August 31, 1903


Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)


1 am glad to be relieved from a dilemma. I was asking a ruling as to whether we could conduct the business of the House without any member of the government being- present. Perhaps Mr. Deputy Speaker would not care to rule on the spur of the moment, and I do not wish to embarrass him, but I would like to have his ruling on that point at some future time.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle

Conservative (1867-1942)


Now, in this connection I wish to point out that 38 per cent of this total was shipped to Buffalo and from Buffalo through American channels. If we had at Port Colborne the proper elevator capacity! there is no reason to doubt that that 38 percent would have found its way to the St. Lawrence route to the port of Montreal.

These Canadian ports also attracted a considerable quantity of United States grain from Duluth, the figures being as follows :

Port. Bushels.

Depot Harbour 3,591,000

Midland 1,633,000

Meaford 1,065,000

Quebec 574,000

Owen Sound 102,000

Goderich 100,000

Kingston 58,000

Sarnia 19,000

Total 7,144,000

In addition there was also handled, 813,000 bushels of flaxseed.

Chicago also shipped extensively to Canadian ports, as follows : _

Port. Bushels.

Montreal 254,000

Depot Harbour 4,349,000

Sarnia 2,349,000

Midland [DOT][DOT] 3,707,000

Collingwood 2,366,000

Meaford 186,000

Goderich 271,000

Other Canadian ports 81,000

Total 13,985,000

Altogether these two United States ports shipped to Canadian ports 21,129,000 bushels of gi^nn, as compared with 13,500,054 bushels shipped from Port Arthur and Fort William to American ports. In other words almost 20 per cent of the grain crop of the United States shipped by water from these two leading American inland ports passed through Canadian territory. The routes chosen are of interest. They were :




Depot Harbour






Owen Sound


Montreal.. v

Point Edward

Other Canadian ports






2.366.000 2,223,684 1,410,180


254.000 192,904


Total 43,171,140

These figures show that 48 per cent of the grain making use of the Canadian lake route is grown in the United States.

Of course all this 43,171,149 bushels was not exported. A considerable portion of the Canadian grown was retained for home consumption. Following It up the grain exports from Canadian ports were :



Montreal 19,934,278

St. John 2,311,872

Quebec 1,629,360

Total 23,876,010

What became of the balance of 20,000,000 odd bushels, less home consumption, as well as the twelve million odd bushels of Canadian grain sent Into the United States via Buffalo for export 7 It was exported as follows :


New York.. Boston.. .. Portland.. . Philadelphia Baltimore..







Total 21,900,521

There was, therefore, more Canadian grain exported from United States ports than from Canadian, in fact, nearly as much as was exported from Canadian ports of both American and Canadian. And the Canadian grain is a considerable Item in the traffic of these American ports. Last year it supplied over 21 per cent of the grain exports of New York, 40 per cent of the grain shipments from Boston, and nearly 65 per cent of the Portland shipments. We know that to-day in the state of New York there is an agitation for the expenditure of an enormous amount of money in the improvement of the Erie canal. The reason of that is that the Americans are finding that the producers

in tlie western States are getting tlieir products to the markets of the world very much more cheaply by Canadian ports than by American ports. We find, Sir, that the shipments via Montreal are becoming larger; and that via United States ports they are diminishing owing as I say to the advantage we enjoy in our water and rail route from the west

The Wall Street ' Journal ' examines the grain trade during 1901 and 1902 of tlie six great American trunk lines, and 1 refer to these to show that these great trunk lines, with their almost perfect gradients, are not in a position to compete with the water route which we have in this country. They say, in referring to these six great American trunk lines, the Baltimore and Ohio, the Delaware, Lackawana and Western; the Erie; the Lehigh Valley, the New York Central; and the Pennsylvania, that in 1901 these six railways carried over 12,-

700,000 tons of grain. This comprised 0-94 per cent of their total freight tonnage. In 1902 the same railways carried rather less than 9,000,000 tons of grain, or 5-37 per cent of them total freight tonnage. In some cases the shifting was quite startling. In 1901 no less than 11-5 per cent of the New York Central's tonnage was in grain; in 1902 the proportion had dropped to 7T per cent. The drop in the case of the Lehigh was from 10'8 to 7-5 per cent.

The Wall Street ' Journal ' then says :

The grain tonnage carried by these great trunk lines in 1902 shows a decrease compared with 1901 of 3,761,261 tons, or practically thirty per cent. No statistics are available as yet to indicate how far this falling off has been continued- in 1903, this newspaper continues, 'but we are informed by traffic officials that the diversion of grain traffic from the trunk lines has never been so heavy as at the present time.

The next point of comparison instituted by this journal is in the wheat and corn exports from the various ports. We may first take the case of wheat exports for the seven months ending August 1. The six American Atlantic ports show the following results :


1903. 1902.

Baltimore .. .. 1,394,794 4,827,557

Boston 4,047,970


Newport News .. ..


New York 9,635,741

Philadelphia .. .. 784,572 4,790,599

Portland 504,874

Totals 26,381,474

The increase in the shipments from Portland was largely owing to the Grand Trunk Railway carrying their wheat from Midland and our other Canadian lake ports through to their port of Portland. The two gulf ports made the following showing :


Robert Abercrombie Pringle

Conservative (1867-1942)



. 1903. 1902.Galveston

7,615,302 1,903,386New Orleans

6,923,661 6,134,971Total

14,538,963 8,038,357

Montreal was open for only three of the seven months. From May 1st to August 1st, 1902, Montreal's wheat exports were 8,203,-(555. During the same period in 1903 it rose to 9,597,602 bushels. During the last few months Montreal was the leading wheat shipping port on the continent, temporarily, at least, displacing New York. The fact that Portland is the only American Atlantic port to gain is significant and that is owing to its being the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway. Montreal has gained rapidly as a corn-shipping port. In the first seven months of 1902 she sent abroad less than 600,000 bushels. In the same period of this year her shipments were nearly 4,000,000 bushels, and the movement is said to be increasing. The commercial columns of the ' News ' a few days ago contained an analysis of the July grain! trade, which fully bears out the contentions of the Wall street 'Journal.' During the month Montreal received 3,879,000 bushels, and exported 2,357,000 ; New York, during July received 1,344,000 bushels, and exported 892,000. Montreal also received 1,570,000 bushels of corn, as against New York's 2,253,000. She stood second to New York in corn receipts, Baltimore coming third with

588,000 bushels. This shows that the lake-and-rail and all-rail routes are making great headway, and are carrying the grain trade of the country.

I was rather struck, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the Year-book for 1902, to see the very large amount of products that are shipped into Canada and from Canada through United States ports. We have in Halifax and St. John grand ocean ports, which are open all the year round. The extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Parry Sound will afford the long-desired opportunity for utilizing the people's railway, and will assist in building up Canada by providing transportation for the imports and exports of Canada in and through Canada and for the benefit of Canada. Now, Sir, I cannot see just what the reason is for these large shipments to Canada and from Canada through United States ports unless it is that there is a lower rate over the American railways to and from the American ports. If that is the case, we who own and control the Intercolonial Railway will be in a position to give such rates ns will induce the importation and exportation through our Canadian ports.

I find in the Year-book of 1902, on page. 294, the following returns of the value of Canadian imports and exports via United States ports during the fiscal year 1902 :

Imported into Canada from mother-laud and sister colonies through

United States ports $13,415,052

From foreign countries 8,898,699

Total $22,313,751

Exported to motherland and sister colonies through United States

ports 44,860,7S5

To foreign countries 3,332,065

Total $48,192,850

The full total being $70,5013,601-17 per cent of the whole export anti import business of Canada. As might be expected, motherland and sister colonies contribute by far the largest portion of this aggregate ; in round numbers fifty-eight and one-half millions, viz.: Imports, thirteen and one-half millions ; exports, forty-live millions. These figures are very suggestive. They are certainly suggestive that under a proper policy this enormous amount of $70,500,000, or seventeen per cent of the whole export and import business of Canada, could be carried1 through our Canadian ports. As I said, we have great ports in Halifax and St. John, and there is no reason why, with favourable routes, these imports and exports could not come through our own Canadian ports.

The lion. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in a very able speech, dealt very fully with the water-ways of Canada, and I do not intend to take up any further time on that subject. He threw out Some suggestions, which I have no doubt are very good, and which it would be well for tlie transportation commission to inquire into very carefully. He suggested the improvement of the French river to North Bay. He showed us that from Fort William to Buffalo the distance is 750 miles, and from Fort AVilliam to North Bay the distance is 473 miles, difference in favour of North Bay of 177 miles. The distance from Duluth to Buffalo is 857 miles, and from Duluth to North Bay 575 miles, a distance in favour of North Bay of 282 miles. Tlie distance from Milwaukee to Buffalo is 710 miles, and from Milwaukee to North Bay 403 miles, a difference in favour of North Bay of 253 miles. The distance from Chicago to Buffalo is 733 miles, and from Chicago to North Bay 520 miles, a difference of 213 miles in favour of North Bay. The distance to Midland, another Georgian Bay port, is about the same as 'to North Bay. I understand, from the statements made by tlie lion. ex-Minister of Public Works, that the cost of opening up the French river to North Bay would be in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000. I think the transportation commission could very well deal with this matter, and see if it were not in the interest of Canada that the French river should be opened up to North Bay. thus affording access to two of our great railway systems and giving a very short route for tlie carrying of grain.

The lion. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Siftou) reminded us that a few steps from tlie Canadian frontier the American system of railways is working. 1 do not intend to take up the time of the House in giving the distances from Winnipeg to the different American ports; brat there is no question that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company virtually get built for them a road through the wheat fields of Manitoba and the North-west, it will be a very simple matter for them to make connection with the American railroads, and 'thus carry, if they so desire, the products of the west through American channels.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our two seaports of St. John and Halifax will be greatly benefited by the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. They will be benefited by it to a very much greater extent than they would be by the scheme proposed by the government. The new line as proposed by the government will not cheapen rates on wheat, or any other commodity by a fraction of a cent. I think that that lias been established beyond perad-venture. We have not heard a gentleman on tlie government side who has been able to refute the arguments presented with regal'd to the superiority of a rail and water route. Nobody has attempted to show, and nobody can show, that the rates on the allrail route can be 'Cheaper-. It is out of the question. As I have said, the Wolvin people ore taking freight from Duluth and Chicago to Quebec for less than three cents in the summer, and it is an absolute impossibility for a railway to carry* freight at any s'lcli prices.

I do not propose to deal with the western proposition. This we do know that if there are 80,000.000 acres of land yet unsettled lying between the railways which have now been built in that country, it will be some time before this railway will be required there. This proposition seems to be a very astounding one and one which the government have gone into without any consideration.

