1. What are the names of the lecturers on agriculture for the Department of Agriculture ?

2. In which counties of the province of Quebec were these lecturers employed during last year

3. What salary is paid to these lecturers ?

1. The following officers of the department, in addition to their other duties, deliver lectures on agriculture :

Experimental Farm branch-Dr. ffm. Saunders, LL.D., director; Dr. Jas. Fletcher, , LL.D., entomologist and botanist ; Mr. F. T. Shutt, M.A., chemist ; Mr. Win. T. Macoun, horticulturist ; Mr. J. H. Gris-dale, B. Agr., agriculturist; Mr. A. G.

Mr. BARKER.

Gilbert, poultry manager ; Mr. A. T. Char-ron, assistant chemist ; Mr. J. L. A. Mc-Murray, Mr. John Fixter.

Branch of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Dairying-Dr. Jas. W. Robertson, LL.D., commissioner ; J. C. Chapais, assistant dairy commissioner ; F. W. Hodson, live stock commissioner ; J. A. Ruddick, chief of the dairy division ; W. A. Mackinnon, chief of the fruit division ; George H. Clark, chief of tiie sued division ; Frank Hare, chief of tile poultry division ; A. W. Woodward, official referee for butter and cheese ; Alex. McNeil, fruit inspector ; Elmer Lick, fruit inspector ; P. J. Carey, fruit inspector; J. F. Scriver, fruit inspector ; E. H. Wartman, fruit inspector ; Richard Burke, fruit inspector ; Geo. IT. Vroom, fruit inspector ; F. L. D&ry, fruit inspector ; J. J. Philp, fruit inspector ; Barton Gandy, fruit inspector ; Freeman Fitch, fruit inspector ; Maxwell Smith, fruit inspector.

In addition to the foregoing, the following persons have been specially engaged at various times to deliver lectures : T. G. Raynor, Daniel Drummond, Henry Glenden-uing, J. E. Orr. Mrs. I. E. Tilson, Prof. H. H. Dean, Robert Thompson, Duncan Anderson, John Jackson, Jas. Slieppbard, G. C. Cottrelle, J. M. Gardliouse, Gus Boyer, C. W. Nash. It. F. Holtermann, Robert Ness, G. W. Clemons.

2. Brome, Beauce, Compton, Drummond, Megantic* Richmond, Wolfe, St. John, Iberville, Rouville, Missisquoi, Sliefford, Sherbrooke, Stanstead, Artliabaska, Terrebonne, Montcalm, I/Assomption, Joliette, Berthier, St. Maurice, Champlain, Argenteuil, Cham-bly, Chioutimi, Jacques Cartier, La Praire, Laval, Lotbiniere, Maskinonge, Nicolet, Richelieu, St. Hyaeinthe, Two Mountains, Vaudreuil, Vereheres and Yamaska, Port-neuf, Quebec, Quebec (city), Montmorency, Dorchester, Huntingdon, Bagot, Bellechasse, Chateauguay, Kamouraska, L'Islet, Mont-magny, Rimouski, Temiscouata, Charlevoix, Lac St. Jean, Matane, Montreal, St. John, Wright.

3. The officers of the department are not paid anything for lecturing in addition to their regular salaries. Other persons engaged by the department are paid at the rate of three dollars per day.

There is no riding school at St. John.

1. As regards some classes of goods they are. As regards others they are not.

2. Certain specified articles exported from the United States to Japan are admitted into that country on more favourable terms than exports of a similar character from Canada, the reason being that there exists a special preferential treaty between Japan and the United States, which also contains the ' most favoured nation clause,' while no such treaty exists under which Canada could claim preferential or minimum tariff.

