Mr. LENNOX.

Do you think that Mr. Crawford ever, in the Ontario legislature or elsewhere, was ass enough to ask the people of Canada to build a railway costing from $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 for the purpose of carrying stockers from Ontario to the great west ? My hon. friend says that the difficulty about the carrying of cattle was a want of cars. We know something in this House, and the.people outside know a good deal more ; and I am quite willing to leave it to the country to say whether the hon. gentleman's information is correct when he leads us to understand that there is shortage of transportation facilities from the east to the west. If there is, we have never heard of it. I have understood-and I have some reasons to know something about it-I have understood and known, that the freight cars are going back to the west empty. Our great measure of prosperity will be attained when that western country is so thickly settled that return cargoes by land and water will be carried from the east to the west. In the same line the hon. gentleman tells us of congestion in the west which has retarded the trade of merchants there. He would have us understand that, these merchants having bought their goods in Europe, or in the great wholesale houses of Montreal and Toronto, the movement of west-bound freight has been so great that there has been a blockade and the merchants could not get their goods. I do not doubt the

honesty and good faith of my hon. friend. He is in a worse position to judge of this measure than even some other members pf this House. He has been away for the greater part of the session. He has come in in a hurry. He has taken his food, as it were on the wing. He lias not digested his argument. And it is asking the people too much to ask them to digest some of the arguments he used. Congestion in westward bound freight upon the railways ? I will be glad enough when that is realized. That will be the acme of our prosperity, when, upon the great lakes and upon our railways, it is found they are as busy in returning goods to the west as they are in carrying out the products of the west. Any one who has studied the question, auy one who lias read the article a few months ago- or it may have been even a year or more ago-in the 'Canadian Monthly' by Edward Farrer, must see the importance and the significance of the fact, which I trust the hon. members of the government will take note of. and the time when we shall have complete control of our 'carrying trade and complete satisfaction in it, the time when we shall be able to reduce the cost of carriage by land and water-that is by land and water combined, which, I say, is to be the ultimate scheme for carrying the products of the west to the east-will come when we have the return cargoes to be taken to a large population in the west.

Now, the Minister of the Interior attempted to show what the first Minister found it important to show, but failed in showing- that there is a demand and a need for the construction of a railway such as they propose. When I come to that, I will produce my proof, and I do not intend to advance anything of which I shall not present proof, or, if not absolute proof, evidence which it is reasonable to present to a deliberative assembly. Before I deal with this point of the Minister of the Interior I want to say a word with reference to the older provinces. I say, and I have said before, that we are prepared to do justice by the west, we are prepared to do even more than justice to the west, as we are ready to act In anticipation of the strides they are making. The people of the west do not want proof of this for they have faith in that Conservative party as was shown in the recent election in Manitoba. For the record of the Conservative party is an unbroken record of good faith of belief in the country and of earnestness and liberality In carrying - out what they have professed. But while I say that for the east and the west, and speaking as I do In a sense for the centre, I want to say something for the older provinces of On-ario. I want to say that the fortunes of the west and the east are bound together. In the larger sense there is no east and there is no west, there is no north or south, it is one combined country, and the sooner you obliterate those boundaries, the sooner Mr. LENNOX.

we make one bold, grand fight like Britons for the general good of all, the sooner we will bring about a realization of the roseate pictures which have been drawn for us by lion, gentlemen opposite.