I would like just to refer for a moment to the gradients on this new line. We all recognize that the gradients must be as easy as those on the great line to the United States, such as the New York Central and the Wabash. A convenient standard of excellence is considered four-tenths of one per cent, or twenty-one feet to the mile, as a maximum grade. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told us that it would be necessary, if this road was to be a success, to have the grades on it not more than 4-10 of one per cent. But if it cannot be constructed without heavier grades, what then will be our position ? If the engineers, after making ail possible surveys and research, should come to the conclusion that grades with 4-10 of one per cent cannot be obtained, then the scheme will have to be abandoned, as it would be utterly useless

to build this road if you cannot build a modern railway. To wlmt extent do the government realize this fact ? They know nothing whatever with regard to the grades. They do not know what grades can be obtained between Moncton and Levis and Quebec and Winnipeg. But once this Bill becomes law, if the contract is signed, the country will be bound to construct the section from Winnipeg to Moncton. Should the engineers report, as they may, that one per cent grades are unavoidable, the country will find itself committed to an unprofitable undertaking. It will find itself committed to the building of a line over which twenty ears can be run at a time, instead of trains of sixty or seventy, as are run over the competing American railways. The country will know then that this great scheme of a Canadian all-rail route rivalling the American routes has fallen through, before an embankment has been built or a tire laid, yet the country will be bound to go on with the work. A railway train which runs trains of only twenty cars cannot compete with American railways which run trains of three times that length, and the country will know that its plan of rivalling the American all-rail route with the Canadian all-rail route has failed, and failed before it was being run. Yet it will have to go on with the work. It might build it as cheaply as possible in the hope that it may be of some use as a colonization line, but, as I understand the schemer the government is planning a national outlet and not a cokr nization railway. I would suggest that a clause be inserted in the contract stipulating that the eastern division must be built to a certain standard, and that if the engineers ascertain that, by reason of natural obstacles, such a standard cannot be obtained, the obligation to construct tire eastern division shall lapse.

A good deal has been said in this debate wit!) regard to state ownership of railways. 1 do not intend to deal with this question because in Canada we are in the position of having a state railway which wo must either operate or put to one side.* lint I find that for many years past, there has been an almost general tendency throughout Europe in favour of state ownership of railways and of the state acquiring railways from private corporations, in the work of Clement Edwards on railway nationalization, I find that European governments have succeeded in operating state-owned railways as cheaply as railways are operated by private corporations. In all the leading countries-Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, &c.-the state owns a large portion of the railway system.

A great deal lias been said with reference to the cost of the scheme proposed by the government and that proposed by the leader of the opposition. I do not intend to go into the details, but the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) lias given us figures Mr. PRINGLE.

which will bear close investigation. He puts the total capital expenditure, under the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition, at $00,470,000. That- comprises building from Jacques Cartier Junction to Coteau Junction, acquiring the road or building a new road from Coteau .1 unction to Depot Harbour, then from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, then from Sudbury to Fort William, and also for the betterment of I lie road from Fort William to Sudbury. Also either acquiring or constructing a line from Fort William to Winnipeg. All these would cost $60,470,000, or at the rate of $41,500 per mile oil tlie total distance of 1,457 miles, including 51 miles from Scotia Junction to Depot Harbour.

Apply that average to this government scheme, and you will have the following :

Moncton to Winnipeg, 1875 miles at

$41,500 per mile $77,812,500

Interest during period .of construction 3,309,676

Contribution to Quebec bridge.. .. 2,000,000

Total capital expenditure.. $83,122,176 Or a cost per mile of $43,205, Quebec bridge not included :

Interest on cost of construction on eastern section after completion ten yearly payments of $2,493,665.. $24,936,650 Amount of simple interest on payments of interest during ten years 3,366,405 Interest paid in excess of that received from Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by reason of the. government making i yearly payments of _ _

interest during fifty years 935,150

Total interest $29,238,205

Total cost $112,360,381

Tlie question is which of these two schemes is preferable-monopoly versus competition, an all-rail route versus a rail and water route, the unknown versus tlie known. It is also a question whether we should destroy our government property, the Intercolonial Railway.

I do not intend to go into any other clauses of tliis Bill at present as we shall have ample opportunity to discuss them when the Bill comes before the committee. But there is just one thing I wish to refer to. Tlie right lion, tlie Prime Minister speaking cn July the 30tli made this statement :

There is another provision which I am sure will be welcomed by my hon. friend for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle), and it is that the company shall-buy all its supplies in Canada.

I would have been very pleased indeed if a provision bad been inserted in tliis contract. which would bind the company to buy all its supplies in Canada, but instead the government inserted clause 37 which will not have the desired effect. It is certainly not the clause which I proposed, and which the supporters of the government, with some i exceptions, voted down. Tlie clause which

I proposed was very similar up to a certain point but there was this ending :

-having regard to quality and price among other things, and unless the Governor in Council shall approve of the same being procured elsewhere. _

As the clause stands in the Bill before us, it is perfectly open to the Grand Trunk Pacific to be its own judge as to whether it shall buy supplies manufactured in Canada or not. But, as I said,* I do not intend to take up time at this stage in discussing the clause of the Bill.

The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) said something with regard to the tremendous water-powers ; I am not unmindful of the fact that we in Canada have tremendous water powers ; 1 am not unmindful of the fact that the day is coming when electrical energy will be developed in Canada to a very much greater extent than it is at the present time. I believe that in the northern part of Ontario and Quebec we have immense water-powers and that these water-powers will be utilized to operate electric roads throughout the different sections of this country. I do not wish to take up time in discussing this question, as I know that many members of this House would not be interested in anything I might say on the subject of . electrical development. But, Sir, about the only information we have in regard to this northern country is that it is full of water-powers from one end to the other. We have information, for instance, that the Abitibi river, at a distance of 100 miles from its junction with the Moose, has a width of 400 feet and, in its course, has a number of cascades and rapids each capable of developing from 15,000 to 150,000 horse-power. We know that within a few miles of this city of Ottawa the rivers are capable of developing hundreds of thousands of horse-power. When we consider, in connection with these facts, the fact that electrical science is so advanced that it is now possible to transmit electricity economically a distance of 500 miles, it seems clear that it is worthy of consideration whether tile time has not come when it would be well to assist in the development of electric roads for the benefit of our people. Let me say that we find to-day in the little country of Sweden that they are doing away entirely with their steam railroads. They find that they have available in that country tiie energy of waterfalls capable of developing from 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 horsepower. They are doing away entirely with steam railroads and operating their roads by electricity. This is borne out by a statement in the ' Financial News.' We find the same thing taking place in Norway. But we need not go to Sweden or Norway to find examples of what I am speaking. We need not leave this continent. I can refer you to an article in one of the issues of '.The Electrician' of last year in regard

to high speed electrical inter-urban railways, from which we find that at the present time there is invested in the United States of America $1,600,000,000 in electrical railways, upon which some $7,000,000 is paid yearly in dividends. These roads employ 300,000 people, who are paid $250,000,000 a year. They have 20,000 miles of track, on which

60,000 cars are operated. I need not even go out of Canada for examples. If we go to the province of Quebec we find there the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix Railway, which has increased its traffic so *much that its receipts have advanced from $44,241 the year before last to $73,292 last year. I do not know exactly over what distance they operate, but I believe it is something like 30 miles of track ; axul they handle, not only passengers, but large quantities of freight, and they find it is very much cheaper to operate that system by electricity than to operate it by steam. In the United States we have a system of railways from Hudson to Albany, a distance of forty or fifty miles, which is handling freight and passengers very much more cheaply than they can be bandied by tlie steam railways. In Italy the conditions are such that we have no difficulty in making a comparison between the cost of steam and electricity for the operation of railways.

In that country they are operating electric railways side by side with the steam railways, and they find that tile cost of the electric railways is very much less than the cost of the other. Some may say that this does not apply to the handling of freight ; but I contend that it has been proven already by the electric roads that they can handle freight better and more cheaply than it can be handled by steam railways. We have a road now being built from Niagara Falls to Rochester, a distance of 120 miles, which will be operated by electricity from the falls of Niagara. I refer to the development of electricity, because I believe that the time has come in Canada when encouragement should be given for the encouragement of electric roads for the benefit of our farmers and other -producers. If you go to the state of Massachusetts, you find it covered with a network of electric roads, which are doing great service for the people. You find the same conditions are rapidly being brought about in the state of New York. We must not under-estimate the value of the great water-powers we have in this country. The New England states are the most rocky and barren of all the railway territory of the Union, but, owing to their immense water-powers, they have gone ahead at a very rapid rate and have become the manufacturing centre of the United States. I was very much interested in reading a report of the meeting of the Institute of Civil Engineers, held in Westminster, where one of the most eminent electrical engineers in the world stated that the main line railways, whether

they liked it or not, would be obliged to use electricity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government are taking a leap In the dark. They have come down at the last moment of this long session with a gigantic scheme, a scheme which will involve this country in an expenditure for the Moncton-Winnipeg line of from $90,000,000 to $100,000,000, this road to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific and tied up for a period of fifty years. They should have hesitated before taking that plunge. There should have been more inquiry, more investigation. The government should have been able to come down to this House and tell us something about the country through which this road is to go. Canada is swinging on to success; she is reaching out for the world's trade ; she has come to a period in her national career when a false step will mean much. There must be no false step, such as I believe this scheme would be. The adoption of this proposal now before us will commit this country to an enormous expenditure, and it is a step that once taken cannot very well be retraced. I am opposed teetotally to such a great outlay of public money, to such a large addition to our debt. This scheme provides for no reduction of rates, and will give no reduction of rates. It will be no relief to the people of the west in any way. It will never successfully compete with the lake and rail route. I object to Canada building 1,800 miles of the lean end of the road and handing it over for fifty years to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The road should either be an all-government road or an all-company road. I am in favour of the great scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition ; a scheme which would bring into harmony Canada's great rail and water route ; a scheme which would place no burden on the people of Canada ; a scheme which would have the effect of lowering the rates from east to west and from west to east, bringing into close touch all the industrial centres of the east with the wheat fields of the west ; a scheme which would give the people a railway from the Atlantic to Winnipeg. I say that the matter is safe in the hands of the hon. leader of the opposition, and that he has propounded to this House a scheme which is worthy oif the traditions of the party which initiated and carried through confederation ; which initiated and carried through the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which initiated and perfected a national policy.


Mr. W. S. MAOLAREN@Huntingdon

I feel like apologizing to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for making a speech at this particular time in a debate which has now been going 'on since the 11th of the present month. I think I am the 75th speaker who has taken part in this debate. This is my third parlia/ment here, and I think the longest previous debate was on the


Robert Abercrombie Pringle

Conservative (1867-1942)


budget in 1901, when 70 members spoke ; but I believe they only consumed 11 days, while we are now at the 15th or 16th day of this debate. So, it seems to me that a person must be guilty of a good deal of hardihood who at this time will attempt to say anything further. There is one satisfaction, however, which I cap promise you, and that is that I shall not take up much time. While the hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) was speaking,

I kept faithful watch of the other side, and I noticed that there were only twelve of liis friends sitting around him at one time, until the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) came in, when he made the baker's dozen. I looked around while he was speaking, and I saw more members on tile government side than there were on the opposition side. As 1 say, it is not my intention to make a very long speech. I do not know that I will succeed in keeping myself within the limit of the time taken by tlie hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), who spoke ten minutes. But I shall endeavour a]t least to keep myself within the bounds of the next shortest speech, that made by Hie hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), who I think spoke twelve minutes. In the way of short speeches we have altogether got ahead of the opposition in this debate ; although I can say in fairness to tlie opposition thaJt we have consumed a little more time on the whole than they have.

With regard to this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, at its inception there were some things about it which I did not like. While I was in attendance at the Railway Committee 1 noticed one thing in reference to granting charters which did not please me, and that was the readiness with which charters are often granted to promoters who profess to be able to build railways, whereas the ordinary person could not see any reason why they should be able, if means were wanted, to carry it on. At tlie inception of this scheme there were a number of men engaged in it who might be promoters or something of thatt kind, just as some other men have been promoters of other schemes. I did not like that feature of it; but that difficulty was removed when the Grand Trunk Railway became closely identified with the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. You will remember that when the matter was brought before the Railway Committee, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson who was there, was asked if the Grand Trunk was interested in this scheme, and he said that the Grand Trunk would give this scheme their moral support. I was not satisfied with that, because I did not want this business to get into the hands of certain promoters who would build the railway. But that difficulty was removed so far as I was concerned, when I found that the Grand Trunk were so much interested in the scheme. You are all acquainted with the

history of the Grand Trunk as concerns its building of railways through the older provinces. They have built a great many miles of railway, and made many improvements on their lines, and to my mind it is a very important matter that the Grand Trunk Company should take hold of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and becomes so closely identified with it. I think that fact ensures the building of the railway and Its proper operation.

