Mr. SPROULE.

I think that the ^ gentleman does not fully appreciate ^ right of hon. members to ask questions -the object they have in view.

non-

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

If npers friend only speaks of the rights of mei l]jlS of this House, I must tell him that m- oJl not the right at this moment to spe< this question.

Mr. SPROULE.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Mr. SPROULE.

I only ask-

Order. >

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny).

In rising, Mr. Speaker, to speak on tills question, I do not think it necessary, as most of the members of the opposition seem to do, to review every detail of the contract which was adopted last year. I only' intend making a few remarks, as a representative from the province of Quebec, to answer the call advanced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). As has been said already, there is no use for our friends who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, trying to conceal their disappointment over the amendments made to the Transcontinental Act this session. They seemed to expect that the concessions made would be so intolerable to the country as to render the construction of the railway impossible. Finding that this is not the case, finding that the amendments do not change the nature of the contract but merely some of its accidents, they have resorted to the tactics of emptying all the vials of their wrath on the eastern section. They seem to think, most of them with great joy, that in these new amendments lies the capital condemnation of that part of the railway which the government is to construct. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I share that view. On the contrary I am of the opinion that these amendments will assure in the near future the construction of that part of the railway. I will surprise, no doubt, many on the other side in stating that I am a believer in the theory that the eastern division of the road is as necessary to the country as the western part of it, and, Sir, I have strengthened that conviction from speeches I have heard on the other side of the House. Let us take for instance the declaration of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) who, after having praised heaven that the government would not build that part of the railway made the following statement, which, coupi-

Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

This is quite a different picture from that which was painted for us by the visionaries of 200 years ago. As for the section between Quebec and Moncton, the work there is already well begun. There are many parishes of hardy men settled in the beautiful forest many years ago, who are now awaiting with anxiety our decision to build this great transcontinental railway which will bring them once more into relations with the advanced civilization they have left behind for the welfare of this Canada of ours. The line proposed there was recommended in 1864 for the building of the Intercolonial Railway. Some one has complained that it would parallel the Intercolonial. Well, I say that the proposed railway between Quebec and Moncton will no more parallel the Intercolonial than the Intercolonial at the time of its construction paralleled the St. Lawrence, or than the Canadian Pacific Railway to Ottawa now parallels the Canada Atlantic Railway. This project is a great thing for Quebec and the maritime provinces, and I think this was admitted last year by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), as it was this year by the leader of the opppsi-tion. Last night again it was admitted by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gour-ley). He said, speaking in that energetic manner of his :

I have said that the Quebec-Moncton section - must be built, and I wish to put myself thoroughly on record on that score. I am for that section from beginning to end.

I maintain that what is good for Quebec and the maritime provinces is good for the Dominion, because what helps' the west will help the general prosperity 'of Canada. The United States have taken for their device ' E pluribus unum.' That motto may rightly be applied to the policy of this government, for they are endeavouring to bring the scattered units of British North America nearer together and to consolidate the confederation.

As for the amendments presented to the House modifying the contract of last year, they have been so thoroughly and so well explained by the members on the government side of the House that I shall not speak at any length in regard to them. Let me however quote from ' La Presse,' a Conservative paper of Montreal, which has taken a very frank view of the situation, in a long article of which I will read only a few lines :

Sometimes the part of the opposition is an ungrateful one, because those whom it is entrusted to do not seem to have a clear sense of it. It is unreasonable to believe that thirteen or fourteen members of a committee, the pick and choice of the people's representatives kept in power by the will of the people, must constantly err In every way. There is a certain measure of common sense with which every human being is endowed. Would fate blind those whom Providence has entrusted for a Mr. A. LAVERGNE.

[DOT] affair*

while with the administration of public a ajj-in which it has a direct interest since * ,

mitted that : 'All powers proceed from d This year, it is the Grand Trunk which ^ in and hinds itself ; and Mr. Borden thinks this new contract does away ' with many , guarantees relied upon by the governme"

Mr. Borden's amendment, without denying i0 the railway is necessary, asks the c0Yn wit* meet the whole expenditure in connection the building of the road and to run a of risks. It is an emphatic plea in faV gVef! government ownership. Heretofore, country

Mr. TAYLOR.

Mr. Speaker,f the jV can get order on the other side o gpid1-* . With half a dozen hon. gentlefflt)lC n up and talking, we cannot ne< member who is speaking.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

Mr. CLANCY.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Hear, hear.

I assume that, naturally, hat would bo the view of the hon. gentle-nan, but I regret to say that he is seriously it variance with his leader. I regret to say

that that is not at all the view which his leader took upon introducing this measure to the House in the first instance, and X regret to say that since then he has nol retracted one single word that he uttered on that occasion. I fully agree, X think Canada generally agrees, and I think the members of the House, when they are in their sober senses, will agree with hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that we cannot afford to spend a dollar on what is known as a national transcontinental railway that would be weakened by any consideration, locally or otherwise, that would take away one particle from the strength or usefulness of that railway. But has that been the case ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) knows perfectly well that while he made a valuable statement to the House he could not resist the temptation to go to the different localities and say that these particular localities had not been served, to say, for instance, that the city of Montreal was getting more than its share as compared with the city of Quebec, and that the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway had been shifted from Quebec to Montreal. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) advanced these as reasons why the city of Quebec should have special consideration, in order to atone for the sins that had been committed against it in the past, and the atonement was to be the building of this railway to the city of Quebec. I hope that I have not misunderstood or misrepresented the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux).

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Would my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) permit me to explain something which perhaps he did not catch the other day ? WheVi my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was speaking he alluded to the fact that this railway would not go to Montreal, and added that everything was for the city of Quebec. Yesterday. I answered that statement. I said that I was myself a citizen of Montreal, although I represented in this House one of the counties of Quebec, but that as a citizen of Montreal I could not complain on behalf of my native city ; that Montreal had been well treated by the government and that if, in order to make of this route a short route it must pass by way of Quebec, and Montreal must not complain. That was the thread of my argument.

Mr. CLANCY.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

But in winter.