Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).

I would like, ilr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, to make an observation in connection with the accident to the steamer [DOT] Grecian.' It seems that Captain Harrison, on coming in to Halifax harbour, availed himself of the services of a pilot. At the port of Halifax it is not compulsory on shipmasters to engage pilots, but they must pay pilotage ; and When a pilot is taken on board, the master of the vessel has the right to depend on him for the management of the ship. Captain Harrison engaged a pilot and gave him charge of the vessel. It is in evidence that he had some misgivings as to whether the pilot was conducting the steamer properly or not, and called his attention to certain matters in the course of navigation. But the pilot assured him that everything was all right, and the result was the ship was run on the rocks. An inquiry was held by a court presided over by Captain Spain. The result of the inquiry was that the court suspended the captain's certificate, apparently because the pilot did not take the ship safely into port, which, on the face of it, would appear to be a most outrageous judgment. The judgment was appealed from by Captain Harrison to the Admiralty Di-Mr. STEWART.

vision of the High Court of Justice in England. I wish to read a portion of the judgment, in order that the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may see that Captain Harrison has been completely vindicated, and to impress on the hon. gentleman the necessity of doing something In order to secure a more suitable court for the trial of questions of this sort, in which the reputations and livings of honest and honourable men are at stake. The president of the court said :

It appears to be clear that there is no fault seriously to be found with the Master

Everything which was done was done by the advice and under the direction of the pilot himself, and I do not see how it could be otherwise. It is suggested that the captain might have gone and looked at the chart, which means that the captain should have taken charge of the ship. I cannot help thinking that the criticism which my learned brother expressed just now really sums up the whole case. The court below treated the matter as if the captain was in charge himself and as if there was not such advice available as that of the pilot. I confess I am quite unable to take that view. It appears to me that the captain was quite right in allowing the ship to be guided by the advice and under the direction of the pilot.

The judgment of the court goes on to explain that Captain Harrison was free from any blame of any kind in connection with tbe navigation of the ship, and that the first court made a mistake in supposing that the captain was responsible for bringing the ship safely into port and in suspending the certificate of the captain because the pilot was remiss in the performance of his duty. The point I wish to bring before the Minister of Marine is this. If the inquiry had been made by the court at the instance of the boat'd of trade in England and the captain exonerated, his costs would have been paid by the board. By parity of reasoning, he ought now to be reimbursed in some way the costs he has been subjected to in order to vindicate his character and recover his certificate, and I would ask the hon. minister to carefully consider the matter and see whether he cannot discover some way of reimbursing the captain for the very serious expenses to which he has been put, altogether apart from the injury done the reputation lie bore, which was a very high one indeed. I would also ask the hon. minister to consider whether some other tribunal might not be created more competent to weigh evidence and possessed of something besides merely technical marine knowledge.

I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

I shall examine into the matter and see what I can do.

Motion to adjourn withdrawn.

Mr. T. EARLE (Victoria, B.C.).

Has the hon. the Minister of Marine had any information from British Columbia regarding the fisheries ?

I have had no information from the head officer, who is away on the Quesnel spawning ground. He will be communicated with through Mr. Robinson, with whom I have been in communication since two or three days. I cannot do anything until I get a report from Mr. Sword, in view of the difference of opinion among those interested.

Mr. CLARKE.

How many days is it since the first communication with the hon. minister ?

I do not remember exactly. The first communication, I think, was on Friday from the canners. I then telegraphed to Mr. Sword, and getting no answer I repeated the telegram. Mr. Robinson, his assistant, replied that Mr. Sword was at Quesnel, and it would take him two or three days to communicate with him. The answer of Mr. Robinson was to the effect that the fishermen differed entirely with the canners, and that the canners themselves were not unanimous, although the majority favoured the suggestion of closing the season. But until he got information from Mr. Sword there would be nothing done.

Mr. EARLE.

I have received a copy of a communication sent by the Fraser River Canners' Association to the minister, in which they refer to what took place the other day. In it the secretary of the association, Mr. Burdis, says that he telegraphed the resolution which I read in the House the other day, to all the representatives of British Columbia. In reply he received a telegram from the hon. member for Westminster saying :

Wire received. Reports here say salmon running unprecedentedly.