Now there are a few points which have struck me in this debate on which I supposed that the members of the House were agreed. One of these is that there is need of more railway communication between the east and the west of this Dominion. During the past two sessions and the former part of the present session, I do not think there was any member of the House but thought thait there was a necessity for more railway communication of some kind between the east and the west. You remember the pitiable stories we have heard from members of the west about the blockade of wheat and other products out there, not only of the difficulty of getting freight out of that country, but of the equal difficulty of getting it into that country. We heard in the former part of this session about merchants out there who liaid ordered goods from the east, and who were weeks, and weeks, and weeks before they could get those goods which they wanted, and place them upon their shelves to sell to the people. X thought this was something in which people were generally agreed ; hut to my astonishment,' in the early part of this debate, I found that was not the case. Unfortunately, I think, for the opposition side of the House, it was the sixth day of the debate before .the leader of the opposition announced his scheme, and during those five or six days previous, the opposition seemed to be floundering around hardly knowing what course to take. They were all opposed to the scheme of the government. Well. I suppose they would have been opposed to any scheme brought -down by this side of the House. Until the leader of the opposition came down with his scheme, those of our friends opposite who had spoken, tried to make us believe that there was sufficient communication at the present time between the west and the east, that there was no necessity for any further railway building, or anything of that kind. However, after the* loader of the opposition brought in his scheme then they all fell into line. I do not think it is fair on their part to pretend that it is only this side of the House that are under the payty lash, because I think they were whipped into line to follow the opposition leader about as quickly as anything T ever saw in all my experience in this parliament. Previous to the announcement of his scheme, each mnn of them seemed to have a little

scheme of his own, but as soon as their leader brought down his scheme we did not hear them any more speaking at cross purposes, because they all fell into line- which I suppose they should do, because their leader is supposed to give more attention to these matters than they do. Now if they are so willing to follow their leader, I do not see why they should object to those on this side of the House following our leaders-not a single man, but a number of men who are looking after the affairs of this country.

A good deal has been said regarding the route through which this railroad, as a colonization road, is to run. I think we should be all glad to see that fine country in northern Quebec and northern Ontario opened up for settlement, because 1 think the great burden of the evidence that has been placed before us is to the effect that that is a valuable country. I was much pleased to hear the quotations that- were given by an lion, member, I think from one of the ridings of Essex, from the articles in the 'Mail and Empire' blaming the Premier of the province of Ontario because he was not opening'up the northern part of Ontario as quickly as they thought he should, and nobody will doubt the soundness of the ' Mail and Empire ' in the Conservative faith. That hon. gentleman told us of the number of millions of acres lying in this clay belt that we have heard about and that tlie 'Mail' wanted to be opened up. Now the opposition members in this House speak disparagingly of that part of the country and say there is no good land there, that it is all muskegs, that you could shove a pole down fifty feet deep, ior some such distance-I understood one of the members to have made a statement of that kind. I am satisfied that if any unbiased person came into this House and listened to the debates, he would conclude that the burden of the evidence proved that the country through which this road is going to pass is a good country. So I think that as a colonization road we may fairly assume that it is going through a good country, a country that requires to be opened up, a country that is fit for settlement and that will qjdd very much to the wealth of this Dominion.

A good deal of fault has been found, I think in a small way, with the terms of the agreement. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen agreements occasionally, and I think I can see the hand of our Minister of Justice in the way this agreement has been drawn up. I think in a matter of that kind we can trust the Minister of Justice, and I think other lawyers in this House might fairly take it as being well done. I notice all the lawyers in the House defer to the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice, and they have good reason to do so. The agreement as drawn up, and which is now be-

fore tlie House, is, in the opinion of other lawyers as well as in the opinion of the lion. Minister of Justice a model agreement.

A good deal has been said about the retirement from the government of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr Blair). May be, some unkind things have been said regarding it. I have always had a great deal of admiration for that hon. gentleman. I have admiration for any man who. on a question of principle, will leave the position that the hon. gentleman has left. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always-talking about the magnificent salaries that ministers of the Crown are getting. I do not take any stock in that at all. I think any man \vho is entitled to occupy the position of Prime Minister or of a minister in connection with the government of a country like Canada is entitled to all the salary he gets, and even more, but to an ambitious man like the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals there is something apart from the salary. Any one who occupies the position of a member of the government of this large Dominion and who is in a position to exert an influence in moulding the destinies of the country holds an important position.

1 had, up to" the time the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals made his speech, a great deal of sympathy for him, and if that hon. gentleman had, in a manly and dignified way, maintained the position which he had taken, and' if lie had gone on in that way, I would still have had a great deal of admiration for him. But, after the pettislmess, smallness and temper which that hon. gentleman showed in the speech which he made in this House, I have come to the conclusion that he is not ns large a man as I thought he was. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the House (Mr. Pringle),' I think, will agree with me that we have to judge of a man to a certain extent by the statements he makes. Lawyers will understand that when you have a witness in court and he exaggerates or does not tell the truth in one respect, it is very hard to believe him in another respect. I have been watching closely the statements made by some hon. members of the opposition, and one thing that struck me forcibly was the difference in regard to the opinions that have been expressed in regard to the cost of this road. Generally speaking, hon. members opposite have spoken of it as a hundred million dollars. That is somewhat in advance of the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who, I think, ought to know as much, if not more, about these things than an ordinary member of the House. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) gradually got it up and up until he got to $150.000.000. I had occasion to go out and meet somebody in No. 10, and when I came back he had it up to $200,000,000. I concluded that X did not want to hear any more of that long and not very interesting speech Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).

of his, because, according to the record, it ranked third in point of length of speeches delivered during this debate, but whether it was of the same depth or not may be a question for debate. The hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) afterwards got the cost of this road up to $500,000,000. I thought that was the limit surely, but to my astonishment the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), a director of the Canadian Facific Railway, a great financier, the financial critic of the opposition, got it up to $560,000,000. It struck me that if the opposition cannot come nearer than from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000 in their estimate of the cost, that if they cannot treat this question fairly, the question might fairly be asked what reliance could be put in the other statements that are being made by them. I am not going into the question of rates on wheat, railways vs. water routes, fixing up water routes, building public railways and building pieces of railway. I think. Sir.

I can leave this out, because we are fairly saturated with figures, but unfortunately the figures do not agree. Even hon. members opposite do not agree amongst themselves when they quote figures.

Another objection which has been taken to this proposal is that we are in too big a hurry. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been hounding the government for the last two or three years to bring down some transportation policy. They say that they could not get the wheat out, that this year there are 50,000,000 bushels to be shipped, that next year there will be 100,000.000 bushels, and they ask : What are you doing about it ? You are doing nothing to get the wheat out of that western country, you are leaving it there to rot. Yet when the government brought this proposition down the opposition rejected it. They say : The country does not approve of it. I do not know-. We have over two hundred representative men in this House from the country. I come from an inland agricultural county. We have a paper down there which called upon the farmers in that part of the country to w-rite to their representatives and warn them against voting for this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. The first time I w-ent home I met some of my friends on the street, and they said : ' Why. you home Saturday ?' ' Yes,' I answered. ' why

not ?' ' We thought you would be so busy

reading those letters that you would not have time to come home.' I did not get a single letter excepting one, and this was not from a political friend, or in answer to the appeal of our local paper, but from one of my constituents to whom I had sent a copy of the ' Herald' with the Premier's speech, and a copy of the Grand Trunk Pacific route, because I thought this was the best kind of literature for this man. We are not confined in sending literature of this kind to our own supporters, but we should rather try to enlighten those who are opposed to us.

I got a letter from this man objecting very strongly to the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme and telling me that instead of sending u paper like the ' Herald,' if I wanted to distribute anything I should distribute a copy of the speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite would like to know who the writer was. He was the defeated Conservative candidate at the last local election. That is the only letter I received, and as I ishid before, I come from an inland county where we cannot receive any benefit from this scheme except such as we receive from the prosperity ol the Dominion. X have seen some of our friends down there. They seem to think it is all right. I am prepared to vote for this scheme, and I am prepared to go back to Huntingdon and justify what I have done in regard to it.

Another view regarding this question, and this will close the remarks I have to make, because I promised to be very brief, is this : This House is divided into two parties- the government and the opposition. I think, to put it mildly, that the members on this side of the House are just as intelligent as the members on the other side. I will not claim anything greater than that, but I think the opposition ought to be willing to admit that the representatives of the people on this side of the House are just as intelligent and just as well able to decide what the country needs as the opposition. We have over fifty more than they have, and I think they count for something. We came back in 1896 with a majority to follow our leaders, and with a larger majority in 1900. The country was satisfied with what the government had done up to that time. I do not hear any great clamour from the country, amongst Liberals at any rate, regarding this Grand Trtmk Pacific scheme. Some of the Conservative papers, the * Mail and Empire,' for instance, are not justified in making the statements they do make regarding the country through which this proposed railway will pass, and they would make different statements under different circumstances. I think we should take a broad view of this question. I think our leaders have given thought to this matter. Of course, hon. gentlemen opposite blame the government for only thinking over it for three or four mouths, yet they laud the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) because he brought down his alternative policy after thinking over it for about as many days. I do not know whether they think that measures the capabilities of the hon. leader of the opposition as compared with the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but we do not think so, no matter what they may think about the matter. I think sufficient thought has been given to it, and I think the country will approve of the scheme which has been introduced by the government. I am prepared to vote for it. There were some people in 318

my own county who thought it probable that I might shirk the vote. I am not built that way. If I am in favour of.any scheme X am willing to support it, not only with my vote, but with my voice. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention. I am sorry there are not more hon. members in the House, but this seems to be the order of things, and I do not blame hon. gentlemen. This debate is really becoming something of a bore, particularly as it has necessarily narrowed down to statements that must be repeated over and over again, until we get rather tired of them. I am in hopes that the debate will soon close, and I have little doubt what the result of the vote in. this House will be, or what the result in the country will be. I believe the members of this House who support the government in connection with this scheme will, when the time comes, be endorsed by their constituents.


Henry Cargill

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENRY CARGILL (East Bruce).

