It will let somebody else come in and build. They have no hope or faith that the Canadian Pacific Railway will build the road. This charter has been in existence for twenty-nine years, and the Canadian Pacific Railway have had it for sixteen years. As the people have no hope that the Canadian Pacific Railway will build, they ask that somebody else be given a chance to do so. They a* suffering, and they are the people whose voice should be heard, and not the voice of the railway company. That is what it comes down to. Let the people themselves judge whether they want the charter or not; they are the ones who will suffer, if, by cancelling this charter, the road is not built. And they ask that that be done. For once, let us do what the people along the line ask should be done.
If we do what the hon, member (Air. Turriff) asks the House to do, the result would be absolutely absurd It would Tepeal the charter under which a road has been built, and is being operated.
Air. TURRIFF I stated that there was a mix-up, and that all that was wanted was to cancel the motion as relating to that part from Sheho to Prince Albert, but not the whole line from Yorkton to Prince Albert.
That is not the amendment. Its effect would be to cancel the whole line. I see by the Canadian Pacific Railway report that a portion of the line has been built. The Alanitoba North Western from Portage la Prairie to Yorkton, 229-9 miles has been built. From Yorkton to. Sheho, 42-2 miles, has been built. If this amendment passes, it would repeal the Act which gave authority to build that line and run it. The hon. member must see how absurd this amendment would be if carried. I see it stated here also that the line from Sheho to Lanigan is under construction, 82-8 miles. Part of the road has been built and running for years, and we are asked to repeal the law under which it is operated. It must be obvious that that is something that cannot be entertained.
The hon. member (Mr. Turriff) has spoken of the people wishing to have this charter not renewed. Have the people petitioned this House to that
effect? Another question: Is there a bunch ol capitalists standing by Teady to build this road if the Canadian Pacific Railway loses this charter? These are important questions. It is all right enough to make a great talk before the committee for the benefit of the people, to talk about ' the wishes of the people,' and so on, but the fact remains that no independent company, no company outside the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific has built ten miles of road in that western country in the last ten years. If the big concerns desire to build twenty lines into Prince Albert or any other place, why should this House stand in the way? The*Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in discussing the National Transcontinental-the government part of the line -and the government policy in relation to the building of roads, declared that it was a competitive policy, not a pioneer policy. Prom the standpoint of competition, it would be advisable for Prince Albert to have several roads. I quite approve of the stand taken by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the amendment is irregular. In addition I do not think that it is in the interest of the people of the west that any charter held by a bona fide railway building company should be struck out.
As far as notice of the intention of the company to apply for a renewal of the charter is concerns, frequently this notice is very limited, but I have had information that within a few days a very largely signed petition from the farmers all along the line would be forwarded to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and to myself protesting against a renewal of the charter unless the Canadian Pacific Railway guarantee to go on and build the road.
In so far as this amendment not being in proper form to attain the result I desire is concerned, I have just to say that the clause referred to, in my motion, subsection A of section 9 of chapter 52 of the statutes of 1893, reads as follows:
An extension of the main line from the present terminus thereof at Yorkton, in a northwesterly direction to a point at or near Prince-Albert, on the north bank of the Saskatchewan river.
I am not going to say definitely-hon. gentlemen may say the opposite-that under Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
this charter the line has been extended to Sheho. That may be the case but I have this to say that in so far as using the charter for the purpose for which the charter is intended is concerned, it has not been used in that way from Yorkton to Prince Albert. No line has been built in the direction of Prince Albert from Yorkton. This line has already been extended westward showing what the original object of the Canadian Pacific Railway in so far as they _ have extended the line from Sheho practically to the town of Lanigan. It will be completed to Lanigan before the shipping season commences. The extension from Sheho is an extension in a westerly and not in a northwesterly direction. I do not care under what charter they built this particular line to Sheho; it does not affect the argument at all in favour of the amendment which seeks to cancel the charter that gives them power to build in a northwesterly direction to Prince Albert.
I do not like the members of this House to be misled by statements which must have that result. For instance, the first statement made is that this company do not intend to build this road. I do not know where hon. gentlemen get that information. I cannot get it. I assume that when they are asking for a renewal of this charter they do intend to build within two years.