Now, we have forty-five cities and towns served by the present Grand Trunk system. By the census returns, which I dare say are not padded in the interest of the province of Ontario, those cities and towns have a population of 1,000,940 people. Among them are some Quebec cities. For instance, there is Three Rivers, the only debateable one in reference to my proposition. But I want to say that in those forty-five cities and towns, aggregating over a million people, aggregating almost a million people, if you take out the province of Quebec with its 68,840, if you push through a scheme providing for the shortest route for the raw material out of Canada by this new line without breaking bulk, if that is the policy rather than the policy inaugurated in 1878 to develop a varied industry, to develop agriculture as the handmaid of commerce, and commerce as the handmaid of agriculture, I say if you are to develop that policy, you will give the go-by to these forty-five cities and towns and leave them and their artisans, and their skilled mechanics, land their merchants, without the profit that should come to them mutually by a turn over of this commerce. Have lion, gentlemen opposite lost sight altogether of the fact that the west is not going to be solely an agricultural country ? Tlie people of the west have the energy and the pluck to build up tall chimneys, a large population is going in there to consume the products of the west. It is not by taking the shortest route to the seaboard upon a 3,000 mile haul that you are going to encourage the development of varied industries. Mining, for instance, will furnish an enormous home market for a portion of our products. The great scheme developed in 1878 by Sir John A. Macdonald did not mean a mere tariff policy-and that is where my hon. friends make such a great mistake- it meant not only a protective tariff, but a development of all the great industries which were adapted to the circumstances of this country. Therefore, I do not want a policy which will have the effect of crippling a vast portion of the wealth-producing class in the Dominion of Canada. We have our cities and our towns to consider in Ontario and Quebec, and in a large measure, to the extent of a million souls, the effect of this policy will not be to develop, but to injure, the cities and towns I have mentioned.

The government saw the weakness of the scheme later on. You will recollect. Mr. Speaker, that this Bill of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been so altered and mutilated that its political godfather, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) can now hardly recognize it. As the government proceeded with it they endeavoured to make off-shoots, and try to satisfy the various

cities and towns to tlie south of the proposed line. Well, I venture to say that this policy will not be very beneficial. You may as well try to cut off a rapidly flowing stream by digging a trench at right angles as to try to control the through traffic over that railway, as the hon. gentleman suggests it shall be controlled by aid of the branches to these towns. As a measure it will go through, but the effect will be felt, and I call the attention of the champion of the labour element at this stage to the disastrous effect the government scheme will have upon the workingmen. While I desire to help the hon. gentleman as far as I can, my policy would be to strengthen the centre, to build up the country as Britain built up the empire, by bringing the product of all her colonies and dependencies into the centre, to benefit each other by an interchange of commerce. Now, in that view the Conservative government inaugurated its policy. They deepened and widened our waterways, upon which a large expenditure of money has been made. We have, since the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and since extending our shore line along Lake Superior to Lake Huron, continued to develop our waterways and to expend enormous sums of money. Shall we now have to right-about-face and do away, to a large extent, with the results of that expenditure of money ? I say no, for the locality I represent, I say no, for the localities in which I am interested-I need not say perhaps for the town of Collingwood, because I see my hon. friend from North 'Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is here, and I have little doubt that he will realize the importance to Collingwood of the scheme that is proposed. I know my hon. friend has .been longer in the House than I have. I know lie occupies a unique position, I know he is the leader of a great party-the McCarthy party. My hon. friend, I understand, rather laughs at me because I adopted the leadership of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), when I said I was proud to be under the leadership of a gentleman who fought as long and persistently as he did in favour of a certain question. It is true that my hon. friend's party is smaller than it was. Mr. Stubbs has gone to his reward. The other hon. gentleman who was at one time a supporter of his, is a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, and I will not further refer to him.

But my hon. friend has the satisfaction of leading a united party. They all vote the same way and when you get a party in the House of Commons that all vote solidly that is the balance of power. Talk about the balance of power in the old days ! Still there would be stragglers, there would be those who would not follow party lines. But, my hon. friend occupies an exceptional position, a position that is unique in the history of parties. Therefore, I would not, 277i

I Suppose, be wasting time if I endeavoured at this stage to try to win my hon. friend and his party back from the pernicious course they have adopted, a course which is 'detrimental to our county as a whole, a c ,urse which will rob Collingwood of the benefit of every dollar that has been expended on its harbour, a course which will make a sham and a delusion of every dollar that is spent there, a course that will rob this county of every dollar of the benefit which otherwise would result from the subsidy granted for the construction of vessels granted last session. I can hardly believe that my hon. friend, although he does not think as well of me as I could wish, although he 'deplores my acceptance of the leadership of a gentleman probably who is not as old as myself, will turn a deaf ear to my appeal. If he is deaf to my entreaties I hope he will not be indifferent to the interests of the county which I in part represent, a riding which did him the honour to elect him when he Was quite a young man and which did him that honour in a large measure-and I say it without any disrespect to the h iii. gentleman-because of the respect and esteem in which that county held the late gifted Mr. Dalton McCarthy. I speak of this because I want to get the whole party.

