[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Western Assurance Company.-Air. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 125) respecting the British American Assurance	Company.-Mr.	Mc-
Carthy.
Mr. FOWLER.: 



QUESTIONS.


Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Did the government, or any official of the government, request the late contractor for carrying the mails between Tignish, Nail Pond, Lot 1, and Sea Cow Pond, Prince county, P.E.I., to continue his contract for another term of four years at the former rates?
2.	Did the contractor, Mr. Keough, agree to do this? If so, why was he not allowed to continue?
3.	Were tenders invited within the last three years for carrying said mails?
4.	What amount per trip was paid Mr. Keough, the late contractor, and what amount per trip is being paid the present contractor?
5.	Does the present contractor receive any additional sum per annum for carrying the mails on said route?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: The post office inspector at Charlottetown, in submitting to the department the contract which expired on the 30th September, 1S99, reported that the contractor for the Sea Cow Pond and Tignish mail service was willing to renew his contract, so that it might be presumed that he had inquired of the contractor if he would be prepared to accept the contract for another term.
Tenders were not invited for the service, but a contract was made with Mr. Thomas Nelligan, at the same rate, that is $35 a year. In January last, the contractor applied for an increase of pay, and the matter having been referred to the inspector, that official reported that the rate was lower than any other rate paid in his district, and would not be called a fair compensation. The inspector suggested that $50 a year be paid, and the department accepted the recommendation. The service is semi-weekly, over a route 7i miles in length.


NAPANEE POSTMASTERSHIP.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Has Mr. Gilbert Bogart, postmaster of the town of Napanee, resigned? If so, when?
2.	Who has been appointed to fill the vacancy?
3.	When was the appointment made, and by whom recommended?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Mr. Gilbert Bogart, postmaster of Napanee, Ont., resigned that office on the 11th instant.
2.	Dr. R. A. Leonard, of Napanee, has been appointed to the vacancy.
3.	The appointment was made on the 16th instant, and the Postmaster General assumes all responsibility in connection therewith.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION EXPENSES.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the amount allowed to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners for attendance at meetings?
2.	What is the total amount paid to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners for such attendance during the past year?
3.	What is the total amount expended by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners during the past year for travelling and other expenses?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	Five dollars is allowed each commissioner for attendance at each meeting.
2.	The sum of $5,835 was allowed them for attendance at meetings during the year 1900.
3.	The sum of $375.09.



PENSIONS FOR THE PERMANENT MILITIA FORCE.

The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W Borden) moved :: That the House do, to-morrow, go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :-
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that pensions or gratuities may be granted to staff officers and officers and men of the permanent militia force, and to the widows and children of such officers, as follows :-
To an officer compulsorily retired, for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, after twenty years' service, or retiring voluntarily after thirty-five years' service, a pension not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowances of his rank or appointment at the time of his retirement lor each year of service; service beyond thirty-five years not being reckoned.
To an officer who retires voluntarily after twenty-five years, but less than thirty-five years' service, a pension not exceeding one-fortieth of such pay and allowances for each year of service.
Towards making good the said pensions, 5 per cent to be deducted from the pay of officers.
To an officer retiring on account of infirmity or retired to promote efficiency or economy in the service, a gratuity not exceeding one month's pay for each year's service; if retiring on account of injury received in the discharge of his duties, a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay for every two years' service.
To a non-commissioned officer or militiaman, if he has served fifteen but less than twenty-one years, a pension equal to one-fiftieth of his annual pay for every year of service; for twenty-one and less than twenty-five years' service, twenty-fiftieths, and in addition two-fiftieths for every year over twenty; for twenty-five years, thirty-fiftieths, and in addition one-fiftieth for every year over twenty-five, not exceeding, however, two-thirds of his average annual pay, exclusive of extra pay or allowances during the three years preceding his retirement.
To the widow and children of an officer who had served twenty years and was at the time of his death on full pay or in receipt of a pension, the following pension or allowance : in the

case of a colonel, $500 to the widow and $80 to each child; lieutenant-colonel, a pension of $450 to widow and a yearly allowance of $80 to each child; major, $350 to widow and $70 to each child; captain, $250 to widow and $65 to each child; lieutenant or second lieutenant, $200 to widow and $50 to each child: warrant officer, $100 to widow and $25 to each child; the amount to children to be doubled if they are motherless and in need; no allowance to be granted to a son aged eighteen or a daughter aged twenty-one; and the total amount granted to the family of an officer in one year not to exceed the amount of the pension attached to his rank.
He said : I beg to say that this motion has received the assent of the Crown.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY (East Prince).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very important matter, and I shall conclude with a motion in order to put myself in order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I may call the hon. member's attention to this. I understand that in a few moments a motion will be made for the House to go into Committee of Supply ; and instead of moving the adjournment of the House, perhaps it would be more regular for the hon. member to wait until that motion is made, when he will have an opportunity to bring up the question he wants to bring before the House.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: I would like to call attention to the fact that the return moved for on the 4th of March, for copies of papers in connection with the arbitration between the Pictou Harbour Commissioners and the Dominion government, has not been brought down.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will make a note of it.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I would like to ask the government whether the 24th of 51 ay is to be a public holiday.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is a Bill before the House.


Mr. MAC  LEAN@: The public would like to know whether the government will let the Bill go through.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The public will be informed in due time.



SUPPLY-MAIL SERVICE. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. IV. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['Order.']
Mr. ALFRED  A.@: LEFURGEY (East Prince, P.E.I.) Reference was made, Mr. Speaker, some time during the winter, to the unsatisfactory mail service between Prince Edward Island and the rest of the


Mr. P.ORDEN (King's).: Dominion, and we hoped that on the opening of navigation this matter would be remedied by the department, and every facility provided for a 'satisfactory service. To our great disappointment, however, the much needed improvement has not taken place. Navigation has been opened since three or four weeks, and the regular summer steamer is plying between Charlottetown and Pictou, and the government steamer Stanley came to Summerside harbour about the 4th of April and made one trip to Pictou, but since then there has been no steam communication between Summerside and Pictou. or between Summerside and Cape Tor-mentine, while the Stanley could have been making three trips daily, if necessary, between the two latter places. We have two-government boats available, but they are laid up at Charlottetown or Pictou, and the Charlottetown Steam Navigation Company steamer, plying between Charlottetown and Pictou, is not even provided with a mail clerk, so that, at present, when navigation is opened, the whole length and breadth of tlie island, we are receiving our western mail twenty-four hours later than we were accustomed to receive it during the winter season. During the winter we had on both the government boats mail clerks who assorted the western mails and sent them out by special train to Charlottetown and the west, and that system gave some satisfaction. In the summer, when the mails come from Boston and Montreal, we have on the boat plying between Point de Chene and Summerside, a mail clerk, and the mails are forwarded on the arrival of the boat by special train east, and west, the people of the eastern end of . the island thus receiving a fair measure of justice. But, at present, while the mails are arriving at Charlottetown, the western people do not even get the benefit of a mail clerk on board the boat, or a special train to forward their mails. The department may not be able to realize the conditions of affairs, but I am sure that the hon. Minister of Marine is cognizant of the whole situation, and he. at least, should look after the interests of the west end of the island as well as the east. But, apparently the hon. gentleman is so wrapped up in the eastern end that he is afraid to make a move, or probably he does not expect to contest an election in the island again. This is the time of year when the people, after having been housed up six months, should have an opportunity of communicating with the outside world, and getting in reports and carrying on correspondence with the view of finding a market for their products. But, instead of greater despatch in the mail service at this time, our mails are twenty-four hours longer in reaching us, in the western part of the island, than during the winter. In the summer time-and we should have a summer service now-the mails are received from Montreal and Boston in the space of twenty-

four hours.	Surely it is not asking too
much that to-day we should at least hare a forty-eight hour service instead of having a service by which it takes a letter four or five days to reach Montreal or Ottawa. 1 have in my possession a letter which was mailed in Summerside on the 13tli, and only reached me this morning, and papers printed in Summerside and mailed on the 13th, which also reached here by this morning's mail. I wish to take the liberty of ; reading a few extracts from this paper! the Pioneer, which supports the hon. the Min- 1 ister of Marine and this government in everything they consider it necessarv to do :
Mr. Editor :
Sir,-With the summer boats making regular trips between Pictou and Charlottetown there should be no reason for kicking on account of irregularity in receiving the mails. The twentieth century is now fully installed, still the mails that reach Charlottetown by boat on the after- I noon of one day are only received at Summerside about noon of the next. Even were the afternoon train delayed for a short time till the steamer's arrival, it would not be too great a concession, for I am informed that the boat sometimes arrives within half an hour of the departure of the train. What, is the matter anyhow? Is the steamer too tardy in arriving from Pictou, is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries taking sweet revenge on Prince county people for having elected an opposition man, or is the Charlottetown postmaster too long In office, and on that account in need of an outing? An impression of that kind, has long been abroad.
A boat running between Summerside and the Cape could, during the past week, make three trips a day if necessary, and so give Charlottetown people their mails earlier than at present, I but our neighbours of the provincial hub desire no speedy arrangements, for when both winter steamers were fast in the ice with mails on board, they offered a resolution that as a special favour the boats be not moved. It is bad enough to put up with irregular mails during winter without making the nuisance permanent. Give us a change for the best.



[Stage Direction]
Summerside, April 12, 1901.
Let me now read for the benefit of the lion, the Minister of Marine the editorial of this Liberal organ on this important matter :
Referring to ' Kicker's ' letter in this issue, it must be admitted that our mail arrangements are far from satisfactory, and an unfortunate feature of the situation is that the opening of navigation between Charlottetown and Pictou instead of Improving has made matters worse than when the mails were carried by the winter boats via Georgetown. When brought by the latter route, mails, with only an occasional exception, were received in Summerside on day of arrival, now they reach here by noon of the following day. Inquiry relative to the matter shows that the Princess, now carrying the mails, arrives in Charlottetown about 7.15 p.m., and that the mails are assorted about 9 (why there is so much delay in assorting we are not informed). The train for the west leaves Charlottetown at 4.10, and if held for the mails would
not arrive here before midnight. It appears that there is no remedy for this grievance but to ' grin and bear it ' until tbe direct route between Point du Cbene and Summerside is open, which it is hoped will be in a day or two. It is unfortunate, however, that such a condition could exist with two boats available for the carrying of mails, and it looks as if the claims of the province outside of the city of Chai-lotte-town are not given the consideration they should have. That a mail received at Charlottetown early in the evening should not be received at Alberton and Tignish before the following night is scarcely consistent with twentieth century methods. The summer mail via Point du Chene and Summerside arrives at the latter port much iater than 7.10, and is immediately forwarded east and west by special trains. We think that a like consideration for the re3t of the province should be observed when the mails arrive at Charlottetown, and we hope that hereafter a different system will be adopted, and the present cause of complaint and dissatisfaction will not be repeated.
Since the above was written a communication to tbe board of trade here from Mr. Brecken, post office inspector, states that the assorting of the mails coming from the Princess is done at Charlottetown, and requires two hours. Where have the mail clerks gone? Why should Prince county and the rest of the province outside of Charlottetown be obliged to wait twenty-four hours or so on account of there being no mail clerk on board the Princess as there is on the iNforthumberland in summer, and in winter on the Stanley and Minto. Letters or newspapers mailed in Montreal on the 9th are received at Summerside at noon on the 12th, and at Tignish about 7 o'clock in the evening. This can and ought to be remedied at once by having a mail clerk on board the Princess, and either holding the 4.10 train until arrival of the boat, or putting on a special. The interests of the whole western part of the province demand this.
Now, that is from a Liberal organ, ana it shows that the dissatisfaction is not confined to one section of the people in the western part of the island, but is widespread throughout that portion of the province. I think there must he very grave fault in the management of the Post Office Department when these tilings must be brought up periodically in this House. I think it is a mere parody upon administration. when we must come here and in this House continually harp upon this matter of securing fair treatment, when the facilities are always at hand to give us a fair service. I trust the department will take the matter up at once and see to it. that the people of the western part of the island receive better attention.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Before making any observations on tbe transportation question


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Would tlie lion, gentleman allow me to bring to tlie attention of the House a matter which I should have spoken of on the Orders of

the Day being called. We have had no meeting of the Public Accounts Committee this week. A meeting is called for tomorrow, but it is for Hi o'clock, so that all the time at the service of the committee for this week will be one hour. I have more than once pointed out to the hon. leader of the government (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that it is extremely desirable, in fact I think it is necessary that we should have two regular meetings of the committee every week and that they should begin not later than 11 o'clock. We consented to give up one meeting last week or the week before to suit the convenience of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). On that occasion it was promised, as I understand, that an additional meeting should be called in view of this concession. Not only has not that promise been carried out, but, as I have already pointed out, we have only one meeting this week, and that one to begin at 12 o'clock.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I understand that three committees are called to meet to-morrow, Banking and Commerce, Private Bills, and Public Accounts. I do not see how it is possible to call the Public Accounts Committee at an earlier hour under such circumstances.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I think the right hon. First Minister will concede that the Public Accounts Committee should not be put last upon the list. The Minister of Public Works promised that we should have au earlier meeting. He will remember tlie occasion on which that statement was made. Of course, it was made privately. He assured us that, in consequence of taking a day from us, he would give us another meeting, so that the number of meetings should not be lessened.


MAIL SERVICE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Before saying a few words upon the question which occupied the attention of the House yesterday, the important question of transportation, I desire to say, in reply to my hon. friend for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey), that the difficulties, either real or imaginary, which he has brought to the attention of the House, have been very much magnified by him. They are due to the fact that matters are in a transition state from the winter to the summer service. The difficulty is due to the fact that Point Du Cliene harbour is not clear of ice, and that the summer boat, though it tried, was unable to get in. Summerside harbour was in a similar condition, but I sent the Stanley and, as there was depth of water in the harbour to take her in, she broke the ice outside and entered the harbour. But the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Stanley could not enter Point Du Cliene harbour because there was not sufficient depth of water. Therefore, as my hon. friend will see, there cannot be the usual daily trip from Summerside to Point Du Cliene until the ice leaves Point Du Chene harbour. The matter concerning the Post Office Department to which the hon. gentleman lias referred, I will bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. But the hon. gentleman knows very well-there is no use in trying to impose upon the House-that never since Prince Edward Island was an island have the mail services been so satisfactory as they have been this winter. Every day the mail went over, except about ten days when both boats were frozen in the ice; and everybody is loud in praise of the manner in which the Post Office Department has managed the service during this year and the manner in which the winter communication has been maintained.


Mr. WALLACE.: How many days was the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) himself detained in the ice ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That was the time of which I spoke, and that was the only detention this winter. And I presume the hon. gentleman does not hold me or the government responsible for the fact that the steamers were not able to break through the ice for ten days.


Mr. HACKETT.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am not holding the minister responsible. I was asking for information.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: With the exception that I have spoken of. the mail service has been maintained daily. Now, on the main question before tlie House-


Edward Hackett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word upon the question brought up by my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey)


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member (Mr. Hackett) will be allowed to speak after the hon. member (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) who lias the floor lias finished.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. member for East Prince was allowed, as a matter of favour to take precedence over the few remarks I have to make on tlie transportation question. He has made his complaint, and I have explained the matter to him. If the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) has further complaints to make, he can make them when this debate is finished.


Edward Hackett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a word


IS, 1901
[Stage Direction]
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.



SUPPLY-THE TRAN SPORT ATION QUESTION.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE ANI) FISHERIES. On this question of transportation, 1 ruay say that I am not going to make a lengthy speech, nor am I going to make any remarks upon the main or general transportation question. As to whether tlip canal system or the railway system is the better one, I do not intend to speak. 1 recognize fully the importance of this question. but 1 am not satisfied that we have sufficient data before us either to discuss it intelligently or to come to a conclusion upon it. Nor am I going to say anything about the rival claims of the cities of Montreal and Quebec. I could not help but be struck by and appreciate the statements made by some hon. gentlemen yesterday as to the magnificent natural advantages which the harbour of Quebec possesses; and I do think that those natural advantages have not yet had that fair play in the carrying trade of the country which I believe they will have in a short time to come. But, as between the two cities, I dare say the question will be discussed with better knowledge and information by other hon. gentlemen. 1 propose rather to say a few words in reply to my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike). Now, I do not think, if that hon. gentleman will permit me to Say so, that he strengthened his case very much by the repeated assertions-in' which he was followed by some other hon. gentlemen-that not a dollar has been spent by this country on the harbour of Montreal. The inference that a reader of the speech would draw is that the enormous expenditure which has taken place for many years back in the River St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec has been borne by the city of Montreal. As a matter of fact-and we may as well deal with the facts as they are-a sum of nearly $6,000,000, the exact sum being $5,019,320, has been spent by this country In deepening the channel between Montreal and Quebec. I am not complaining of it in the least, I have not a word of criticism to offer upon that expenditure: I merely desire'that the facts should remain upon record. and that we should not becloud the question by assuming that this very large expenditure has either been borne in whole or in part by the city of . Montreal. As a matter of fact, it has been borne almost entirely by the Dominion of Canada.
Now, I do not think my hon. friend has strengthened his case either by the extreme manner in which he placed it before the House. If his statements are literally true, if the lighthouse service and the buoy service of this Dominion in the River St. Lawrence and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are the old, antiquated, worn-out systems that !he says they are, then I think he has fully justified the claim of the underwriters to charge these ruinous prices for insurance to the city of Montreal. The hon. gentleman says, Hear, hear ; therefore, I assume he still adheres to the extreme statements he made. Now let me call his attention to, the fact that I think he has accepted many of these statements without proper consideration or research. For instance, he mentions a matter about which I have personal knowledge. He stated among other things that the lighthouse service in Prince Edward Island is essentially bad, in fact, that all the lights, to use his own language, 'All the lighthouses there were no good.' Now,
I know the lighthouses of Prince Edward Island, I have known them very well for thirty or forty years ; I have gone in and out. of the harbours by day and by night; I have seen all the lighthouses there, I have witnessed them, sailed past them, sailed into the harbour and sailed out of the harbour, conversed with the captains who were daily leaving these harbours by night ; I know the captains of the ferry boats that travel between Pictou and Charlottetown and between Summerside and Point Du Chene, who travel that route every day and night, who pass these lighthouses at ten or twelve o'clock at night, and I never heard a sea captain in my life complain of the lights in Prince Edward Island. There has never been a single complaint filed in the office of the Marine and Fisheries Department against one Prince Edward Island light. I know the lights are good, I know there is no foundation for the charge ; therefore I simply say to my hon. friend that if the other statements he has made are so utterly wide of the mark as those he lias quoted from this book with reference to the lights in Prince Edward Island, I would be inclined to discount his statements very largely.
Now, the hon. gentleman has alleged that the lighthouse system which we have in operation is old and antiquated
['The estimates of the Minister of Public Works, or the estimates of the Minister of Militia.']
Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman permit me a question ? Is it correct, as stated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence division, that the lights in Prince Edward Island are all fixed and are red lights ?	*


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, it is not. The lights in Prince Edward Island are not red lights, not at all. The light at Point Prim is not a red light ; the light at Charlottetown is not a red light ; the light at Sea Cow Head is not a red light. I could go over every one of the lights, I know they are not red. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken ; and I repeat again, so that there may be no misunderstanding, that there has never been a complaint filed in the department against

one of the lights ill that island ; and I know of my own knowledge that the lights are effective and good, and up-to-date. Although I have gone in and out, and talked to all the captains of the steamboats and sailing vessels time and again, I never heard one of them hint that I should devote myself to the improvement of these lights. Therefore, I say that these statements, so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, and according to my own knowledge, are not correct.
Now, the hon. gentleman has made a very serious charge, and if it is true it deserves the prompt and immediate attention of my department, that is, that the lighthouse system of this Dominion, so far as the St. Lawrence route is concerned, is old and antiquated. Now, I propose to ask the question whether that is true or not. Before I do that let me call the attention of the House to the fact that we may very well divide the St. Lawrence river and gulf into two parts, that is the navigation between Montreal and Quebec, and the navigation between Quebec and Belle Isle. Now, with regard to the portion between Montreal and Quebec, there were many complaints made. Complaints were made when I took charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries that the pilotage system was in a very bad state, that there was no method by which a bad pilot could be punished, that the antiquated system of bringing them before tlm Harbour Commissioners of Montreal or the Pilot Commissioners of Montreal was no good, because the courts of Montreal intervened in every case, and removed the proceedings by certiorari into tlie courts to prevent any punishments being awarded to the pilots, Well, Sir, I issued a commission to make full inquiry into that subject; that commission was presided over by the Hon. Judge Lavergue. of the Superior Court. The report of the commission was to the effect that, while there were defects in the pilotage system, they could be obviated if a competent tribunal were established for the purpose of trying these bad pilots. I introduced a Bill last session to meet the difficulty ; that Bill, for some reason or another which I never could understand, received a great deal of opposition in this Chamber. Why the opposition was offered I never could tell, but the Bill eventually passed and is now being carried out. I have no hesitation in saying that if the commissioner of that court who has been appointed by the Governor in Council, receives that assistance at the hands of the pilot commissioners and of the harbour commissioners that I hope he will receive, and is entitled to, the evils which have been existing will be to a large extent removed. There are good pilots and there are bad pilots, there are some of the best pilots, or as good pilots, as you will find in the world, in the city of Montreal. But there are a number of bad pilots, and the object ought to be to punish those bad pilots


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: when they do wrong, and in providing an effective and efficient tribunal who will punish them and punish them speedily, T thiulc we have gone some distance towards removing some of the evils of which the hon. gentleman complains.
Now. with regard to the lights and the buoys between Montreal and Quebec. Shortly after I came into office, there was a strong complaint made against the efficiency of the buoys and lights. I had the matter thoroughly inquired into, and I found that the buoys were placed and maintained there by the contract system. I cancelled that contract, I bought a very efficient steamer called the Shamrock, and since that time we have carried out that service under the direct control of the department itself. I am bound to say that so far as my information goes, it is now giving very good satisfaction. The chief engineer whom I sent to report upon that buoy service, in January last, made a report of which I will read a portion, and I wish to call the attention of my hon. friend especially to this, because I want to clear up the fact that there is no ground of complaint between Montreal and Quebec city. The chief engineer says :
The year before last I met the representatives of all the interests in the harbour of Montreal. We went together over the whole river between Quebec and Montreal and discussed the details of the buoy system on the spot. Every suggestion they made was considered at the time and argued out; every buoy they finally asked for was granted: every improvement thev suggested was adopted; and the whole buoy system between Quebec, and Montreal has since been remodelled and made to conform to their ideas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour, with several of my colleagues, of receiving two veiy Important deputations a short time ago from the city of Montreal; and I beg to repeat in this House the statement I then made, which went then unchallenged, and which I am sure will go unchallenged now. that so far as the service between Montreal and Quebec is concerned, no fault whatever can now be found, no fault whatever is now being found. The service having been remodelled and made to conform with the ideas of the shippers themselves and of the insurance agents themselves, I do not see what they have to complain of. I do not mean to say that we have reached perfection. That would be too much. I am bound to say that if there are any means that can be suggested to improve the service, I would be only too happy to carry them out. A few little beacons here and there will have to be put up, but, speaking generally, I may say that the shipping interest, the insurance interest, and all the interests represented by the delegation to which I have referred, agreed that so far as the service between Montreal and Quebec was concerned, it Is now as good as they could desire. I make that statement and my bon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) will not find, either in the report which he quoted,

or anywhere else, ground for any statement to the contrary.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if Mr. Bond, speaking in the Railway Committee the other day on behalf of the underwriters, did not say that there was nothing wanting at all between Montreal and Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, I am very much obliged to my hon. friend (Mr. Wright) for recalling my attention to the fact that in the Railway Committee, when this question was brought up, Mr. Bond made some general statements on the buoying and lighting service, and when I called his attention to the fact that so far as the service between Montreal and Quebec is concerned, it was admitted to be in first-class condition,' he at once replied, that he wished it to be understood that he made no complaint as to the lights between Montreal and Quebec.