Mr. Speaker, the debate in which we are engaged at the present time has now reached such a stage that we may fairly say that the House is seized in a general way of the views put forward by the government in favour of the proposition which we are discussing, and that it is seized in a general way of the objections which are put forward by our friends on the opposition side. We have, therefore, made some progress, and if the debate at later stages is to be illuminated upon the subject it will be necessary for us to confine ourselves more to the points which prove to be at issue between the parties, instead of discussing the general features of the scheme, which are now well before the country as well as the House. We have had exhaustive statements from both sides. We had an eloquent and able speech from the right hon. leader of the government, in which, with that ability which on both sides of the House, I think I can fairly say, we all admire, he placed before the House and the country his views respecting this great project. He was followed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That hon. gentleman did not, It is true, have the printed contract before him sufficiently long to enable him to give a mature and detailed criticism of its contents, and therefore he may fairly ask that this House and the country shall hear him again. But, in so far as the general features of the scheme were concerned, they had been reported in the press without dispute ; they had been brought before the members of the government following in caucus, and, with that enterprise which characterizes our friends of the press, had been fully and completely reported to the readers of the newspapers. Therefore, I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, probably knew as well, when he came to listen to the Prime Minister's deliverance, the general features of the scheme which he should be called upon to criticise, as he knows at the present time. He did not shrink from the task which was imposed upon him, but he spoke vigorously and at length on behalf of himself and his party, and placed himself on record respecting this proposition. Then we had an address from my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who, by reason of his length of service in this House, his service in the late government, and the position which he occupies in the public life of the country, is well qualified to speak for the Conservative party of the province of Ontario in this House; and I think I do not misstate my hon. friend's position when I say that it was one of uncompromising hostility to the proposition of the government. Then we had from my hon. friend the late Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) a lengthy and exhaustive discussion from the standpoint of an opponent. My hon. friend and late colleague spoke with all the knowledge of a gentleman who bad been a member of the subcommittee who were instructed to prepare the details of this scheme. Therefore, he could not claim that his information was not full and complete or that he had hot sufficient time to go into the subject with great fullness since the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister. So that we may take it that what he has said is the worst that can be said, so far as he is concerned, with respect to the scheme before us.

Then we heard yesterday from the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk, and I think I am safe in saying that his attitude was one of un-eomproming opposition. We heard also from the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) last night, and his attitude was equally one of uncompromising opposition. So that*-we have this fact thoroughly well settled, that from every portion of the Dominion represented by our hon. friends on the opposition benches, except from the west-we have not yet heard from our friends from the west- we have uncompromising opposition to the plan of the government in connection with this transcontinental proposition. From our side we have had a very able and convincing speech from my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and last evening we had from the Finance Minister a speech characterized by that ability and eloquence which

causes us all on this side to he so proud of him. Leaving aside for the moment the presentation originally made by my right hon. leader, the different phases of the subject were dealt with by the hon. member for North Norfolk and the Finance Minister in such a convincing, exhaustive and conclusive manner that would be mere impertinence for any one at this stage to undertake to amplify the argument and reasons which they gave. But if I may be permitted, I will devote a few moments to a consideration of a few of the objections which have been raised by our hon. friends on the other side to this contract.

My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier spoke to us yesterday afternoon at considerable length, and the chief ground he took for opposing the Bill was that we had no information about the country through which we proposed to run the line from Winnipeg to Quebec. I understood him to take the position that it was unwise and imprudent to undertake to build a railway without first having had an actual survey made of the route. But it has been pointed out that the position taken by. the hon. gentleman, and which has been reiterated on that side, is contrary to all business experience and practice. When people undertake a railway enterprise, they usually come to parliament for authority to go on, before making an actual survey of the route. They get first a general knowledge of the couutry, such a knowlelge as justifies them in the conviction that a railway of the character they intend to build, can be built, and then proceed to get the requisite authority to make a survey and decide on the exact location. That is what was done-in fact I do not know that quite as much was done when the Dominion undertook to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Information was at the disposal of the government which enabled it to say that the railway could be built and they undertook to build it and they did build it.

And after the government entered intoi a contract for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that railway did not follow the line of the survey which had been made at all, but went hundreds of miles away from where, according to the survey, it was intended the road should go. It will not be found, in all the practice regarding the initiation of great railway enterprises, that complete surveys are required before a decision is arrived at to go on with the work.