To this telegram Mr. Burdis replied :

Positively worst run sockeyes ever experienced. Canneries closed down. Only 180,000 cases up to date. Not a fish has been spawned at Fraser river hatcheries. Unless fishing stopped none will get there and industry dangerously threatened. Please so inform the department and local members.

Mr. Burdis goes on to say :

This morning I was instructed to address the following telegram to the hon. Senator Temple-man:

Referring our wire yesterday. Salmon industry threatened with total extinction. Immediate action necessary. Absolutely no salmon on upper Fraser. Stopping fishing immediately ; only possible remedy. Urge government reply promptly.

The canners are now anxiously awaiting the

receipt of your decision in the premises, and sincerely hope, for the sake of every person concerned, that their request in this connection has been conceded.

Awaiting your esteemed consideration and reply.

Before the Orders of the Day are called it is my great regret, to inform the House of .the death of one of our colleagues, in the person of Mr. Pierre R. Martineau, member for Montmagny, who departed this life yesterday. Mr. Martineau was- a man yet in the prime of life, having reached the age of only a little over forty years. As everybody knows who had the honour of his acquaintance, he had been in poor health for many years, and could perform his duties as a representative of the people only at the price of great personal suffering; which he bore with remarkable patience. His was a most gentle character, as every one knows who had the pleasure of coming in contact with him; and he leaves a memory as a public man which will be held in honour, while amongst his friends his life and character will always be remembered with appreciation. I know that I voice the sentiments of this House when I say that we tender to his family the sincere expression of our sympathy.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

I am sure that we on this side of the House fully concur in what has been said by the right lion. Premier. Thp praise he has bestowed on the memory of our late lamented friend is richly deserved. Mr. Martineau was to us all a great example. Ever since lie became a member of this House he has suffered from a painful disease, but in spite of it he performed his duties wonderfully well. He was a model in that respect. Although an invalid for so long, he was the perfection of courtesy, and those who had dealings with him always found him of even temper and saw him ever with a smile on bis face. To those who did not know Mr. Martineau as well as we do who live in the province of Quebec, I would say that he was known throughout the province as a lawyer of great talent and a man of deep convictions ; and when called upon to express those convictions he had all the eloquence Of sincerity. As I followed the remains of Mr. Martineau this morning, I felt, as we all feel, that the province of Quebec can ill afford to lose sucb men as our late lamented friend.

Mr. GEO. AV. FOWLER (King's, N. B.).

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow tbe example of some of tbe gentlemen who have preceded me and make an apology for speaking upon this question at this late stage of the debate. I do not think that any apology is necessary, for I believe that the discussion that has so far taken place on this most important and momentous question is but a short prelude to that wider and fuller discussion which must take place in the country, when, at last, hon. gentlemen opposite screw their courage to the sticking place, and dissolve the House and go to the country. I regret very much that my lack of familiarity with the language in which the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Behind) spoke last night will make it necessary for me to forego the pleasure of criticising his clever speech. I judge that it was a very clever speech from the enthusiasm with which it was received by his compatriots. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), was particularly enthusiastic in his applause, and, knowing that hon. gentleman's taste, I am satisfied that the speech must have been a very clever one to call forth such plaudits from him. As to the remarks of the hon. gentleman for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart), who spoke last, as he confined himself to a complaint of the freight congestion in his section of the country, and as that section of the country is close to the American boundary line, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that .his best plan if he wishes that congestion relieved, is to support the scheme outlined by the leader of the opposition, rather than that of his own leader, as the government scheme will certainly not touch his section of the country.