Aaron Abel Wright: I understood him to be very emphatic on that point.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: While saying that the service is generally in a good condition between these points, I would be very sorry to commit myself to the statement that we had reached perfection. I hope we will go on improving the beacons. If my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) can show me an additional beacon light which is necessary to the safety of the navigation of the river, it will only be a pleasure for me to see that his suggestion is carried out.


Mr. RODDICK.: Has it not been the subject of complaint that the lights below Montreal are hardly sufficient for the purposes of the trade and that ships are obliged to lie at the foot of the current for a whole night unable to get into the harbour ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am not aware of it.


Mr. MONK.: It is in the evidence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am coming to the evidence directly and we will see exactly what weight should be attached to what is termed by courtesy the evidence. I want to make this particular statement : that the evidence in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the testimony we have received from shipowners and captains, the evidence gathered by the engineers who went there last year and the year before and who have traversed the river in the presence of delegates for me shipping interests and the insurance interest, is conclusive that in fair weather the river is well lighted from Montreal to Quebec. and very little complaint can be found with it as a general case below Quebec. More powerful lights and the introduction Of gas buoys would be of no use in foggy weather. But, so far as clear weather is
concerned, the river is well lighted, even from Montreal to the Atlantic Ocean. I want to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Bicker-dike) that I do not think any good is accomplished by belittling the service at Montreal or on the Montreal route. We are only playing into the hands of the enemy. We are only adding comfort to our rivals in the United States. They will quote every statement made here derogatory to the system we have to show that the system is no good, and the insurance companies will justify themselves in charging four or five prices for insurance on that river. I contend that during the last ten years there lias not been a vessel lost in the St. Lawrence through any defect in any of the lights or buoys.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: Will the hon. member (Sir Louis Davies) allow me to ask him a question ? It was stated here by a minister of the Grown yesterday that the Scotsman was lost owing to a defective light in the Straits of Belle Isle.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 1 am going to deal with the Scotsman directly. Perhaps it is well to deal with the Scotsman here and now. The Scotsman was wrecked in the north-east corner of the Straits of Belle Isle at a very early hour in the morning, between darkness and dawn. The Scotsman went on there, as the evidence showed, by crass negligence on the part of the officers. There was no lead thrown from the deck of that vessel till she struck on the rock. I have gone through all the evidence and I have never heard it charged before that the Scotsman was lost on account of defective lights or the absence of lights. Mind you, she went through a thick fog. She rushed recklessly on that island without having thrown a lead. Let me make one statement here that I make on the authority of the officers of my department and from a personal examination of the evidence in regard to the loss of many of these vessels, that in 90 per cent of the eases the loss occurs because the captains deliberately refuse to use the lead. The Castilian was lost on Gannett rock on the south-east coast of Nova Scotia, where she was lost through no defect of the lights. She was going from Portland home to Great Britain, and she ran upon Gannett rock. The crassest negligence that ever was proved to exist existed amongst the officers of that vessel. They never threw a lead once which would have shown them that they were altogether out of their course. They rushed on recklessly until they ran on the rock. The insurance companies are quoting this loss as if the lighthouse service of the Dominion was in some way to blame for it. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) reminds me of something I had almost forgotten, and it is that the officers of the Scotsman had not seen the sun for forty-eight hours, and they rushed recklessly

on tliat rock without using the lead and iu j a thick fog running full speed in the Straits , of Belle Isle. If there were a dozen lights it would never save them from such negligence as that. I repeat my statement to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike), that I have never been able to ascertain that there has been one single vessel lost on the St. Lawrence route for the last ten years through any defect in the lights, and 1 challenge him to prove that the contrary is the case.


Robert Bickerdike: I do not wish to insist upon it, but I simply repeated what one of the ministers said yesterday.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have given an answer to my hon. friend and we will have to leave it there. There were two or three notable losses, one the loss of the Dominion line steamer Labrador which is charged against the St. Lawrence route. She went ashore on the Skerrymore rocks in Scotland and notwithstanding the fact that the loss occurred there and that it had as much to do with the St. Lawrence route as if she went down in the Indian Ocean, the Lloyds persist in charging it agaist Canada as one of the losses on the St. Lawrence route. The Castilian was lost on the Gannett rock on the south-east coast of Nova Scotia, and the Scotsman was lost in a thick fog in the Straits of Belle Isle, the officers not having seen the sun for forty-eight hours and rushing on without throwing the lead.
I want to call attention to the condition of the lights and buoys between Quebec and Belle Isle. I acknowledge that the lights and buoys are not up to the degree of perfection that I would like to see them. I think the improvement of the route justifies almost any expenditure of money. The object I have in view is to make our lights on that great route equal to the lights in Great Britain, the United States, or France. I think they ought to be, and we will see directly how far we are going in that direction. We have not been idle since the present government came into power. In the first place, owing to the influence of my hon. friend the member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell), wTlio holds a seat iu the cabinet without portfolio, wre built, at a cost of $50,000, a permanent pier at the Traverse, one of the most dangerous stretches in the navigation of the St. Lawrence. This has been a work of very great benefit. We have established a powerful revolving light at Flower Ledge, in the Straits of Belle Isle, so that, when a vessel leaves the Gulf of St. Lawrence taking her departure from Greely Island, wiiicli is the usual point of departure, and runs down easterly to the Straits of Belle Isle and does not find Point D'Armour light on the north, she is almost certain to find the new light on Flower Ledge to guide her on the south side.


Louis Henry Davies: With these two lights, I have been told by captains commanding ships that sail along that route that there is no danger whatever and they look upon the establishment of the Flower Ledge light, which we built at a cost of $8,000 or $10,000, as an enormous improvement. The characteristics of the lights in any of the gas buoys below Quebec which showed pink lights have all been changed, and the lights have been made fixed or occulting white to increase their power. The lamps in many of the lighthouses have been increased in size with a view' of increasing the power of the light shown.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Did I understand one of the ministers to state the other day that vessels had sometimes to lie over three or four hours at the Traverse for the purpose of getting a sufficient draught of water to pass ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. That cannot be correct.


John Graham Haggart: I thought it was not.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. There is some mistake about that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That must refer to	Crane	Island.The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Oh, yes, I will explain that afterwards. Let me continue to refer to the marked improvements in the lighting of the lower St. Lawrence, and I shall not speak of the minor improvements we have made, but of those which may be considered of greater importance. A first class double siren was put in operation in September. 1899, at Belle Isle light station, and it cost $40,000 or $50,000. This is the most powerful instrument that could be obtained in England, and it is the best fog alarm on this side of the Atlantic. I make that statement after having consulted with several engineers. I state on the direct authority of the chief engineer of my own department that there is not a fog alarm on this side of the Atlantic equal to the one which we have put at Belle Isle.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In addition to that the frequency of firing the explosive fog signals at Green Island station has been increased; signals are fired now every fifteen minutes, and every five minutes if vessels are known to be near. At Cap Rosier the horn previously used has been replaced by a more powerful one. These are the main improvements we have made, but we have by no means exhausted the improvements we have in contemplation. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) calls my attention to the Traverse.

The navigation of the Traverse is perhaps the most dangerous in the St. Lawrence river below Quebec ; the tide runs in that narrow passage at the rate of 71 or 8 knots an hour. At the western end of the Traverse we have built this fixed permanent light at a cost of about $50,000, and provided my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works i Hon. Mr. Tarte) determines that the southern channel shall be continued and not the northern channel-about which I shall say a word in a moment-we intend to build another permanent pier at the eastern end of the Traverse, for which I have asked parliament to vote seventy thousand odd dollars. But. if the channel is changed there may be no necessity for the construction of that pier. I do not say whether it will be or not. It is contended by some engineers (it is now under the consideration of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who has had representations made to him by his own engineer), that it is possible to change the channel from the southern side, where it now runs, and let it cross over at the eastern end of Orleans Island into what is called the north channel. There will have to. be a great deal of dredging done for that, but nowadays we have these marvellous suction dredges, and the soil there is sand which can be easily dredged out. If my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) can do that he will succeed in revolutionizing the whole of the navigation of the lower St. Lawrence. You will then avoid the Baubien bank and the St. Thomas bank and all the dangerous navigation of the Traverse, and it will not be necessary, in my opinion, to spend the $75,000 in building that second pier. I know that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has had this in serious contemplation, because he has been talking to me several times about it lately. I gave him the suggestion made by my own engineer, and he said it confirmed the report made to him by the chief engineer of his own department. As far as I am able to judge, if this improvement can be carried out, I repeat that it will largely revolutionize the navigation of the river below Quebec.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will change the whole thing.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will change the whole thing. But we contemplate more than that. My hon. friend has referred to what is called the evidence published in that book there. I have one complaint, and I think it is a serious one, with reference to that volume of evidence which has been submitted to the members of this House. I refer to the volume of evidence purporting to attack the administration of the Departments of Marine and Fisheries and of Public Works. Neither of these departments ever had the slightest notice that any such examination was going to take place. It was carried on ex parte during the whole summer without our having the slightest opportunity of cross-examining or examining one of the witnesses. The witness was just taken into the office of Mr. Meredith and asked to give a statement. He was not cross-examined from the departmental standpoint, or from the standpoint of the facts which we have. I say that such statements are not to be received with the same weight as evidence taken before a proper commission would be, where witnesses were examined on both sides. And I will tell my hon. friend why I say that. On four occasions during the last four years I have had the opportunity of passing through the Straits of Belle Isle on my way to England, and on each and every occasion I have gone to the captain of the vessel and told him I was very desirous of knowing whether the existing aids to navigation were in his opinion sufficient, whether there were any other aids to navigation he would recommend, or whether he thought any of these existing aids could be improved. The first gentleman I went to was Capt. Moore, who commanded the Parisian. I made this statement two years ago in the House with reference to Capt. Moore. He told me he had been for twenty years engaged in this service with the Allans, and that he had no recommendation to make. He said : If you build a proper light at Flower Ledge, then I think you will have completed the light service, and I have no further suggestion to make. The next I went to was Capt. James of the New England, and I asked him the same question. I said : Capt. James, with reference to the aids to navigation existing in the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Belle Isle, can you tell me whether any of these aids ought to be improved, or whether there ought to be additional aids to navigation. Capt. .Tames replied to me that he did not know of any. He could not give me any advice as to improvements or any suggestions as to improvements. He acknowledged, mind you, that great service was being done by the establishment of the new double fog siren at Belle Isle and the building of the Flower Ledge light outside Point D'Amour. Capt MacNicholl, who commanded the Bavarian, made the same reply to me, but he added one qualification. He said :	I do not want to confine my
answer to the St. Lawrence route, but I want to call attention to the light at Baccaro on the south-east coast of Nova Scotia ; I think you ought to give ms a much better light there, but. outside that. I have no objection or observation to make. I came out last year with Capt. Wallace of the Parisian, and I asked him the same question, and got the same answers with regard to the St. Lawrence route. I had on board the Parisian with me two colleagues. I said: Capt. Wallace, I am asking you these questions,

and if you will permit me I will use your answers on tlie floor of the House of Commons ; I want you to be careful as to the statements you make, and I will ask you to permit me to bring in my two colleagues to hear them. Capt. Wallace consented, and I brought my colleagues to the chart room. Capt. Wallace, who is one of the most experienced navigators of the gulf, was asked by me then : Do you know of any existing aids to navigation which I can improve, or any aid to navigation not existent which I ought to put on the route. Capt. Wallace replied: I do not know of any, but I have been watching with the first officer that light off Point D'Amour, and I really think there is something the matter with it ; you should send your inspector for next spring to look at it. I told him, ' Of course I will ; it will be the very first thing I will do next spring.' With that one exception he was not able to make any suggestion to me. Now, I put this to the House and the country : If those four experienced navigators, at different times on board their own ships, sailing up and down the river, made those answers to me, am I not justified in saying that if the ex parte statements made in the city of Montreal behind my back were made to somebody who would cross-examine them, a very different complexion would be put upon them. I think, therefore, that those statements which were published ought not to be received with the same weight as evidence given before a proper tribunal, with the witnesses cross-examined.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose those four captains were not cross-examined either ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 
Aaron Abel Wright: Does the hon. gentleman not think it would be highly desirable and advantageous to introduce the wireless system of telegraphy, which has been perfected by Mr. O. Marconi ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is a large question to answer. Col. Anderson has had it under his consideration. I have asked him for a report, not once, but three or four times during the last twelve months, and he has re-

XDorted that he does ucrt think the time has yet come, or that the experiments are sufficiently advanced, to justify the introduction of that system. But there has been a very important discovery made in the United States within the Last few months with reference to a cognate system of warning. By this discovery it is claimed that you can hang a bell under water or over a dangerous rock and place on board every steamer a receiver, and that the action of the tide will keep the bell ringing at this rock so that no vessel with the receiver on board will approach within three-quarter's of a mile or a mile of the rock without receiving notice 'by the ringing of this submarine bell. Col. Anderson went, ait my suggestion, to Boston a few weeks ago and joined with the chief engineer of the United States and the Boston harbour and a number of other very distinguished men, in going out to witness the experiment being made. He is coming back by way of Lunenburg, and I have not yet his report, but I believe there is a great deal in the invention and, if it succeeds, it will have a wonderful effect in forewarning vessels of danger long before they approach any of the rocks which heretofore have been so dangerous.


Aaron Abel Wright: The progress of electricity and wireless telegraphy is wonderful and the sooner it is introduced by us the better.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, the House is certainly indebted to the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) for having introduced this interesting question. The question of transportation and the improvement of our natural watercourses is an all-important one in the development of this country. I shall follow the lines taken by my hon. friends, and take up first the discussion of the necessary improvements required from Montreal to the ocean. The improvements that are being made in Montreal are not of sufficient extent for the requirements of the trade likely to be developed in that port which we all look upon, in our section of the country, as our ocean port. And I think the improvements which are being made by the harbour board and the hon. the Minister of Public Works are far behind the requirements of the case. I was on this commission appointed for the purpose of inquiring into what facilities should be provided, and we reported upon three different plans. One of these has been adopted by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and the Harbour Commission of Montreal, but the all-important one is to have dockage sufficient for the accommodation of vessels, and inland dockage for the accommodation of all the railways that centre in Montreal, which will give facilities for the erection of warehouses and all the accompaniments necessary in a port of the importance of Montreal. However. I suppose the Minister of Public Works is doing Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
all he possibly can. I know, from my experience as a minister of the Crown, that you cannot get all what you expect or think you ought to have for the improvements required by your particular department. But let the government remember this, that the all-important question is that of transport, it is that which the people are thinking about, and the building up of Montreal, making accommodations for its shipping and developing and building up the water route from there to the ocean is something for which the country will cheerfully grant the money. When we go down to Lake St. Peter,
1 am of the opinion of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division, that that channel should be at least deep enough to accommodate vessels of a draught of 30 feet. That would necessitate the dredging out of the channel to a depth of nearly 33 feet and the bottom of a prism 'to the extent, anyway, advocated by the hon. member for Montreal. By the present plans, which were spoken of by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that can be done at a minimum cost.
The statement was made by the Minister of Public Works that he had dredges now that would remove the material that forms that prism at a cost of about 1 cent per yard. If that is so, there is no difficulty in having complete ocean navigation from Montreal to Quebec. The lighting of the channel is another important question. That has been dealt with by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He complains about the manner of the introduction of the subject by the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal. He must remember that that hon. gentleman was not speaking his own sentiments only, that he was giving the evidence that had been gathered in the course of inquiry made by the parties interested, the ship-owners and business men of Montreal, to find out what were the evils, if any, with reference to the lighting of the river from Montreal to the ocean. That evidence was given, as the hon. gentleman stated, by about thirty-five captains called at different times. Their opinion was that given by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division, Montreal, as to the requirements of the channel. He complains particularly about the coast of Prince Edward Island, that it was not properly lighted. What object have thirty-five captains


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They did not say anything about Prince Edward Island.


John Graham Haggart: There is the evidence also of a number of pilots below Quebec as to the proper lighting of different parts of the St. Lawrence. And the hon. minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) knows that these men stated, as was remarked by my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division, that, the lights were useless, and that they had to

sail by the lights in the private houses in order to avoid getting into difficulty. What object would these pilots have in making a statement of that kind if they were not correct ? The hon. minister's department was not on trial. The hon. minister said that if he had the right of cross-questioning these witnesses, their evidence would have been different. 1 should judge so. From the skill I have seen the hon. gentleman exhibit in cross-examining witnesses before the committees of this House, particularly before the Privileges and Elections Committee, I can well believe that if he had been the cross-examiner of the witnesses in this inquiry, they would have given opinions in consonance with the views of the hon. minister. Another important question is to have the port of Montreal equipped with all necessary facilities. For, we must remember the statement made by the manager of the. Grand Trunk Railway at Portland last year, that he was going to make Portland not only the winter port of the Dominion of Canada, but the summer port as well-that he had deserted Montreal altogether, as ships are deserting that port. It is a prime necessity, then, for the people of the Dominion of Canada, if they believe as I believe heartily, that the St. Lawrence route is the natural outlet for the immense country which extends from the ocean up to Lake Superior, that within a short time- because a few years make or unmake the success of a nation-this route should receive its due development and that in the shortest time possible we should build up that route. We liavet in our territory, I believe, the natural route for the immense traffic which has been developed tributary to the upper lakes, and thence to the ocean. It is the duty of the government to see to it that every possible means are adopted to build up our facilities, and a necessary part of this is the equipment of the port of Montreal and the improvement and lighting of the channel from that port to the ocean. As to this great question of taking the surplus produce from the territory tributary to the great lakes, including those undeveloped mines and timber regions of which we have possession north of the lakes, to an ocean port and thence to the centres of consumption, one party is in favour of railroad transportation, while another favours waterways. I must give my decided opinion, that for heavy freight there is no railway that ever was constructed, even with the most perfect gradients, that can compete with waterways. Take, for instance, the immense quantity of iron ore that is carried from the Lake Superior mines to Pittsburg, Cleveland, and other manufacturing points on or near the lakes-that ore is carried at a rate of 1-10 cent per ton per mile. Who ever heard of a railway that could carry freight at such a rate ? I remember stating in this House some time ago, when the system of protection was being attacked, and
when it was being stated from one end of the country to the other that the consumer in the United States was paying for the protection of the iron industries of the United States, that the time would come, and that shortly, when iron and steel would be produced in the United States and furnished to the consumer at lower prices than would be possible to import it from the points of cheapest manufacture in the world. And I prophesied that in a few short years not only would the manufacturers of iron and steel of the United States furnish the people of their own country with cheaper iron and steel than could be got from other countries, but that they would he entering the markets of Belgium and Great Britain and competing with the producers of similar articles there. This I said in the face of the statement by the free trade economists throughout the world, that such a thing was impossible. We had Mulhall, the statistician, stating that the centre of consumption of iron in the United States was Philadelphia, and that ores could he taken from Bilboa and deposited in Philadelphia at a rate at which it was impossible that the ores of the lacustrine region-Lake Superior and the west-could be laid down there. Now, it is known that the facts are otherwise. The Americans are producing iron and steel cheaper than it is possible for them to import them from any country in the world. They are now entering into competition with all other countries in the production of this article which, more than anything else, shows the wealth and possibilities of a country- the production of iron and steel. Where does the ore come from in the United States ? Principally from, the Lake Superior region. I state here that in our country north of Lake Superior and through to the height of land, we have as fine ores as are to he found in any portion south of the lake, and that our facilities for smelting may be made as good or better than those of any part of the United States. If we develop the natural resources of our country, we have a prospect before us greater and grander than have the people to the south of us, particularly in the development of our immense mineral resources. From Lake Superior alone to the different ports of the United States on Hie north shore, fancy last year there were nearly 19.000,000 tons of iron ore transported. The traffic on Lake Superior through the Soo canal last year amounted to 2o.000,000 tons, for the eight months ending in November. When a person considers these enormous figures and compares them with the trade of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other great cities, he is amazed that that little section of country surrounding Lake Superior should develop such ail enormous traffic. Passing down the St. Marys river into Lake Erie, there is a traffic of over 40.000.000 tons, up and down, a greater traffic than that of the ports of London and Liverpool combined. The figures