My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier raised another objection. He said the province of Quebec required colonization railways, and he made that statement in such a way ns to indicate that the argument or proposition he was advancing was an argument against the scheme we were discussing. Well, I am wholly unable to see what it has to do with the proposition we are discussing. If the province of Quebec requires colonizataion railways, if there are districts in that pro-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.

vince through which the building of colonization railways can be justified, then this parliament is prepared to deal liberally with any proposition for development of that kind when it is brought before us. My hon. friend has been a member of this House for six years, during two of which he has occupied the position of lieutenant of the leader of the opposition, and up to this moment he has not brougt before us a single scheme looking to the building of a colonization railway in his province. I do not see therefore how he can say how there has been any lack of. disposition on the part of this House to deal liberally with his province in that respect. There is absolutely no connection between the twoi propositions. We stand in the same position with regard to the province of Quebec upon that subject as we do with regard to the other provinces of the Dominion. As! a member of a government I have never had any sympathy whatever with the agitation which has arisen and been fomented in certain parts of the older provinces against the bonusing and encouraging of railways.

I take the position that it would be an act of folly, that it would be disastrous for the parliament of Canada to lay down any principle contrary to the encouraging of railway construction in this country. I have suffered politically somewhat for my faith, because in certain parts in the western country which are fairly well served with railway facilities, the people have been persuaded that the policy of bonusing railways should cease. But, I am convinced that the view which I entertain is sound and will appeal to the solid business judgment of the people in the long run. 1 We are prepared to give effect, to the policy of encouraging railway construction in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and the other provinces of the Dominion, including the old province of New Brunswick, where additional facilities are required.

The hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has addressed some criticisms to this contract. I am sorry he is not in his place, because he has been placed by our hon. friends opposite in the position of a railway critic and as being in some sort, after the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), the railway expert of the opposition ; and wre are therefore to pay some considerable degree of attention to what he says. My hon. friend criticised the provision of this contract regarding running powers. I regard that provision as most essential and important, as a fundamental provision, without which this contract never could have been made. That is the importance which the government attaches to that provision of the contract, and therefore when it is attacked we find it necessary to meet the attack. And when this debate is over, I do not think that hon. gentlemen on that side will be able to say that any attack was made on this particular phase of

the question which has not been thoroughly met. My hon. friend from North Norfolk dealt with that question fully.

The 'allegation is made that the provisions respecting running powers are not practical. In broad, general terms, that is the proposition that is laid before the House. It is said : Your idea about a railway highway, your idea about running powers is a good enough idea, but it won't work. What did my hon. friend-from North Norfolk say? He showed that it is actually working. He said : It is of no use for you to say it won't work ; here is a road where it is actually working now. And what is the answer to that ? I am free to say that I do not know. It was said that the arrangement could not work where the road was more than one division long, say more than 75 or 100 miles, for you would have to have engines, shops and changes of crews. And my late colleague, the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), excited the mirth of our hon. friends on the other side by the humorous description he gave of the difficulties that would arise in endeavouring to carry into effect what he represented as a ridiculous and impracticable idea. Now, humour is a very good thing, and a very entertaining thing-but it is not argument. And when, after my hon. friend's humorous address, the hon. member for North Norfolk said : Your argument is very well for a lawyer, .but here are the facts, here are two railway companies doing this very thing which you [DOT]say is ridiculous and impracticable ; what have you to say to that ? And we ask hon. gentlemen on the other side what they have to say at this present stage of the discussion ? My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has an answer to it, and to that answer I desire to draw attention. Bet the House observe that the hon. member for North Norfolk spoke * in the morning, and the hon. member for Hamilton, who is a railway man-I understand he lias been a railway manager-a man with expert knowledge of railroads and familiar with the road to which my hon. friend from North Norfolk referred, and the country through which it runs, spoke in the evening. And what was the only argument he could bring against the facts stated to this House by the hon. member for North Norfolk ? Why, the only thing he could allege, after a whole day's consideration of this most important phase of the question, which goes to the root of the whole contract, was that the dominant railway, the Canada Southern, did not permit the junior railway to compete with it for local traffic. That was all he could think of saying. It turns out then that even that is not correct. My hon. friend from North Norfolk says that, so far as freight business is concerned, the dominant railway does permit competition for local traffic, for he says he has shipped the freight. There can't be very much mistake about that. And my hon. friend from South

