle if that motion had not been an academic motion, because, so far as the ideas were concerned, he sympathized entirely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Labelle. So, if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier saw fit to sneer a little about the hon. member for Labelle joining hands with the hon. member for North Norfolk, I think every member of this House can accord the same sneering to himself, because he has done the same thing as the hon. member for North Norfolk ; and why did he do so ? I am very far from blaming the hon. mem-

ber for Jacques Cartier for having done what he has done. I believe he has done so knowing that he voiced the feeling of the province of Quebec when he turned in the opposite direction from that which he had always followed on the South African question since he first occupied a seat in this House. Now, it is true that the hon. member for North Norfolk has changed a little his opinions about the South African war. or rather about the quality of the Boers peopling the Transvaal and the Orange Republic. I remember very well, when this question of the South African war was first brought up before the House, the hon. member for North Norfolk gave us one of the best reasons that could be adduced in favour of England waging that war, that England had the undoubted right to force British Institutions on these very same ignorant and half-barbarian people of the Transvaal. To-day I am glad to see that the hon. member for North Norfolk-and I congratulate him on the fact-considers that this ''brave race of the Transvaal deserves better treatment than he himself formerly thought should be accorded to them.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in discussing the resolution which we are now debating, admitted that this parliament had the right to express its opinion on the question at issue ; but he said that the resolution was extremely untimely. Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, or did even the hon. leader of the government, give a single reason why this resolution is untimely ? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution is very timely. In what circumstances is it brought before this House ? We know perfectly well that just now the question in England is, what treatment are we going to give to the Boers ? We know perfectly well that the decision is not arrived at yet. We do not know very well on what basis the peace will be made. Then, I say, if this parliament has a right ever to give its opinion on the terms of the peace which is going to be made, now is the time for giving that opinion. Those who claim that this resolution is untimely would do well to state when it will be timely for us to offer it. When will it be timely for us to ask the British parliament to give such treatment to the Boers of the Transvaal and the Republic of Orange ?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

sitting on the Treasury benches opposite? The right hon. leader of the government knows well that he and other leaders of the Liberal party, when he sat on this side of the House, condemned the action of the government of that day, notwithstanding the fact that they had some just cause that time, 14, 10 or some 20 years ago, to give the land which had no value, but, when you, by your vote to-day, as you shall vote, send that Bill back to the Railway Committee, and if you do, you will come back to this House

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

ment, a few capitalists have also taken tlie means of ascertaining tlie accuracy of those surveys and data The promoters of this Bill, after going to the trouble of making those surveys, have purchased from the Quebec government one thousand miles of limits down in that territory and they have also acquired water-powers. They have, started building a railway and they are putting up a pulp mill, with a force of over a hundred men.

I do not intend to go now into the merits of this Bill, nor do I wish to inquire whether this parliament have tlie power to incorporate this company, or whether we are invading the rights of the local government in so doing. But from the standpoint of the public interest, I am free to say that on the North Shore where there are now only a few fishing settlements, the news that this manufacture was being put up was heard with the greatest satisfaction. This morning, I received several letters from Pointe aux Esquimaux, from Magpie and other places, and these people want to know whether the fishermen, who have no other means of livelihood, could find employment with the company at the Bay of Seven , Islands.

There is no doubt that the whole region of the North Shore will be greatly benefited by tlie fact that this company has acquired this territory and is going to put up those mills ; and on that ground alone, great credit is due to the promoters of this Bill, despite the fact that they are asking for such extensive powers around the Bay of Seven Islands.

It is well known that there are large deposits of magnetic iron ore all along the Moisie river, and that, many years ago, those deposits were worked by Mr. Molson, of Montreal ; but, for the want of transportation facilities, that mining enterprise had to be discontinued. But now, there are many chances of that industry being revived and put on a paying basis.

Some hon. gentlemen object to granting the company the power of carrying on the business of farming and stock-raising. I do not think such objection can be raised in the interest of the settlers. If I understand aright the Bill now before the House, it does not encroach upon the rights of the provincial legislature in that respect.