lire so enormous that they stagger one. There is no one who lias been up there and made himself acquainted with the facts but must be astounded at the immense commerce that is passing down those lakes.
Why is it, then, that we should not have that trade ?	1 say now what I have often
said before, that the prime condition is cheap transportation. Let me show you the effect of cheap transportation in diverting trade from one section of the country to another. From Chicago to the sea-coast the average cost of the transportation of a bushel of wheat is 44 cents. The rate to-day is o| or 5i cents. The difference of an eighth of a cent per bushel secures the whole produce of Nebraska, Kansas and those middle states, diverts it from the gulf through Chicago to the sea-coast. The fraction of a cent buil'ds up one port or another in reference to the shipping of produce across the ocean. If we can diminish the cost of the transportation of a bushel of wheat from Chicago to Liverpool by one cent, we will have the whole traffic of Nebraska, Kansas and all that country passing through our ports to Liverpool. Montreal gets a certain portion of the traffic from Chicago to Liverpool from the fact that yon can lay down wheat in Montreal at about an eighth of a cent per bushel less than you can in New York or other Atlantic ports; but that eighth of a cent is eaten up by extra insurance, and puts you on a par with New York and Philadelphia. But if we could reduce it one cent per bushel, what an immense traffic in grain alone would we receive from tiiat western country.
Now, no country can be great unless it has manufactures, and especially manufactures of iron and steel. We are without the riches in coal which our neighbours to the south of us possess; but we have what I contend is a greater natural wealth in the electrical power which may be developed from the waterfalls throughout all this great country to the north. Electricity is fast taking the place of coal in the production of power and in the production of heat; and in this respect nature has given us an advantage compensating us for the lack of the great coal formations which exist in the United States; it has given us what I consider a cheaper and better natural source of wealth by giving us inexhaustible means of producing electricity and heat. These great regions to the north of us may not have the agricultural advantages that are possessed by more southern sections of the country; but we have in that northern country what is of more inestimable advantage to us in timber and iron ore. I venture to say that the day will come when an acre of that land up the Gatineau region which is now looked upon in a contemptuous manner, will be of more value to the people of this country than an acre of the best farming land. That day must come and will come, and it is well to keep this fact Mr. HAGGART.
in mind when we are starting out on our career as a nation. The young men of the country are full of faith in its future; they are forgetting the past, they have no confidence in the men whose memory is riveted upon the past, even if it is only three or four years distant. It is the present and the future that they look at. What, then, is our first duty ? It is, in my opinion, the development of the waterways from Lake Superior and Lake Huron, and the securing of a cheap means of water transportation from that section of the country to the port of Montreal. I am a firm believer in the project called the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. They may call me a monomaniac on that subject if they like. But I have looked into the subject, I have thoroughly studied it, and I believe that what we need Is a 20-foot navigation from the Georgian Bay down the Ottawa river to Montreal. It seems to me that the people of Montreal should use every effort to bring about the accomplishment of that canal, for if they can only get a tithe of the traffic that passes through Lake Superior and Lake Huron-if they can only get 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 of the 40.000,000 tons that are carried on the lakes, and if the people of Montreal provide proper facilities to the ocean, which my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division, Montreal, says it is possible to obtain, then 1 say that this canal will make Montreal one of the largest cities on the continent of America. If we have large cities we will have flourishing manufactures, and if we have cheap means of transportation the whole country from the Atlantic to the Pacific will benefit continuously therefrom.
Now, as to the possibilities of the building of the Georgian Bay canal, I wish to say a few words. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) quoted from a General Symons, an American engineer, who made an estimate concerning the construction of the Erie canal about ten years ago. He showed that even if they* succeeded in obtaining a 20-foot navigation, which would cost an enormous sum of money, they could only travel through that canal at the rate of three or four miles an hour, and that, therefore, the canal would be of no advantage. He is perfectly right in reference to that. Where you are obliged to travel at a very slow rate of speed, where you cannot use paddle-wheels or screws on account of the danger of the banks crumbling and filling up the prism, you have a trouble and a difficulty that are very serious indeed, and must be considered in estimating the cost of transportation through that canal. But the case is entirely different in the Georgian Bay and Ottawa canal. Indeed, there is no canalization on this route. Nature seems to have provided everything we need for the purpose of giving us the navigation of that route. You can go at full speed

through the Georgian Bay canal from one end of it to the other.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no canalling required at all.


John Graham Haggart: What have you to encounter in-going from the Georgian Bay into Lake Nipissing You have only 00 feet of a lift, and that can be overcome by three locks of 20 feet each. When you get into Lake Nipissing you are at the summit level, then you have over a hundred miles of transportation until you get into the Mattawa river. There is a descent of only 14 feet into the Mattawa river, and from the Mattawa river down to Montreal you have a route which is not like any other canal, indeed you cannot call it a canal. Extraordinary to say, except in two or three places, the depth of water is from 25 to 60 feet. A vessel can go at good speed through these canals.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the depth of Lake Nipissing ?


John Graham Haggart: Lake Nipissing is a great deal over 25 feet. There is just a small portion of it shallower than that near the proposed entrance of the canal into Trout Lake or the summit level. When I state that, economically, what would he the effect ? By this route you save 387 miles. You have no canal at all virtually, simply a few locks to pass which will detain you about an hour or so.


Mr. CLARKE.: What will you save as compared with the present water route by way of the Welland canal ?


John Graham Haggart: You would have to adopt the plan advocated by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Calvin) the other day and make Kingston the head of navigation, by deepening the Welland canal to what is the normal depth of all the American canals, the standard of the west, 20 feet 3 inches upon the mitre sills of the lock. The locks ought to be about 500 feet long and about GO feet wide. That would accommodate a vessel of about 8,000 tons, which could then load at Chicago, go clear over to Liverpool and back again. The argument is made that you cannot secure the return cargoes that can be had by vessels sailing from New York which is an advantage to the shipper. Wherever you have an export trade, and it is the cheapest from the points of that export trade, the return cargo will go likewise. That is as clear as it possibly can be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: Then, there is another advantage, and it is that no foreign navigation laws can affect us. We can 104
sail from Duluth or Chicago through our own ports and on to Liverpool. We do not need to go to Buffalo or any other port. This places Canadian shipping in a better position than American shipping, and my hon. friend knows the difficulties at present in reference to shipping grain by the St. Lawrence route. I have stated it again and again, that one of the great difficulties is the want of enterprise on the part of the people of the country which is especially shown in the lack of adequate banking facilities. You can ship, in an American bottom through American territory to Liverpool, a cargo, and you can negotiate a loan at any moment on your cargo. You can do it if you drop it to one-sixteenth of a cent per bushel, but, at Montreal you have not that facility ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Why ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not know excepting that the fact is as I stated. Their mode of doing business is better than that which we have in this country. Some time ago, in discussing this question, I fell foul of some of the ship-owners of Montreal. I had no intention of doing anything of the kind. Something must have been attributed to me that I did not say. What I stated was that in shipping from Montreal to Liverpool you want a type of vessel suitable for the traffic with quadruple expansion engines, built for the purpose of carrying freight, with no top masts, or anything of that kind which would require hands to manage, with the fewest possible number in the crew, and consuming the least possible quantity of coal. That was the plan proposed by those parties who are proposing the establishment of a system of transportation from the west to the east by the port of Montreal, shipping from Montreal to Liverpool. There is one thing that confines them to cheap transportation, and it is the competition of New York and Portland. If they charged the same rate in comparison for wheat that they do for other material that is carried from Montreal to the old country, they would not get one bushel of wheat to carry over. It is because of the very fact that wheat can be landed in Montreal at one-eighth of a cent per bushel cheaper than it can be landed at New York, Newport News, or Baltimore, and that, including insurance, it can be carried over for the same rate from Montreal to Liverpool, that they get any to carry at all. The freight which is exported from the port of Montreal in the shape of grain from the western states is regulated entirely by the price it takes to carry it from the place where it originates to the Atlantic ports. You want then better facilities for the transport of grain. You want better facilities in your port of shipment, and you must deepen the channel to the ocean. Perhaps your vessels are good for a great many pur-

329'J

poses, and far too good for the purpose that I propose they should be used for, hut a different class of vessel than that which you have at present, sailing out of the port of Montreal, is necessary. What are the prospects ? Suppose this canal were built and that we would be free to lay down in Montreal iron ore, of which we have an abundance on the north shore of Lake Superior, as cheaply as in Cleveland, look at the development that would take place in the steel industries of the country. But, more than that, it is in the Imperial interests, because they require raw material in England and the only place that is at present in view for the purpose of getting it is the region that lies between us and the watershed which goes to Hudson's Bay, where, I believe, are the most immense deposits available for commerce that there are in the world. If the steel industries and the iron industries in Great Britain are to maintain their present position as competitors with Belgium and the United States, they must get a supply of ore somewhere, because the Biscayan ores that they get at the port of Bilboa are giving out. What effect would this law have on the people of this country ? Just imagine 10,000,000 tons, or half of the lake freight, being shipped from Montreal ! This country would receive a development that it is impossible to estimate at the present moment. Now, I have no wish to build up one port at the expense of another. I have no greater love for Montreal than I have for Quebec, or St. John, or Halifax. I hope it is a fact, as has been suggested by the member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell), that navigation at Quebec may be kept open for the whole year, and that it is possible to so construct vessels that Quebec may be a winter and a summer port. More impossible things have occurred in the history of this country, and it is possible that it may be so. I think it may be so, but for a summer port the people of this country and of this section of the country, and to the west of us, look upon Montreal as the entrepot for our goods, and we insist upon establishing communication from there to the ocean. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), in answer to the hon. member for St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), stated that any expenditure on the St. Lawrence ought to be charged to Montreal.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, no.


John Graham Haggart: Why, the deepening of Lake St. Peter which cost a very large amount, according to the hon. gentleman $5,600,000, ought to be charged as much to the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, and to the whole Dominion, as to the port of Montreal.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am quite sure the hon.


John Graham Haggart: gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) does not wish to misrepresent me. I had no intention of making any such statement. I merely said that my hon. friend's position was not advanced by suppressing the fact that we have expended $5,600,000 in deepening the channel between Montreal and Quebec.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) said that there was not a dollar of public money spent in Montreal.


Robert Bickerdike: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: And he stated that for the improvement of their harbour they had raised the money themselves in Montreal. It was in answer to that statement that the Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) left the impression that this $5,600.000 was expended in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Technically, the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) was right, but in reality he was wrong.


John Graham Haggart: That government money was expended in making the St. Lawrence available, not for the people of Montreal alone, but for the people of the whole Dominion. 1 am with the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike). I state here that the government should lay down a policy for this country under which we should have a national summer port and a national winter port, and the whole energies of the country should be directed towards the development of these two ports, and towards providing them with facilities for carrying on the trade of the counti'y. The expenditure of small sums of money on the Tay canal, for instance, and on others, might be left aside for a short time while the whole efforts of the country are centred upon the development of our national seaports and waterways.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: I admit it is difficult to do this. It is hard to get the representatives of certain portions of the country which derive no benefit from this expenditure to vote large 'sums of money without their particular districts getting a quid pro quo. I admit that there was a great deal in the argument of the Finance Minister, that it was almost impossible to do this without distributing public expenditure in different sections of the country. But Sir, there should be some general plan laid down for the purpose of affording the best transportation facilities in order to develop the resources of our country. Let me tell the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that the amount of money expended on capital account, together with the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway, since they came into power, would have more than secured the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. Including the sums voted on capital account for 1902, the hon. the Prime

Minister will hardly credit me wlien X tell him that it aggregates $17,000,000 on the Intercolonial Kailway since he came into power, and the deficit on the ordinary revenue will he in the neighbourhood of $1,750,000. There is $18,750,000 more than the people of Canada should have paid, and for what purpose ? For practically a useless expenditure upon the Intercolonial Railway. If there had been a proper transportation policy for the development of the natural waterways of the country, the money expended for the purposes I have indicated, would have secured for us, this magnificent undertaking. Ponder upon that. Are these things going to continue or is there to be an end to them ? Let the past be buried. Adopt some national system. Work to the line, and I believe that the system I have proposed for the development of the country is one which will make Canada the greatest nation, commercially and in other respects on this American continent.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I wish to ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) how much shorter is the distance by the proposed Georgian Bay canal, which the hon. gentleman advocates, between Colborne Island and Montreal than by the present Canadian water route via the Welland and St. Lawrence canals ?


John Graham Haggart: I am speaking of it from the point of production.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Take from the head of Lake Superior.


John Graham Haggart: It is 378 miles shorter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Than by the present Welland and St. Lawrence canal route ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This debate has undoubtedly served many very useful purposes. In the first place, it has shown that this question of transportation is one the importance of which the people of this country fully understand. It has shown, in the second place, that where the interests of Canada are concerned, we know how to sink our political differences, and we know how to discuss these national questions without reference to mere party politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In another aspect this debate has been useful, because it has afforded to the Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) an opportunity to offer some words in explanation of the statements contained in this volume which has been distributed in the House and throughout the country, called the Shipping Inquiry, and which purports to represent 104J
what took place in Montreal when certain ship captains were examined. It was necessary that some refutation should be made of the statements in that document, and the Minister of Marine has gone a long way toward correcting several of the erroneous impressions which it has created. I find it stated in this volume :
The lights on Prince Edward Island are fixed lights and red ones; they are therefore no good at all.
The Minister of Marine has been able to state here, on the authority of his officials, that this assertion is absolutely incorrect, and that the lights are perfect. More than that. The Minister of Marine has told us that he had a conversation with Captain Wallace, of the Parisian, in the course of which he asked Captain Wallace to state in what respect the lights in aid of navigation in the lower St. Lawrence might be improved, and Captain Wallace replied to the Minister of Marine that he had nothing to suggest in the way of improvements. On the other hand, we have the statement made in this volume that Captain Wallace said at the shipping inquiry : That in almost all respects the system is defective. Surely there is something wrong about that, and if this debate has done nothing else, it has given to the minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) an opportunity to correct what, to use a mild expression, I would call the erroneous impression created by this book ; but in regard to which a strong term might be in order.
Dealing with the question under consideration, I am disposed to go very far in the direction of the admirable speech made by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). It is a speech full of the true spirit of Canadian patriotism, and full of genuine enlightenment as well. I say, Sir, that so far as we are concerned in Canada, the early and adequate solution of this transportation problem is not only important from its mere financial aspect, but I believe it to be a condition of our continued national existence.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Perhaps some hon. gentlemen may. feel that there is something of exaggeration in what I have said, but let me, in a few sentences, explain my meaning. I hold, and I am sure that the great majority of those who are within the sound of my voice hold with me, that the greatest of all our national industries is agriculture. The future development and prosperity of this country undoubtedly depends upon the development of our agriculture. I have listened in this House time and again to gentlemen speak eloquently of the advantages of free trade and the advantages of protection, but more than once I thought, and others must have thought with me, that it has been left to those who

3304:
live their lives on the soil they till to experience and Illustrate the disadvantages of both.
Take, for instance, the farmers of this country. They produce more than we can consume, and they are obliged to look beyond our borders for markets. Their natural instinct is to turn their eyes to the south. There they see 70,000,000 people with whom they would like to trade. But when they seek to reach that market, they find a Chinese wall of exclusion raised against Canadian products by successive American governments. The result is that not finding a market there, they are obliged to look over the seas. Then what happens ? In order to reach their market across the waters, they have to go through American channels ; they are dependent on the American seaboard, which is controlled by their g-reatest competitors in the common market of England. Therefore I say that so long as the agriculturists of this country are dependent upon the American seaboard for an outlet for their products, and that American seaboard is controlled by their most active competitors in the British market, we cannot be commercially independent; and so long as we are not commercially independent we cannot claim full) national independence.
I do not intend to discuss this question of transportation with respect to the conditions existing- west of Montreal. That aspect of the question was fully discussed some time ago in connection with the resolution moved by my bon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), and I have not got that information which would enable me to make any useful statements to the House thereupon. Let it suffice for me to deal with Manitoba grain alone, and what do we find to be the case ? We find that in 1895 eight bushels of Manitoba grain went by way of Buffalo and New York to foreign markets ns against one bushel by way of the St. Lawrence ; In 1896, three bushels to one went the same course ; in 1897, five bushels to one ; and In 1898, two bushels to one. But there has been an improvement in 1899 and 1900 to such an extent that we have carried in those years more Manitoba grain by way of the St. Lawrence than went by way of Buffalo and New York. From that I assume that so far as the west is concerned, the conditions are improving, and that in the near future we may hope to have the trade of the west coming through the St. Lawrence to Montreal, and the vessels necessary to carry it. But when we have reached Montreal, we have reached the crucial point ; we have reached the point where we must consider whether the deflection of our trade from Montreal to the American seaboard is to continue.
I want to say here that I with all other Canadians believe in the future prosperity of Montreal. I, in common with all other Canadians, cannot help realizing that Mont-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
real is the great commercial metropolis of this Dominion, and that no harm can come to the city of Montreal that does not result in harm to the whole Dominion of Canada. Everything that can further the progress of that great city is near and dear to us all.. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not advance our cause by shutting our eyes to the fact that the port of Montreal has limitations. Up to the present time the port of Montreal has been treated as the national port of Canada i yet 90 per cent of our products go from Montreal to the American seaboard to be carried thence across the water to Europe. We canno't overlook that fact. We must realize that up to the present time, for one reason or another, Montreal has not met the demamds made upon it; and the result has been that Montreal has not been our national port, but that Portland, Boston, and New York have been our national ports. What is the reason for that ? The reason is, that Montreal is am open port for five and a half months in the year, and that for fully six months in the year Montreal has no water communication with the outside world. It is idle to shut our eyes to these facts. Then, the conditions are such that you cannot get to that city vessels such as you should have if you mean to compete with Portland, Boston and New York. Now, I am not going to give my own opinion on that subject ; I am going to give to the House the opinion of Mr. Refo-rd, one of the most prominent steamship men in Montreal, and one who has been identified with the steamship business there for many years. What do we find Mr. Reford saying in a letter written to the Globe of the 23rd of March last ? He says :
At many points between Montreal and Quebec, and these the most dangerous ones, where the current is strongest, the ship channel is only 300 feet wide, with a so-called depth of twenty-seven feet, which, however, is not at times to be depended upon owing to boulders and other impediments in the channel. The current on almost the entire route between Montreal and Quebec is swift, at places exceedingly tortuous, and a steamer sailing from Montreal with a full cargo is in constant danger, owing to her inability to anchor at any of the narrow parts of the river should she meet fog, storm or snow, or any accident occur to her machinery, because she can only anchor safely from her bow, and not having room to swing with the current, would certainly go ashore, and if more than 300 feet in length could completely block the channel for, it may be, an unknown period. It might, indeed, occur that the only way to get rid of such an obstruction with a vessel, say 500 feet long, might be the blowing up of the vessel.
Therefore you have to realize that leading to Montreal you have a channel that is not quite 27 feet deep, and that does not exceed 300 feet in width. I do not say that the people of this country may not be willing to make a channel enabling a vessel drawing 30 feet to go to Montreal-not only

to dredge out the channel, hut to widen and straighten it; but if the people of this country are prepared to do that, let them realize beforehand what it means. Realize that if you are going to dig a channel between Quebec and Montreal, it must accommodate vessels which, if you are toj compete with New York and Boston, will draw 33 feet of water. In winter, for instance, you have your goods at Montreal; what will you do with them ? You cannot keep them there; you must get them out of Montreal to the market in Europe. How are you going to reach that market ?	*


An hon. MEMBER.: Go to St. John.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Go to St. John ? Let us see what the possibilities are. You go to St. John, you go to Halifax, you go to Portland, you go to Boston, you go to New York. There are economical principles which have to be borne in mind and to which sentiment must give way. From Montreal to Portland you have to travel some 300 miles, and you have to go very little further to Boston or New York. But if you want to go down to Halifax or St. John, you have to travel 600 or 800 miles, or three times the distance. Those of you who are business men-and of course, being a lawyer, I can lay no claim to a knowledge of business principles-will tell me whether or not you are going to haul your material over a railway 800 miles to reach the seaboard to St. John, when you need only haul it BOO miles to reach the seaboard at Portland, New York or Boston.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What about the summer time ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am going to deal with the summer season in a moment. To go to St. John, you have to travel 800 miles.
ilr. WALLACE. No, by the Canadian Pacific Railway 480 miles.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I was speaking of the Intercolonial Railway over -which the haulage is 830 miles. Of course one deals with the Intercolonial Railway as being our national highway, and if you deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway, you are encouraging our neighbours to the south as you then go through the state of Maine.


Robert Bickerdike: The hon. gentleman might give us another month in Montreal for navigation.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Take a month if you like. No vessel goes out of Montreal after the 15th of November.


Robert Bickerdike: The 4th of December.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Very probably the hon. gentleman can give some
instances of vessels having left on the 4th of December, but in any event you have your goods in Montreal icebound say for five months in the year.


Robert Bickerdike: That is better.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am willing to make every concession, and bring it down to five months in the year, how, in that period, are you going to get your goods out of Montreal. You have to send them to Portland Boston or New York. Now, what are the conditions in the summer ?


Robert Laird Borden: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that subject, I think that in justice to our own ports, which I am sure he does not want to disparage, he should state what the difference in ocean voyage is between Halifax and Liverpool and New York and Liverpool.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I will deal with that by-and-by, when I will show that while Montreal or Quebec is 600 miles nearer Liverpool than New York, they are two days further away, and in these days it is not the mile, but the hour that is the measure of distance. What advantage is it to be 600 miles nearer if you are two days further away.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is assuming that we will have always a poorer class of steamers than these other ports.
. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Well, that lias been the case up to the present, and I am dealing with the existing facts. Let us come down now to the summer season. How does it happen that in the years 1S97, 1898 and 1899, the steamship lines charged the Montreal shipper some 2s. 6d. to 5s. a ton higher, ocean rates than they charged to shippers from Boston, New York and Philadelphia. Not only is that. the case, but I have a letter from Mr. Smith of the Canada Atlantic, who tells me that last year in Montreal the rate ruled 15 to 20 per cent higher than in Boston, Portland or New York. How then can we compete with Boston and New York, so long as we are obliged to pay 15 per cent to 20 per cent per ton higher freight for the carriage of those goods to Liverpool than is charged the American shippers ?