Mr. MCCARTHY.

You got enough of the party in 1896 to suit you.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Order..

Mr. LENNOX.

The hon. gentleman, has taken occasion to refer to 1896, and I do not pretend that I do not know the significance of the reference. The hon. gentleman refers to the election of 1896, when I was a candidate and was woefully defeated. The hon. gentleman refers to the election of 1896 when the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, whose memory I greatly honour, although I did not see politics in the same light as he did, was a candidate and when he was strong in the personal affections of the people of North Simcoe, whose affections he had earlier secured for advocating a grand policy for this country. There was a triangular fight in which you do not know where you stand. Mr. Stewart, the present superintendent of the forestry branch, was a candidate of the reform party, so-called.

Mr. SPEAKER.

I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) but I think this is a little outside of the question before the House.

Mr. LENNOX.

It is a good story.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Order.

Mr. LENNOX.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would not stop me were I not going beyond the limits of the question. I will only say that I received the support of some of the best men of the Conservative party in North Simcoe and that I am proud of my achievement on that occasion. I was

beaten, but tbe people know better now. They now know bow to recognize a good thing when they see it, and I venture to state that when the elections come on again that they will rec gnize a good thing and that it will not redound to the benefit of the hon. member for North Simcoe. But, I am not a man who bears resentment. I remember the hon. gentleman in other days and speaking as regards the attitude of the hon. member for North Simcoe upon this question I confine myself to a suggestion which I think will be in harmony with the views of all hon. members in this House. I have to admire the consistency with which ' the party ' I refer to has followed the present power. I do not know that it is inconsistent with anything the hon. gentleman has hitherto done or said. Independence, in the sense In which the hon. gentleman professes it, generally means independence of the wishes of the electors, independence of traditions because I have no doubt that my hon. friend bears no resentment to this side of the House from which in the past he derived great political advantage. I have no doubt that when we come to power again we shall have a large measure of support from him. * Notwithstanding what has happened may I hope that my hon. friend will desert for a time the Grand Trunk Railway interest and vote in the interests of North Simcoe ? I have the right to speak upon that question. Will he do this or will he deny the interests of North Simcoe and rob Coilingwood, the large township of Not-tawasaga and the surrounding territory generally of the benefits that have been conferred upon it by the Conservative government in the past and by the present administration in more recent times ? The labour interests are represented by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir. Wm. Mulock). The interests of the city of Toronto are identified to a large extent with the interests of the large constituency of North York. The hon. Minister of Labour represents that constituency and he also represents the labouring classes in this country. Will he vote for this measure which will not only be detrimental to the city of Toronto, and to the constituency of North York which he represents, but detrimental also to the great labouring classes whose champion he should be ?

I said that the hon. Minister of the Interior had attempted to show that there was a demand for and a need of this railway policy that the government have propounded. I have referred to the fact that in support of that contention he lias confined himself to quoting extracts mainly from the' papers of November last. I prefer a better source of information. I want to go as much as I can to the best source to find out what are the needs of the west. I have been out west recently, and I have communicated with many gentlemen in the west. I have also what to my mind is the

Mr. LENNOX.

authority of probably a gentleman best qualified to speak for the west, a gentleman who has proved himself to be capable of grappling with the transportation problem as it affects Manitoba and the west. I refer, of course, to the Hon. R. P. Roblin. On the 10th August he granted an interview to the ' News ' in which he said :

The people of Manitoba and the Canadian west are strongly opposed to the governmet of Canada granting one dollar of the public money or an acre of land to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as an all-Canadian route from coast to coast because they do not see any material advantage in its construction to the people of Western Canada.