Essex (Mr. Cowan) says that, so far as passenger business is concerned, they do permit competition, because he has bought the tickets. There cannot be very much mistake about that. So the alleged facts put forward by my hon. friend from Hamilton do not appear, so far as the testimony at our disposal is concerned, to be very conclusively established. But, supposing' they were established, supposing that what my hon. friend says were perfectly true, and the railway company which owns the fee of the Canada Southern did not permit, and was not permitting, the junior road, the leasing road, the road co-operating with them in the use of the line, to compete for local business ; will my hon. friend from Hamilton, or will the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), when he follows me, say how this affects the provision of the contract that we have now before us ? The arrangement in the case of the Canada Southern is a voluntary arrangement ; the dominant railway can allow competition for local traffic if it likes, or it can refuse to allow it if it likes. Is that the case in this contract ? This contract provides that the government shall decide the terms and the running powers. It is not a voluntary question ; the Grand Trunk has nothing whatever to do with the subject ; tout the government, or the railway commission, or whatever authority the government may provide, will decide the terms on which these running powers shall be used. Therefore, let the House understand and mark well, that this futile, absurd and ridiculous objection is the only answer that can be made to the conclusive argument of my hon. friend from North Norfolk upon this question.

Now, my hon. friend from Hamilton undertook to lecture the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) as being a very innocent and easily gulled person, because, forsooth, that hon. gentleman relied to some extent upon the survey of Sir Sanford Fleming, made about thirty years ago. I would have gathered from the remarks of my hon. friend from Hamilton that there was great danger that the physical features of the province of New Brunswick had changed within the last thirty years. He did indeed make the suggestion that the surveyors of thirty years ago were not as careful and particular in gaining information as are the surveyors of the present time. Well, Sir Sanford Fleming, be it remembered, was the chief engineer of the Canadian government. He was instructed to procure the necessary information for the purpose of locating the Intercolonial Railway line. As was pointed out toy the Finance Minister, he made three surveys for the purpose of locating three practicable and reasonably good commercial lines, any one of which might have been adopted toy the government of Canada for the location of the Intercolonial Railway. And what

the hon. member for Hamilton, in his answer to the Finance Minister, asks us to believe is that, because that was done thirty years ago, and the report is an old report, and because the government ultimately decided that for political, military and imperial reasons, they would decline to take the better route, which Sir Sanford Fleming, though he did not recommend it, evidently thought was the better route, we are not justified in believing that that route is there at the present time just as much as it was thirty years ago. Well, it would be painting the lily to answer an argument of that kind. My hon. friend from Hamilton then proceeded, being somewhat restless under the remarks of the Finance Minister respecting the attitude of the opposition towards the Intercolonial, to rebut, with some degree of warmth, the suggestion that the opposition were not friendly to that road. There is an old line asking a question which seems appropriate here :

Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love.

But why did you kick me downstairs ?