Robert Bickerdike: Give the rates from Quebec as well.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not discussing the rates in Quebec, but am trying to get above this parochial question of Montreal versus Quebec. I am trying to look at the question from the national and Canadian standpoint. When we get our goods to Montreal and seek to dispose of them, what do we do ? You talk about this being the national port, but when you get your goods to Montreal, where they are 430 miles nearer Liverpool, than they would

be at Boston or New York, what do we do ? You carry them from Montreal to Boston and New York 400 miles by rail, and all for the purpose of shipment from one of these ports, which is 400 miles further away from the English market. That has been the result of the present accommodations existing at Montreal. When you get your goods to Montreal, you pay freight on them to Boston or New York, which is 400 miles further away from their destination. What is the cause of that ? My hon. friend says it is the enormous insurance, and I admit that there is something in that contention. I admit that the insurance charges from Montreal are simply enormous as compared with those from New York. I have here a memo, of the charges asked on a ship of
8,000	tons during the course of last summer in order to allow that vessel to go to Montreal and make five trips during the season. Her owners were asked to pay $22,500 more for insurance on her hull and cargo than if she had gone to New York. Just fancy, $22,500 in one season on a vessel of 8,000 tons, discrimination against Montreal in favour of New York.
Mr. BICIvERDlKE. Against the St. Lawrence route.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Call it the St. Lawrence route. My hon. friend, who is in the insurance business, will probably be able to explain how this has come to pass. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Sir Louis Davies) pointed out very clearly that a great deal of what was said by the hon. member for St. Antoine divison (Mr. Roddick) was based, not on imperfect, but on inaccurate information. He pointed out that the insurance combine was probably interested in endeavouring to create the impression that they werd justified in charging the exorbitant rates demanded by them. But I think, after what we have heard to-day, that the insurance combine will be forced into this position, that they will have to give us reasonable rates or be made to understand that means will be found to drive them out of the business.
In addition to what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said, I would point out that there are certain defects with respect to our pilotage system in the St. Lawrence which require to be remedied. I do not want to deal with the pilotage between Montreal and Quebec. But with respect to the pilotage below Quebec, certain defects exists which ought to be remedied. Take this case, and I speak from some experience in connection with collision eases. No pilot's eyesight is examined unless he has had an accident or exceeds 05 years of age. Well, the greatest cause of accidents in the lower St. Lawrence has been not so much the defects of the lighting system as the defective eyesight of the pilots.
I say there is no defect that has contributed Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to the same extent to these accidents as the defective condition of the pilots' eyesight. I venture to say that there are not twenty-five per cent of the pilots frequenting the Lower St. Lawrence who have even been tested for colour-blindness, for instance, which is a most important consideration where you have coloured lights to deal with. I make the suggestion to my hon. friend so that he may see that, with respect to the pilots' eyesight particular care should be taken. Now, what is the remedy for all this ? The remedy is the improvement of the channel. Undoubtedly improvements are needed, and undoubtedly they will be made-we have the word of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for that. And, so far as these difficulties are concerned, I think they have been grossly exaggerated and that they can be easily removed-and that in the very near future they will be fully removed. And I say that when we face the question of expenditure, we ought not to hesitate very much. We have spent millions upon canals, we have spent millions upon railways, we have pierced the Rockies, we have spanned the prairies, we have diverted rivers-we have, in a hundred ways, given hostages to fortune. Are we going to stop here ? Or, having put our hand to the plough, are we going straight on without looking to the right or to the left, with only one thought in our minds, to do what is best for Canada ? I wish to say a word more about Montreal. I know it is a delicate question, but it seems to me that it is better to understand our limitations and difficulties. It is better to take the factsi as they are stated in good faith, at all events, and if they can be contradicted let them be contradicted. But let them not be jeered at ; a jeer is no answer, a jeer is no argument. Now, what are the conditions in Montreal ? As I said a moment ago, you have leading to Montreal a channel which, at the outside, gives you twenty-seven feet of water, and I state it-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What length ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: And I state it now and here-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What length-I am asking.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Mr. Speaker,
I state it now and here, and Mr. Reford is my authority for it, and in order that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) should understand what I say, that a ship was prevented from leaving Montreal drawing 25 feet 4 inches of water-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But what length of channel ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is forty miles of channel between Montreal and Quebec to which that applies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very well ; now we know.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) knows now, he ought to have known it before. I have it from the officials of his own department, given junder oath in the case of the Arabia, of Montreal. You have twenty-seven feet of water in the channel, 300 feet wide-these controversies are unnecessary, but if provoked they must take place-you have, in addition to that, certain seasons in the year when a vessel that draws more than 25 feet 6 inches of water will not be allowed to leave Montreal, because it is considered unsafe. lYou have more than that; at a banquet in Montreal, given in the month of September last on board the Tunisian, Mr. Allan, the head of the Montreal line of steamers, told us that the biggest ship that could be brought to Montreal was the Tunisian or the Bavarian, drawing about 26 feet of water and with a gross registered tonnage of 10,000 tons. If there is any doubt about the statement I have made, I have Mr. Reford's letter here, and I have Mr. Allan's speech under my hand. So, we have the facts testified to in this manner that the channel is accessible for vessels drawing at the outside 26 feet of water-for a 27-foot channel is not navigable for a vessel drawing 27 feet, for a vessel must have 2 feet and beyond under her keel to enable her to steer


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During how many months .of the year are there only 274 feet ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not in a position to answer that, but I rely upon Mr. Reford's letter, which contains the statement I have made, which has been allowed to go uncontradicted all these months.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I may state immediately, because it is a very important matter, that there are only a few weeks in the year-at times two or three weeks in the year-during which there are only 274 feet. That depth of 274 feet is at low-water in October and November. During all the other months, there are 30, 32, 33 feet of water.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Of course, the hon. Minister of Public Works has a distinct advantage over me in making statements. I am necessarily limited to the knowledge I get from others, which knowledge I give to the House, that the Arabia, in the month of September, 1897, wanted to start from Montreal drawing 25 feet 4 inches of water, and the port warden refused to allow her to go, because he said there was not sufficient water to enable her to go in safety.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: What month ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: September, 1897.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: During exceptionally low water. And I doubt the statement, anyhow.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Let me explain. I do not doubt the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick). But I have followed all the inquiries, and I know the case.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not concerned with that, what I am concerned with is the facts. I state the fact now, that the port warden of Montreal refused on the 25th of September, 1897, to allow a vessel to leave Montreal because she was drawing 25 feet 4 inches. And as the strength of a chain is the strength of the weakest link, so I say the efficiency of a channel is the efli-ciency of the shallowest and narrowest part. It is immaterial to me that you have a depth of 500 feet in one place, if you have only 20 feet in another. I have stated the facts. And I do not know what necessity there is, if the facts are so, to be so touchy about it. I am not stating the facts in order to make a case against any one or to make a case in favour of any particular place. But, in order that the defects that exist may be remedied, they must be known. If it is proposed to have a ship channel to Montreal with 33 feet of water, I will throw up my 'hat for it with the rest, if the people of Canada want it and are ready to pay for it. It does not concern me more than it concerns any other representative of the people in this House. But, I say you cannot overcome the diversion of trade from Montreal to Portland, Boston or New York, unless you equip the port of Montreal in such a fashion as to place that port on an equal footing with the others. There is no sentiment in trade ; men will go to those places where they are best served. Men wall go to Portland, Boston or New York if they get better accommodation at these points. Now, how can you get as good accommodation in Montreal as is to be found in these other ports ? The first consideration is that you Should be able to take to Montreal vessels of equal capacity with those which go to Portland, Boston or New York. And, in that connection, let me give the House a few statistics to show that the cost of freight decreases as the tonnage of the vessel "increases.
If you have got a large ship you have cheap freight. In order to prove that, let me give a few statistics. In New York, as you are aware, they are struggling with the same difficulty that we are. But 'there you do not hear of any conflict between Brooklyn and New York, there you do not hear that there is any opposition as between Brooklyn and New York. There are difficulties, but the difficulties are considered in order that they may be remedied. Let us see what is going on in New York. We find, for instance, beginning with 1871, to what extent the cost of freight has been reduced. A table which was produced before the House of Representatives in Washington

the other day shows a gradual reduction from $8.40 a ton on flour, from $6.32 a ton on wheat, from $9.60 a ton on provisions, in 1871, to $2.40 on flour, $1.92 on wheat, and $3 on provisions, in 1898. The maximum draught of vessels has increased in the same period from 21 feet in 1871, to 32 feet in 1878 ; and their maximum tonnage from 2,000 in 1871, to 12,000 in 1898. So you see that as the size of the vessel increases the cost of freight decreases. Now, there are vessels going to New York today that draw 33 feet of water ; you have got the Oceanic of 18,000 tons, and in a few days there will be the Celtic of 21,000 tons. When the Celtic was launched the other day Mr. Wolfe said this in regard to her :
We are launching a vessel of 20,000 tons, but the limit has not yet been reached. We 'will build bigger vessels in years to come.
These vessels are going to New York, are going to Boston, are going to Portland. Are you going to get them ito Montreal? Unless you can get them to Montreal, how are you going to compete with the ports to which they go now ? That is the question which the people of this country have to consider. That is a question which the people who will have to pay the money for this expenditure ought to consider at the present time.
Now, as I said, I have no desire to approach this question in a parochial spirit. I had no desire to discuss it from the stand-: point either of Montreal, or Quebec, or St. John, or Halifax. I desire to discuss this question from the standpoint of what, in my humble opinion, is the general interest of this country. Now, some time during the course of this debate Quebec was jeered at. We were told : What can you do at Quebec ? What facilities have you at Quebec ? By-and-by Quebec will have its turn. I say that hon. gentlemen need not jeer at Quebec when millions and millions of dollars of public money have been spent for the purpose of enabling vessels to go by our doors in order to proceed to Montreal. I do not blame Montreal for having done that, I admire the enterprise of Montreal for having done it ; but after having filched our purse do not jeer at us because you find no money in it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to tel'l ns how much money has been spent in Quebec, now that we are discussing the whole thing ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am quite willing to tell the hon. gentleman how much money has been spent in Quebec, though I do not need to do so, because he knows that better than I do, and he knows the uses that were made of it better than I do.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Mr. BENNETT.: Which counties ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Let us have that information just now.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The money that was spent at Quebec was useful at the time it was spent. Millions were spent in Quebec, I admit It, but my recollection of it is-and the only information- that I have got is that which I acquired at the time there was an investigation going on in this House-my recollection of it is that there was something like $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 spent there. But what has been the result ? It has given us a basin in Quebec which is used now to a large extent for piling lumber and coal. A part of it, no doubt, can be used by sea-going vessels ; but bear in mind that the whole of the eastern side of the basin cannot be used by vessels drawing over 27 feet of water, you cannot get near it if your vessel draws over 27 feet of water. But I can tell my hon. friend that there is a portion of Quebec upon which there was no public money spent, that is the portion along the river front which is owned by private individuals; there are three miles of river front where there is about 40 feet of water, and all that has been done by private enterprise. More than that-since I am forced to speak about Quebec, though I do not want to deal with the question -in this -manner. I thought the Minister of Public Works, like myself, would look at it from a high national standpoint, from the standpoint of the public interest. I was labouring under the impression that it was not a case of Montreal against Quebec. Why, my hon. friend lived in Quebec some years ago-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not a case between Montreal and Quebec.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL-and therefore, having lived in Quebec for a short time, I am sure he has been imbued somewhat with the Quebec spirit which makes us dearly love the dear old city.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a question of both cities.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I shall not interrupt my hon. friend when his turn comes. Now, I say this, that so far as Quebec is concerned its harbour can afford accommodation for a hundred Oceanics. They can all float side by side in the harbour of Quebec without any harm. You can put them in a dozen different places side by side in the harbour of Quebec and no harm would come to them. It is true that you can send them to Montreal if you dig a channel deep enough, or you can put them on wheels and take them up that way, if you fancy that way, you can do anything you like if -you spend money enough. More than that, the harbour of

Quebec is open at any time until tbe middle of December, and it has been open this spring since the 1st of March. Since the 1st of March small towboats and tugboats bave been plying in the harbour of Quebec, drawing material used in the construction bf the Quebec bridge, from the Louise embankment up to the Quebec bridge above Cap Rouge, and cney have been doing that in the open harbour since the 1st of March. What is to prevent a vessel going to Quebec at any time during that period ? What is to prevent a vessel going to Quebec at any time except during the months of January and February, when you have got great snow storms to contend with and these are the only obstacles to navigation in the harbour of Quebec.
Now, I say that Quebec can be made accessible at all seasons of the year, and if Quebec is accessible at all seasons of the year, and if you have at the same time a place where you can bring the largest vessels that float, realize what it means. You have got an all-the-year-round port at Quebec, you have got a port where you can bring vessels, no matter what may be their draught, you have got the advantage of deep water. Compare those advantages with the conditions existing' at Montreal where you have for five months an icebound port, where you have got only 27 feet of water at the outside limit. These are facts, Mr. Speaker, and the people of this country should consider them in determining upon what course they should adopt in the futuijp.
Now, another thing is that when you have got your goods at Quebec you have got them at a place which is GOO miles nearer Liverpool than if you had them at New York. You have GOO miles of an advantage in distance as between Quebec and New York and is it not, after all, rather a sad commentary on the conditions existing, that, as X said before, notwithstanding that geographically we are GOO miles nearer Liverpool at Quebec than they are at New York, if you are speaking of time, we are two days farther away. I say again that in our time the mile has ceased to be the measure of distance ; it has now become the hour. In these busy times you do not hear the question as to the number of miles there are between two points but the question that a man puts to himself is now : How many hours will it take me to get from one place to the other. That is the question that is put and that is the standard by which we must determine our relations with the foreign market. Now, before concluding, I cannot help repeating in another form what the hon. gentleman who preceded me said when he spoke about the marvellous resources of Canada. It is undoubted that our resources are marvellous. It is undoubted that we have been endowed with resources which wouM enable us to make
of this Dominion not only the greater half of the North American continent but that which is far more, the most prosperous half of the North American continent. Riches beyond the dreams of avarice await the coming of the labourer to woo them from the bosom of the rocks, but what avail is it to the miner that he can take material from the mine and put it at the mouth of his pit, if to carry it to the smelter the cost is prohibitive ? An hon. gentleman said a moment ago that we are fortunate in respect to electricity. Yes, we are fortunate in that respect, but, in the province of Quebec there are to-day more than one hundred rivers running waste to the sea waiting for somebody to come and harness their energy to run a hundred different industries in every corner of our land. But, those who are most concerned in this important question are the farmers of this country and especially the farmers of the North-west. They are the men who are most concerned, because, after all, of what avail is it to the farmer of the Noidh-west that he may measure his plough furrows by the mile and that when he lias reached the end, he can look over a field of golden grain extending to the horizon if he has no market where he can turn the -grain into a stream of golden coin ? He will realize in the bitterness of experience that abundance is not wealth and that men may be poor in the midst of plenty. He will realize that, this country, and posterity will hold us responsible for this, that we shall have prevented the opening of the doors which lead to probably the greatest granary in the world, the fertile plains of the North-west.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I wish, in the first place, to compliment this House on the manner in which the transportation question has been discussed during this debate. It is not so very long since when a question such as this received but scant attention in the parliament of Canada. I remember, some seven or eight years ago, when I, with others, began to agitate the transportation problem, we received but scant courtesy for our pains, and a great many people were disposed to think that we were merely talking buncombe. To-day we have the parliament of Canada fully seized of this question, and its discussion has been characterized by a knowledge of the subject on the paid of those who have spoken which is rare even in this Chamber. I may say, Sir, in this connection, that I have never heard a clearer deliverance on this subject than the speech made this afternoon by the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart). I believe. Sir, that the House and the country will

331 &
appreciate that speech, both for the manner in which it was delivered and the valuable information which it contained. The solution of the transportation problem is not confined to Canada alone, but to-day it is the earnest concern of all civilized nations. Some two years ago Lord Salisbury said that all the higher politics and all the diplomacy of the world now turned on the transportation question. The war In South Africa bears on the control .of the Cape to Cairo railway ; the successful policy of England in Egypt and the Chinese question of to-day turn on the question as to which nation shall control the railways which are to open up China, which are to open up India, and which are to open up Siberia. The most serious issue at present between Great Britain and the United States is that involving the contention as to who shall control the canal across the Isthmus of Nicaragua. Here in Canada the transportation question is the most important issue before our people at the present moment. Happily for us, the phase of it which we have to consider is that which concerns the peaceful development of our vast natural resources, and not that of a rivalry between armed nations for supremacy. The transportation problem has three aspects. First, that aspect of it which deals with our internal or domestic traffic ; second, that which deals with the import and export trade of the country, and, third, the national aspect pertaining to the defences of the country and the food supply of the population. Fortunately, in Canada it is only for us to consider the commercial side of the question ; the development of our domestic and of our foreign trade. The most important of these for us is that which concerns the domestic traffic of Canada. Our population want cheap local rates for passengers and freight, and it is from that point of view that I shall chiefly deal with the question to-night. First, let me say a word as regards our export trade. Canada has four great competitors to-day in her race for the supply of breadstuffs to European and Asiatic countries, and these competitors are Argentina. Australia, Russia, and our neighbour, the United States. Now, Sir, we can see at a glance that the cost of the production of the food product is about equal in all these countries, and from that point the race starts even. It costs just about as much to raise a bushel of wheat in Canada as it does in these other countries, and, therefore, the only means by which we can hope for success is that means by which we can attain a cheaper transportation of Canadian products to the point of consumption. The country which can lay its products down cheapest in the consuming market is the country which will have the greatest development, and which will make the most money out of its industry. The country which has the cheapest means of transportation is the country that will win in Mr. MACLEAN.
this keen race of competition. In Canada we have two ways of developing our trade. We can rely on our railroad system ; we have an alternative water route ; we can use both. Owing to our geographical and climatic conditions, we can alternately use-either our rail or water systems for transportation. In my opinion, Sir, Canada should be in a position to use one system as a complement of the other, and to vary that use as the seasons and the necessity of the times require. Hon. gentlemen in this House know what my position on the transportation question is, but I intend to enlarge upon it for a few moments to-night. I believe in government ownership and government control of both1 the railway and the waterway transportation systems of Canada. I have advocated for years the public ownership of the railways of this country, and I propose to apply that solution to the question now before us. A surprising thing to me is that a couple of years ago, when some of us advocated public ownership of railways, there were very few in this House to support the doctrine, but to-day all that is changed, we have a strong representation in parliament in favour of the principle, and I believe that we have the public opinion of this country on our side.


Mr. FRASER.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he is in favour of the government owning the waterways ?


William Findlay Maclean: We do own them now.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I thought our American neighbours owned them.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not quite understand the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser).


Duncan Cameron Fraser: How could we own the St. Lawrence and utilize it to the exclusion of others ?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say anything about excluding others. We own and control the canals of this country. It is the first time I ever heard that the United States own them, but perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) would give them to the United States if he had the chance. The doctrine was laid down in England many years ago that the railways of that country should be public highways, and a great mistake was made that this doctrine was not carried into practice. My contention is, that every railway in Canada should be a public highway, owned and controlled by the people, just as the waterways are owned and controlled by the people.
I was proceeding to say that the public opinion of this country is to-day in favour of the public ownership of railways. The hon. gentleman shook his head as if he doubted it. All I have to say is that I have watched the public opinion of this country, I have been in communication with

a great many people, and every day it is surprising what information comes to me of the great change which has taken place in public opinion on this question. I read in the despatches to-day that the people of Newfoundland propose to take over the Reid system of railways there. I read in the Globe yesterday of the discussion that took place in Vancouver the other night in regard to the Vancouver and Eastern Railway; and the almost unanimous opinion of that meeting was that that road should be owned by the government either of the province or the Dominion. Everywhere where government ownership has been attempted, it has been extended. There is no proposal to abandon it.
Now, what is it that I propose in regard to the railways of this country ? I believe it would pay Canada over and over to-day to assume the control and' ownership of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That road is capitalized at $65,000,000, and I believe Canada could get possession of it by guaranteeing 3i per cent or at most 4 per cent interest on the stock of the road. That would cost about $2,500,000 a year for interest, in return for which Canada would come into possession of a great transcontinental railway system, with which we could consolidate the present Intercolonial system and the Booth and Ross lines to the city of Quebec, which would be the means of giving to this country the cheapest possible transportation. Would that be an extravagant proposition for the people of Canada to undertake ? If we intend to deal with the transportation question, we must deal with it on large and broad lines; we cannot deal with it in a picayune way; and I believe that public opinion to-day would justify the government in taking over the Canadian Pacific Railway and consolidating it with the present national lines.
It has been said in this discussion in the last two days that the important part of the transportation question was how we could get to the sea, what seaports we should have, and what canals we should have. The people of the North-west, who are the great producers of food products in this country, must rely entirely on a rail system. Building these canals in the eastern portion of Canada, improving the St. Lawrence and developing the port of Montreal are very small matters to the people of the North-west. They want the cheapest possible railway transportation, and the only way to give it to them is for the government to take over the Canadian Pacific Railway and run it in the best way to develop the great North-west and to carry the food products of that portion of the country to the sea at the lowest possible rates.
If this country took over the Canadian Pacific Railway, what would it have ? It would have one of the finest assets a country could possibly have. It would have a transcontintenal system that would touch
every province of this country. It would have a system that would touch the Niagara frontier, the Detroit river, and the Georgian Bay, and would connect with the seaports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Halifax and any other seaports we might have in the maritime provinces. That would be a great advantage in the solution of the transportation question. What greater advantage could we have than for the state to own a great transcontinental railway that touched every province, that connected with all our seaports not only on the Atlantic but on the Pacific, and in that way give us a market on the two oceans for the enormous production of foodstuffs which Canada now has, and will have in the future in a much greater degree, in the central portion of the Dominion.
If Canada acquired control of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it would at once get back all the lands which have been granted to that company, which are needed for settlement, and which we could afford to give to settlers on much better terms than the railway company will do. That is a burning question among the people of the North-west, and that is the only solution of that question.
What does the nationalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway mean ? It means that Canada will have a national entrance into every city and seaport in Canada-something that is worth millions of money. If the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway are to be rival roads, their resources will be frittered away in getting entrance to these cities and seaports; but with the possession of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the government would have entrance into all these cities and seaports, which would be a most important factor in giving the people cheap transportation.
If the country controlled the Canadian Pacific Railway, what would be the effect of that ? The public ownership of one great railway system would be the most effective discipline of all other roads in the country. It would discipline them in the matter of rates. The government could set the pace, and they would have to come to the government rates.
Consider also the great advantage such a national system of railways would give in building up the postal service of the country and in establishing a cheap parcel system.
Then, there is a danger to-day, which is now admitted all over the continent, of the Canadian Pacific Railway passing out of the control of Canada. Its ownership could be acquired in New York to-morrow. Mr. Shaughnessy might go to his office tomorrow at 10 o'clock, and see there an order signed by a man like Mr. Morgan of New York to the effect that the road had passed into the control of Mr. Morgan and his associates, and that they proposed to run it as a part of the United States system of railways; and perhaps they would use it to the