'It appears to be an undertaking in the interests of Senator Cox and others,' said the Hon. R. P. Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, to a reporter of the ' News,' at the King Edward Hotel this morning.

This gentleman has been through a recent election in Manitoba, he is in constant touch with the people of the west, and he if any one ought to know the feeling in the west. He says the people there do not see any material advantage in the measure, and if they do not, how can the government see a bonanza in it ?

Continuing, Mr. Roblin stated that the feeling in the west was for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Depot Harbour, by government purchase of the Canada Atlantic. They further favoured the construction of an addition to the Canada Atlantic from a point near Parry Sound to a point on the Canadian Pacific main line, near Sudbury, in order to shorten the all-rail trip between Ontario and Manitoba. The view of the west regarding the extension of the Intercolonial was exactly expressed by Hon. Mr. Blair in his speech in the House of Commons yesterday. The people of Manitoba were ' commercial ' in their ideas, and the proposed construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway had failed to awaken any great public interest, simply because the people could see nothing in it for Manitoba.

Speaking of tbe railway from the Canada Atlantic near Parry Sound to Sudbury, I may say that on the very day of this interview I was at Sudbury, and I found the promoters of that railway actually on the ground. The engineer was there organizing the office, and he told me that some sixty miles of that railway would be constructed this autumn.

But would not its construction as a competing line to the Canadian Pacific benefit the eastern merchants and manufacturers as well as the western merchant, by lowering the the freight rates between Ontario and Quebec, and Manitoba ?' asked the reporter.

'I do not think so,' replied Mr. Roblin. 'The road would, to all intents and purposes, be a Grand Trunk one, in spite of the statements of the government to the contrary.' He went on to say that there was not the slightest indication on the part of the government that the freight rates would be in any manner improved except by the natural course of events.

* Where is the demand for the construction of this road/ continued the Premier of Mani-

toba. ' I fail to find it anywhere.' Manitoba to-day needed no more railways, for the average distance from the_farmer to the railway in Manitoba was but five miles. The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern would be quite able for the next twenty years to supply all the railway necessities of the west. What was wanted was an increased equipment, especially in rolling stock.

Now, I will give the House some statistics on the matter of rolling stock. Railway authorities agree that the measure of a railway's capacity to perform the service for which it is created is gauged by its ability to provide suitable equipment. Taking the returns for 1902 as given in ' Facts ' by

the promoters of this scheme, we find thatall the lines of railway in Canada, combined,had tlie following equipment : Total in No. per 100 Canada. miles.Engines .. 2,344 12Passenger cars .. .. .. 2,644 13Freight cars .. 68,875 365

Tlie freight cars were distributed among the great railways of Canada as follows :

No. of Freight No. per 100 cars. miles.

Grand Trunk Railway.. 24,462 775Intercolonial Railway.. 9,689 774Canadian Pacific Railway

21,342 291Canadian Northern.. .. 1,760 141

The equipment of engines was as follows :

No. of No. per 100

engines, miles.

Grand Trunk Railway.. .. 705 22Intercolonial Railway.. .. 280 21Canadian Pacific Railway 745 10Canadian Northern

47 4

I propose for a moment to analyze these statistics. The Canadian Pacific Railway, taking its total length, is 140 engines short of the average of engines possessed by all the railways of Canada; and when you reflect on the many little local lines which have only one or two engines in some cases, you realize the necessity that exists for increased equipment on the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Northern is 100 engines short of the average. The total shortage of tiiese two c mpanies in this respect is 240. In the matter of freight cars the Canadian Pacific Railway is below the average by 5,402 and the Canadian Northern by 2,800, making 7,202 in which these two companies are below the average equipment of the railways of Canada. Is there any reason why the equipment of these two great lines should not and will not in the near future equal that of the Grand Trunk V We have the Intercolonial in equipment side by side with the Grand Trunk, a magnificent asset, purchased, I admit, at a very considerable expense to the people of this country, to begin our work of developing anew tlie products of the west. The Canadian Pacific Railway, to have an equipment in