Our lion, friends on the other side have dissembled their love for the Intercolonial very successfully for the last five or six years. They have been kicking the Intercolonial downstairs and the late Minister of Railways and Canals with it, on every occasion that they got a chance. They say they have not been hostile to the Intercolonial. Well, when we came into power we found, as has been very truly said, the Intercolonial Railway ending in a ploughed field. We brought it into the city of Montreal and made a modern and businesslike railway out of it. We have spent millions of dollars to bring the Intercolonial up to date and make it a modern railway, and give the people of the maritime provinces a railway service that they have a right to be proud of and to be satisfied with. This government, and the united force of the members of parliament behind (this, government, enabled the Minister of Railways and Canals to come down .to this House and make this proposition for the purpose of carrying out what we believed to be a sound and businesslike policy in regard to that railway. But where were the gentlemen on the other side ? Why, Sir, year after year they have fought that proposition, every proposition, that we brought forward, inch by inch, tooth and nail, every day and every hour of the day, to the greatest extent of their ability. And not only that, but while this has been going on, year after year they have denounced the late Minister of Railways and Canals ; they have attacked the late Minister of Railways and Canals, they have hounded the late Minister of Railways and Canals all over Canada, in their press and upon the platform. And, Sir, we have the astounding spectacle within the last two or three weeks, after the culmination of Hon. Mr SIFTON.

their attacks, of the whole Conservative party joining in enthusiastic applause while the late Minister of Railways and Canals addressed the House from his desk ; and we find them endeavouring to show to the country that this gentleman whom they have been hounding year after year, whom they declared to be incompetent, and corrupt and incapable, is the greatest railway authority in the Dominion of Canada.

Now. the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-and I am devoting some attention to the hon. member for Hamilton, because he has been put forward early in the debate, lie has been put forward before the late Minister of Railways and Canals in the Conservative government, my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), he has been put forward even ahead of the leader of the opposition, to declare the railway policy of the Conservative party in connection with this contract. My hon. friend from Hamilton took violent exception to what has come from this side of the House in advancing the argument that this railway is required in view of the possible withdrawal of the bonding privilege. I am not going to discuss that question, because in my judgment it lias 'been discussed sufficiently. The Prime Minister, the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the Minister of Finance have given very fully the views of this side of the House on that question, and I do not propose to repeat the discussion. I propose to devote a moment or two to the criticism of the hon. member for Hamilton. If I understood him aright, his answer to the suggestion that another railway,was necessary and would be a convenient safety valve in case of the withdrawal of the bonding privileges, was this: That if the bonding privileges were withdrawn it would simply have the effect of driving the traffic to Canadian ports over the Intercolonial, and that we ought to feel gratified that such should take place ; and we should devote ourselves to building up the Intercolonial instead of building another line of railway through New Brunswick for the purpose of helping to take care of that business. I do not think I misstate the position of the hon. member for Hamilton. Let us examine his proposition for a moment or two. At the present time the Intercolonial Railway has certain equipment, certain switches, certain station yards, certain engine houses, certain terminal facilities. My late colleague, the exMinister of Railways and Canals, says the facilities are not sufficient for the purpose Of doing the business that we have to do at the present time. We have large appropriations before parliament at this session for the purpose of improving those facilities. We have been improving them by spending millions of money every year since we came into power. We are told by our late colleague that the facilities are not sufficient as yet, and that some millions more will be

required to enable that road to cope with the business which it has to meet under present conditions. Well, I do not know whether that be correct or not; I do not know enough about the Intercolonial to say ; but I think perhaps we may all agree over that which we do know, which is a matter of common knowledge, that the Intercolonial has had all the business within the last year or two that it could do, and that its facilities are not more than sufficient to enable it to do the business which it has at the present time. The Canadian Pacific Railway has a short line to the city of St. John, it has large facilities for doing business there and along that line. The Grand Trunk Railway has a line from the city of Montreal to the city of Portland. It is a magnificent line of railway, well equipped in the best modern style, and it has terminal facilities which I am credibly told have cost from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000. We are told by the Grand Trunk people that the facilities which they have for doing business between Montreal and Portland are not sufficient now to cope with it.