Now, Sir, one of the arguments brought against the present scheme that we are discussing is the haste with which the measure has been brought down, that there was not time for due consideration, before this measure was submitted to the House and the country. But the reason given for this haste is that the country is to-day face to face with a crisis. The right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier), in introducing this Bill alleged that the great danger which menaces Canada to-day is the abrogation by the United States of the bonding privilege. But is there any such danger, Mr. Speaker ? Is this not a mere bogey : a figment of the disordered imagination of a man whose brain has become less able to reason sanely ? AVe have had the so-called

Mr. MONK.

privilege for many years, a privilege which lias been to an extent mutually advantageous to Canada and the United States. But, Sir, while we have reaped certain profits from it, is it not a fact that the United States have reaped infinitely greater advantages ? No man can adhere to the fact and say that the advantage is not greatly on the side of the United States. The Americans are a commercial people. In their foreign relations they are largely guided by a due consideration of what shall be best for themselves from a material point of view, and such being the case, there is no international complication in sight of so acute a nature as to render at all likely a recourse on their part to so harsh and unbusinesslike a measure as the abrogation of the bonding agreement between themselves and us. It has been urged that they might do this in order to inflict a loss upon us for some imaginary wrong which they might conceive we had inflicted upon them. The history of the relations between the two countries in the past if they should study It, and I greatly overrate the intelligence of American statesmen if they would not indulge in such research before taking so grave a step, would very shortly convince them of the utter futility of such a step as a means of destroying the commerce of this country. When the Dingley Bill was made law in the neighbouring republic, there were people who prophesied that a deadly blow had been struck at our trade, but the great test of time lias shown such prophesies and fears to have been unfounded. If the bonding privilege were abro- . gated, which country would be the greatest sufferer ? Not Canada. Mr. Speaker, but the United States. The seaport of Portland is practically maintained by the Canadian trade, which passes through it on its way to the markets of Europe. The Canadian export trade through Boston and New York also forms no inconsiderable part of the trade of these two great ocean ports; and the edict which would prevent Canadian goods intended for export abroad seeking an exit through these ports would destroy Portland, and seriously affect Boston and New York. It would be a political boomerang which would injure more the party setting It in motion than that against whom it was directed.

But, Sir, if our railways could no longer carry goods in bond for shipment through American ports would our produce of necessity remain unsold and decaying within our storehouses ? Have we now upon our own soil no railways for the carriage of freight froip the west to the east ? Have we not the Canadian Pacific Railway from Vancouver to Montreal, and tb" IotercoPnial to St. John and Halifax ? If the bonding privileges were taken away we are still in a position to do business at the old stand, and the foundations upon which our trade rests will have received no violent shock.

Indeed, as a matter of fact, we shall then be absolutely sure that the whole volume of Canadian trade will have its outlet through Canadian ports, instead of only a small part as at present. So, Sir, there are two very effective answers to the Premier's question with respect to the danger of the abrogation of the bonding privileges, one being that though the abrogation is, of course, possible, it is yet in view of the history of the past, of the circumstances of the present, and of the outlook for the future absolutely improbable, and the other that our present means of transportation upon our own soil by means of the Canadian Pacific, Canadian Northern, Canada Atlantic, Grand Trunk and Intercolonial Railways, are such that we could still carry our products at no greatly enhanced cost from the extreme west to our own eastern ports.

If the strength of a scheme should be judged by the strength of the arguments adduced to maintain it, and I submit this is a fair test to apply, and if this matter of the bonding privilege is a fair sample of the arguments in favour of this so-called transcontinental line, which terminates at one end in an inland city, then surely it is no abuse of language to say that a madder or more foolish national project was never devised by any government, however imbecile, in any country, however misgoverned. What could have been the object of the right lion, gentleman in bringing forward so absurd an argument ? The hon. gentleman, I understand, has made it a boast, or has at least on former occasions confessed, that he has a very imperfect knowledge of business, and I am sure, Sir, that after this he will find no one able to put so great a strain upon his conscience as out of mere politeness to contradict him upon the point. What, I say, could- 'have been his object in bringing forward so absurd an argument as that founded upon the wholly imaginary danger of the abrogation of the bonding privileges ? Well, Sir, I do not think the answer is far to seek. The right hon. gentleman knows full well, for he has on former occasions felt the force of it, the great strength of the national feeling of Canada, and he plays the unworthy part of endeavouring to stampede the people of this country to his absurd scheme by creating this abrogation bogey, and thus arousing the prejudices of the people and blinding them to the real nature of the Cox contract. Why, Sir, where is all the great friendship that he and his party have in days past professed for the great American nation ? Is this the only tangible result we are to have from that much heralded international conference, which we were told was going to smooth away forever any friction which had been created by the unwise policy of the Tory government toward our southern neighbours ?