the matter of engines equal to that of the Grand Trunk, requires 883 more engines than it has, and the Canadian Northern requires 225 more engines, or a total between these two companies of 1,108. The Canadian Pacific Railway freight equipment is below that of the Grand Trunk by 33,872 cars, and the Canadian Northern freight equipment is below that of the Grand Trunk by 7,925, or a shortage between these tjyo railways of 41,794 cars. Looking at the congestion and the delay in transporting the products of the west, is there an hon. gentleman here who is not convinced that even if the Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern Railways obtained a tithe of this equipment, there would be abundant facilities for transporting the products of the west for many years to come ?

You will have then 1,900 instead of 792 engines upon those lines, 64,900 cars instead of 23,102, or you will have practically the present rolling stock of those two railways multiplied by three. Let me not be misunderstood. In giving these figures I am not casting the slightest reflection upon either the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway. The Canadian Northern Railway is in the process of rapid development. It is showing an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of Canada. It has hitherto been devoting its energies to construction rather than equipment, but it }s now coming to the front; and by the time we next meet in this House, no doubt the rolling stock of the Canadian Northern Railway will be vastly increased. Then as to the Canadian Pacific Railway, although it has not cars equal to the Grand Trunk Railway In mileage, it has an aggregate of freight cars and engines almost equal to the Grand Trunk Railway. When we reflect that the Grand Trunk Railway has been in existence over half a century and the Canadian Pacific Railway only comparatively a few years, and that it operates in a country which is full of engineering difficulty-difficulties that were declared by hon. gentlemen opposite to be absolutely insurmountable-when we take these things into consideration, we must give the Canadian Pacific Railway credit for the position in which it stands to-day. We have been told that the Canadian Pacific Railway have ordered 2,000 additional cars and two hundred and twenty-five additional engines. These are probably in its service at present, and will relieve to a great extent the congestion in tlie west. What is wanted it not additional roadbed, not to multiply the roadbeds and to duplicate tlie expense of the system, but to consolidate, as far as possible. and to provide efficient equipment upon all these great trunk lines-equipment at least equal to that of the Grand. Trunk Railway.

I have read the well considered statement of the boil. Mr. Roblin, who emjoys tlie confidence of the people of Manitoba to an extent seldom accorded to any public man. I

hardly think, however, that the government would care to adopt Mr. Roblin as a witness. There is not a bond of

concord between them, but I shall produce a witness between whom and the government there is a strong bond-a gentleman whose authority they dare not dispute, a gentleman whom the right hon. the leader of the government publicly announced as the best railway authority in the Dominion of Canada or on the continent of America, a gentleman whom the government desired as chairman of the Transportation Commission. I refer to Sir William Van Horne. What does he say ? He says :

The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other all-Canadian route will never voluntarily carry a carload of wheat by the all-railway route around the great lakes to an eastern Canadian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it will never pay any road to do so. Nor will the transportation problems in the west ever be solved by the construction of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.

I cannot conceive what testimony could be more convincing than that of this gentleman who was selected to solve the transcontinental problem. His declaration I take to be a condemnation, as square and fair as you can imagine, of the government's scheme. Sir William Van Horne went on to say :

That the Canadian Pacific Railway shipped every carload of wheat that it was possible to ship by their steamship lines on the great lakes from Port William to Owen Sound, and thence east by rail, or else by way of Buffalo and the Brie canal. The long haul around the great lakes was dreaded, because it was unprofitable and the bulk of the grain brought uy that route was carried during the winter months, and used by the millers of Ontario to keep their mills in operation during the cold season. There was altogether too much talk of an all-Canadian route by people who were entirely ignorant of the situation.