Now, what is the proposition of the member for Hamilton ? It is that the Intercolonial, with its barely sufficient equipment to do the business which it has now, shall take three or four times as great business of the Grand Trunk, that it shall take the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that the business of these railways shall be suddenly precipitated upon the Intercolonial Railway, and that that railway shall be expected, with its insufficient facilities, to do the business of the whole three. And my hon. friend says that that is a consummation to be desired. He says we should not be alarmed at a prospect of that kind, that it is something which will help the Intercolonial and which does not at all call for any action upon the part of this government for the purpose of preventing the consequences which might flow from it. Why, Mr. Speaker, has he considered for half a moment what would happen in such a case as that ? Why, we would have in the traffic of Canada confusion worse confounded, we would have a blockade* which would throw into the shade the wheat blockade which took place during the last couple of years in the North-west ; we would have the business of the country disorganized, because the business of Canada depends upon its export trade, and we should have millions upon millions of money of the people of Canada annually wasted on account of our inability to do the business which ought to be done over these railways. That, Mr. Speaker, is the contribution to the discussion of the railway question which Is made by the ra ilway expert of the Conservative party.

There is another contribution which my hon. friend from Hamilton made. He pointed out with some detail and with great accuracy that the prairie section of the railway was easier to build than the eastern section; and that inasmuch as the Grand Trunk Company would probably start up first to build, and would complete it as rapidly as they could, they would have that line of railway in the western portion of Canada, or a considerable portion of it, hundreds of miles of it, I think he said, constructed and graded to do business before the government would have built the eastern section between Quebec and Winnipeg. My hon. friend then proceeded to show that the result would be that the Grand Trunk Railway, long before the government line to Winnipeg was built, would be hauling out wheat from Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, and bringing it down to the lakes and sending it to the markets of the world. I may be excused if I do not regard that as a very alarming proposition. If the proposition is that before we get the line built to Winnipeg the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be relieving the congestion and raising the blockage in the west by taking the grain out by way of the lakes, the way our hon. friends say it ought to go, that is not a very alarming criticism of the proposition before us. We trust that that will be the case. We trust that the prognostications of my hon. friend from Hamilton will come true that at an early date the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will to a considerable extent be able to relieve the congestion in the west. As to this argument against the immediate construction of the Winnipeg-Quebec line, I would say that if it proves anything it proves that we should have started to build the line to Winnipeg two or three years ago so as to be there in time. It certainly does not prove that we should not start now. I just note in passing that my hon. friend from Hamilton, like some other members on the other side of the House, argues in favour of the construction of another line by way of North Bay instead of going to Quebec or to the eastern provinces. I note also that my hon. friend from Hamilton, who perhaps thinks it is necessary for him to do something to bring about better relations with the late ex-Minister of Railways and Canals than he has been having during the last few years, entered into an argument for the purpose of justifying my late colleague for leaving the government and I think that my hon. friend was rather unfortunate because he justified my late colleague for leaving the government on the ground that he was not sufficiently consulted by the right hon. Prime Minister, but he forgets that that is not the statement of the late minister himself. My late colleague says that that is not the reason at all. He says that his resignation only had relation to the question of the policy of the government. So that, if my hon. friend: from Hamilton thinks to pay court to my late colleague I am afraid he will find that this effort has not been successful. I

note also that almost every hon. member on the other side of the House who has spoken has suggested that this line of railway will not have any return traffic and that the amount of business it will do is extremely problematical. I hope to say a few words upon the subject of traffic before I finish my remarks. I just note now for the purpose of marking the objections that have been made that this is one of the objections which has been raised very generally by our friends on the other side of the House. Then, Mr. Speaker, I note also that our friends on the opposite side of the House, particularly my hon. friend from Hamilton and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), took strong objection to the accuracy of the Ontario government reports in regard to the country which we have to deal with and through which we are going to build this railway. I have had some experience jin connection with the sending out of exploration parties and the organization of parties and I have made an examination of the reports of these parties to which reference has been made. I have taken the trouble to look into the organization and constitution of these parties. I have read the instructions which were given to the various members of these parties and I make the statement without any hesitation and without any fear that it will be successfully contradicted that these parties were organized in a most comprehensive and in a most businesslike way. If there is any reason why these reports are not reliable that reason has not been made evident to this House and that reason is not open to the ordinary observer or to the person who ordinarily examines these papers. We have every reason. I submit, Sir, to entertain the belief that these reports are in every respect completely accurate, and completely reliable in so far as they have gone. But, if our hon. friends on the other side of the House are not satisfied to take the reports of the Ontario government, if they are not satisfied to take the reports prepared when the party with which it does not agree politically, was in power, I think we can furnish them with a large amount of information prepared and procured by the government of Canada when their own party' was in power which deals very fully and very comprehensively with the questions which are at issue in regard to the quality and the nature of this country, and I shall take occasion before the conclusion of my remarks to indicate briefly the nature of these reports and the method by which that information has been procured.