detriment of Canadian interests. That is a thing which could happen any day, and I believe it threatens us to-day. If that is so, it is in the public interest that Canada should take over this railway immediately.
Public ownership of the Canadian Pacific Railway would do away with one thing which is working a great injury to this country to-day. We all know how the Grand Trunk Railway, in its early days, succeeded in keeping the Canadian Pacific Railway out of the London market and retarded the construction of that road, and those who are close observers to-day know how the Canadian Pacific Railway are keeping their enterprise out of the London market, and no one knows that better than the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). If that hon. gentleman would care to give us the information in his possession. there would be no longer a scintilla of doubt on that point. This great corporation, which Canada has created at the cost of such a vast expenditure of money and such large concessions of land, is to-day a public menace to this country. It has gone out of its way to block the London market to certain men who are seeking to develop other sections of Canada by the building of railways. But in all their efforts they find themselves opposed by this corporation to which we have given such extensive powers and concessions, and I think it would be in the public interest for -this government to take over the Canadian Pacific .Railway in order to avoid a continuance of that condition of affairs. That company poses as a patriotic corporation, hut is is only patriotic when its own ends are to be served, and it can be used and the Grand Trunk Railway can be used, and both have been used on behalf of interests detrimental to Canada and to promote the building up of ports such as Portland and Boston and other American seaports. If we were Canadian and national, we would assume the control of onr own railways in order to have a greater measure of success in our competition with other food producing countries.
Take the Booth railway system, which, I have suggested, should be immediately nationalized by this government. We have heard a great deal about Lord Mount Stephen and Sir William Van Horne and Mr. Shaughnessy and Mr. Hays, and the other railway magnates in this country, but there is a man who rose from humble beginnings in this town, a gentleman by the name of Booth, who has shown greater foresight and policy than almost the whole of these other magnates put together. As a friend of mine told me this morning, he was neither bred nor born a railway man, but he has the intuition and capacity for railway organization and the ability to see where he could do something, and I believe to-day controls a railway which is a Mr. MACLEAN.
greater factor in the transportation question than any corresponding number of miles of railway on the continent. He owns the railway from Parry Sound through Ottawa to Montreal, and on to the city of New York, and arrangements can be made whereby that Parry Sound Railway can cross the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury and go on to our seaport at Quebec. And I believe that that one railway, if it were owned by the people of Canada, would give cheaper railway transportation from Lake Superior and Michigan to Quebec than any other railway in Canada. I would like to see that railway taken over by Canada at a reasonable price, and I believe that the Canadian public to-day would endorse the action of any government which would adopt such a policy and run that railway for all it is worth in the settlement of the transportation problem. Some hon. gentlemen may say that that is too big a proposition for Canada to entertain. I do not think it is. We can only settle this transportation problem by such a policy, and we must be prepared to spend large sums and not to halt, once we put our hand to the plough, but continue until we have given the country the very cheapest possible transportation.
Coming to the question of seaports, what is it we ought to do at present ? We ought to take the best possible advantage of every thing we have. What have we today ? We have improved our St. Lawrence and Welland canal system. The people of Chicago understand what that is worth, and a Chicago line of ocean steamers built in the west are about to inaugurate a through line of traffic between that city and Europe via the Canadian canal system, known as the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. Surely we ought to try and realize to the utmost the advantages of the canals we now possess, and also our advantages in connection with the harbour of Montreal, and that splendid harbour of Quebec. We are just entering on the solution of the problem of cheap transportation in this country. We have the Welland canal which has been made a 14-foot canal, and the St. Lawrence canal in connection with it, through which freight can be carried to the great port of Quebec, about which we have heard so much to-day. We believe that by utilizing these canals to their full advantage, better rates can be obtained this year than ever before. And if we would get possession of both systems of railways and straighten out the curves and lessen the gradients, we would have the cheapest possible railway transportation between the great lakes and the Atlantic seaboard.
We have besides the government system of railway which touches at Montreal and Quebec and the ports of the maritime provinces, and which can he improved in its grades and curves and double tracked at

places, and be made the complement of our canal system and the Booth line, whether we take that line over or allow it to continue in its present ownership. So that in a great many ways opportunities are presented to this government and parliament of doing something immediately for the improvement of transportation. We can utilize the port of Quebec as it is to-day, we can utilize the Intercolonial Railway, and we can complement all this by taking the Canadian Pacific Railway, and in that way secure the cheapest possible transportation for the people of the North-west. What the North-west wants is cheap transportation, and the only way to get the cheapest is for the government to acquire the ownership of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
As regards the St. Lawrence route, I do not know exactly what the policy of the government ought to be. That will require the most complete discussion. I believe that we ought to start here and now to tackle this question in the same way that a similar one has been approached in the United States. They have had for years a commission examining into a similar question which has collected a lot of information, and they are working on the lines suggested by that commission of experts. In this House to-day and at other times the proposal has been mooted that Canada should embark on the construction of the Georgian Bay ship canal, and utilize the Georgian Bay and Lake NIpissing, and the Ottawa river. That is a great proposition, involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars, and I do not know but what it is a good proposition. I believe that water transportation for the hauling of freight is the cheapest. And I am not afraid to say, that, so far as I can gather, the cheapest transportation for heavy freight, such as breadstuffs and iron ore may be by the Georgian Bay canal. To ascertain that, we must have expert testimony. It has been proposed here, and I believe it would be a good thing, that the government cannot too soon go into that question and learn what the Georgian Bay canal will do for Canada. I do not believe the western and southern portion of Ontario or any other part of the country will object to the construction of that canal, if it is shown that it will have a great effect in reducing transportation rates. Canada, when it becomes the seat of the cheapest transportation will develop, as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has said, tremendously. I believe that the next few years will see a marvellous development; and there will be work for every system of transportation we have in carrying the trade that will present itself.
Now, what is the main thing that has come before the House in connection with this question? It is that to succeed in relation to this transportation question, Canada must build
and own her own steamships. As far as I can gather from this debate, we are now at the mercy of the British ship-builder and shipowner. We must find a policy of building our own ships, whether for inland or ocean navigation. I do not think this House could be occupied in a better service for the next month or two than in finding some way of developing a great steel ship-building industry in Canada. We have a maritime population in our eastern provinces which is not equalled in any portion of the world. At one time our maritime provinces had a large ship-building industry and daring navigators who went to all parts of the world In search of trade. But, apparently, that has fallen away. I believe a ship-building industry could be organized and established in our maritime provinces that would at once put Canada at the head of the sea-faring nations of the world. The government are claiming credit for promoting ia isteel-rall industry in this country. But it would be of greater value-and it is a thing that should be supported by our maritime provinces and the whole country-to produce a great steel shipbuilding industry in Canada. I believe we can easily get it. We could give bounties on ship-building and we could go to one of the great shipyards in England and induce the proprietors to transport their industry and their mep to Canada. This could be done within six months.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: How about the Alien Labour law ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think the Alien Labour law is directed against Britishers coming into Canada.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am with the hon. gentleman but I thought he meant


William Findlay Maclean: Not at all. When we are told that British ship-owners and insurance companies do not care to come to this country, let us be self-reliant, let us have our rights, let us have our ships, build them ourselves and take our own risks upon them, as we ought to do. We have the capital, we have the men, and we ought to have the public spirit and the administration to bring it about. If we desire to settle the transportation question, nothing can be done, to my mind, that will help in that direction so much as the encouragement of the building in this country of steel ships both for ocean and inland navigation. I would endorse any action of the government looking to the immediate construction of a small fast Atlantic service owned and controlled by this country between Canada and Great Britain. I believe we ought to translate to this country a British shipyard and workmen, engine builders and steamship designers, that would build for us out of Canadian iron say three first-class Atlantic liners, not very large, but swift and adapted to fast passenger express

service. I believe that Canada could then give the world the fastest Atlantic service possible. Two steamers would do it. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries shakes his head. At any rate, two steamers could make the experiment.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: You would want four.


William Findlay Maclean: You could start the experiment with two. If you show to the people of New York and Chicago, as well as to the people of Canada, that the fastest transatlantic service is between an eastern maritime province port and some port in Great Britain, and if you show that this service is in connection with a government system of railways which will assure passengers and mails an earlier delivery in our cities and in the western states, and even in New York, than can be had otherwise, this country would receive an advertisement and a boom the like of which it never had before. And I hope the government and this House, now that this question has been opened, will determine not only that we must improve our transportation, but that we must give the best possible railway, canal and seaport facilities. But, in order to do the very best possible for the country, we must build our own steamships, whether for inland or ocean navigation, and we must own them ourselves, and insure them ourselves if necessary. That is a patriotic policy, that is the policy that ought to commend itself to the House.
Now, I do not know that I have much further to say. I have often spoken on transportation before, I have often urged public ownership ; but the desirability of public ownership of railways never came home to my mind with such force as it does now. I desire to assure the House that, so far as I can gather, the opinion of Canada to-day is in favour of public ownership of railways and in favour of a large expenditure for the purpose of improving our canal system and our seaports, and if necessary building the Georgian Bay canal, if it will do what they say it will, and what, so far as I can see, it will do. Canada has enormous resources. What the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said this afternoon in regard to our supplies of iron ore and food products, and in regard to Canada being the seat of the cheapest line of transportation, I believe is true. And that it will be realized within a few years. That being the case, we must take a large and progressive view of the matter and be ready to spend our money generously in obtaining the end in view. We ought to take care not to waste our money, or to waste our energy in discussing rival schemes or the claims of different places. I do not know whether Montreal is the best seaport or whether Quebec is the best. I do not care to take sides on that question or to listen to the petty view of it.


William Findlay Maclean: I want to see the case presented in its strongest national aspect, and perhaps in order to solve the problem we may require a commission of experts, as has been suggested in the House. But, whatever we do we ought to have faith in ourselves. We have gone along so far all right, and we ought not to be afraid to adopt a vigorous and progressive policy, and that policy, to my mind, ought to include, to a large extent, the public ownership of railways, and to include a policy for the creation of a steamship building industry in this country, fostered, if necessary, by the government. We will soon be able to hold our own with all the nations of the world, but we will never be able to do so until we depend upon ourselves, and ourselves alone. We must have a national winter port in this country. We must not depend on the United States for anything in regard to transportation. We do not know what day they will cut us off from the use of then-ports, we do not know what day they will withdraw the bonding privileges that we now have; and that being the case, we ought to devote all our energy and resources to creating a system of transportation that will be independent of everybody else, even of the mother country, relying solely on our own means, on our own energy, on our own canals, on our own ports, on our own railways, and, I trust, on our own steamships.


Mr. WM. M. GERMAN (Welland).: Mr. Speaker, I would not like this discussion to terminate without saying a word or two in regard to the transportation facilities of the Dominion of Canada. Since this matter was broached at first, we have heard a great deal that was not particularly germane to the question. We have heard a good deal said about the facilities of the St. Lawrence river and the lighthouses on Prince Edward Island, about the vessels which come up to Montreal and the vessels which come to Quebec ; but I have not heard any person say that there were not sufficient vessels coming to Montreal to take away all the products that come to that city from the western country. I did hear an expression of opinion which struck me as cheap politics, in a way, as to the rivalry that exists between Montreal and Quebec.
I do not think there should be any contest between Montreal and Quebec. They are both Canadian cities. Montreal has ' been the exporting city of Canada since I was born, at any rate, and many years prior to that; and I believe Montreal will be the commercial city of Canada after I am dead.
I do not think such a question should enter this debate at all. The great question that we have to consider is how to get the products of the west to tide water through Canadian channels. It makes no difference whether these products are shipped from Montreal or from Quebec, so far as Cana-

dians are concerned ; we want these products to reach tide water and to go to the old country through Canadian channels. The only object of this discussion should be to ascertain whether we can bring from our own North-west, and from the western states, the agricultural products, and send them to Europe through Canadian channels, or whether they must go through American channels.
Now, Sir, I would not take any sectional view in considering a question of this kind. I am quite willing to agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) if he can show me that the Georgian Bay canal will be the cheapest and most profitable route for bringing the products of the west down to Montreal ; if he can show me that, I will agree with him that the Georgian Bay canal should be built. But, Sir, we have already in Canada a national highway, a highway on which the government has spent about $100,000,000 ; the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals have cost this country about $100,000,000. They are practically completed to a 14-foot navigation. Are we to derive the benefit from that expenditure of money which this country is entitled to derive from it ? In my opinion, we should first endeavour to reap the benefit from that expenditure which we are entitled to. Now then, what is the situation at the present time ? Last year there reached the port of Buffalo from the west no less a quantity than 214,971,000 bushels of grain ; there went through the Welland canal 14,229,000 bushels of grain. How much of that went to Montreal ? There was only about 407,000 bushels of grain coming through the Welland canal that went to Montreal; the bulk that came through the Welland canal went to Ogden'sburg in American ships, and I see them passing through the canal every day in the summer time when I am at home.


Mr. BRITTON.: Do you mean that only
407,000	bushels went through the Welland canal last year to Montreal ?


William Manley German: 407,000 bushels went through the Welland canal directly to Montreal in ships.


Byron Moffatt Britton: A great deal more than that went to Montreal that was transhipped at Kingston.


William Manley German: There was about 40,000.000 bushels of grain all told went to Montreal last year, both by rail and by water. The Booth line people are talking about transporting 40,000,000 bushels of wheat. Now, Sir, is there a chance of our getting any share of that 215.000.000 bushels of grain that go to the port of Buffalo ? That grain is seeking the European market, it goes by New York, it goes by Philadelphia, it goes by Boston, but it will go by a Canadian route if we can show them a line of transportation which will carry grain as cheap or cheaper than it can be carried by
an American route. Is there any way in which that can be done ? I believe there is. Now, let us see what went through the Soo canal. There went through both the American and Canadian Soo canals, 56,603,961 bushels of grain coming from Lake Superior. Hardly a bushel of that grain went to Montreal. The freight on that grain amounted to $1,944,000 going through the Soo canal from Lake Superior. Is there any way in which this enormous traffic from the west can be brought through Canadian ports and out of which Canada may reap the benefit ? I think that a scheme is devised at present. I am quite willing to concur with hon. members from other sections of the country who believe that the harbours should be improved. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) thinks that the Midland harbour should be improved. I am quite prepared to agree with him that the government should devote its attention to the improving of the harbour at, Midland, to improving Depot harbour, to improving Collingwood harbour, but, Canada has expended millions of dollars on a national highway and let us exploit that highway to its legitimate extent. Let us first see what the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals can do in the way of bringing about the transporting of the products of the west to tide-water before we expend very much more money on the Georgian Bay canal, or on any other canal. Why are we not getting through Canadian ports more of the products of the west than we are getting to-day ? Our canal system is completed to a depth of 14 feet, and to my mind it would not be wise to make a greater depth of navigation than 14 feet. Hon. gentlemen talk about large ocean vessels going up through the Georgian Bay to Fort William and about large upper lake vessels coming down through the Welland canal to Kingston, but, Mr. Speaker, let me tell this House that you can never get these expensive vessels to take up their time going through a canal. A boat that cost $250,000 or $300,000 will not occupy its time going through a canaL The proposition of the future for the carrying trade of this country is to have a proper harbour facility at Port Colborne. Now, I am not talking about Port Colborne, simply because Port Colborne happens to be in the county of Welland.


An hon. MEMBER.: No, no.


William Manley German: An hon. gentleman says no, no. I wish that to be distinctly understood. I have no more interest in the village of Port Colborne, or in the county of Welland, than I have in other parts of the Dominion of Canada. I represent the county of Welland, and I represent it and will endeavour to represent it in the interests of the people of Canada and not in the interests of the people of Port Colborne any more particularly than in the interests

of the whole people. I say that we have spent that enormous amount of money on our canal system. Now, let us carry it out to a legitimate conclusion. The government now is constructing a harbour at Port Colborne where it intends to expend a couple of million dollars. Can we hope that when that harbour is completed, we shall be able to have the traffic of the west going through our Canadian national waterway ? X believe we can, and, Sir, I believe X can suggest, even to the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart), a proposition in which he, with all his astuteness, would be willing to put money. We can bring grain to Port Colborne, and I am not suggesting Port Colborne as against any other Canadian port, or any other Canadian waterway, but we will talk for the moment as to the possibility of the Welland canal and of the St. Lawrence canals. We know that trade follows the lines of the least resistance. The two great elements of resistance are time and price, time made up of distance. The distance from Port Colborne to tide-water is shorter by rail, by many miles, than the distance from Buffalo to tide-water by rail. From Port Colborne to tide-water, which Is Montreal, by water, is 370 miles, while from Buffalo to New York it is 512 miles by water. A boat can go from Port Colborne to Montreal and return with a cargo in six days. A canal boat from Buffalo to New York takes ten days to go and eighteen days to come back. One boat, going from Port Colborne to Montreal with a cargo of grain, can make more money by one trip than a canal boat can make on the Erie canal in a whole season. We have the distance in our favour; we have the time in our favour. Now, let us see whether we have the price in our favour. Let us assume, which is the fact, that grain can be brought to Port Colborne as cheaply as it can be brought to Buffalo. They are the same distance from the starting point, practically; Port Colborne is perhaps twenty miles nearer than Buffalo, but they are practically on a par so far as distance is concerned. Let us see what is costs to take grain from Buffalo to tide-water and what is costs to take grain from Port Colborne to tide-water. The Erie canal boats get 3 cents a bushel from Buffalo to New York. The reports which I have here substantiate that. The railways charge from 3J cents to 4 cents, which is the lowest amount that they charge, but, supposing that they charge 3 cents a bushel, what can we do from Port Colborne to Montreal ? I submit this proposition to this House which is a practical financial suggestion which any hon. gentleman can understand. A vessel can be built which will carry 80,000 bushels of wheat, through the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. The Oregon carried 80,900 bushels through the Welland canal three years ago. Two years ago it carried 80,500 bushels.


William Manley German: A steam barge which will carry SO,000 bushels of grain from Port Colborne to Montreal can be built for $150,000 at the outside. That steam barge can make the round trip in five days, but we will give her six days. There are, on the average, 230 days of navigation on our canals. That would make forty trips, we will call it thirty-five trips, with 80,000 bushels of grain a trip, and there you have 2,800,000 bushels of grain, at 1 cent a bushel, carried during the summer by one boat. There is an earning power of $28,000 for the barge. I put it to any business man that $15,000 will pay the insurance, pay the running expenses, pay every fixed charge in connection with that proposition, and you then have left a profit of $13,000 on your investment. If you have the grain at Port Colborne, and the vessel to carry it to Montreal, it is the best business proposition you ever put before the public. Now, Sir, shall we reap the profit of this or shall we not ? I see no reason why we should not. We certainly have the ability, and all we want are the elevators at Port Colborne and Montreal. And, Sir, my proposition is this, however it may accord with the feelings of hon. gentlemen in this House ; my proposition is, that the government should own the elevators at Port Colborne, and the government should either own or control the elevators at Montreal. The government should not hand these elevators over to any private corporation. If the government owes money to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, let the government pay that money, and let the harbour commissioners build the elevators. Sir, it would be a suicidal policy for this government or for the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, to allow Mr. Conners, of Buffalo, or Mr. Wolvin, of Duluth, to build and control elevators in Montreal and Port Colborne. We have ability enough to control them ourselves. There is no reason why we should hand over these franchises to American citizens.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: If we cannot control these things ourselves, we had better go out of the business altogether. Now, Sir, the government is proceeding with harbour improvements at Port Colborne, and the next thing the government should do is to build at least two elevators there, with a capacity of one million bushels each. The elevator charge in Buffalo is half a cent a bushel, with ten days storage. We can charge the same rate at Port Colborne, and even then it will give a profit on the money invested. The railway companies own all the elevators in Buffalo ; they control the whole situation there. The only thing that makes Buffalo a good harbour is that they have deepened it and spent money on it, and the railway companies give them all facilities for quick and cheap transportation. That is what we in Canada must do. To my mind, in view of

all the money that has been expended on our canal system, Port Colborne is the place at which to develop our transportation. Hon. gentlemen may say : You are talking for Port Colborne, and you are talking for Welland, because you happen to live in Welland. Let me submit this to the House, as a financial proposition, and hon. gentlemen can reject it or accept it just in the light as it appears to them. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not talking about Port Colborne simply because it is Port Colborne. Port Colborne is 300 miles further from Duluth and Port William than is Midland or Collingwood or Depot Harbour. Why would vessels come to Port Colborne and unload a cargo of grain there rather than go to Midland, Duluth or Depot Harbour ? Let us see what took place last year. The freight rates on the volume of freight coming through the Sault canal last year, and going to Buffalo, amounted to $1,544,081, and the freight rates on the return cargoes on coal, and coal alone, amounted to $1,974,000. The return cargoes of coal brought in a greater freight rate to these ship-owners than did the cargoes to the east, and that, I say, is the very reason that these large boats would run to Port Colborne, as they do to Buffalo, to discharge their cargoes of grain, rather than go to Collingwood, Midland or Depot Harbour, and return unloaded. For several years past there have been 8,000,000 tons of coal per year carried from Lake Erie ports to upper lake ports. At the rate of 65 cents a ton, that would make $5,000,000 derived from the carriage of coal from Buffalo and Lake Erie ports to the west.


Byron Moffatt Britton: It is only fair to say that so far as it was carried from Lake Erie ports to American ports on the other side, that trade would not be open to Canadian vessels.


William Manley German: It is not fair to say that, because American vessels can bring grain from Duluth, unload it at Port Colborne, and go over to Erie, which is nearer to Port Colborne than it is to Buffalo. The bulk of these boats go to Erie in Pennsylvania. They can go across the lake to Port Colborne, which is only twenty miles, take on their load of coal, and away they go back to Superior, Duluth, and these western points. Montreal and Quebec can fight out their own battle as to which shall be the naitional port. I state here that there has never been a time when there has not been enough boats in Montreal to carry away all the products that ever came to Montreal. What the Montreal people want is to get a greater quantity of the products of the west to Montreal, and our object should be to devise some scheme for bringing that about. We should, with due and careful deliberation, exploit the canal system which we have at present in existence, and upon which this country has spent so much money. We should do everything 105
we can, legitimately, economically and wisely, to induce the transportation of the products of the west through that canal system ; and when that is exhausted, it is time enough to talk about the Georgian Bay canal. I am quite free to admit that the harbours should be improved ; I am quite willing to agree with the Minister of Public Works that the navigation of the French river should be improved ; but, before we start on the Georgian Bay canal system, let us see what we have in the canal system already in existence, which, properly managed, will carry all the products of the west. We should make our canals free. The Erie canal was made free in 1882, and it has been free ever since. Our elevator system should be put in the hands of the government, and only sufficient charged to cover the working expenses.