That is rather cold justice meted out by Sir William Van Horne to the right lion, gentleman who leads the House. He further said :

He considered that in discussing the allCanadian route, a great mass of the people seemed to forget what it cost to construct a road through such a country as that around Lakes Huron and Superior. They also seemed to forget that such an unprofitable piece of road had to be maintained and kept in the best of order. Such a piece of construction was like a bridge ; there was no profit in it, but it had to he constructed and maintained. The Canadian Pacific Railway had been practically forced to expend their $25,000,000 grant from parliament in constructing their line through the rough country, and part of the money derived from the sales of their lands in addition.

Sir William declined to say anything upon the fast Atlantic service, or directly on the railway situation at Ottawa, 'in fact,' he said, 'I simply don't read what is written about the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project.'

Mr. LENNOX.

Let me direct the attention, especially of lion, gentlemen on the government benches, to where we are at. We have Mr. Roblin claiming that this scheme is not demanded, ' not needed,' says Mr. Roblin, ' not effective even if constructed.' That covers the ground pretty well. The only point hon. gentlemen have to ascertain is whether Mr. Roblin is in a position to judge. ' It IS not a solution,' says Sir William Van Horne, ' not practicable, not reasonable.' No one can doubt Sir William Van Horne's competency in these matters. He has been giving bis attention to railway matters for years. He was requested to take the chairmanship of the commission which was to solve the transportation problem.

I have another source to quote from, and this ought to be testimony, if not for the cabinet, at all events, for the following of the cabinet-a gentleman whom these hon. gentlemen were accustomed and proud to look up to, the ex-Minister of Railways. He too joined in saying that, while he severed his connections with great reluctance and without a vestige of reason except the question of the interest of the country and the difference of the policy of the government, while his relations with his colleagues were friendly and all that could be desired in that regard, an'd while he appreciated the position he had, yet he was forced to resign from his position because he had come to the conclusion, that, to use his own words, the scheme was absolutely and utterly Indefensible. Nor is that all. We have the statement of the promoters of this railway. I will not read it again, it covers practically the same ground as that which I quoted you this morning. But what I quoted then with regard to another point will apply to this, that there is no population in what we will call the lake section, there is no population in the prairie section, and there is no population, while there are great engineering difficulties, in the extreme western section. In all these statements, there is not a suggestion of relieving any congestion in the territory served by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. The road is launched as a colonization and immigration road. It is pointed out, how much the Canadian Pacific Railway has done to people the west, and it is suggested that this railway would have the effect of increasing the rapidity of inflow of population into the country served by this road. Now, am I right

Oh, oh.

Mr. LENNOX.

If hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, are through with their interruptions, I wish to say that there have occurred instances of men shouting before they are out of the hush, and I am inclined to think that those who shouted a few days ago, when this measure was introduced, will raise a different note when they face the electors. I do not think they will feel

quite so hilarious. I see the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)

Mr. GOURLEY.

Hit him again.

Mr. LENNOX.

No, I am only going to appeal to him. I see that hon. gentleman always in the front rank of those who wish to interrupt me. I suppose that his interruptions proceed from the best of motives. I suppose it is to give me encouragement. I know it must proceed from some worthy cause. Rut he leads the interruption. I wish him merriment of it when lie comes to North Simcoe again. There, as suggested by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Benne.tt), he has got rid of his native town of Barrie.

Mr. BENNETT.

The electors there would have given it to him.

Mr. LENNOX.

I was going to say : Am I right in concluding from the facts that the question of blockade in the west, as the cause of the government proposed like the question of bonding privileges, was an afterthought and a. myth ? I think that those who study this question in cold blood, not answering to a party lash, will come to the conclusion that both the suggestion of a blockade in the west and the suggestion of our being on the eve of losing our bonding privilege are afterthoughts and makeweights, a padding in the effort to defend the scheme, which, as the ex-Minister of Railways has said, and proven, is absolutely indefensible. I like to give my hon. friends of the government credit for the best motives. I notice that the hon. member for Gaspfi (Mr. Lemieuxl claimed that the exMinister of Railways had shown in the debate great warmth and a spirit of hostility. I am not concerned with that. I have only to say that we have the certificate of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) that absolutely no motive actuated the Minister of Railways but the loftiest motives and the desire to promote what he believed to be the best interest of the country. I leave the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member for Gasp 6 to fight out that question of motive. I want to know, do the government know they are on the wrong track ?