Just now I desire to call attention to what I regard as a somewhat important criticism of the contract which is before us. When the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) addressed the House in reply to the right hon. Prime Minister, one of the important points which he made, one Hon. Mr. SIFTON.

of the points upon which he laid great stress was the allegation, since supported and amplified by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that the contract was an abrogation and an abandonment of the policy that the government inaugurated and carried into effect when it brought the Intercolonial Railway into the city of Montreal. That statement has been made, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has attached great importance to it, has put it in an important place in his remarks upon this important subject when he was addressing the House and the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has amplified it at considerable length. Let us for a moment or two examine the question as to whether that suggestion or statement is justified or not. It is an important point, it is a point that ought to be settled, and today, therefore, some consideration may properly be devoted to it. We have spent a large amount of money iu bringing the Intercolonial Railway into the city of Montreal. We inaugurated an important line of policy when we did it and we say that we are not abandoning that policy. We say we were successful in carrying that policy into effect, that it has brought about the results which were anticipated that we are not abandoning that policy at the present time and that in no possible respect does this proposition affect that policy. The hon. leader of the opposition said that if this policy meant anything its logical conclusion was that we were going on with the Intercolonial Railway to the great lakes. I make the statement that the hon. gentleman lias not made out the truth of that proposition. That is an assertion which an examination of the facts does not warrant. The Intercolonial Railway, ns a matter of railroading was brought Into the city of Montreal for the purpose of bringing it into the commercial metropolis of the country in order that it might be able to do business in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway upon equal terms. It was not brought there for the purpose of enabling it to do the grain traffic of tiie west. It may be a proper thing some time to do it, but the two propositions are entirely distinct. There is no connection between the two. The hon. leader of the opposition suggested further-I think his words were-that if that policy meant anything it meant that the Grand Trunk Railway was to hand over at Montreal to the Intercolonial Railway its proportion-I took note of the word used-its proportion of the traffic for the seaboard. It depends upon what my hon. friend meant by the word ' proportion.' If he meant a rateable proportion, if he made a half, or a third, or a quarter, or any fixed proportion then he was entirely wrong, because there is nothing of that kind in the contract. The traffic contract obligates the Grand Trunk Railway to hand over to the Intercolonial Railway

the traffic which is routed by shippers over the Intercolonial Railway. That is what it requires it to do, and if the contract which we are now discussing is carried into effect the position of the Intercolonial Railway will not be altered in the slightest possible degree in any way, shape or form. Since that contract went into effect what has been the position ? The condition has been, that the Intercolonial Railway is competing for through-traffic between Montreal and St. John with the Canadian Pacific Railway short line, and with the Grand Trunk Railway still shorter line to Portland. It was able to do during the last year, 1903, $1,739,545 worth of through business. That was the through business of the Intercolonial Railway done in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway short line and the Canadian Pacific Railway short line. The local business of the Intercolonial Railway was $4,327,620 or a total of $6,067,000. What does that prove ? It proves, first of all, that the predictions of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, that the policy of extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal was an absurd policy, and that their assertion that the railway would do no business was absolutely foundationless.

Hear, hear.