Byron Moffatt Britton: How much do you estimate that to be-the elevating charges at Port Colborne 1


William Manley German: The elevating charge at Buffalo Is 4 cent a bushed, with ten days' storage. The elevating and transhipping costs about f cent a bushel

62 or '63 cents, I think the report states. We should have at Port Colborne a system of government elevators so that vessels could go there and unload their cargoes into boats or steam barges carrying 80,000 bushels, if that is the limit a boat could carry through our canals. They could take that to Montreal, tranship it there and be back at Port Colborne in six days ; and if that proposition is carried out, you will get to Montreal the bulk of the grain grown in the North-west. As t have already said, it costs from Buffalo to New York 3 cents and over a bushel. We can carry grain from Port Colborne to Montreal at 1 cent a bushel and make money, and lots of it.
Sir, I have faith in this country. I may be too optimistic. Like the Minister of Finance, I do not believe that Canada has stopped-that the development of Canada is stayed. I believe the development of Canada has only begun. I believe we have only seen the dawning of the light, which will grow broader and wider and stronger until we have in Canada a greater development and prosperity than any other country under the sun. There is no reason why It should not be. We have a young and vigorous country.	We have resources unlimited-resources	undeveloped. AH we
want to do is to go forth and conquer the land. Let us do that energetically, do it successfully, and Canada is bound to be one of the prominent nations of this world.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has said that while we were talking our neighbours were acting. I do not believe that this statement is a fair or accurate one. We



have been acting. Perhaps we have not acted as quickly as we might have done ; but, all things considered, we have done fairly well for a nation of our size. I will not go very far back in history. I will refer only to what has been done during the last year. And permit me to say first that in discussing this important question of transportation, there is in my humble opinion no question of city and city. Speaking as a man who lives in Montreal and as one of the representatives of that city, I say without hesitation whatever, that I 'do not know anybody in Montreal who is not a well-wisher of our sister city of Quebec. Every time Quebec has asked for something, since this government has been in office, Montreal men have complied with the wishes of our Quebec allies. I call them allies, not enemies or opponents. They asked us for $1,000,000 for a bridge, and there was not one voice raised in Montreal against voting the money. They asked us to have the privilege of not paying interest on the bonds which they gave to the government years ago. They are now in debt to the amount of $1,500,000 for interest alone on these bonds. There lhas not been a Montreal voice which has insisted on that interest being paid. We know that the trade of Quebec has not been as prosperous as we hoped it might be, and we made up our minds not to ask for interest on those bonds. The government have practically assumed the debt of the harbour of Quebec. There has not been one voice in Montreal which has protested against that. Last year or the year before they asked us to allow them to issue privileged bonds to the amount of $300,000 to take precedence over the government bonds. We allowed them to do so without any protest. I am 'very sorry, then, that one of our Quebec friends has thought fit to make an onslaught *on the port of Montreal. I do not know that that onslaught will cause one more bushel of wheat to go to Quebec. X am not going to take the same position at all. I believe that there is a great future for the port of Quebec. The natural advantages of that port cannot be disputed. I have travelled a good deal and have never seen a better located port in the world. But it has been there for a long time. Before we were born, X believe it was there, and the trade of the country has not flowed to it. Montreal has received a great deal vaster amount of that trade. It may be nobody's fault except nature's. We have not created nature. We have only helped nature as we all can. The problem is a very simple one. Between Montreal and Quebec there is by water a distance of 160 miles. When a bushel of wheat has reached Lake Erie, it naturally looks for the shortest distance to the sea. Buffalo has been equipped in a magnificent way, and up to this date that port has received the greater amount of trade. My hon. friend, the Solicitor General, has told us that we have been calling Mr. TARTE.
Montreal the national harbour, and that Montreal has not vindicated its right to that title, and he has asked why. The answer is obvious. It is because we have not equipped the St. Lawrence route and the port of Montreal as they should be. We have not done for our national highway what it was necessary to do, and what we are doing now. How could we expect to have more trade through the Welland canal when there was not even the most humble accommodation at Port Colborne, which is the entrance to our Canadian system of canals ? How could we expect to handle freight successfully in Montreal when we provided no accommodation whatever there for it ? But we have now started on the right track, the port of Montreal is being properly equipped, and in a very successful manner indeed. I beg to take issue with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on that point. That hon. gentleman has spoken of clashings and differences which have retarded the progress of the work. He is mistaken. There were differences when the question came of adopting the plans, but it is impossible, in a question of that kind, that all minds should think alike. Various plans were submitted, and after a thorough discussion certain plans were adopted that are now being carried out. My hon. friend from the St. Law-renee division of Montreal (Mr. Biekerdike) said yesterday that that work would be completed in about a year. When the magnificent piers now toeing equipped in the port of Montreal and the magnificent shore wall to which these piers are attached, are completed, I do not hesitate to say that .Montreal will be fairly equipped to handle a much vaster amount of trade than we have handled so far.
A good deal has been said about the improvements carried out in the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec. My hon. friend the Solicitor General has warned the country, in a very eloquent manner Indeed, against the great expenditure that is in sight. But I am afraid he has given more attention to law than to dredging and improvements of navigable streams. I may apply the same remark to my hon. friend for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He has been a very successful man in the trade of logs, but when he comes to give us figures on the cost of dredging Lake St. Peter, he is lamentably astray. A man of his experience and standing should not have given the figures he submitted. He said yesterday that the deepening of Lake St. Peter would cost $4,000,000. But here are the facts. With the dredge that the Poison Iron Works are building -to-day for the Department of Public Works, and which will be completed toy the -middle of August, within two seasons, and even in less -time, Lake St. Peter will be deepened to 30 feet and widened to 500 feet. How much will it

cost a year to work that dredge ? At the outset $50,000, but let us say $00,000. For $150,000 Lake St. Peter will be deepened to 30 feet and widened to 500 feet with a turning basin. Why, then, are some of our friends trying to frighten the country with an imaginary expenditure ? I state here that with $2,000,000, or about that amount, the channel between Quebec and Montreal will be deepened to 30 feet and widened to 450 feet.


Thomas George Roddick: Why not 600 feet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not undertake to ask from parliament more than is necessary to improve the St. Lawrence. There are difficulties in the way, but I am sure that with a channel of 400 feet in the straight parts of the dredged portion, the biggest ships would be able to come up to the city of Montreal, and in all the bends and turns there will be a width of between 500 and GOO feet.
A good deal has been said also about the expenditure that has already been incurred in deepening the channel between Quebec and Montreal. What are the figures ? Up to the 31st December, 1900, the sum of $4,805,000 was spent on that work. Out of that sum $2,725,000 has been spent by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners up to 1888. That debt was then assumed by this government, and since then, the Department of Public Works has spent $2,-
140,000	in widening and deepening the channel between Quebec and Montreal. I may say that the sum of $1,200,000 was spent by the old province of Canada and the harbour commissioners. Also, five and a half millions, or six millions at the outside, has been spent in dredging the channel between Quebec and Montreal. There is a distance of 50 miles of dredged channel between these two ports. In these 50 miles there has been a depth of 27 feet or 27i feet. The water fell very low in 1895. The Department of Public Works determined then that it was necessary to deepen the channel a little more; and the work we are carrying on to-day is to secure a depth of 30 feet at dead low water. In other words, during the months of May, June, July, August and part of September, there is an average depth of 30, 31, or 32 feet in the dredged parts of the St. Lawrence. In the other portions of the river, there is a depth of 40, 50, 60 or 70 feet. I am always surprised that our Quebec friends do not realize that their interests are intimately united with ours. If we do not manage in such a way so as to (have the trade from the west coming to the port of Montreal, we shall not have any trade at all from the west. Quebec will have its share of the trade. The size of ships is increasing year by year. We in Montreal do not expect, for instance, that, if there is a fast line, those fast ships will come every trip 105J
to the port of Montreal. We believe that the port of Quebec will be the fast line port. There will not be one man in the city or district of Montreal who will refuse to vote for the fast line because the fast steamers will stop at Quebec. We believe that what is beneficial to Quebec is beneficial to us, and we invite our Quebec friends to entertain the same broad views. There are, it seems, a certain number of our Quebec friends who would like to see the St. Lawrence blocked at Quebec. Well, if the St. Lawrence were blocked at Quebec, we should not see any more trade at Quebec than we see now. Because, as I said a moment ago, Quebec twenty-five years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, was where it is now. How is it that all the big steamers, instead of stopping at Quebec, go up to the, port of Montreal ? The reason is obvious-the trade from the lakes flows to Montreal and the big ships come inland as far as they can. That is a law which nobody can rebel against. Now, I have stated, to placate the fears of those who are afraid that we are going to ask tens of millions of dollars to deepen and widen the channel between Quebec and Montreal, that it will cost a very moderate sum of money to complete the work we are carrying on now. I must add immediately that, at the opening of the season, the Department of Public Works have six powerful dredges at work on the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal. By the middle of August, the big, powerful suction dredge that is being built in Toronto will be at work. Before going further, I must endorse what my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said this afternoon. He has alluded to the deepening of the north channel of the Island of Orleans. The chief engineer of the Department of Public Works has said to me over and over again, and lately to, that there is very little work- perhaps six months work-to get a depth of over 30 feet in that channel. If that can be accomplished, as I have no doubt it can, my hon. friend and colleague is right in saying that revolution will be caused.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: What kind of revolution ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will permit ships to avoid all the difficult points that they must traverse now. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has dealt with great authority with the question of what he has called- improperly as many others have done-the Georgian Bay canal. Permit me to say that this is not a canal at all; it is purely and simply the improvement of a waterway, the French river and the Ottawa river. I am not prepared to say that I would endorse immediately a big scheme of improving the whole of that waterway. It would necessitate a vast expenditure of money. Of course, this country seems to be ready

to go into a large expenditure of money to secure the best possible transportation facilities. But there are limits that, perhaps, it is not well to forget. This country has already a pretty large debt, and I do not know that it would be wise, just yet, to incur an additional debt of fifty or sixty millions. I do not say that it would not be wise; I do not say that it would be wise. On a previous occasion I spoke of the improvement of the French river. I am sorry that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals is not in his place to hear what I say. I have instructed a party of engineers of the Department of Public Works to make a survey of the French river between North Bay and the mouth of the river, a distance of 85 miles. I think that with the expenditure of $3,000,000 in round numbers, a navigable waterway with a depth of 21 feet could be procured. The work could be executed in two or three years, in two years I believe.
Now, Sir, permit me to give you some figures concerning the distance between Chicago and Montreal by inland navigation. The distance between Chicago and Mont-pool is 3,195 miles ; the distance between Chicago and New York, including 445 miles by rail, between Buffalo and New York, is 1,470 miles ; the distance between Chicago and the mouth of the French river is 530 miles ; the distance between the mouth of the French river and North Bay is eighty-five miles ; the distance between North Bay and Montreal by the Canadian Pacific Railway, is 330 miles ; all told, the distance between Chicago and Montreal via the French river and the Canadian Pacific Railway, is 945 miles ; in other words a difference in favour of that Canadian route of 525 miles. Now, the distance between New York and Liverpool is 3,195 miles ; the distance between Montreal and Liverpool is 2,839 miles, that is to say a difference of 3G0 miles. If you add 525 miles to 360, you arrive at a difference of nearly 900 miles in favour of the Canadian route by the French river that I have just pointed out. Now, Sir, these are plain facts, these figures do not lie, they are just as clear as that two and two make four. Now, I want to ask the Canadian parliament if it is not time to take into serious consideration the question of the improvements of the French river. Parliament would not be prepared, I am sure, to vote, as I said a minute ago, $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 for the improvement of the route between Quebec and Montreal at present; but I think that when we have sufficient information parliament would be ready to take up that project of improving the French river between North Bay and Georgian Bay. Although my engineers are back, although they have made a cai'eful survey, I wrould not be ready this year to advise my colleagues on that important question. This is an important question from many standpoints. It is to be remembered that we have no canal to
construct, we have only rapids to overcome, we have only dams to build ; in other words, we have to raise the water and to remove some obstacles. There is not one piece of canal to be built in the whole distance between North Bay and the mouth of the river ; but there are rapids that we must drown by the means of dams. As you know, the water of Lake Nipissing falls into the French river and then into the Georgian Bay. To reach the shore of Lake Nipissing from a channel which is about 25 feet deep, there are three miles ; that is to say, from the channel in the very centre of the lake, where the water is 26 feet deep, it is three miles to the shore. It is then necessary to raise the water of the lake in order to drown the rapids. To dredge the distance between the shore and deep water, about one mile, would cost a tremendous amount of money.


Mr. MACKIE.: I would ask the hon. minister how he intends to bring the grain from North Bay to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By the Canadian Pacific Railway


Thomas Mackie: I thought so.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS- or by any other railway, of course. The Grand Trunk, as my hon. friend knows, has also a line there. I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not be alone in taking advantage of that improvement; the Grand Trunk Railway has a line at Callander. But there is no doubt that the Canadian Pacific Railway is the railway on which Montreal would have to rely to carry grain to her port.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: What is the depth of water in Lake Nipissing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the middle of the lake there are 25 or 30 feet of water, or 40 in some places. But near the shore the water is very shallow ; there are at least three miles where there is not much water. I am glad that my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. Mackie) asked me how the grain would be carried to Montreal. Our North-west grain to-day is carried to Port Arthur. More grain and more traffic generally will be carried when the Canadian Northern is completed, a work that we all expect will be prosecuted to a successful issue. There will be a greater amount of trade there. Nearly all the Canadian grain that is carried to Port Arthur and Port William now goes to Buffalo in American ships. When that improvement is completed, the Canadian Pacific Railway would make their road between North Bay and Montreal as good as the New York Central have made their road between New York and Buffalo. Then instead of seeing our Canadian grain carried to American ports, the whole grain of the North-west would be carried to Montreal and Quebec.


Mr. TARTE.: Notv, It has been very properly said that unless we have a Canadian winter port the transportation question will not be solved. I fully agree with that proposition. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was initiated the promoters of that railway were forced, much against their will, and perhaps against their immediate interests, to build a line to the maritime provinces. Prom Montreal to St. John by the Canadian Pacific Railway is a distance of 480 miles. I hope and I trust that nothing will be done to impair the usefulness of the Canadian Pacific Railway in carrying trade from the Pacific Ocean to the ports of the maritime provinces. I think that Halifax and St. John, will benefit by the solution of the transportation question as much as Montreal, Quebec and other ports. The Intercolonial Railway, I hope, will play its part in that question, but the Canadian Pacific Railway Is the only railway to-day that can give to our winter ports an export trade. I am always sorry when I hear members of parliament, unwillingly, I am sure, striking at the Canadian Pacific Railway, often for the benefit of American transcontinental roads. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been built by the Canadian people, or largely with the money of the Canadian people. That transcontinental railway cost this country $100,000,000 in round figures. We have spent that large amount of money in order to unite the different parts of the country one with the other. I am not a friend of monopolies, but I am favourable to Canadian monopolies against American monopolists. I stand strongly upon that point. I say that it is our duty to strengthen the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway as against their American competitors. Let us have competition amongst ourselves, but when the big American transcontinental railways try to strike at us, try to destroy the strength of the Canadian Pacific Railway it is our duty to stand up like men for them.
We speak of having a fast line. I am for a faster line than the ones we have had in the past. We will never have a fast line, or a faster line, until the Canadian Pacific Railway is strengthened. You cannot get a fast line unless you have an export trade. I say it again that unless you have an export trade you cannot have a fast line. Where is your export trade going to come from except from the Canadian Pacific Railway which has its western connection ? The hon. member for Bast York (Mr. Maclean) is suggesting to us to buy the Booth system and build a railway to the west. Well, the time may come when we may have two transcontinental railways, but I do not believe the country is prepared now to go into such a vast scheme. We have one great transcontinental railway ; let us take advantage of it. I would not be ready to say that the Intercolonial Railway should
be worked strictly on national lines, that we should be prepared to lose money by adopting a very low scale of rates. The Intercolonial Railway has not been a very paying concern in the past. I am very much afraid it is not a very paying concern now.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, well, there is no secret about it; the Intercolonial Railway has never paid dividends. I do not remember that even with the ability of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) we have ever had very much money to the good. The Intercolonial Railway has not been able to earn large dividends, but I do not see how the Intercolonial Railway can be a carrier of western freight to the same extent as railways having western connections. It cannot be so. There is no doubt the Intercolonial Railway can carry grain that will be gathered in the port of Montreal for it. I believe it will. To gather grain it is necessary to have elevators. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has said in his able speech that he would favour a policy by which the government would build elevators at Port Colborne and in the port of Montreal. I may say that I have favoured in the past the very same policy. It has not been adopted but, all the same, I am on record. In 1899, when I left for the other side, there was a sum of $500,000 in my estimates for the erection of an elevator in the port of Montreal, and I also insisted upon having the same sum for the purpose of erecting another elevator at Port Colborne. Bygones are bygones, and we have to face a new state of affairs. I am not ready to-night to say what is the policy of the government on that point. All I have to add is that we must have elevators, as we have other accommodation, as we have other facilities. The elevators will come. When we have improved our waterways, when we have better accommodation, elevators will come by themselves. They must come, and if they do not come the government will see that they do come, I suppose. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has spoken of the accidents that happen occasionally on the St. Lawrence route. I invited him to look at the figures. He will find that most of the costly accidents have not happened between Quebec and Montreal. In point of fact there cannot be any serious accident between Quebec and Montreal. I hope that less accidents will happen in future between the gulf and Quebec and Montreal. We are improving our system of buoys and of lighthouses every year. We are deepening and widening our channel every year, and as a consequence accidents will be less and less numerous. Now, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has suggested that

perhaps the time is not far distant when we should have free canals. I share his views. I also share his views when he says that the port of Montreal should be a free port, but, it is a' question of money to a certain extent. The Montreal Harbour Commissioners have borrowed money to carry on the improvements that are going on now. They must pay the interest on that borrowed money. Before the port of Montreal becomes a free port it will be necessary for the government to assume the debt of that port as we assumed it in 1S88, and as we have practically assumed the debt of the port of Quebec.
X repeat that we have practically assumed the debt of the port of Quebec, for they have not paid a dollar of interest on their bonds, which we have in our hands. The government of Canada have carried out the work of improvements in nearly all the harbours of the country, and it would be only fair, I think it would be a very wise policy, if at some day in the near future the parliament of Canada would make up Its mind to have free canals and to have free ports in Quebec, Montreal, St. John and Halifax. Our canals give a revenue of about $300,000 a year. That is not a large amount of money. The debt of the harbour of Montreal is about $4,000,000. That is not a large amount of money either. We are spending very much larger sums, as my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has reminded us, on the Intercolonial Railway. It is an important railway ; an important transportation route ; but, nobody will deny that the Canadian canals, that the port of Montreal, that the port of Quebec, and the St. Lawrence route, as a whole, is a more important means of communication than the Intercolonial Railway. Putting the matter on that ground- and it is not a party question at all-I say that the question of having the canals free, of having the port of Montreal and the port of Quebec free, is a question that deserves most serious and earnest consideration at the hands of all those who have given attention to this important subject. It is, in my humble opinion, the question of the day. Transportation by rail, transportation by water, Canada for the Canadians on land and at sea.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: If we stand firm on that ground, we can accomplish great results! indeed. It is no use in recriminating. There are some people who believe we have lost time. Well, as I said in the beginning, we have been going on fairly well. This young Canadian nation with a population of five millions, built the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is no other nation of the same size which would dare to go into such a vast undertaking. The result of that work has been tremendous, from a national standpoint. If we go on Mr. TARTE.
with the same energy in improving our waterways, in improving our harbours, in completing our transportation system, as we have commenced, we cannot but expect the best possible results. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has called the port of Montreal an ice-bound port. We cannot deny that we have some ice and snow in Montreal, but it is a sure fact that we have managed so far not to be snowed under'too much.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not been snowed under, commercially speaking.


William Ross: Nor politically.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The port of Montreal is open about seven months in the year. I wish to God it were open longer. Let us hope the port of Montreal will be open the whole year round.