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

No.

Mr. LENNOX.

Well, they will know it in a few minutes, and on very high authority. There is a good deal the government do not know, and when you travel from the ministry to some of their following, it is across the mountains and over vast ranges of country. Hon. gentlemen can go on interrupting if they think fit. I say the government does not know that except in equipment, we have ample facilities for the carriage of western grain, and that this fact has been definitely stated by ministers of the Crown. Then, where are we at ? Are we going to have another resignation ? A minister who was in the House this morning, and a strong member of the cabinet, has said so. We have lost two of these strong men this session, and three before this session. The late Sir Oliver Mowat went out while it was perfectly safe. Sir Louis Davies went out for a safer and better position. And we lost the late Hon. David Mills, who was promoted to a position on the bench. I do not refer to men who died in harness, but those who left the cabinet voluntarily. This session we have had two men who have left the cabinet because they did not find the policy of the government such as they could support. Are we going to lose another ? I said he was a strong man. I presume the House has anticipated of whom I speak, for you naturally pick out these men. I refer hon. gentlemen to the debate on the 7th of May, last session, an excellent speech had been made by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Mac-Laren) on the question of transportation, more particularly as affecting the waterways. I refer to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture to that speech. He is the strong member of the cabinet, who, I think, will probably be forced to resign unless he has changed his opinions since then. He says at page 4377 :

The waterways of Canada are far superior toto those of the United States But

that the government have already taken steps to remedy, and to-day there are large contracts being carried out for the improvement of Port Colborne, at the completion of which I venture to think that port will seriously rival the port of Buffalo in the facilities and advantages which it will afford for the transhipment of grain and other products from the ships plying on the great lakes to those which ply on

the canals This fact of Itself makes

our waterways far superior to the waterways of the United States where no such cargo can be carried from the interior of the continent to the seaboard without breaking bulk at Buffalo and transhipping into smaller vessels to pass through the Erie canal.

That is only Introductory. Now the hon. gentleman makes his confession, and he then and there deliberately proclaimed that we needed no more railways and no more shipping facilities, no more improvement to our waterways, but that what we wanted was rolling stock and ships. He went on to say :

But putting politics aside entirely, let me say that Canada as a whole, both this government and its predecessors,' has devoted enormous sums of money to the solving of the transportation problem and has never shrunk from doing what the country thought necessary in order to provide transportation facilities. Our canal system is probably the greatest on the face of' the earth. Our government railway, the Intercolonial, and the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, both of which have been largely assisted by this country are probably, in proportion to our wealth and population, the greatest railroad system [DOT]n the globe. Canada has borne, and is to-day bearing the burden, by paying the interest on the debt incurred for the purpose of perfecting

our transportation facilities. These facilities are not at all utilized to their full extent. Our canal system is not at all utilized to the one-hundreth part of its capacity. If the enterprising capitalists of this country would undertake to supply the necessary vessels, there is nothing to prevent our canals being utilized in a way hitherto undreamed of, and I have bo doubt that the investment would prove profitable both for the promoters and the country.

Under these circumstances I venture to think that neither the government or the people of Canada can be looked upon as recreant to this part of their duty or lacking in enterprise and determination to advance along the lines of material progress. If these facilities have not been utilized to the utmost possible extent, it is because the people of Canada have been devoting themselves to other things-the farmers to the production of goods, the merchants to selling these goods to advantage, and now they are beginning to see and understand that greater facilities in the way of transport are necessary, not in the shape of canals, not in the shape of railway tracks, but in the shape of improved rolling stock for the railways, and of ships for the utilization of the canals which now exist.

I need not refer to any more of the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. I commend them to that hon. gentleman, and I hope he will digest them before he records his vote. I say deliberately that it will be a pretty sharp turn for the Minister of Agriculture to take, after expressing these views only a year ago, to vote for this railway deal now, to take hack all that he said then, unless he is willing to confess that he was wrong then and that he is right now.