We have been told, Sir, that this conference will shortly meet again. Will its ' 321}

deliberations likely be assisted and a desirable end made more possible of attainment by reason of the Premier of Canada having solemnly declared in parliament that the nation with which he is endeavouring to treat on amicable terms, is subject to fits of frenzy and on occasion performs acts which if it were an individual would lead to confinement in a lunatic asylum ? And, Sir, in this connection behold the further marvel of that former staunch friend and admirer of American institutions, that hon. gentleman, who in his intense desire that friendship should be maintained by this country with the United States, advised retaliatory action on the part of the United States to force us into their arms, and who thereby did not earn the esteem of patriotic Canadians-behold, Sir, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) arising in his place and in the most pious and apparently heartfelt manner, solemnly saying ' Amen ' to all that his chief had said in depreciation of the American people. There is a French proverb which says under certain circumstances, 1 search for the woman.' Now, Sir, the venerable age and general reputation of the hon. member for North Norfolk would in his case render a search of that sort unnecessary, but neither would preclude us from looking for a motive for so sudden a volte-face. May it not he found, Sir, in the fact that the hon. gentleman realizes the administrative weakness and utter unfitness of some of the members of the cabinet from Ontario, and with characteristic modesty imagines that lie tS just the man for Galway, and so resolves, in a mad endeavour to gratify an ambition which has always been with him, but which he until lately saw no chance to gratify, to go back on all his former professions, forsake his 'American friends, and swallow, holus-bolus, a scheme which no longer ago than last May he most roundly denounced. Sir, if these hon. gentlemen, or if this government have information known to themselves alone that there is a real danger whether near or remote of the bonding agreement being abrogated by the United States, I submit it is their bounden duty to' give that information to the House and country, for, Sir, with what information is now before us, and under a fair and reasonable consideration of the circumstances, weighing the advantages reaped by the United States against the advantages enjoyed by Canada, no sensible man can honestly believe that there exists now the slightest probability of such abrogation. But, Sir, they do not give us such information, because they have no such information, and the spectre which has been raised is only a poor imitation ghost that would not frighten a school boy. Yet the Premier says if it were not for this question he would not bring this scheme before parliament, thus showing upon what a poor and baseless foundation this costly superstructure rests.

Another argument put forward to show the desirability of the railway scheme is that it will make possible the settlement of the northern part of Ontario and Quebec, and the central part of New Brunswick. It has been gravely asserted by bon. gentlemen whose ignorance of the subject is most profound that settlement in New Brunswick is confined to the coast line, and a narrow strip along the St. John river, and that the building of this railway to Moncton will open up a most valuable agricultural territory. One would think, Sir, to listen to these gentlemen that New Brunswick had only just been discovered and that the aboriginal Indian still roamed the wilds of that province, and the white man had not yet ventured out of sound of the sea waves. Sir, this gloomy picture of the condition of the settlement in New Brunswick is not borne out by the facts. It is true that we have some forest in that country, and, Sir, it is a valuable forest. It differs from the forests of Ontario inasmuch as it renews itself, if properly cut and managed, and is a most valuable asset of that province. It is true, Sir, that much of the land covered by the forest of which I speak, would make, if cleared, good farming land, but, Sir, while cleared farms with good buildings upon them can be bought for very little, if any more than the initial cost of the buildings, to say nothing of the improvements, and although such farms are situate close to school and church and neighbours, and all that goes to make life worth living, you will not find the young man of New Brunswick anxious to go into the green woods and do pioneer work in hewing out a farm from the forest, when to do so he has to separate himself from those social conditions which add pleasure and zest to life. And, Sir, in selecting the route through New Brunswick, the government have chosen one, which for the most part, lies through the most rugged, hilly and broken part of the whole province, a route that must be greatly lengthened, from the estimate given by the hon. gen-[DOT] tlemen supporting these resolutions by reason of the detours made necessary by the numerous hills, lakes and ravines which are found in that part of the country. A glance at the map will show that the route proposed follows what is practically the watershed dividing the streams flowing south-west from those flowing north-east and east, and the most casual observer will perceive what is the fact, that this is no route for a trunk road which is expected to be a competitor for the grain trade between the west and the east. That this is true is amply borne out by the reports of the engineer, Sir Sandford Fleming, who tried to get a central route through New Brunswick for the Intercolonial Railway which would satisfy the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and who finally reported in favour of the route by the valley of the Mr. FOWLER.