Mr. TALBOT.: Ten months.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: Twelve months.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let us say ten months. There is not a representative of the city- of Montreal or the district of Montreal who is not ready to help our Quebec friends to keep the channel open ten month's in the year. We are prepared to help them in every possible way, because we quite understand that if the port of Quebec was open for ten months in the year, not only Montreal, but Canada as a whole, would be greatly benefited. There is in this no question between city and city; no question between Montreal, Quebec and Halifax ; the interest of Canada as a whole must be supreme. Mr. Speaker, the House is, perhaps, tired of this discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe that this debate will have good effect, because the more the attention of the Canadian people is called to the vital importance of the transportation, the better is will be for all Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. ALBERT E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I do not intend to take up the time of the House, at this stage of the discussion, for more than a few moments. Like the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), I am glad that this matter has been brought to our attention again. It was dealt with in the earlier part of the session, but I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed then, because I, like other members of the House, had been led to believe that Montreal is our chief national port; not the national port, but our chief national port. It seemed to me, on that former occasion, that the representatives from the district of Montreal were not enthusiastic

enough in advocating the claims of their port upon the people of Canada. I remember that the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike), when he referred to the Grand Trunk Railway making its summer terminus at Portland instead of Montreal, said that, perhaps it was not an unmixed evil, because it might waken up the people of Montreal. I pointed out, on that occasion, that steamship company after steamship company was removing to Portland. I am glad now that the representatives from Montreal and district have shown more interest in this question than they did on the former occasion. The improvement of the St. Lawrence route seemed to be going along all right until the question of marine insurance was brought to the attention of the public, and the difficulties have been aggravated from the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway has changed its summer terminus to Portland. I have been surprised during this discussion to hear so little reference made to this fact, which I think is a most important matter. The marine insurance question could, in my opinion, have been very easily solved after due deliberation, and after improvements had been made in lighthouses and in buoys, and in those aids to navigation to which the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) has been directed. I think that some attention should be paid to this magnificent report which has been framed at the instance of a few gentlemen' and at their own personal expense. I do not think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) is justified in treating it in the way he does, by simply criticising it. We were told by the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike) that no less than five steamship companies had recently gone to Portland, and were now making Portland their summer port instead of Montreal. I inferred from the remarks of the hon. gentleman, the reasons for this were the difficulties pointed out in this report, and the difficulties in regard to marine insurance. But, I do not consider that one of those vessels went to Portland for any such reason.
So far as the transportation problem is concerned, the chief matter of interest that has taken place in the last few years has been the acquisition of the Dominion County Railway, and the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. Through the carrying out of this transaction by the government, the Grand Trunk Railway have been enabled to make Portland its summer terminus, and it will take the expenditure of a very large sum of money to counteract the effect of that action by that magnificent corporation-a corporation of which Canadians should be proud, as well as of the great Canadian Pacific Railway to which the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has so well referred.
It is a matter of regret and discouragement to us, as Canadians, that something could not have been done some years ago, when the Grand Trunk Railway Company stated that they intended carrying out this policy, in order that the influence of this great railway might have been retained for Montreal during the open season of navigation, for all time to come.
We are glad to have this question before us, because we have heard what the policy of the government is-or their policies, because it appears that the members of the government are not agreed on this question. We have heard the question discussed from the standpoint of Montreal and the standpoint of Quebec and the standpoint of carrying Canadian products through Canadian channels to uanadian ports. But how is it that in the discussion of this question the most important matter that we should consider has been entirely overlooked. The exports of this country come largely from the province of Ontario. If I understand the transportation question properly, the intention in the past has been to endeavour, not only to build up great cities like Montreal and Quebec, but to reduce the cost of transportation to the farmers of this country; and the farmers who are largely producing the products which we send abroad are the farmers of Ontario. I think, therefore, that these people should to some extent be taken into consideration in the discussion of this question.
I need not refer any further to what trade has been lost to Montreal, more than to say that I have noticed in the last few days numerous items in the press referring to the way in which the Grand Trunk Railway is spending money in Portland, and the way in which trade is being taken from Montreal. In the early part of this session the government were asked, what steps they had taken to find out from the Grand Trunk Railway Company how far they were going to pursue this policy; and in the discussion of this question I am disappointed that we have not heard more from them on that point.
We have also heard in the discussion of this transportation question, various schemes put forward which to my mind should not be up for discussion at the- present time, and upon which we ought not to he led' to believe that the government are going to spend any considerable sum of money, until we see how far we are going to utilize those works ou which we have spent so much money; I refer to the Wrelland and St. Lawrence canal systems. I do not think this is the time to consider the question of paralleling these canals in the shape of the letter V. I do not think the Georgian Bay canal is a project that will be feasible in this generation. If it is considered necessary to build another system of canals to cut off the detour around Lake Erie, to my

mind the least expensive and the most feasible project is to ascertain the shortest route between the Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario, and when that is ascertained, to build a canal by that route. It has been said here this evening by the hon. Minister of Public Works, that the distance from Montreal, via the proposed Georgian Bay and Ottawa Elver canal, is about 940 miles. I venture to say that if the canal which I speak of were built, if it were found in the interest of the country to build it-I do not say that it is-then we would have the use of the St. Lawrence canal system, and the distance would be only about 40 or 50 miles further, but the time of passage would be no greater -as there would be more open water navigation.
Now, I have been very much Interested in reading in the Toronto Globe of this morning, an article on the question of making Toronto a seaport. I am not going to advocate such a project, because if i undertook to do so, many lion, gentlemen would suppose that I intended to urge the expenditure of a very large sum of money to deepen the St. Lawrence canals to a still greater depth. I do not advocate that policy just now, but in view of the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway have seen fit to seek a port in the United States, we are justified in asking ourselves, can we not bring the centre of the province of Ontario nearer to the seaboard ? I think that is a question which would appeal to the people of the province of Ontario, the farmers especially; and I think we ought to consider it fairly on its merits, apart from political bias. The Globe points out, what 1 did a few days ago, that the people of Chicago are considering the possibility of sending to Great Britain, Germany and other European countries the products of the west by direct steamships ; and the question is asked, if Chicago can embark on such an enterprise-and it is going to do it-why cannot cities on the Canadian side of the great lakes do the same V Chicago has four steamers which are going to ply through the Canadian canals to Europe this season. Between 1S60 and 1865 there were ships going directly from the city of Toronto to Liverpool, and bringing cargoes back. We have also had ships going frorn Toronto to the port of Natal in South Africa, and 1 hope to see the day when we will have vessels taking the produce of our farms and factories direct to Europe from Toronto and bringing back merchandise. If that cannot be accomplished on a very grand scale, surely we should be able to take the products of Ontario to the great centre of Toronto-at present the greatest shipping centre in this Dominion, so far as tonnage is concerned- from Toronto to Montreal or from Toronto to Europe.
In the discussion of this question. I was Interested in what the hon. the Minister of Mr. KEMP.
Public Works said regarding the amount of money spent in the port of Quebec. He thought that the government had not always been unfriendly to Quebec and that Quebec should not be jealous. He showed how the government were now contributing a million of dollars to the building of a bridge at that city and how it had previously forgiven a debt of that city amounting to $1,500,000, the interest on its bonds. These are very large figures, which we do not understand In Toronto, because we do not get anything from the government. It is utterly hopeless for Toronto or Ontario to expect to participate in the St. Lawrence canal traffic by bringing steel and iron and coal from the maritime provinces to Ontario and of sending out its manufactures and farm products -and you can realize the extent of that export when according to the article in the Globe, to which I have referred one firm of manufacturers in Toronto who sends out 1,500 cars a year-it is impossible for Toronto to expect to participate in; that trade, because we cannot get a vote of the paltry sum necessary to dredge out the harbour, and the government have not shown any disposition to do that work. In the discussion which has taken place of this important question of transportation, that point has not been referred to at all. We have to fairly beg for our rights and then cannot get them. But I hope that the Minister of Public Works will take this matter into his consideration. He has told us that there are no politics in this question, and we must accept his word as true, and I again venture to express the hope that he will not allow his colleagues to keep him from making such improvements as are necessary in Toronto Harbour.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure the hon. gentleman will not contend that because there lias been a little filling in tbe port of Toronto, any trade has been prevented from going there. He will not say that. The filling that has taken place in Toronto has not interfered at all with its trade, so far as I have been able to see. It certainly cannot prevent coal go? ing there from the maritime provinces.


Albert Edward Kemp: What I claim is this, that the ports on the great lakes should be able to participate in the traffic which comes through the Sit. Lawrence canals, and that vessels of the capacity of the St. Lawrence canals should be able to come to those harbours. We are opening up great industries in the maritime provinces and hope to get iron and steel from these provinces, but if boats of the capacity of the St. Lawrence canals were to come to Toronto with cargoes of coal, iron and steel, they would have to stop outside the harbour ; and yet while we have had a discussion lasting two days on what is practically a quarrel between the cities of Montreal and Quebec, that section of this country which sends the largest

amount of exports out of it, can get no attention whatever. I hope that 1 have not overstated the case, and 1 do not think il have. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Public Works will see that we get what is fair. We are told that there is a surplus of $8,000,000 in the treasury, and when we hear about surpluses, we naturally look upon them as gold in the banks. Why not then give some better treatment to the port of Toronto than it has had in the past. If the government will expend the money necessary to clear the harbour of Toronto from the silt and clay which has flown into it all these years, it will have the support of our people in that policy. I would like to point out to the Minister of Public Works, who was not here when I gave the figures -the other day, the fact that Toronto is a greater shipping point than Montreal. This fact is not generally known, and I am not mentioning it in order to disparage Montreal. In 1898, figures were obtained from the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which showed that in the month of January in that year the freight shipped from Toronto over the Grand Trunk Railway system amounted to 103,754 tons, against 58,091 tons from Montreal. Take the previous month of September, which is the month when Montreal gets the benefit of the ocean steamer traffic, the freight sent out from Toronto over the Grand Trunk Railway system was 105,000 tons, as against
96,000	tons from Montreal, and the passenger receipts at Toronto far exceed those of Montreal. I hope the government will take steps to see if it is not possible to bring back the Grand Trunk Railway influence to Montreal and get that great corporation to help us in developing the St. Lawrence route.
I believe that in carrying out the plans of developing our canal system and the cities and towns along Lakes Ontario and Brie, we will also add to the importance of the St. Lawrence route. I need not go into the question, which has been so well discussed, as to whether Montreal or Quebec is to be the great port. My impression is that there are certain large steamers which in the future will make Quebec their terminus, but there is a class which will always go to Montreal and come as far inland as possible. If it only takes an expenditure of $2,000,000 to deepen and complete the channel between Montreal and Quebec to 30 feet, that is not a serious matter and the government should not hesitate to make that expenditure. I do hope that the government will study this matter carefully and come to some agreement among themselves on some definite line of policy and not keep dangling before us all the time new schemes. I do not think it is necessary to consider some of the schemes that have been advocated during this debate. Let us go ahead and improve our great canal system, let us have the whole project before us, and let us decide what is best to be done in the interests of the country.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice).: I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with great interest to this debate, which is certainly one of the most important that we have ever had in this House, and I cannot allow it to close without making a few suggestions which, as a representative of Three Rivers, I deem it my duty to offer. After listening to the discussion, I have come to the conclusion that we are all agreed on one point. We are all agreed that the St. Lawrence river ought to be our main avenue for exporting our commodities to the old world. Some hon. members have contended that this route requires considerable improvements, but the hon. the Minister of Marine says that it is in very good order. The question now seems to be, where shall we locate the head of deep water navigation, and what improvement should we make in that port. It has been said that most of the grain raised on the western plains goes to American ports.
Now, if the St. Lawrence river is in good order, how is it that western grain does not come to our ports for export. The only conclusion must be-which is the fact-that our ports are not properly equipped for the loading of steamers or for the receiving of grain. But we must also bear in mind that wheat is not the only export of our great Dominion. We must bear in mind that of late years new industries have been begun and new resources developed. We must bear in mind that, for instance, in the riding I represent, within the last four or five years, millions of dollars have been invested in the industry of pulp or paper. Now that that is being done, we ought to look to the best interests of the whole community and apportion the improvement of our harbours, so that Canada at large will benefit. There seems to be a kind of rivalry between Montreal and Quebec. That seems to be an old feud. If I remember well, history shows us that when the question came before the people of locating the capital of the Dominion the same feud broke out and, as the result the capital came to Ottawa. Now, I want to offer a compromise ; I want to offer a port located half-way between Quebec and Montreal, a seaport that is at the lower end of Lake St. Peter. If you want to make it the national port, you are welcome to do so, and you will save the dredging of Lake St. Peter, which seems to be a matter of a good deal of anxiety to economical members of this House. All hon. members know where Three Rivers is located, at the mouth of the St. Maurice. There is no dredging to do. When the ships go up from the ocean to Montreal or down from Montreal to the ocean, they come within 50 or 60 feet of our docks. Now, in Three Rivers we have had new industries developed. This year there will be cut in the St. Maurice region about 3,000.000 logs. These will be sawn into deals or into pulp wood, or turned into pulp and paper, and sent across the ocean. Now, of all the in-

dustries, the only share we get in Three Rivers is 10 per cent, according to the report of our harbour commissioners, dated as late as January, 1901. Why is this ? Because we have not the dockage facilities that will allow us to take these products which are manufactured within twenty-one miles of deep water and bring them to Three Rivers for export. Ninety per cent of these products must go to the harbour of Montreal or to the harbour of Quebec and crowd these harbours, and make it more difficult to handle the freight that comes there. As has been stated, distance cuts no figure now, it is time that we look to, and time is gained by the facility with wdiich you can handle trade. Everybody knows that the more you handle bulky freight the more it costs. If we had money to develop the port of Three Rivers so that we could provide for our own demands and export what is produced within a radius of 80 miles, including the $2,000,000 worth of pulp and paper manufactured by the Lau-rentide Pulp Company, of Grand Mere, and also the paper that will be manufactured by the Belgo-Canadian Company, the port of Montreal would be relieved. Moreover, the manufacturer would work at a less cost, because, instead of a transport of 127 miles, he would have only 27 miles to get to deep water. Another thing is that these people use material which they must import. They use coal, they use brimstone and marble : and the want of proper accommodation at Three Rivers makes it necessary that these things should come by way of Quebec and Montreal, encumbering the docks there, and making the handling of freight more difficult. There Is another trade I wish to refer to ; and my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike), in spite of his love for Montreal, will bear me out in what I say with regard to it. I refer to the cattle trade. At Three Rivers we have no tide, and we have a fine prairie which is used as a grazing ground. We can bring the cattle to Three Rivers, get them out of the cars, turn them out on the grazing ground and get them in good condition and then put them back on the ship for export. There is no place better located for the export of cattle than the port of Three Rivers. When I talk on this line, I always talk of these ports as summer ports. Now, taking this other line of argument that, by saving these new industries that are being developed on freight expenses, we are helping our producers, the men who cut down the trees that produce the pulp wood, pulp or paper. The freight that these corporations have to pay they must charge up to somebody, and generally it is the man who has to work to produce these articles that gets his wages diminished in proportion to the increase the trade have to pay for their export. It has been stated in this House that this is a non-political question, that it is a patriotic question.


Jacques Bureau: Then, as a patriot and not as a politician, I would like to call the attention of the House to Three Rivers, and I state that it is in the interests of the whole Dominion to develop that port to facilitate the export of cattle, paper, pulp and pulp wood from Three Rivers. I wished to show the advantages of Three Rivers so that there may be no surprise if I go to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and ask him if he will put something in the estimates to help to develop this great port which I hope, in the near future, will commend itself to the attention of this House.


Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).: It seems to be the rule in this debate that every man speaks for his own city. I do not propose to speak on behalf of this port or that; I propose to speak for justice. Nature has shown you that Quebec always was, and is yet, the port for this country. I can remember as far back as fifty-five years ago, when we went to Quebec they were using a horse boat to cross the river instead of a steamer. We had to navigate from one shore to the other on account of the vessels standing six or eight miles up and down the river. That shows that there was something going on at Quebec at that time. Now, many years after that, say fifty years ago, I was in the port of Montreal. Now, I do not propose to run down that port. But what was that port at that time ? There were only a few schooners here and there. History will show it, and I saw it myself. Now, the Minister of Public Works tries to make us believe that the port of Montreal is without doubt the port we have to rely upon. Well, let us remember what took place in 1878. What built up the port of Montreal, what caused such a great increase in the traffic going to Montreal ? It was a result of what took place in Quebec in 1878, where vessels were loaded and unloaded. We all remember the strike that took place there in 1S78, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell) remembers it well. The whole traffic between Montreal and Quebec was stopped, and that was the reason why Montreal has increased so largely in its ocean traffic. To-day the natural circumstances cause trade to flow back towards Quebec where it can be very easily and cheaply handled. In Montreal, if you want a port, you have to make one, in Quebec the port is already made.
Now, the government is talking about building a bridge at Quebec. I would like to give the Minister of Public Works a word or two of advice on that subject. After he has got his piers built for the bridge, let him go on and build a pier below and a pier above the bridge, and he will see the ice stopped at the bridge in the month of December, and it will stay there until the next April. Then the port of Quebec will be free from ice, and he will have navigation of the St. Lawrence the whole winter.

The Minister of Public Works cannot have any doubt of what I say. We all know that as soon as the ice stops at that place where the bridge is to be built, the port of Quebec is clear from ice. Now, with regard to dredging the St. Lawrence, I do not agree with the Minister of Public Works. Before steam power was invented, vessels were coming up to Montreal, sailing vessels and small schooners that drew ten or twelve feet of water. Later on when steam power was invented it became necessary to dredge that channel, and ever since then millions of dollars have been spent on it. If we could dredge that channel once and be sure that the work would not have to be gone over again, there would be some satisfaction in it. But we know that in the old country they are building longer and deeper vessels every year, and every year we shall have to accommodate our channel to their depth. A few years ago vessels that drew 27 feet of water could come up to Montreal easily, but now they cannot. Every summer we read in the newspapers that some vessel has struck the bottom at such a plaee. That shows the necessity of deepening the channel. The Minister of Public Works spoke about deepening it to 30 feet. Well, that would only last a few years, in a few years more we shall be asked to deepen it to 32 feet, and when we shall see the end of it I do not know.
Now, the Minister of Public Works appears to be greatly in favour of canals. For myself, I am not in favour of canals except in some places where they are necessary. Let me give you the history of two canals in the United States. There is a canal that runs from Pittsburg to Philadelphia, 354 miles long. That canal was put into operation in 1847, and in 1858, 60 miles of it had to be abandoned. At present that canal is only operated from Pittsburg' to Johnstown, a distance of 56 miles. The other end of it is operated from Harrisburg to Philadelphia, 104 miles, so that to-day only 160 miles is operated out of the original 354. Now, take the North Branch canal that started from Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania; every mile of it is to-day abandoned. That is the history of these canals. If we consult the reports, we find that from 1869 the traffic on the Buffalo and New York canal has been decreasing. Traffic has also decreased on the Welland canal. In view of these facts, what inducement have we to go on and deepen our canals when experience is so dead against us ? Why not save your money. If you are so anxious to build canals, why not leave the Welland canal as it is and go to work and build a canal from the Georgian Bay and strike the St. Lawrence at some point ? Then you would have a route about 300 miles shorter to Quebec than you will by Port Colborne. The Minister of Public Works also spoke about the north channel below Quebec on the north side of Orleans Island. He said
that channel could be deepened very easily. Well I believe it, but I would advise the minister to leave it alone. Of all the boats that used to go up and down the river at that place, the only ones now navigating it are the boats that haul firewood, that draw four feet of water. In view of these facts there is not much encouragement to spend money on the north side of the island of Orleans. The south channel is good enough.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said, of late years, about this question of transportation, as also about winter navigation and other public improvements. We have heard a good deal also about the Georgian Bay canal; but I am bound to say that, from what has been hitherto said or written on those various questions, we have been unable to gather any practical solution of the transportation question and to overcome the difficulties which are now confronting us. As every one knows, the United States, a few years ago, closed the doors of their market to our products, and, from that moment, we have been forced to seek other outlets. We have thereby been urged to greater efforts in the way of improving our waterways, our railways and canals.
But, before approaching the question of the impediments or drawbacks met with by ocean-going steamers in sailing up the St. Lawrence, we have first to deal with the best means of reaching the English market and the other European markets, and to see how we can attain a cheaper transportation of Canadian products to those points of consumption. This transportation question, the most important issue before the people of this country in the present moment, has been discussed in a very eloquent manner in the course of this debate. But, Sir, I think it should not be approached in a parochial spirit; nor should we take any narrow view of the matter, or discush it from any sectional point of view or out of regard for the interests of any particular locality. For my part, coming as I do from the district of Quebec and representing here a constituency of that district, I am bound to say that I take a keen interest in all that concerns the interests of the dear old city of Quebec. But this is too important and too momentous an issue for the representatives of that district to feel warranted in dealing with it from the narrow point of view of their sectional interests.
If I understood aright the hou. gentleman who addressed the House, the question is whether Canada can lay its products down cheaper in the consuming market through its national highway than by going through American channels. A good deal lias been said on both sides of the question as to whether the St. Lawrence route offers the cheapest and best means of transportation, and whether it can victoriously compete