Mr. Speaker, I look upon this as the most important question that has come before this House since I have had the honour of occupying a seat in it, and I presume that my constituents will want to know the reasons why I am in favour of, or opposed to this scheme. I do not propose to criticise the project in detail, or to quote figures extensively. I will simply, from a layman's point of view, present a common sense idea of this case. I have followed the course of this Bill closely from the time of the discussion in the Railway Committee, and I shall trace the course of the debate as it appears to me. I observed in the ' Canada Gazette ' about the 15th of December last a notice that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would, at the next session of this' parliament, make application for a charter to build and operate a road from North Bay to some point in the Pacific coast. In due time parliament met, and they appeared before the Railway Committee asking for a charter. When application was made in the Railway Committee for the charter the proposed line started at Quebec in place of at North Bay and it was proposed to run to Port Simpson on the Pacific coast. At a meeting of the Railwmy Committee a member from the maritime provinces, I think the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), suggested that the line should be extended farther east to the city of Moncton. This suggestion was adopted. Then a charter was granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway giving them the right to build a road from the city of Moncton to Port Simpson on the Pacific coast. However, before this took place, there appeared on the scene the promoters of the Trans-Canada Railway, which some years previously had obtained a charter from parliament to construct a road from Quebec north of Lake Abitibi through the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, north of Lake Winui-



1014'8 peg, across tlie prairies and through British Columbia to the Pacific coast. These gentlemen represented at the Railway Committee that they had been at considerable expense in making surveys and locating the railway, and hence the government were face to face with the probability of having to give aid to two railways, namely the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Trans-Canada. This being the case some arrangement was made by which the two charters were merged as X inferred into the proposition submitted to this House. After looking at the route of tills Trans-Canada Railway on the map, and hearing the promoters' description of the resources in tire country adjacent to that railway through the older provinces of Quebec and Ontario and of the development that would be caused by its traversing the prairie provinces, I made a suggestion in the committee that it would be very desirable for the government to undertake the construction of the road, and to own it from Quebec to the Pacific coast. However, when the Prime Minister submited his proposition to the House the route had been changed, and in place of going north of Lake Abitibi and north of Lake Winnipeg and thence on to the west, they had diverted the line and run it to the city of Winnipeg, from which they proposed to take a northwesterly direction by way of Edmonton to the Pacific coast. Not only that, but the proposition laid down was a hybrid scheme; a portion of the road was to be constructed by the government, and the balance by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the railway was to be aided by a guarantee of its bonds by the government. I have been for some time an advocate of government construction and ownership of railways for several reasons. One reason is that government ownership gives the people and, the government control of rates. In the next place the government, with its enormous assets and resources, are ill a position to construct a road much cheaper TIian any railroad corporation on the American continent. They are in a position to go to the money markets of the world, and to obtain the necessary capital at the rate of three per cent, whereas a railway company seeking the capital necessary to construct the same road would have to pay at least five per cent. A gentleman on whose authority X rely, a prominent financier in this country, made the statement in tills House the other day, that the New York Central had recently arranged for a loan for which they had to pay five per cent interest and one per cent commission for obtaining the loan. The same gentleman represented that the guarantee of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by the government of Canada was equivalent to donating to that company one and a half per cent on the capital required to construct the road. This, when computed and a sinking fund created, would at the end of fifty years be equivalent


Henry Cargill

Conservative (1867-1942)


to $92,000,000 of money. On the other hand-it is stated by the government and by their supporters that the government is not by either cash or land subsidies aiding this road. That is one very strong reason why the government should construct and own the road.

I heard the mayor of the city of Toronto, when the Toronto and Hamilton Electric Railway Bill was before the Railway Committee, state that the franchise of the electric tramway in the city of Toronto would this year yield $250,000 of revenue to the city, and that at the end of the lease it would yield a revenue to the city of three-quarters of a million of money. At this day in the history of this country, and looking at what is going on in other countries, we are in a position to benefit by their experience. In other countries electric tramway franchises, electric light franchises, and water and gas franchises, are producing sufficient revenue both to pay the running expenses of these different services and to relieve the citizens of all taxation. This is a lesson worthy of copying. Canada is a young country, just starting on its career. YVe iiave immense resources, equal if not superior to those of any other civilized country on the face of the earth. Our area Is more extensive than that of the United States. We have more resources than the United States. All we lack is that variety of climate which they have; but in every other respect our country is equal if not superior to theirs. Then I say-and I feel satisfied that my opinion is endorsed by a large number of the people of Canada-that the time has arrived when the government of this country, in undertaking to construct a transcontinental railway from an Atlantic port to a Pacific port, should construct that road themselves and own it. Of course, the Intercolonial Railway is'cited as an example of government ownership. Because the Intercolonial has not resulted profitably is no reason why a great transcontinental line should not result profitably. The government propose to hand over the proposed road to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for fifty years, which in my opinion postpones the probability of government ownership of railroads in this country for that length of time.

The route of the railway should have gone north of Lake Winnipeg. The distance would have been shorter, and the railroad would have opened up and developed a portion of the prairie country which is not at present supplied with railroads. Now, if the construction of this railroad is gone on with immediately, it will take at least six or seven years to complete it; and no sane man in this House would rise in his place and pretend to say that that would afford any immediate relief to the congested trade of the west. We have now in the w.est two railroads, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. I am

credibly informed that when these railroads are fully equipped with the necessary rolling stock and the locomotive power, they will he able to carry all the products of that country from Winnipeg and west of Winnipeg to Port Arthur without any difficulty, if they are not in a position to do so, a small amount of aid to the Canadian Pacific Railway would enable it to double track its line ; and I have been informed by a railroad expert that a double-tracked railroad would carry six times as much freight as a single track road. That being the case, you can easily understand that there can be no difficulty in the present Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern removing all the produce of that western country. I am looking forward to the day, not very far distant in the future, when the Hudson bay will afford an outlet for a very large portion of the produce of the western country. I noticed in the press the other day that an expedition is being fitted out at Halifax, under the auspices of the Dominion government, for the purpose of exploring and investigating, and reporting upon the facilities of Hudson bay for importing and exporting goods to and from our great western country. Should they report favourably, we know that Hudson bay is very convenient to a very large portion of that immense prairie country ; and any person can easily see that that would be the most feasible route by which the farmers of that section of country could export their products to the markets of the world.

It is not necessary for the House to take my evidence alone as to the means that at present exist in Manitoba and the territories for transhipping the products of that country to Port Arthur. We have had published in the press the statements of Premier Rohlin, of Manitoba, in whom I am sure the people of that province have implicit confidence, as lias been shown in the provincial election that has recently taken place. His success in managing railroad matters and in increasing the transportation facilities in the interest of the people of that province, was a large factor in securing him in his present position. He took up the railroad question and carried it to a successful issue in the interests of the province of Manitoba, and be lias received bis reward by being elected for the second time the premier of bis province. Now, what does he say ? Rook at tlie map of Manitoba, and compare that province with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. The wheat-producing area of the province of Manitoba is perfectly grid-ironed with railways. There is no portion of the older provinces of Ontario and Quebec which is as well supplied with railroads as that portion of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Roblin says that we have in the province of Manitoba the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, which, when fully equipped with the necessary rolling stock and locomotive I 318J

power, and supplied by the necessary branches, will be able for many years to carry the increased product of that country to Rake Superior. He says that the people of Manitoba do not favour this other transcontinental railway.

The bon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Pringle), gave facts and figures, which be took a great deal of pains to compile and get in proper shape, which would convince any reasonable man that we have now better facilities for the transportation of produce from the west to the east than it is possible to provide by the expenditure of any amount of money in constructing this proposed railway. My hon. friend's figures are incontrovertible. In fact so effective are our present systems, that a great deal of American grain finds its way through Canadian channels to the Atlantic seaboard for export to the old country. My hon. friend went so fully into that question that it is quite unnecessary for me to enlarge on what he has said, or attempt to add any further information to what he lias given. Chicago, Duluth and Fort William ship grain to Buffalo, and also to Georgian Bay ports, and thence by rail to Montreal. If we can ship grain from Chicago, Duluth and Fort William to the Georgian Bay ports, and thence on to the Atlantic seaboard, at a much less rate thain it can he shipped from these ports to New York or Boston, it is evident that our route is better than the American ; and as vessels can make three trips from Fort William to the Georgian Bay ports in the same time that they can make two trips to Buffalo, they are in a position to carry grain at better rates. If the government were to undertake the improvement of our Georgian Bay ports and afford more elevator and warehouse accommodation at Fort William and Port Arthur, our railways could bring the grain to these ports early in the autumn, as soon as the farmers get through threshing, and store It there for shipment. Ret the government assist in increasing our elevator capacity at Midland, Collingwood, Depot Harbour and ,at all these points, and in the'fall of the year, before navigation closes, the grain can he carried across the lakes to these elevators and storehouses on the eastern shores' of the Georgian bay, and thence be carried by rail during the winter months to the sea-hoard. And during these same months, the railways west could continue drawing grain from Winnipeg and other points west, and fill up the storehouse accommodation at Port Arthur and Fort William ready for spring shipment. On this point we have the evidence of a very competent authority, Sir William Van Horne. I do not know that he offers any opposition to the construction of this transcontinental railway ; but he ventures the opinion that it will he Impossible to construct any railway from the east to the west, which will carry out the produce of that

country at as cheap a rate as it can be carried by our present transportation facilities. I am quite sure that lion, members on both sides will endorse the opinion of Sir William Van Horne. He was the gentleman who was first named for the chairmanship of the Transportation Commission, to inquire into and investigate the whole question. If any further evidence were necessary, I could give you the name of another gentleman extensively engaged in the grain and flour business, Mr. Meighen, president of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company. He must have immense bills of freight to pay ; he is freighting wheat and flour over the railways and the lake routes continuously during the whole year. I doubt whether there is any milling company in Canada which handles more of the prairie wheat than the Lake of the Woods Milling Company. Mr. Meighen is a practical business man, who has been engaged in the business many years, and whose opinion is consequently well worthy of consideration. He says it will be impossible to carry the product of the west to the Atlantic sea-board by an all-rail route as cheaply as they are at present carried by rail and water routes. Last year there were 15,000,000 bushels of grain handled at Midland, and a. similar quantity at Depot Harbour. As my hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) went into that question very fully, I shall not take up the time of the House by discussing it.

But I wish to point out that this country has expended some $70,000,000 on our canal system. If the government intend to expend a sum estimated at $100,000,000 and more for the purpose of establishing a competing route to carry the produce of that western country to the eastern markets or to the Atlantic seaboard, that would be a laudable undertaking, if the freight could he carried over that line at as cheap a rate as it is now being carried by rail and water. But when the best informed men on the transportation question all assure us that that is an impossibility, it certainly must strike any reasonable man as an absurd proposition for the government to go on and expend that amount of money. Instead of doing so, as the trade of that country increases, let the government take about ten per cent of that amount which they propose to invest in the construction of this new road and use it to increase our present transportation facilities by improving our canals, adding to our elevator capacity, and so on. By doing so, they will probably lessen the cost of freight and save a large amount of money to the people of the west. Wheat, I understand, has been carried this season from Fort William to Montreal by the canals for four cents per bushel. I do not know what the rate is all-rail from Fort William to Montreal, but I suppose it would be four times that. A million dollars or thereabouts has been expended in im-


Henry Cargill

Conservative (1867-1942)


proving transportation facilities at Port Colborne. I would advise the government to pause and consider this scheme and consider whether it would not be better to improve our water-ways and harbours, increase our elevator capacity and otherwise add to our facilities, and leave the construction of this road for the next generation to deal with.