Now, as long as the provincial law governing the sale of lands is enforced, there is no danger of a monoply being granted, or of this company coming into conflict with the agricultural interests. With the bad record they have been building up for the north shore, which has been described as a barren wilderness, altogether unfit for farming purposes, surely, if this company were not to go into that territory and attempt to carry on a farming business, no private individual, unless he could dispose of unlimited resources, could ever dream of making the attempt. On the contrary,

should the company succeed in its operations, and should its venture be attended with paying results from a farming standpoint, other settlers would undoubtedly follow in its footsteps. As I remarked a little while ago, from the reports of the Crown Lands Department of the province of Quebec, we gather that around the Bay of Seven Islands, there are agricultural lands enough for two parishes to be carved out of them. But that territory is inaccessible except by water in the summer season. Now, the company which is seeking incorporation from this parliament intends to provide communications for the carriage of its agricultural and other products. On the other hand, such settlers as may go into that country will have a considerable market at their door, for the sale of their products, as they will have to supply the wants of all the workingmen in the employ of the company.

I do not think that the powers this company is asking for, extensive as they are, can come into conflict with the interests of the district. Should there toe a monoply, the action of that monopoly would be restricted to the territory to the east of the Saguenay river, which is included in the county which I represent here. I have no hesitation in saying that the people down in the Saguenay region will only be too glad to welcome that monopoly ; the more so as, with the exception of Escoumains and Man-icouagan there is no manufacturing industry at all in that district. As this company is willing to invest its capital down there, it ought to be encouraged to the fullest extent, and we ought to give the people all the necessary powers. Should their venture prove successful, other capitalists are likely to go into that district and invest their money in other manufacturing industries ; for there are many other water powers that could be operated in portions of the country which have not yet been granted.

On these several grounds, I hope that the objections raised may be waived, and that the company will be granted the charter it is seeking from this parliament. From the granting of this charter and the exercise of the powers asked for, there is no danger to be feared from the standpoint of the agricultural interests ; whereas from the standpoint of the manufacturing interests it cannot be fairly claimed that a monopoly is being created.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

this is a case in which the greatest possible care should be taken to see that the notices were properly published. It relates to a subject on which people are more or less sensitive. At the same time, if the defect is only what has been mentioned by my hon. friend from Alberta, it does not seem very serious, and I would be rather inclined to agree that the report be sent back to the committee, ana if there be any difficulty about the petition, that can be dealt with when the Bill comes before the House later.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

fully discussed by several gentlemen who are deeply interested in that country, and the partner of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), Mr. Nanton, seconded the resolution. I am not going to say whether this is feasible or not, but, if it is feasible and if it should transpire that it should be necessary in the future for the government to extend the road to the Pacific coast, they should adopt the policy of reserving these passes with that end in view. But, there is another factor in connection with this charter to which I wish to draw attention. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, a bargain was entered into between the Manitoba government and the Northern Pacific Railway, which bargain was passed also by this government. That arrangement was something like this : The Manitoba government leased from the Northern . Pacific Railway Company for a period of years the company's lines in the province of Manitoba, having a mileage of 350 miles for which they were to pay an annual rental of $210,000. The Manitoba government released those lines to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and a bargain was made that on certain bonds issued by the Canadian Northern line the government were to guarantee interest to the extent of $20,000 a mile on 300 miles, and on certain other bonds covering 1,000 miles of road, the Manitoba government were to guarantee interest at the rate of $10,000 per mile. That is 1,300 miles in all on which interest is guaranteed. Out of the receipts of the railway company they were to pay, first, the running expenses of the road, secondly, the $210,000 rental to the Northern Pacific, and thirdly, they were to pay interest on these bonds, amounting to about $14,000,000, but in default the Manitoba government had to pay any arrears of interest accrued. Should there be a surplus at the end of two years that might be applied to a reduction of freight rates. This was the consideration for which the Manitoba government became the endorser of the bonds of the company so that the farmers of the western part of Manitoba should get a material reduction in freight rates. The reduction was to be 2 cents a bushel on wheat on the first year's operation. If the road proved a paying concern, there was to be a further reduction in the rates. This Bill goes on to say that they should have power to bond the road for $25,000 per mile, not only on any lines to be constructed, but also on the lines now constructed, and the question arises: Is that $15,000 extra per mile to

be in addition to the 1,300 miles for which the Manitoba government are responsible as endorser ? If it is, it seems that in addition to guaranteeing the interest on what is provided for in the agreement now that government will have to become responsible for the interest on $15,000 per mile extra and there will be no opportunity of gaining any further reduction in freight rates.