Now, other gentlemen have spoken in support of the government and have been replied to pretty fully, as a rule. I wish to refer to one gentleman who stands in the relation, we may say, of parson to the party, and of parson to the government, a gentleman of extreme moral attainments, a gentleman who, whenever there is a difficulty, steps in and smooths the troubled waters, and gives good advice, gives us the benefit of his long experience in the House, a gentleman who has, I think, occupied pretty nearly every side of every question that has been presented to the House of Commons for a number of years-I refer to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) When that hon. gentleman tells us what we ought to do, and gives us facts and figures his record is such that I like to look carefully into the matter before I decide to accept his facts. I will not say a word against that hon. gentleman, but I will quote his own language and give his own description of himself. Speaking on the budget debate in 1902. I find his saying, on page 1523 of the Debates :

There is one thing in connection with that administration which I think the administration in power may properly take into consideration. We had in Canada in the early years of the Mackenzie administration, a strong protectionist feeling.

Mr. LENNOX.

They never let it out for a long time. The hon. gentleman was giving a warning to the Finance Minister of the present administration, calling his attention to the mistake they made in 187(1 or 187S, and urging him not to repeat that mistake. He goes on to say :

There were in the Liberal party, among the supporters of Mr. Mackenzie, a number of members who believed that the duties should be advanced and that the government should adopt a protective policy of a moderate character and to a limited extent. This policy was advocated by the members for the city of Hamilton who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Montreal, who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Toronto, by the member for South Brant and by myself.

We never heard of it. He goes on to say :

These demands, it is not necessary t* say, were of the most moderate character. There were good reasons for adopting this policy. The revenue of the country was insufficient to meet the expenditure even with the careful and economical administration of Mr. Mackenzie.

He then goes on to point out that certain gentlemen coming from the maritime provinces, Mr. .Tones and others, threatened the government if they raised the duties, and that the government surrendered to the threats of the members from the maritime provinces. He goes on :

Our chances were thrown away. I fought for an increase in the duties, for I believed that the salvation and existence of the Liberal party depended upon the government taking the course that my friends and myself then advocated. We failed. The .duties were not increased I went to my constituency-

Let me pause here. The hon. gentleman has shown us that he had a conviction in favour of a protective policy, that many other members of the Liberal party held the same conviction, but that a different policy was adopted. Now we come to see what he does. Does he, as an honest man, go out and announce that he is a protectionist ? Let him speak for himself :

I felt it. I went to my constituency and held meetings for the two years that elapsed before the elections. I held twenty or thirty meetings in each year, because I felt that my position was in danger. I felt that as a supporter of the Mackenzie government I was liable to be defeated, and in June, 1878, I wrote to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. I had previously implored our friends to go into the field, to hold meetings to combat this new principle, and I had warned them if this was not done they were in danger.

That is the description that the hon. gentleman gives of himself. He says while he believes in protection that for two years he held twenty or thirty meetings in each year and that at these meetings he proclaimed free trade and denounced protection. He was deceiving the people, and his speeches were being quoted from one end of the

country to the other as the speeches of an honest man. Then the hon. gentleman goes on :

Now, the mistake of the government of that time was simply this. They underrated the force of the currents of public sentiment that pervaded the country. They did not realize how strong a hold this doctrine of protection had taken upon the public mind. They failed even to take advantage of the circumstances they might have taken advantage of, by combating vigorously in every riding in the Dominion this so-called heresy. They failed to do it, and they were beaten.

This moralist, this lion, gentleman who comes to guide this House, is the same hon. gentleman who for twenty-five years occupied as false a position, politically speaking, as an hon. gentleman could assume, and yet this hon. gentleman comes now and asks us to accept his doctrine and facts and conclusions upon a matter as Important as this. He continues :

Now, I am afraid I shall be considered an inconsistent man.

Mr. EDWARDS.

There is no trouble about that.