Now, it is most desirable to open up and develop a new country. But, from the information I have, I am led to believe that the timber resources of the province of Quebec and Ontario are very limited, as also is the arable land, and these are the only sources from which the government could hope to recoup themselves for the immense expenditure involved in the scheme they have proposed. The prairie country is sufficiently developed by the railroads they have there now. I think that a mistake was made probably in settling up that prairie country. The people kept straying off into distant parts in search of better land than their predecessors had taken up, and thus settlement was made sparse, so that the taxes upon each settler for schools and other municipal purposes were made very heavy. If the people had been obliged to settle more thickly in certain sections it would have been a great advantage to the country. Who would think of acquiring lands for farming purposes in the province of Quebec or Ontario when there is to be found in Manitoba and the territories laud which was decreed by Providence for agricultural purposes ? I remember the first visit I paid to that western country. I went as far as Regina. Dropping off at one town for an hour or two, I secured a team and started out through the prairie country with some friends. I was lost in amazement at that immense area of prairie .land ready for the plough. It struck me that we had come into this country at the wrong end. If we had come in at the west instead of at the east, and had left the provinces of Ontario and Quebec clothed with the timber that the pioneers of this country have chopped down, how much better it would have been ? Men took up land in these eastern provinces and grew old and grayheaded chopping down and burning up timber to clean up the laud, and when they were due to leave this world they had not cleaned up more than one hundred acres to get it into a state of cultivation into which a man can bring an equal amount of land in Manitoba or the Territories in the course of four or five years. The farmers of the county in which I was born and brought up cut, logged-up and burned timber, which if standing, would be worth three or four times as much money as the farms with all the improvements on them. We have destroyed our natural! resources of timber which would have supplied that prairie country for generations to come, and we have land in Manitoba and the Tei-ritories

to afford homesteads for four or five times as many people as we have at the present time in the Dominion of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I object to the government proposition, in the first place, because it is not an all-government road. I have already given my reasons for being an advocate of government construction and ownership of railways, and I need not repeat them. In the next place, I object to tills scheme because no proper surveys have been made. Supposing an ordinary farmer in the county of Bruce intends to put up a house or barn, the first thing he does is to go to a contractor or other expert and have his plans and specifications drawn up. He then ascertains what the building is going to cost him and makes provision accordingly. I do not know of any practical man in this country who has any idea of doing business economically who would go to a contractor and say : ' I want a house of a certain sige ; go ahead and put it up, then send in your bill and I will pay it.' This government claims to be a business government ; they claim to be practical business men ; but I am unable to give them credit for that capacity for business in this undertaking which they claim. Had they been prepared with reports made by expert surveyors as to the obstructions and difficulties they would have to surmount in building this road from the east to the west; had they shown calculations approved by railroad builders of recognized qualification as to the probable cost of constructing the road ; there would have been some basis on which members of this House could reach a conclusion. But we are going it blind ; we have no basis from which to start. We are told, and evidence has been given from reliable sources to establish it, that it is impossible to build a road through to Moncton.

The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I think it was, who gave the variations in the height of land on all that route, and I think it varied from one to two hundred feet up to twelve to fifteen hundred feet. Now, in a country such as! that, if they want to build what they call a straight line, a line with easy gradients, a line that will enable freight to be carried at the lowest possible rate, I ask any common sense man in this country if it is possible through such a country as that to construct such a road as is defined by the hon member for North Norfolk ? I have lived long enough to come to the conclusion that nothing is impossible. I have concluded that capital, combined with human effort, will surmount all natural difficulties. But you have got to have the capital, and whether it is prudent to put forth the necessary human effort and exhaust the resources of this country to build a piece of road from the city of Quebec to Moncton, it will be for the people of this country to say later on. '

Now, we have the opinion of the ex-Minister of Railways. He is a gentleman who attained to the most prominent position in his own province. He must certainly have been respected, well thought of by his associates through life, since they placed him in that position. When this government acceded to power in 1896 he was recognized as the ablest man in the province of New Brunswick, and he was asked to take It position as minister in the federal government. He was consequently called upon to preside over the Department of Railways and Canals. As to whether he has done that efficiently and well, every member in this House has the same means of ascertaining that I have. But I attended the meetings of the Railway Committee pretty regularly, and I always gave him credit for discharging his duties there in an impartial way. Now, of all the members of the government, he ought to have the best ideas about constructing and operating railways. It its his special business as head of the. Department of Railways and Canals; lie gave his whole time and attention to that; and I therefore prefer his opinion as to the advisability of undertaking to construct this transcontinental railway to the opinion of any other member of tlie government. Occupying such a position, being associated with his colleagues for seven years, enjoying all the emoluments of the office, he must be a man of very strong convictions and self-will to take the position he did on this occasion. He must be firmly convinced that if he adopted the plan proposed by the government he would be sacrificing the interests of the people of this country. Rather than do that he sacrificed his own position as a member of the government. Now, a man of that character, right or wrong in hfs position-he may be wrong, but even if lie is wrong, he certainly deserves great, credit at the handis of the people.

Now, Sir, the present debt of this country, I understand, is about $275,000,000. I seldom trouble myself with investigating these matters, because I can neither make it more nor less, and it is a good deal of trouble to me to fill my head with figures; 1 take more pleasure in other pursuits. Now, the construction of this road, taking the moderate estimate of $125,000,000, would add that sum to our present debt, and bring it up to $400,000,000. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) computed that the proposed addition to the debt of $125,000,000 would mean an increase of $125 for every head of a family in Canada. Now. just here I would like to stop a moment and make an inquiry of the Premier or of any member of the government who happens to be present-I notice one very respect-ble gentleman (the Minister of Trade and Commerce) present, who has occupied a prominent political position in this country for a great many years-I would like to inquire of him, after the many years during

which he has complained of the extravagant expenditure of money by the Conservative party, if lie endorses the present proposition submitted by this government? For years and years there was nd man in this country, I think, who was more successful in attempting to convince the people that the Conservative party were creating and imposing upon the people a debt from which they would never be able to relieve themselves. He asserted that the taxation imposed upon our people was more than any country with a population of five millions could posibly bear. He and his colleagues solicited the support of the electors of this country. They said: If you intrust us with a position on the treasury benches we will reduce the taxation; we will decrease the debt; we will get rid of this iniquitous national policy that is grinding down the people and preventing the farmers from rising. Now, I would like to know from 6ome of these lion, gentlemen how much they have reduced the debt? I would like to know how much they have reduced., the tariff of the country? I would like to know in what way they have economized sufficiently to save from three to five millions of the money of the people of this country ? I am often surprised at men of repute, men occupying positions of trust in the country, reputable men occupying the most prop minent positions, venturing to make such promises and pledges in order to secure support, and after getting the confidence of the people, backing out and refusing to redeem a single pledge that they had given.

Npw, Mr. Speaker, I am going on at greater length than I intended to at the start. In contrasting the proposition that has been placed before the House by the government with the one submitted by the hon. leader of the opposition I have come to the conclusion that the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition is much preferable to that of the government. The hon. leader of the opposition proposes, first, to extend the Intercolonial Railway which now reaches Montreal to the Georgian bay by purchasing the Canada Atlantic Railway at a cost of $12.000,000. Some hon. gentlemen say that it will cost $15,000,000. Supposing it does, we are proposing to utilize a railway which has cost the people of this country $70,000,000 in place of throwing it to one side and rendering it useless for all time to come. We propose to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian bay so as to enable it to participate in carrying the products of our great western country to the markets of the world.

That is an object which it is very desirable to accomplish and one which ought to commend itself not only to the people of the west but to the people of the older provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. I understand that the Intercolonial Railway has cost the country $70,000,000. It has lately been improved at an Mr. CARGILL.

expenditure of a large sum of money. It is now well equipped with rolling stock, including locomotives, passenger cars and freight cars. The idea of the government making a proposal to parallel the road from Quebec to Moncton at a cost of many millions of dollars and thus taking away many thousands of the revenue at present accruing to the Intercolonial Railway is something that no business man can very well comprehend. Then, we propose further to extend the road to Sudbury, or to some point on the Canadian Pacific Railway. The estimated cost of that is $4,000,000. We propose also to secure the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Fort Wiliam at a cost of $25,000,000. Then, after buying that road we will be in a position to lease running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern Railway. It has been said here that if this transcontinental railway is built and handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and they own the road, any other railway company may lease running rights from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but if the road were constructed by the government all the railway companies in the country would be in a position to lease running rights from the government because they would get them upon the same equitable terms. No road would have any priority over another road. In this case, if we secured the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Fort William and conducted it as a government road leasing the running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway the Canadian Northern Railway and the Intercolonial Railway, we would have one railway accommodating the trains of three railway systems. The rental paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway would be a substantial source of revenue to this country and it would make it a very cheap track for the Intercolonial Railway. This could be managed under a commission. Now, some hon. members take exception to a road owned and operated by the government. They say it is impossible to disconnect it from politics, that political influences will be brought to bear and that on that account it will be impossible to make it pay. I think if the government of this country had constructed the Canadian Pacific Railway in place of giving a charter to the company and if they owned the road to-day they would have a very large reveuue accruing to the country from the investment. Hon. gentlemen say you cannot rid a government owned road of political influences. I say you can. There are more Van Hornes, Shaughnessys and Hays to be found in this world. They are thick. There are just as good fish in the sea as ever were caught. Suppose the country had said to Van Horne : We want you to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway, we will furnish the necessary means to do so, we want you to construct the road and to operate it. We

will give you $12,500 per month for your services. That is a very liberal salary- $12,500 a month. We will give you live per cent, on the net earnings after you get the road in operation. I am told that the gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway this year amount to $44,000,000, and that the net earnings amount to $15,000,000. Can any lion, gentleman tell me the total invested capital of the Canadian Pacific Railway at the present time 7 We will say $300,000,000. B'ive per cent on $15,000,000 would give $750,000 which would give a total income of $900,000. We will say $1,000,000. which, deducted from the $15,000,000 of net earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway would give $14,000,000, and which would represent the revenue that the people of Canada would derive. This would pay 4-j per cent interest on the money invested in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Suppose you reduce that to the actual capital 7 Divide that capital of $300,000,000 by two and you have $150,000,000, so that this country ought to be deriving under Van Horne's management from earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway eight or ten per cent interest on the amount invested in the construction of the road. That is a good argument in favour of government owned roads. I have almost exhausted myself and I am sure that I am wearying the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS

No, no ; go on.



T,. 1 could go on and speak at greater length but at this period of the debate 1 think it quite unnecessary. I have been very diligent in my attendance in this House and in listening to the greater portion of the speakers, pro and con, and I must say that I am not like a judge who was elected to a position in one of the United States. This judge had been trying Ms first case, all the evidence was in, pro and con, and the counsel for the plaintiff and for the defendant had addressed the jury. The judge then summed up the evidence and presented to the jury the arguments of both counsel. In closing he said : Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe what the learned counsel for the plaintiff has said you will bring in a verdict for the plaintiff; if you believe what the learned counsel for the defendant has said you will bring in a verdict for the defendant, but, if like me you do not believe what either of them has said I will be blowed if I know what you should do.'

I wish to thank you and the House, Mr. Speaker, for the attention that you have paid to my remarks.


Charles Henry Parmelee


Mr. CHAS. H. PARMELEE (Shefford).

Mr. Speaker, I am not vain enough to hope that at this late stage of the debate I shall be able to contribute anything to the information of the House. At the same time I do not intend to apologize in advance for

boring and wearying the House because when it comes to that I think all members stand on about the same footing. There are, however, one or two things which I would like to say because I recognize that this is one of the greatest undertakings that this parliament has ever had to deal with. While the discussion has been long and while perhaps some of the Speakers have been more lengthy than was necessary, I cannot help feeling that on the whole the debate has been valuable, has been important and that it will be so judged by the country. If the arguments on our side have seemed to be stronger, if the discussion by members on this side has been abler, I am generous enough to soy of my hon. friends opposite that they have had a iioor case to advocate and that if they have made a poor fist of it it is because it is hard to argue against an undertaking of as good a character as that which is now before the House and the country. The hon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said early in the debate that there had been no demand for this railway, and particularly that there had been no demand for it in the province of British Columbia. I think that an hon. Senator in the upper chamber said the other day that British Columbia did not want anything of this kind. I hold in my hand a press dispatch dated to-day which says :

British Columbia has given an unmistakable answer to Senator MacDonald's plea against the Grand Trunk Pacific, and to Mr. Blair's statement that British Columbia did not want the railway. The Victoria Board of Trade, always regarded as the most Conservative organization in the province, practically repudiated both statements by passing this resolution :-* Resolved that we, the Victoria Board of Trade, hereby endorse the federal government's endeavour to have constructed another transcontinental railway, and that we urge alt our representatives not to place any obstacle in the way of such construction.'