And, Sir, I venture to assert that the criticism which they are making now, that the railroad which we propose to build will not do any business, will prove to be equally foundationless when the facts are known. The figures that I have given prove that the Intercolonial Railway was able to do a substantial amount of business, and that the Intercolonial Railway was able to do it in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway; both lines much shorter than the Intercolonial Railway ; both lines-and this is the point I wish to emphasize-both lines shorter than the new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway line will be. Then, Mr. Speaker, if the Intercolonial Railway under its traffic agreement can compete with the short line to Portland and with the short line to St. John, why in the name of common sense cannot it compete with the new line by way of the Chaudiere Junction ? When you come to sift the arguments presented, when you come to look into the actual facts, there is absolutely nothing in the business position presented in connection with the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway, which even suggests the idea that this transcontinental railroad is going to do any harm to the Intercolonial Railway, so far as the through business is concerned.

It is said that the Quebec and Moncton branch of this railway will injure the Intercolonial Railway, by taking business away from it in a local way. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in that connection, that members of the House should direct

their mind to the illustration which is in their own experience in matters of this kind. I believe, Sir, that if they do address their minds to this experience which they can recall, they will come to this conclusion-a conclusion which I venture to say is justified by all railway experience on this continent-that the building of additional lines of railway where there are any considerable natural resources does not have the effect of injuring the business of the first line. Experience will show all over Canada and the United States that the railways that are doing the worst business, the railways that are the poorest, the railways that are prospering the least, are the railways that are alone. That is the experience all over this continent, and that always will be the experience, mark you, in a country where there are any considerable natural resources and which has any capacity to develop trade. Of course, if you run a railway through the desert, or if you run it through a region of rocks where no traffic can be got, that would not be the case. But where you run a railway through a country that is capable of development and capable of sustaining a population, a new road, according to all experience, builds up its own business, and in addition to building up its own business, by its drawing power and general effect in building up the country, it promotes the general business so that the old road will do more business than it did before the new road was built.

Hear, hear.

Why, Sir, the Canada Atlantic Railway has not done any worse since the short line from Montreal was built by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am told they are doing better. If you take the position of the Grand Trunk Railway in Canada, everybody knows that the Grand Trunk Railway Company never began to prosper until the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, and came down to the province of Ontario, and invaded the city of Montreal, and put new life into the business. The Grand Trunk Railway has prospered in a greater degree ever since. And what is going to happen in the province of New Brunswick and in the province of Nova Scotia when this railway is built, and when through business is carried to a large extent-to I believe an enormous extent-through these provinces ? In the first place we are going to have, even while the railway is being constructed, an enormous demand for the products of the industries of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Hear, hear.

We are going to have business done in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick upon a scale and upon lines that have never been attempted before. And, Sir, what is going to be the first institution that is going to

prosper by the increase of business, and by tlie increase of general prosperity in these provinces ? Why, Sir, the railway is the very first institution that will prosper, and I venture to say that the first effect of this prosperity and this increased business in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be to benefit the Intercolonial Railway. I am not in the habit of making predictions, and I am not generally very sanguine in matters of this kind, but I venture the statement-and time will show whether my statement is correct or not-I venture the statement that the inauguration and carrying out of this enterprise will be the first step which will go towards placing the Intercolonial Railway on a paying basis and making it a good and a revenue-producing property. I have never been able to comprehend the position of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair). I have never been able to follow his argument; I have never been able to see that there was any argument of any kind whatever in a business way, in the contention which he advanced with respect to the Quebec-Moncton line.

I want to say upon that point just another word, and if I speak at such length on this question of the Quebec and Moncton line, it is because of the fact that it has been made the point of resistance, the point upon which the attack of our friends of the opposition, and their press all through Canada-with the exception of the press of Nova Scotia and possibly a part of New Brunswick-it is the point upon which they have centred their attacks. I would not say anything further were it not for the fact that as a representative of a far distant portion of the country, I wish to express my view on the proposition to construct that line. I entertain the view in the first place, that it is very surprising to me that the people who are going to be served by this new line should have stood being treated as they have been treated, so long. I express the opinion very emphatically, that if these people were animated by the same spirit as the people that I have the honour to represent in this House, and that my hon. friends from the -west have the honour to represent, they would have had that railway before now.