St. John and the shore route along the coast. The influence of Hon. Peter Mitchell and the Nova Scotia members backed by the advice of the imperial authorities, prevailed, and the Intercolonial Railway was built by its present route. There is one thing which certainly commends itself to any man who has travelled on the Intercolonial Railway from Campbeilton to Moncton, and that is its easy grades. Sir, I believe that by reason of the superiority of the grades on the Intercolonial Railway between Montreal and St. John over the grades on the Canadian Pacific Railway between the same points, and the superior condition of the road-bed of the Intercolonial Railway as well, freight, notwithstanding the considerably longer distance, can be hauled as cheaply by the Intercolonial Railway as by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There are upon a portion of the Intercolonial Railway from Campbeilton to Moncton, thirty-mile stretches of road of a dead level, and freight trains on that portion of the road can make faster time than express trains will ever be able to make over the Grand Trunk Railway, if it is ever built over the proposed central route.

In other parts of the Intercolonial Railway where there are heavy grades, a comparatively small expenditure of money will reduce them, and it has been estimated by competent engineers that a wery considerable shortening of the line of the present Intercolonial Railway could be made by a cut-off from Riviere du Loup to Matapedla, effecting a saving of at least sixty-five miles at a cost, on account of the character of the country there, not exceeding $2,000,000, and the grades upon the whole of the Intercolonial Railway could be reduced to a proper standard for not more than a $1,000,000 more. So, Sir, $3,000,000 expended on the Intercolonial Railway would give you a road, within at the outside limit, twenty-three miles as short as the best estimate you have of the proposed route and infinitely better as to gradients than the road upon which this reckless government, for the benefit of a few financiers, who wish to recoup themselves for the losses incurred by wild stock speculation, at the expense of the public, propose to expend a sum which at the lowest possible estimate will exceed $15,000,000 and will, when built, undoubtedly parallel the road now owned and operated by the government and upon which $70,000,000 of the money of this country has been expended. .

Now Sir, the Grand Trunk Pacific people did not ask for this eastern division in their original scheme presented to parliament at the opening of this session, nor would they accept it now if they had to build and finance it even with the same proportionate government guarantee, as they have in the case of the prairie section. But of course, if the government pays for the.

building of the road and gives them the chance under the guise of a construction company to make a few millions in the building, they would be extremely foolisli not to accept so generous a gift. If the government were really in earnest about getting the shortest route to an ocean port, they would follow the valley route to St. John and the course they have adopted shows that it is a political and not a commercial road they propose to build.

As to the character of the route from Quebec to Winnipeg. I am not in a position to speak with such certainty as, unfortunately owing to the lack of exploration and survey in tliat quarter, there is no data in existence, or at least, to which I can flud access, upon which I can base a just opinion. And this fact, Sir, is one of the grounds upon which I object to this project. Before the country is committed to a scheme which involves the building of 1,400 miles of railway, there should be positive information given to this House, and the country to show that the route selected is a feasible one, and that the railway, when constructed, can be made by reason of gradients and curvatures suitable for a great trunk road. Now, Sir, up to a few days ago, we had nothing but politicians' guesses for information with respect to that country. At length, however, we were given a glimpse behind the veil and were permitted to see where the Premier got the information which convinced him that that northern region beyond the height of land was really a modern Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey, and only awaiting the hand of the husbandman to blossom into a veritable agricultural paradise.

An lion. MEMBER. Hear, hear.

Mr. FOWLER.

What is the matter with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) V

Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

Air. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been reading his speech from the commencement of it and the question which occurred to my mind was who had prepared it for him. 1 desire, as that hon. gentleman has called attention to me, Mr. Speaker, to call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is reading his speech.