After this proposition lias been so freely debated, after the country has become perfectly familiar with the contract and with its terms. I would say that that is a very strong endorsation ; particularly coming from the Victoria Board of Trade whose conservatism, as the despatch states, is ail wool and a yard wide.

Nearly all of the principal features of this scheme have been debated over and over again, hut there are one or two phases of it to which I would ask attention for a few minutes. As an English member coming from the province of Quebec I can cordially approve of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project for the reason, among others, that it will add largely to the cultivable area of onr province. I need scarcely remind this House that, in the past, Quebec has lost a host of people through emigration to the United States. The movement began in a small way during the troubles of 1837 when the tyranny of the family compact

goaded the people into rebellion, and when our fathers fought and bled for the liberties we now enjoy. This exodus received a fresh impetus during the civil war, owing to the bounties offered for recruits to the armies of the north as well as to great demands for labour from New England which had sent so many men to the front. Immediately after the war a great industrial development took place in New England, chiefly in the manufacture of cottons, woollens, and boots and shoes. The native American workman had drifted into other pursuits and there naturally followed a strong demand for labour from Canada as well ns from Europe. Every member of this House knows that the French Canadian has a natural aptitude for factory work, for all kinds of mechanical labour requiring skill, delicacy of touch and good taste. This is possibly inherited or, as some writers say, may have been acquired from the practice in the old days of weaving at home when all the cloth used by a family was turned out in each household, and when each household made its own boots and shoes. At any rate the French Canadians became favourite workmen in the New England factories, and as they prospered in their new homes they naturally wrote back to Quebec and invited their friends and relatives to join them. They were earning good wages. The members of the family old enough to work would put their earnings into a common fund so that their aggregate weekly wage was large. Naturally under such conditions as that the exodus grew in volume year after year until it assumed alarming proportions. I do not know the exact figures but I think lam safe in sayiug that there are a million and a half French Canadians in the New England states of whose productive energies we might have availed ourselves in developing the vast natural resources of this country. When the North-west became part of the Dominion in 1870, efforts were made by patriotic men, notably by the bishops and clergy, to induce our people to go there so that they might not be lost to Canada. These efforts have had very poor success. Manitoba was a long way off and in those days when there were no railways there it cost a great deal to transport a Canadian family to the Northwest and to maintain it until the soil could yield crops. On the other hand New England was close by and the emigrant there could begin earning wages the very morning after his arrival. That is the cheaf reason why the French Canadians failed to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them and to every one else in the west.

Then followed, as everybody knows, a period of agricultural depression and low prices, so that for years there was no very great encouragement for a young man to imitate the example of his father and start in life for himself in the bush. Disappointed at the result of their efforts to in-Mr. PARMELEE.

duce the people to go to the west, the clergy then turned their attention to colonization in the j>rovinee of Quebec, and by means of coi'duroy roads and of such colonization roads as they could prevail on the provincial government to provide, tried to make it easier for the settler to take up the wild lands and convert them into fertile fields and farms, such as exist in the older parts of the province. The name of Mon-signeur Labelle, I think, will live in the history of the province of Quebec as one of the most courageous and energetic leaders of this movement. Happily, about 1896, things began to improve, and, thanks to the adoption of a wise fiscal policy and an able and honest administration of affairs, the sun of prosperity began to shine on the Canadian farmer. The result of that improvement has been that the exodus from Canada has practically ceased ; and in fact, instead of our people going away, the flow is towards Canada, and our people are coming back to their native land.

Now, Mr, Speaker, I regard it as of the first importance that we should forestall the periodic return of hard times, and that before that day arrives we should embark on a larger and more comprehensive scheme of colonization than any that has yet been attempted ; and I can conceive of no better plan having that end in view than the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the construction of. which Is provided for in the contract before this House, running through the region lying between Abitibi and Quebec, and the region bounded by the Little Alleghany or Blue mountains and the American frontier to the south of the St. Lawrence. The best authorities which I have been able to consult declare without hesitation that this region contains a vast amount of fertile land, that it is well watered and heavily timbered, and that it has a pulp supply to last for generations. I do not believe much in inflicting figures on the House, but I wish to show how the pulp Industry has grown, and what vast strides it has made in the last few years, I think that within the lifetime of men now in this House it will become perhaps the largest single industry in this country. The growth of the pulp industry in Canada is shown by the following statistics taken from the Census Returns of 1881, 1891 and 1901 :

1881. 1891. 1901.Number of mills.. Number of e m- 3 24 30employees

Earnings of em- 68 1,025 4,550ployees $15,720 $ 292,009 $1,587,597Value of product.. 63,300 1,057,810 6,176,300

The census of 1901 shows that there were fifteen mills in Quebec, with a product of $3,508,068, and seven mills in Ontario, with a product of $1,694,234. The value of wood pulp exported from Canada to all countries increased from $280,619 in 1891 to $1,937,-

207 in 1901 ; and the value of pulp exported to the British islands increased from $113,557, in 1896, to $934,722, in 1901. The value of wood pulp imported by the British islands from all countries increased from $8,198,615, in 1896, to $11,709,607 in 1901. The present yearly production of wood pulp in Canada is about 240,000 tons, and a cord of wood yields a ton of chemical pulp. The government exploration report of 1900 estimates that the pulp wood forests in Ontario, north of the height of land, will cut 288,000,000 cords, and if the present production of pulp in the country be multiplied by twenty the supply in that part of Ontario is sufficient to last sixty years, which is the period required for a pulp wood forest to reproduce itself. In Quebec, as well as in Ontario, on the Hudson Bay slope, there are vast forests of pulp wood, and in both regions there are large rivers and many waterfalls to supply motive power for mills. Assuming the forests in those regions, to be properly conserved, the pulp industry alone, if developed to the capacity of the country to be traversed by' the National Transcontinental Railway, would supply traffic for twenty trains of thirty loaded cars per day, as long as trees grow and waters flow.

Here are all the conditions necessary to the establishment of hundreds of groups of prosperous settlements in that region. The French 'Canadian is a natural born ddfri-cheur. In that line he has no superior ; and, given mines, lumber camps and pulp -mills in which to get a start until he has secured a foothold in the country, I believe he will do there what he has done in the older parts of the province of Quebec, and convert it into a rich agricultural country, capable of supporting a happy and prosperous people. I for one have not the slightest doubt that the Grand Trunk Pacific is the best possible agent we can invoke for carrying out such a scheme of colonization. I have no hesitation in asserting that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific through the northern part of Quebec will do more for colonization than all the efforts that have ever been made in the past ; and I 'need hardly tell this House that if we are able to retain our own people on their native soil, we shall be repaid a hundredfold for the expenditure we shall be obliged to make. I might also point out that the older parts of Ontario and Quebec will be directly benefited by the opening up to settlement of a country of such magnitude as the northern part of Quebec and what is called New Ontario. It will give a further impetus to Industry. It will open up new markets for our manufacturers, and help the older sections of the country to grow and prosper. Suppose that this region of which I have been speaking, from Abitibi to Quebec, were a colony of itself or belonged to another country, we can all fancy how much rejoicing there would be on the part of men of all parties if by some happy stroke of fortune, it came to

be annexed to us and became a part of the province of Quebec. As it is now, lying there undeveloped, and with no railway communication, it is of no more use to us than if it belonged to another country or another planet. It is of no use to us and of no use even to itself. The construction of a railway would at once give it a potential value, and if as we are told and believe it possesses resources well worthy of developing, the province of Quebec ought to congratulate itself on the policy of this government.

When I hear our lion, friends opposite denouncing and decrying new Ontario and new Quebec as wretched deserts for that is what, after all, their criticisms amount to-I am reminded of the purchase by the Americans of Alaska. Over thirty years ago the United States paid $7,500,000 for Alaska, and those of us who are old enough can well recall that Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, was most bitterly criticised and assailed for having made a purchase of that kind. It was said thit he had bought a slice of Siberia, far removed from the nearest settlements of the United States, and destined to remain for ever an Arctic waste. We do not hear any talk of that kind now. We do not hear that the bargain was a bad one or that too much was paid for that country. We hear of everything- the reverse, because it has turned out that in Alaska there are rich gold mines, besides salmon and seal fisheries, which are most valuable. In fact, a trunk railway is being built to-day in that country with branch lines and a considerable fleet of steamers plying between Puget Sound and Juneau, carrying out the products of Alaska and carrying in the manufactured goods and other products of the east. And

strangest of all, it has been found that there are large areas in the interior adapted to sheep ranching and even cattle raising. I merely mention this to show how dangerous it is, how unwise and liow unsafe, to prophesy unless you know about the future of the new regions in the north. If Alaska lias turned out so well, we are surely warranted in believing that new Ontario and new Quebec, once they have been developed by railway facilities, once their vast mineral, timber and agricultural resources are brought to light, will prove to be worth a great deal more than the cost of this road. Not only that, but as soon as this railway is built, it will enable us to exploit that still vaster region around James' bay, a region said to be rich in minerals, and in which, according to some reports, there are vast deposits of coal, not merely lignite, but steam coal of good quality, besides large areas of copper and ironbearing ores. And everybody knows that the fisheries of Hudson bay will in time become a national asset of no little value. As I observed a moment ago, the development

of new Quebec, together with the region lying between Etclteinan amt St. Francis river, back from the south shore of the St. Lawrence, will also be the centre of large and prosperous settlements which will furnish a market for our manufacturers. Our people in the east are certain to benefit also by the impetus that will be given to immigration into the North-west. For my part, while 1 like to see the North-west grow, I do fee! that we should take advantage of every possible means to develop the east. We in the older provinces assumed a very heavy responsibility when we built the Canadian Pacific Railway, and 1 may be pardoned if I contrast, in a general way, the terms and conditions of the two contracts. If, in 1880, this country was a lilts to spend $135,000,000 or $140,000,000 for the purpose of building a transcontinental road -or rather a portion of a transcontinental road-this country now, having a far larger population, having a revenue twice as large, ought to be able to undertake with a liglit heart a scheme of this kind, which calls for, at the outside, an expenditure of but $14,000,000 or $15,000,000. I might add that nobody now would undertake to say that, although the. terms under which we secured the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway were severe, although we had to pay a great deal for it, after all the advantages have not more than paid for the outlay. Another thing I would say about the proposition before us is tills, that it carries with it no land grant, that our public domain in the future, except that which was bartered away in days gone by by the Conservative regime, will be kept for the settlers. In addition, this contract carries no tax exemption; and, most important of all, the government have secured absolute control of the rates, whereas under the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the government cannot touch the rates until the company will have earned ten per cent, which means that the rates can never be touched at all.

When this railway is built not only will It develop the great North-west and British Columbia, but the hinterland of Ontario and Quebec, and thus enable us to secure, not only a convenient exit for the products of the North-west to the sea, but a market for our manufactured goods, and the rates of freight in each case will be lower than they are at present. In tliat way this scheme will be a vast advantage to the eastern manufacturers, and give the people of the east some return for the heavy outlay they have made to secure railway facilities for the. west.

In one of his speeches, the great Edward Burke drew a striking picture of the growth of the thirteen colonies, which, without doing violence to the proprieties or to truth, one may, with the alteration of a word or two, apply to the Canadian North-west :

Suppose that in the year 1870, when this region was joined to confederation, the angel of Mr. PARMELEE.

some auspicious youth in old Canada had drawn up the curtain, unfolding the rising glory of the new land, and had said: ' Young man, there is the North-west, at present a seminal principle rather than a formed body, which now serves for little more than to amuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners, yet shall, ere you taste of death, possess over half a million prosperous people and take its place-this child of England's old age-as one of the principal exporters of food to the United Kingdom. If this state of the North-west had been foretold, would it not have required all the sanguine credulity of youth and all the fervid glow of enthusiasm, to make him believe it '?

Now, Sir, whilst we are all proud of the strides made by the North-west, and have high hopes of its future, we in the older provinces have reason to rejoice that our interests and our welfare are also being consulted by the present policy of the government. This is what makes it a truly national policy in a far wider sense than that in which the phrase is used by our protectionist brethren. It is a policy which, besides peopling the North-west and British Columbia, adds greatly to the economic and industrial possibilities of Quebec, Ontario and the provinces clown by the sea, the original partners in the compact of confederation, who have so far borne the heat and burden of the day without receiving any very direct benefit. It is a policy, in short, that not only helps new Canada, west of Lake Superior, but old Canada as well. And henceforth we in the east, as an unselfish parent, can turn with enthusiasm to the labour of developing oiur new empire added to our present estate by this new railway, so that we may not be outstripped whether in material or political importance by our vigorous sons in the west. Now', perhaps I have kept the House too long. But I do wish to say that I believe thoroughly In this transcontinental scheme, because it is a Canadian scheme ; because, starting from the golden Pacific, it runs to the broad Atlantic over Canadian territory ; because it meets the aspirations of the people of this country to be a nation ; because it will do more than anything that has ever been done before to unite the provinces which compose this Dominion, and to make all the people feel that they belong to Canada, to a nation that has a great future ; because, in short, it will develop a national spirit. I think it was in that spirit that this scheme was conceived by the right hon. leader of the government, and I think to him is due the credit, as these delicate negotiations were conducted largely by himself. And I think the country generally will admit that the terms he has secured are far better than could have been anticipated. The outlay is a mere bagatelle, considering our resources ; and if there is any risk, it is largely shifted to the shoulders of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. And it is a great thing, in a scheme of this kind, looking to the construction and operation of a transconti-

uental line, that the government should have secured the guarantee of so powerful a corporation as the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which, having its lines all over the east, is in a position, the moment the Grand Trunk Pacific is constructed, to handle the traffic between the east and the west. Not only that, but the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a vast corporation and, under the terms of this agreement, it will be able to raise its capital at a very low rate of interest, so that, though the receipts may not be very large at the outset of the road's operation, the company will have secured its money upon such easy terms that the fixed charges will, perhaps, not be more than 50 per cent of the fixed charge upon any other road in this country. While the bargain seems to be largely in favour of the government, that, in my mind, is the reason why, in the long run, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will be able to carry out its obligations and do the things it has contracted with this government to do. Now, for my part, I think that when this road is built immense development will follow, the tide of immigration will flow iuto Canada in even greater volume than now. There are men in this House and out of it who say that there is no urgency, that there is no hurry to build this road, that the government has rushed blindly into this proposition. I find it hard to believe that hon. gentlemen on the other side can be absolutely frank and honest when they make declarations of that kind. But if they are, I have not a very high opinion of their powers of observation and capacity for seeing what is going on in this country. Everybody knows that the great need of Canada, from the very beginning, has been population, and everybody knows the struggle we have made to secure population and turn the tide in our direction. Everybody knows that for years and years our efforts, great as they were, were rewarded with but paltry results. Now, we find that the people are coming to us from all over the world, notably from the United States, to settle up our great western country. And if we are to keep them and if more are to follow, there is imperative necessity for providing them with railway facilities and for giving them a chance to get their products to market, and, not only that, but to give them favourable freight rates for the merchandise they are to buy from the east. So, I say, taking it in the larger political sense, taking it in a material and economic sense, no scheme that has been proposed by the government or considered by the parliament of Canada has been equal to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme which is now before us.


Mr. G. BABE@Nicolet

We are now facing two schemes or projects, one submitted by the government and the other submitted by the leader of the opposition. The government proposes to have a road

from ocean to ocean, part to be built by the government and part by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The government undertake to build from Moncton to Winnipeg, a distance of about 2,000 miles, while the other part is about 1,300 miles, making in all about 3,300 miles. Sir, I am not going to say that this road would not be a good thing in any way. I know that it will open an agricultural territory which will afford a field for colonization for many years to come. I know also that the road will run through a lumber country, and that the development of that country will be an advantage. It will pass through other places where, no doubt, mines can be developed. But with all these advantages is the government justified in undertaking the proposed expenditure? In my humble opinion, this road, as proposed, could not be built for less than $150,000,000.

L think I am giving the highest figures that were quoted. There is no doubt in my mind if you are to build a road such as described by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), it could not cost less than $150,000,000. Now let me take the figures quoted by an hon. member on this side of the House, I forget what county he represents; however, I think he was not far from the truth. He said that the Intercolonial cost $53,000 a mile. I did not hear any member from the government side contradict those figures, so 1 take them to be true. The Intercolonial road is a good road, but it is not equal to the road that the member for North Norfolk describes as the road the government will build. He said that this new road will be so well built that the grades will not be over twenty-one feet to the mile, that the curvatures will be so light that an engine can haul a train over a mile in length. Now, to make such a road as that would cost $20,000 a mile more than the Intercolonial which cost $53,000 per mile. So that calculating at $73,000 per mile we have the following figures : From Winnipeg to Moncton-2,000 miles-$146,000,000, to which adding $4,000,000, for the purchase of the Quebec bridge, the grand total reaches $150,000,000 as I have already stated. I think that the scheme submitted by the leader of the opposition is better than that proposed by the government, as the water and rail route would carry grain a great deal cheaper than the ail-rail route. In fact the Grand Trunk Pacific road, if built as the government promise, will never be fit for the transportation of grain from the North-west, and will never be able to compete with the water-and-rail route. In spite of our bad equipment as to (Canals and elevators, in spite of the imperfect equipment of the port of Montreal, we find that the Americans are afraid of Montreal competition for shipments to Europe. 1 listened the other day to the speech of the Postmaster General, and I heard him say that the government was not in favour of

removing the duties from the ports of Montreal and Quebec. I was sorry to hear him make such a statement, because when, not very long ago, the government took the duty off the canals, at once our neighbours began to take alarm. I have under my hand an extract from the New York ' Herald ' of the 22nd instant, which I will read to the House :

GRAIN FOR EUROPE BY WAY OF MONTREAL Seaboard Shippers Alarmed by Decline of Exports Through New York and Boston.

(Spacial despatch to the ' Herald.')

Chicago, Friday.-Lake shipments of corn for Montreal have aggregated 1,000,000 bushels during the past few days. This fact, together with the decline of 60 per cent in the grain export shipments through Boston, and of 29 per cent through New York, has caused great alarm among the export shippers on the seaboard. The Western Elevator Association and kindred associations in Baltimore, Boston and New York have appointed committees to try to induce the eastbound roads from Chicago to reduce their rates on grain for export by way of the seaboard ports, so that these roads can compete with Montreal.

The trade of the Montreal ports is due entirely to the action of the government in making the Canadian canals free. Grain can now be shipped from Chicago to Montreal for export to Liverpool three cents a bushel cheaper than it can be routed by part-rail, part-lake, through Boston. When it is known that a fraction of a cent a bushel will divert all the grain that can possibly go through a port, the advantage that Montreal has over American ports will be readily seen.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.


Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)


Mr. Speaker, if the Americans are alarmed at the removal by the Canadian government of the canal tolls, what will they be If the government remove all charges from the port of Montreal, Quebec and the other ports so as to make them free ports ? If the government should improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence river system in the manner suggested in the learned and elaborate speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), the Americans would not only he alarmed, but they would be sore; they would have as we say in French ' la peur et le mal.' I heard the other day the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) saying that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) contemplated a scheme similar to the one proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. I was glad to hear that, because it is in accordance with my views. He said that he was with the ex-minister in the county of Restigouche, and there heard the hon. ex-mi nistei- state that the government would buy the Canada Atlantic Railway and some other road in order to make a rail and water route. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) Mr. BALL.

some days ago addressing this House stated that he was away when the hon. leader of the opposition made his speech, but that he read it carefully, and that he was inclined to adopt the policy enunciated by the leader of the opposition. However, he decided to first find out what such a scheme would cost and he got the help of a civil engineer named Doucet, an able man who could make a proper estimate, a man who was accustomed to that work, having been employed by different companies, especially by the Canadian Pacific Railway. This engineer estimated that it would cost to construct the whole road 883,000,000, but the hon. member stated that he was going to vote for the scheme of the government. An hon. member on this side of the House asked him if it was because the plan of the hon. leader of the opposition was too expensive. The hon. member for Labelle replied : No, that even if the enterprise of the government should cost $20,000,000 more he would still vote for it. He gave no reason for that change of mind. He said further, however, that he would vote to take off the part from Quebec to Moncton. Mr. Speaker, if there are many government supporters of that character and of that independent way of speaking, and they would agree among themselves so that each of them would take a slice off the road, I would not be at all surprised if $13,000,000 would be quite sufficient to build what would be left. He said that the thing would cost $83,000,000. Well, Sir, that confirms me in the belief that the scheme of the leader of the opposition is the better of the two, because, as 1 have already stated, the other will cost $150,000,000, so that by adopting the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition there will be a saving of $67,000,000. I would advise the House to adopt the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition, even if it would cost this amount, and apply the $67,000,000 saved as follows : Instead of

building a road from Quebec or Levis to Moncton, take say $20,000,000 and double track the Intercolonial Railway from Moncton to Matapedia. From Matapedia to Riviere du Loup you might use the single track and build a new short line between these two points, and in that way effect a shortening of the distance by about thil'ty-six miles. Thus the heavy freight and the through-freight could pass by that straight line and the local trade could continue to go around where the road is built now. I might say en passant, while we are speaking of Matapedia, that you might take another $6,000,000 out of the $67,000,000 and purchase the Baie des Chaleurs road from Matapedia to Paspebiac. This line could be purchased for a couple of million of dollars, a length of 80 or 100 miles. Then for $4,000,000 you could construct a road from Paspebiac to Gasp6 Basin, and you would thereby make two hon. members

very happy, the hon. member for Bona-venture and the hon. member for Gasp6. Sou would also make the men who live all along the Baie des Chaleurs happy, because these people have been deprived of a railway and you would help at the same time to develop and colonize between Paspebiac and Gaspe Basin a large area of good land. Start from Riviere du Loup and go to Chaudiere Junction on your double track. From there you can use the Drummond County Railway, which is now in first-class order ; and, instead of building a double track on that part of the road, from Chau-diere Junction to 'St. Lambert, you can. buy the South Shore Railway, which is now about bankrupt. You can build from Cliau-di&re Junction to S't. Francis, a distance of about eighty miles, or, a little more, and you can purchase a running road which is built from that place to St. Lambert. The whole thing would cost about $6,000,000. It would not cost more than it would to build a double track, and you would make happy the members from the counties of Levis. Lotbimiere, Nieolet, Yamaskn, Richelieu, Chambly and Vercheres; and the people in the country from Quebec to Montreal would be all happy, and will bless this government. The balance remaining could be applied, part to extend the road of the Quebec and Lake St. John railway for colonization purposes, and also for the pulp traffic, and the rest could be applied to build colonization roads where they are needed ; and yon would make more happy people in every part of Canada. In that way you would have sufficient colonization land to supply immigration for fifty years to come.

(Some contend that the proposed road between Quebec and Moncton will shorten the distance 50 miles, others 120 miles. Suppose the distance is shortened 100 miles. lithe government are serious in saying that they are going to build that part of the road, it will have the effect not only of ruining the Intercolonial Railway, but of causing the country to lose some millions of dollars every year, and here is my reason for saying so. Suppose, that portion of the road can be built-because for the last three or four weeks we have been indulging in suppositious-in the style suggested by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who was put up to give the answer of the government to the speech of the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) ; it would have the effect of obtaining for the Grand Trunk Pacific all the traffic from Halifax and St. John, and vice versa. I have heard some one say that it would not injure the Intercolonial, because the Intercolonial is going to carry the freight of the Grand Trunk Pacific from St. John to Moncton, from Moncton to St. John, from Moncton to Halifax, and from Halifax to Moncton. Well, after what we have seen of the generosity of the government to the Grand

Trunk Pacific, you may be sure that the government will give transportation on such easy terms to and from these places, that the Intercolonial instead of making something out of it, will lose money every day. For my part, I am very sure that the intercolonial Railway will lose half of its earnings. The earnings of the Intercolonial at present are $6,000,000 per annum, and its expenditure is about the same figure. If you take half the earnings, I do not think the expenses will be much less than they are now ; consequently, you will be face to face with a deficit of about $3,000,000 every year which capitalized equals $100,000,000. So that you will not only sacrifice the $70,000,000 that the Intercolonial cost, but you will throw a capital of $100,000,000 into the sea or the river St. Lawrence.

To make the House believe that we on this side are exaggerating the consequences of this Bill, I see in the papers all kinds of statements. In a very important paper published in Montreal, a French paper, which has the largest circulation of all the papers of the Dominiou, I find the following. One of my friends advised me to address the House, during the remainder of my speech in French, as he thought I would express myself better in that tongue, but as evidently among the many members present but one or two would understand me, and I want everybody to understand what I say, I think I had better proceed in English. Here is what the French paper says :

A few notes on the Grand Trunk Pacific. r

It cannot be questioned that the feeling aroused in some quarters by the proposal of building a line which would compete with the Intercolonial is only a feigned feeling. As we have already stated, there is not a single railway line, which would shrink from1 the necessity of paralleling itself, did circumstances call for such action. We have already referred to the Canadian Pacific, which is a case near at hand ; but here is another case which knocks to the ground the whole superstructure. An American railway, the Great Northern, had a tunnel built under the Cascade mountains, which cost $3,000,000 ; but having found a more suitable pass, which offered a better level, they have decided to build a new tunnel.

The Great Northern had a tunnel built, which cost $3,000,000, and after that they found a pass more suitable, and they abandoned the tunnel which cost $3,000,000, and built another one. They did not hesitate a moment to sacrifice the first tunnel and build another, but the new tunnel belonged to the same company. "But in this case, while the government did not hesitate to sacrifice the Intercolonial Railway and build the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the new competing line is not being built for the government itself. I do not think that the Great Northern Company would have abandoned this tunnel and built another one for another railway company. The writer in that newspaper goes on further to say that Mr. Carnegie would not hesitate a minute,

if lie had a mill built and found it more profitable to build another mill-would not hesitate to sacrifice the old mill and build another one. But I do not think Mr. Carnegie would build another mill for his neighbour. For my part, X do not believe that this road from Quebec to Moncton will be built ; but if it should be, what will be the result ? The result will be that you will have two local roads, two local roads instead of one. Do you imagine for a moment that the Grand Trunk Railway-because the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are one and the same-do you imagine for a moment that when a Grand Trunk Railway train is at Levis, it will go down to Halifax when it will be 337 miles shorter to go to St. John? But taking off that hundred miles which they say will be saved, there would still be; left 237 miles. Well, it costs 70 cents, or about that, for a train to run a mile on the track. Make it five trains per day to go and return, what would be the result to the Grand Trunk Railway? Five trips a day at $23.59 per train would make $235.90 that the Grand Trunk Railway would lose per day, and for three hundred days that would make $707,700. Do you believe, Sir, for a moment that the Grand Trunk Railway will lose this amount for the sole pleasure of passing on all Canadian soil ? I do not think so. They like Canada very well, because they have their road there, but they also like the states ; and they are fond of money.

Some say that it would not cost that amount, because the Grand Trunk Pacific is obliged to pay the interest on the money. Some say they pay the interest after seven years and some after ten years. I disagree with them both, and I say that the government will never receive a cent of interest from the Grand Trunk Pacific. If we may take the past as an indication of the future, we can say this without danger of making any mistake. When the Grand Trunk built its road years ago it borrowed from the government $25,000,000. Did it ever pay the interest on that amount ? Did it ever pay the capital ? Not a dollar. I do not blame the Grand Trunk for that. I do not blame the government for it either. The Grand Trunk did not pay because it could not pay, and the government was right in recognizing that fact. It will be the same in this case; the Grand Trunk will never pay a cent of interest, and the government will not take the road from them after the period of fifty years is over-though I do not think I shail live long enough to see about that. When the government bought the Drummond County Railway, it made a deal with the Grand Trunk for the Intercolonial trains to pass over a certain portion of the Grand Trunk from L6vis to Chaudigre Junction and from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal. It being stipulated that the Grand 'Trunk would build a double track from Ste. Rosalie to Mr. BALL.

Montreal. The government paid $120,000 every year during the six years that contract was made. But the Grand Trunk never doubled-tracked its line from Ste. Rosalie or St. Hyacinthe to Montreal. The result is that the Intercolonial trains are delayed between Ste. Rosalie and Montreal. I do not know how much the through trains are delayed, but 1 know that the Nicolet train is from half an hour t,o an hour late every day. Well, Sir, 1 do not blame the Grand Trunk for taking, as we say in French, la part du lion, when it is offered to them.

The member for Bonaventure (Mr. March) in his speech the other day complained of the members on this side of the House. He said that we had never said anything good of the ex-Miuister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) as' long as he was Minister of Railways and Canals, but that now that he is out of office, he is our prophet and we extol him as a very good man. Well, as he is a convert we havei a right to admire him. But I would ask, on the other hand, is there anything strong enough for lion, gentlemen on the other side to say in denunciation of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals They say that he left the cabinet through jealousy, that he was not pleased because they arranged this scheme and did not consult him. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a single man on either side of this House who, under similar circumstances, would not have done exactly as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) did ? And when the party of the hon. gentlemen opposite had used all the words they could think of against the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals they commenced to caricature him. They made cartoons presenting him as every kind of animal. I recollect one cartoon, and I am very sorry to say It appeared in a French paper, the organ created specially to defend the government, including the Minister of Railways and Canals.

He was presented in one of these cartoons as a fox looking wistfully at a bunch of grapes on a vine. But they were too high for him to reach, and he turned round and went away saying that they were not ripe enough. Well, Sir, I think the artist who drew that cartoon made a mistake, for, instead of making a fox he made a cat. At first when I looked at it I did not know what it meant, but after I made up my mind that it must be a cat watching for the rats who were underneath the vine gnawing at the roots. Well, I think the picture is pretty correct when we understand that the vine represents the Intercolonial. We have often heard it said that this road must be built right away, ' to-day and not to-morrow.' Well, I think the right hon. gentleman who leads the House has gone one better on the late Sir John A. Macdonald who, when any matter was presented to him for decision, always used to put it off till to-morrow. Let me ask : Is it bet-

ter to decide a tiling right away or to decide it next day ? The French have a proverb which says, la mi it porfce conseil, that is to say, it is well to reflect on a thing over night. The contract for the Yukon Kailway was signed two days before the opening of the session, and by that contract the country lost $500,000. The Drummond County Railway was bought in haste, but through the efforts or an hon. Senator the country paid $500,000 less than it would have paid if the contract had been carried out as it was made. Now, if the country was saved half a million dollars on a contract amounting to $15,000,000, then in the same ratio, the country would save $15,000,000 on a contract amounting to $150,000,000, if the government were wise enough to wait till to-morow. Now, Sir, 1 do not want to say anything against the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific. They do well to take what is offered to them, and I do not want to blame them for it ; and perhaps if my name was the Grand Trunk, I would do the same.


Thomas Walter Scott


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).

Mr. Speaker, you may well imagine that it is not with a very keen zest that one rises to take part in the debate at this stage ; but as representing a portion of the country that is greatly interested in the proposition now before the House, and as one who has, in season and out of season, been urging upon the government for months the absolute necessity of bringing down some such proposition as this, I deem it only right for me to state my opinions upon this subject. I congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ball) upon the fact that he seems to have a much better appreciation of the wealth of the northern part of this country and of its needs, as concerns railway facilities, than some hon. gentlemen opposite representing sections of the good old province of Ontario, and very much better, I may say, than the hon. gentleman who is his leader from the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman has in some degree endorsed the proposition submitted to parliament by the leader of the government, and upon that fact I congratulate him. I notice that he complains that in his section of the province of Quebec the railway facilities are not entirely adequate nor entirely satisfactory. He complained that on one road the passenger trains were day after day half an hour late. I am sure therefore, that he will be able to sympathize with the people of the North-west Territories who, for week after week and month after month, since the beginning of the present year, during the whole of last winter, had to submit to passenger trains being not only half an hour late, but five or six hours late, and frequently twenty-four to thirty hours late.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while this debate, which has been continuing for the past three weeks, has been very valuable and interesting, it has been to some extent circumscribed. It is to be remembered that the Dominion of Canada as a wheat producer and a meat producer is in business in competition with many other countries in the world's markets, and I have regretted that some members of the House who have spoken-and who are competent to do it well-should not have dealt with this great subject from that point of view. 1 would not presume myself to go at any length into that phase of the matter. But let me call to your attention the position of this country as a wheat producer in contrast with the position of certain other countries which are our competitors. Russia and Argentina, instead of the United States, are fast becoming our chief competitors in the world's market in the production of wheat. Argentina has four different wheat provinces which have a nominal area of 240,000 square miles and that area is served by 7,080 miles of railway, being three miles of railway to each square miles of area, or practically that. Compare that Condition of affairs with the condition of affairs in the North-west Territories of Canada. We have in the North-west Territories over 300,000 square miles of land and we have there only 2,550 miles of railway which is less than one mile of railway for each square mile of territory as against three miles of railway in the Argentine Republic. The average distance of the Argentina farmer from his railway shipping point is less than ten miles and the average cost per bushel of moving his wheat from the farm to the railway shipping point is between two and three cents per bushel. The average cost of removing grain from the initial railway point to the shipping port is seven cents a bushel. In the North-west Territories the average distance of the farmer from the railway shipping point, is I think considerably greater and I am certain that the average cost of_ moving wheat from the farm to the railway point is fully double that in the Argentine republic, while the cost of moving wheat from the initial railway point to the shipping port in the case of the North-west Territories is fully 18 to 20 cents per bushel as against seven cents, per bushel in the case of the Argentine republic. The average cost of moving wheat from the Argentine farm to Liverpool is about 161 cents per bushel notwithstanding the fact that the country is very much farther from Liverpool than the North-west Territories are, while the average cost of moving wheat from the farm in the Northwest Territories to Liverpool is not less than 29 to 30 cents per bushel. I have gleaned these figures from an article which appeared in the 'Journal of Political Science' in June, 1902, and I commend this article to hon. members of this House as containing very valuable and Interesting information upon this subject. In the summary of the article which dealt more particularly with' a

comparison of the conditions in the United States and the Argentine republic the average cost of moving wheat from the Argentine republic, although the ocean carriage from their shipping ports is four or five cents higher, is given as much less than the average cost of moving wheat from the farm in the United States while in the case of the Canadian farmer the disadvantage is very much greater.


William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)


To what extent will this new railway if built reduce the cost of moving wheat from the North-west Territories to Liverpool ?


William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)


When you are making these comparisons it might be handy to have the two together.


August 31, 1903