with its foreign rivals. For my part, I shall not go into that question, but I shall confine the remarks I wish to offer the House to the lower St. Lawrence; as I am more familiar with that portion of the river than with the great lakes, the canals and the portion of the river between Montreal and Quebec.
In the course of his speech, the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) has not given due weight to the evidence and testimony received from the shipowners and captains in the course of the inquiry held in Montreal with a view to reducing' the insurance rates and ascertaining the best means of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence and making it safer.
I have gone through nearly all the evidence contained in that bulky volume which is in my hands. I shall confine my remarks to that portion of the evidence given by men with whom I am personally acquainted, and whom I look upon as very competent, in connection with the navigation of the lower St. Lawrence.
I shall (select among others the testimonies of three pilots, one of whom is Mr. LaRochelle, who is the mayor of my town. Mr. LaRochelle has had an experience of thirty years, and he (makes on an average, from forty to fifty tripe, in the season, between Quebec and Father Point. I shall lay particular stress on his testimony, which is corroborated by that of the other pilots who have been examined during that investigation.
The lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) dealt rather lightly with the matter when he stated that that examination had been carried on ex parte during the whole summer, without any one having the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses ; and that if those statements had been made to somebody who would cross-examine them, (a very different complexion would be put on them, and other conclusions would have been reached.
Well, Sir, if we bear in mind the fact that that evidence was given by men having over thirty years' experience in navigation ; by men not only known as good pilots, but as industrious, thrifty and sober men, and men whose services are often secured by the great steamship companies, at an additional cost of twelve dollars for each trip, we cannot help conning to the conclusion that those testimonies deserve consideration at our hands.
Let me give a synopsis of the evidence. We find that twenty-four suggestions were made in the course of that investigation. I shall merely confine myself to pointing them out, with the reasons given by these men in support of their views. What do the pilots say ? They all agree on the absolute necessity of having a whistle at Father Point, and they condemn the existing bombs and guns as fog-signals. In the sec-Mr. TALBOT.
ond place, they say that the Red Island lightship should be moved further south. In the third place, at Green Island, the gun which in foggy weather is heard every 20 minutes, should be replaced by a siren, which would indicate approximately every second minute its position.
In the fourth place, they suggest that the light at Cape Salmon is defective and it should be replaced by a more powerful oue, that is to say a twenty-mile light instead of a twelvejmile light, as it is now. They also pretend that the fog-signal is not in a good position. A fact which is strange enough, but which is easily accounted for, is that the fog-signal at Green Island is more easily heard five or six miles from the shore than it is heard within a mile from the town. The pilots say that the fact that the fog-signal is more easily heard at such a distance is accounted for by the fact that there is a mountain inland, which reverberates the sound before it falls to the level to the St. Lawrence. At any rate, there is a gap here which could easily be remedied.
Another suggestion is to place a permanent fixed light at the lower end of the Traverse at St. Roch. Last year a permanent light was established at the upper end of that Traverse. The pier light placed there last year was a substitute for a lightship. Now, what was the result of that change on navigation even for the present year ? It resulted in facilitating navigation three weeks earlier than last year. The reason is obvious, because the lightship which existed before used to be put in position in the spring, and the government bad to remove it in the fall, before the ice was formed ; while the pier light which was substituted for the lightship is able to resist the current, which is very swift, the ice and all the obstructions of the river.
That shows what can be done with sufficient energy and spirit of enterprise, in the way of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Now, wliat do the pilots want ? They want the government to do a thing, which, as shown by experience, is quite feasible. They ask that the lightship now existing at the lower Traverse at St. Roch be replaced by a permanent pier. While I am dealing with this lightship, here is a fact which shows how useful a new permanent light would prove at that spot. Two years ago the Department of Marine and Fisheries were informed that a steamer had started from Montreal with a cargo bound to England. Forthwith, the department sent a ship to replace the lightship of the Traverse. Now, what may seem most strange is that the steamer steamed away, and saw the government steamer anchored at the Traverse, without the latter having noticed the steamer. This goes to show how negligent and remiss people are at times.
It often occurs that pilots draw the attention of the department to buoys having parted from their moorings and gone adrift,
3353	APRIL 18, 1901	3354
to certain lights being extinct or others which do not work well ; but the suggestions of those pilots are not acted upon as promptly as they should be. The officials should show greater expedition in replacing those buoys and in repairing those defective lights, as considerable damage might result from such negligence. The suggestions made by pilots should be more willingly listened to, under the circumstances.
We are often asked what is the reason of the difference existing between the port of Montreal and that of Quebec. It is sometimes said that the harbour of Quebec did not exist twenty-five years ago. I believe so, but any one who was acquainted with Quebec twenty-five years ago and who now goes back to that city can realize the enormous improvements which have been carried out within the last few years in that city and its neighbourhood from the standpoint of navigation.
I am bound to say, to the credit of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that, within the last few years certain impediments to navigation have been removed and great improvements have been carried out in that portion of the St. Lawrence. But there remains a great deal to be done.
Another suggestion mentioned by the pilots, is that there should be a gas-buoy somewhere on the middle bank in the lower Traverse at St. Roch. There exists somewhere in that vicinity a bank which is formed by the earth and the sand, which keeps accumulating there. It is for the purpose of obviating the dangers which that bank offers that the pilots suggest to place a gas-buoy there.
They also think that there should be a gas-buoy somewhere to the south of the Pillars, although they say that the light is all right there.
In the course of this debate reference has been made to the large expenditure incurred for the deepening and the improvement of the channel of Lake St. Peter, which is now but twenty-seven feet deep during a certain portion of the year. Well, Sir, I may say that there is just as great an obstacle to navigation below Quebec, and it is an impediment which should be removed at once, if we really wish to improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence and to lower the marine insurance rates on that route. What I wish to refer to here, is the small channel at Crane Island, thirty miles below Quebec, where at low tide, there are but twenty-four feet of water. For several years back the pilots have been asking that this channel be dredged to thirty feet; and if a powerful dredge were sent there, that channel, which is now only six hundred feet wide, could easily be dredged to thirty feet and widened to one thousand feet, so as to allow vessels to pass at any hour of the day or night, and the navigation of the St. Lawrence would thereby be greatly improved.
The pilots further say that the occulting light at Crane Island does not work well, at it is not quite steady, and they suggest that it be replaced by a red light.
It is also stated that in that portion of Craue Island the law fs not enforced. There is a by-law in force that no schooner sailing up or down the river, shall anchor in mid-channel ; but that law is not enforced. If some of the captains of those schooners were fined, or if a strict watch were kept over them either by some government steamer or by some station of observation established near that place by the Marine Department, those complaints would soon be remedied.
They also want a gas-buoy on one of the patches between Crane Island and Belle-chasse. What happened a few years ago ? The pilots had long been complaining about the insufficiency of the light and they wanted a gas-buoy to be placed on the St. Thomas shoal. They complained to Captain Demers who was then in command of the government steamer ; but that gentleman replied that Colonel Anderson had told him there was enough light there. And it was only after the Sarmatian and the Etolia had gone ashore or touched on that shoal that they put a gas-buoy there. Now, I ask, why should we wait till other ships have gone ashore or until other valuable cargoes have been lost on those shoals, which are not located on the chart ? Why not take the means of removing those impediments to navigation, and preventing the recurrence of accidents which would warrant the maritime insurance companies in raising their rates, which are already outrageously high ? They also recommend that the back buoys at Beaumont and on the shoal of Beauport be replaced by gas-buoys.
Now, what happened last year? While the elevator of the Great Northern Railway was being built, one of the range lights was obscured during the whole summer, owing to the fact that the elevator was built in between two lights, and when they built the last story on the elevator, they shut off everything. The trouble was, that there was but one light to show the vess.els their way, Accidents might have happened, had not the pilots been experienced men. Complaints were made about that obstruction, and yet nothing was done till late in the season, while that complaint could have been easily remedied. Complaints were filed in the department against that obstruction by interested parties, who spoke with knowledge of the facts! Our pilots have their own personal interests at heart. They know very well that the greater the facilities you offer to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the larger the number of vessels which will reach our ports will be. and the more money they will make. I think that personal interest in this case is a safe guide, and there is every reason to believe that the pilots are right, as their own interest coin-

cides with the interests of the navigation of the St. Lawrence river.
We are told that the aids to navigation are sufficient and cannot he improved, and we have it from the bon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) that, having consulted several captains of steamers, on hoard of their own ships, every one of them declared that they did not know of any existing aids to navigation which could foe improved, or of any aid to navigation not existing which could be put on the St. Lawrence route from Quebec to Father Point. It is idle to shut our eyes to facts. To my mind, it is of the greatest importance that we should make the route of the lower St. Lawrence as safe as possible. We have no fleet which winters in our ports. The first steamers which cross the Atlantic have to sail up the St. Lawrence before reaching Quebec or Montreal ; and, if there are any impediments to navigation in the lower St. Lawrence, it is our duty to remove those drawbacks without any delay, and to devote to the improvement of that route a portion of the money appropriated for the purpose of improvement of navigation. We do really all rejoice in Montreal's prosperity. We are ready to contribute money and to devote our energies to making Montreal the greatest city in the Dominion. There is room in this country for a large number of cities as flourishing, as wealthy and as progressive as the city of Montreal is. Quebec also will have its turn, when the drawbacks which I have pointed out are removed. I was very glad to hear the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) tell us that he intended to propose a very large expenditure, this coming year, for the purpose of remedying the defects which have been pointed out. I am sure that the hon. minister will redeem his pledge, and I am confident that in a not very remote future, with navigation so improved and perfected, the St. Lawrence route will be the quickest, and cheapest, and best route in the world.
We have heal'd it stated this afternoon that before long, the navigation of the river below Quebec would be largely revolutionized by the fact that the channel would be dredged- between He Madame and the Island of Orleans, where there exists actually one of the most dangerous stretches In the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Those who are familiar with the navigation of the lower St. Lawrence, know perfectly why navigators, for many years back, have adopted the south channel in preference to the northern channel. Formerly, when there were no steamboats, but only sailing ships on the river, as the southern channel, that Is the portion of the river between the south shore of the St. Lawrence and the islands which are scattered over a distance of several miles, was much wider than the northern channel, the sailing ships, when tacking about against contrary winds, used to follow the south shore because they could | Mr. TALBOT.
thus more easily beat to the windward and make much longer stretches. Now, navigators pretend that, with steamboats, the northern channel could be used. As we all know, the northern channel offers no impediments to navigation, there being a great depth of water all through ; but I am not prepared to say that the surveys mad^e so far are such as to lead us to believe that the shoal at lie Madame consists exclusively of sand or mud. I hope so, and more than anybody else I would rejoice if it were so ; because, under such circumstances, all the impediments to navigation which have been pointed out by experienced navigators, would disappear, and we would then have a channel entirely safe and free of all obstacles. But I am under the impression that if further surveys are made, there will be found liard-pan and rock under the sand bank, which would prevent the opening of a channel wide enough to allow large steamships to sail up and down at any time during the season.
Now, with respect to gas-lighted buoys, which are charged one hundred pounds to the square inch, their use is attended with daily inconveniences. The pilots tell us that those gas-buoys work well only for about ten or fifteen days, although they are placed there and supposed to do service for a month. As a matter of fact, about the middle of the month the light becomes less distinguishable, loses power, and is often extinct before the end of the month. It is also stated that the lights existing in certain portions of the River St. Lawrence are not powex-ful enough, and that they should be replaced by revolving lighs. Shipwrecks have occurred near St. Valier, at the Point, which is in my county. The investigation has shown that the light on the patches at Bellechasse had been mistaken for the light of the mainland, and that explains how it happened that ships, when the pilots had realized too late their mistake, wishing to go northwards, touched upon the St. Valier Point. Measures should be taken to remedy that inconvenience, so as to prevent any confusion in the lights, which, during the night, shine with equal brightness. In connection with the harbour of Quebec, we are often asked : How is it that the large ocean-going steamers go past one of the finest harbours in the world and proceed to Montreal ? There are several explanations of that fact. As everybody knows, Montreal is the great commercial metropolis of Canada, and if Quebec is not now such a great port as it ought to be, all the blame falls on the shoulders of some narrow-minded Quebec men who, on personal grounds now very well known to the public, have prevented that city from having its fair share of the public money. Moreover, these men have been the cause that the millions of dollars spent in that city for public improvements have been partially wasted. And when speaking of the men who are responsible
33D7

for the harm done to the city of Quebec, I need hardly tell the House that McGreevy and Langevin are the guilty parties. The lion. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tartej knows as well as I do that the millions of dollars voted by this House for the purpose of improving and equipping the harbour of Quebec have either been squandered or stolen, as shown during the investigation that took place in this House. We all know the serious consequences which followed therefrom, and how the progress of that harbour was retarded for several years. But, thanks be to God, those men have disappeared. Another cause which operated greatly to the prejudice of the interests of that city has also been removed. I mean the longshoremen, who used formerly to charge exorbitant rates for the loading and unloalding of vessels ; and matters had reached such a point that shippers and steamship men preferred sending their ships to Montreal to get cargoes.
Those who now visit Quebec, after a lapse of twenty-five years, are struck at the wonderful change which the city has undergone within that period. And in this connection. I am glad to be able to say, to the credit of the harbour commissioners, that the harbour improvements which they have carried out since the present government came into power have largely contributed to the development of the city. Owing to the enterprising spirit of its leading men, the city of Quebec has made enormous strides in the way of progress, and let it be said to their credit, the moneys voted for the purpose of improving and equipping the port are no longer diverted from their legitimate purposes.
It is idle shutting our eyes to the evidence of facts and to the many facilities which the harbour of Quebec offers. As stated by my hon. friend the member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) who holds a seat in the cabinet without portfolio, it is quite certain that when the piers of the new bridge at Quebec are planted, there will be an ice-bridge formed very early in the season ; but that ice-bridge, instead of being an impedient or a drawback, will, on the contrary,-as is the case every time it takes -permit of later navigation in the fail and earlier navigation in the spring between Quebec and the ocean.
This winter, we have had an ice-bridge at Cape-Kouge, and since it has formed, the channel has been completely free of ice. That is tlie reason why I told a friend of mine, this afternoon, that when the new bridge at Quebec is built, and when those two piers are planted, there will be an ice-bridge formed very early in the season, and that it will undoubtedly enable us to have navigation for at least ten months in the year.
As all the hon. gentlemen know, towards the close of the season there is considerable
time lost to shipping between Montreal and Quebec, as the great sea-going steamers have to lie over during the night. Now, that difficulty will be easily overcome, when sea-going vessels will make Quebec, their terminus. Moreover, at Quebec, there are three miles of river front where there are about from 27 to 28 feet of water, close to shore at low tide, and we have docks for the whale distance, and a safe anchorage in middle stream. There would be no expense required in dredging near those wharfs, and the only improvement required would be that of connecting those docks by longitudinal piers, which would allow a larger number of steamers to moor and to load and unload their cargoes.
I could adduce several other facts to show why trade is seeking the port of Montreal, in preference to that of Quebec. For instance, it is a well known fact that steamship companies prefer paying freight to the railway companies for the carriage of the freight collected in the vicinity of Quebec up to Montreal, rather than having to stop at Quebec and taking that freight aboard on their way to Montreal. A few days ago, one of the leading dairymen of the district told me that the steamship companies preferred paying all the freight of his butter up to Montreal, rather than taking it aboard ship at Quebec, although that butter was manufactured thirty miles from Quebec. It is the same with several other lines of goods. It is a common occurrence for Quebec merchants to see steamships loaded with their goods, proceed to Montreal without stopping at Quebec, and those goods coming back later on by rail. Such commercial drawbacks as those could be easily overcome.
I do not find fault either with this government or any hon. gentleman, or with the political party which was at the head of affairs in this country, before the Liberal party came into power. In my opinion, most of the impediments which have thwarted the natural growth of the city of Quebec-and when I speak of Quebec, it is merely from the standpoint of navigation-are to be attributed to the attitude of a certain number of Quebec gentlemen. But, for the present, what I want to impress upon the House-and in so doing, I think I am voicing the sentiments of the hon. gentlemen who represent in this House, that portion of the country in which my owu constituency is inclosed-is that we should first devote all our energies to the work of perfecting navigation between Quebec and the Gulf of St. Lawrence and that in our expenditures of public money, we should aim at overcoming the impediments which exist in that portion of the river, rather than perfecting navigation between Montreal and Quebec. Those drawbacks to navigation in the lower St. Lawrence should first be remedied as ocean-going vessels have to suffer from those drawbacks, before meeting the other impediments on their way.

As every one knows, a good farmer never puts the cart before the horse ; likewise, in the case of navigation, we must beware beginning at the wrong end ; and it would be beginning by the wrong end, not to overcome first the impediments to shipping in the lower St. Lawrence. Those improvements ought to be the more readily carried out as the amount necessary for that purpose is not very large. That is why I would ask the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), in the interest of the cities of Quebec and Montreal and of the country in general, not to turn a deaf ear to our prayers and to listen more willingly to the suggestions made by experienced navigators in connection with the improvement of that portion of the river to which I have confined my remarks. And I am bound to say that the sooner those improvements are carried out, the better it will prove for the country, from the standpoint of the benefits which will accrue to the great industry of transportation of which so much has been said here, as also from the point of view of the maritime insurance and the ill-feeling displayed by shippers who are interested in going to places where they will be best served and where they get better accommodation. This is not a political question, nor one which should be approached in a parochial spirit. It is a question which must be considered from a high national standpoint, as the progress of the country is closely connected with it. As I said, the sooner those impediments to navigation are done away with, the better the people of this country will be able to realize what a great future is in store for Canada, owing to the extent of our marvellous resources ; and the better we will be able to compete successfully with the other countries of the world on the European markets.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: As this matter is mainly of interest to the western part of the country, I have not taken part at an earlier hour in the debate, and I will promise to be very brief in the few remarks I shall address to the House, in the reference to the maritime interests in these projected improvements to the St. Lawrence river. Next to fish, our chief article of export in the province of Nova Scotia is coal. We send from 800,000 to
1,000,000 tons of coal from the maritime provinces to Quebec and Montreal each year. I can take you back to the seventies when the rates were $2.50 to $3.50 per ton, and to the eighties, when the freight rates were reduced to $1.50 and to $1.25. During the last three years these rates have been from $1 to 65 cents. Hon. gentlemen opposite profess to believe that the great development that has taken place in this business was brought about by their policy of imposing a duty on coal, but I think the figures that I have given are due to the improvement of the transportation facilities more than to the duty on coal.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Further a company which has been engaged in the transportation of coal from Cape Breton during the last five or six years, has offered to convey coal to Boston for 38 cents a ton, the company paying port charges and supplying bunker coal. Let me also point out that coal was conveyed from Cleveland to Duluth two years ago-I do not know what the rates were last year, but I think they were higher-for 25 cents a ton. This was in vessels of 10,000 tons capacity, and would not have been possible unless they had been supplied with return cargoes of grain and iron ore. I venture to assert that before long, as soon as steamers of 10,000 or 12,000 tons capacity are employed in the Cape Breton coal-carrying trade, coal will be conveyed to Montreal for 50 cents a ton, or even less, provided transportation facilities are improved and insurance rates are lowered. I may say, by way of parenthesis, that the high insurance rates during this year have driven the Petersen & Tate boats out of this trade. I was informed to-day that not a single boat which, has been in that trade for the last six or seven years is engaged in it this year. This freight is not to be carried by British vessels, not by Canadian vessels, but almost exclusively by Norwegian vessels. Why is this ? Why it is that Norwegian vessels are able to freight that coal from Cape Breton to Montreal while Canadian and British vessels are withdrawn from the traffic ? This matter has been explained to me. It was stated that the owners of Norwegian ships have a mutual insurance company of their own. They have had considerable experience in this trade, and they discount considerably the reputed dangers of the route.) It looks as though a conspiracy has been hatched against this route by British underwriters, but, the Norwegian underwriters, who have had a large experience of this route, are quite willing to underwrite risks on vessels carrying coal from Cape Breton to Montreal. I wish to point out another feature of the St. Lawrence route, and it is that to-day about
1.000.	000 tons of shipping return from Montreal and Quebec to Cape Breton empty. That means that a tonnage capacity for
20.000.	000 bushels of wheat returns empty from Montreal and Quebec down the St. Lawrence. Hon. gentlemen will observe that for a grain-carrying vessel, the dangerous part of her voyage between Liverpool and Montreal is in that part of her voyage between Cape Breton and Montreal, and that steamers carrying coal from Cape Breton to Montreal and returning traverse 1,400 miles in which the dangers are, and that the risks which the underwriters refuse to take are mainly in that part of the voyage. Now, strong practical business men are today considering the advisability of building elevators at the port of Sydney and utilizing the empty tonnage from Montreal to bring down grain to that port. If this project is carried out it will save ocean ships the

expense of risks, to which tire underwriters object, to the extent of 20,000,000 bushels capacity. I may also point) out that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann are to-day developing one of the finest coal properties in the world. The coal properties which they have in Inverness county are probably as good as we have in Cape Breton county, and both these gentlemen have told me that with the 14-foot canals it will be possible to carry coal all the way from the Strait of Canso, Cape Breton, right through the St. Lawrence route, and up the great lakes to Port Arthur, and to bring return cargoes of grain and iron ore. I also wish to point out that the successful working of our iron industries in Cape Breton will depend largely on getting some ores which we have not at present at command. We have a large quantity of ore of certain grades, very valuable ores indeed, but even now we are importing, to mix with these ores, other ores from Santiago, Cuba. The managers of this industry are now looking up supplies of iron ores in Ontario to mix with their present supply.
This brings me to a matter which appears of some importance to this industry. That is the question of a 20-foot canal from the Georgian Bay and down the Ottawa river. Of course, we recognize that this is a matter that will require the expenditure of an enormous amount of money. It is placed at $40,000,000 or $50,000,000. The Manchester canal was built for a distance of twenty-nine miles at a cost of $75,000,000, to do a very limited business, a business which could be easily measured, but to construct from the Georgian Bay a 20-foot waterway to Montreal will cost $50,000,000. Our imaginations can scarcely picture the amount of work which in all probability such a project would have to perform within a measurable time. Its importance as a market provider for Cape Breton coal and as a source of supply of iron ore is so great that my best efforts must be directed in favour of this great project. I wish to make another remark, and it is about the port of Quebec. No one, I suppose, will, for a moment, deny that the port of Quebec has commanding advantages, and we believe that when great 15,000 or 20,000 ton steamers come into this trade, Quebec will show that it has paramount advantages. I do not know how feasible it will be to keep the ice out of the St. Lawrence river from Quebec down to the gulf, but-and I make this statement no*t on my own responsibility, but on the responsibility of a score or so of the most experienced mariners with whom I am well acquainted, and on the responsibility of a number of the captains of sealing steamers which go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence every year-that during two months every year, and during three months in most years, it will be found impossible to successfully navigate the 106
Gulf of St. Lawrence, even though you can successfully navigate the stretch of river between Quebec and the gulf. I would like to refer to a remark made a short time ago by the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals {Hon. Mr. Haggart). He deprecated the large expenditure which has been ma&e on the Intercolonial Railway. Well, I think it is thoroughly understood to-day that the Intercolonial Railway cannot be made a successful traffic road unless a further amount is expended on the road to cut down the grades. I also wish to point out that the larger part of the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway during the last year or eighteen months has been on that section between St. John and Truro, and between Halifax and Truro, and Truro and Sydney. To-day that section of the road is groaning under the freight it has to carry. Still further expenditures of money are necessary on the Intercolonial Railway, and if that hon. gentleman could go over the road and! see the condition of the trade, he would at once come to the conclusion that further expenditures are in every way desirable and justifiable.
We were told by some gentlemen to-day that we should have foreign trade, that we should build our ships and if necessary that a bonus should be given for that purpose ; and that we should sail our own ships. Well, Sir, in order to carry on the shipping business from a Canadian basis, most every one will admit, that we must have return cargoes. If we cannot get return cargoes imagine our position in competition with the British ship-owners who do get such cargoes. The British shipowner in Manchester sending out a vessel hunting for return freight will sell his goods where he can get that freight. He will send a ship to Alexandria, Egypt, or to Cape of Good Hope, or to Australia, to get the goods he requires at home, provided that at these ports he can sell the products of' British manufacture. He will seek cargoes in those countries in preference to Canada, if here is denied an opportunity to exchange his own goods for those he is ready to purchase. Suppose we own our own vessels and we are ready to load them with coal, or iron, or pulp, or any other of our natural products, and suppose we send these vessels abroad, they certainly will be at a great disadvantage as compared with ships that can secure return cargoes from the ports whence they sail. It has been prominently brought out to-day that the great industries of Canada, our natural resources, are those upon which we should bend our greatest energies. * Important as our manufactures are, the, development of our agricultural lands, of the products of our forests, our fisheries, and our mines, are of infinitely greater importance. We have not heard a word to-day of the future upbuilding of this country by the development of manufactures. Our at-



tention has been directed to the development of our natural resources, and if we build our own ships to export these natural products, we must provide for return cargoes. I believe that the government has had an intimation this session from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that they should keep the ship of state headed towards freer trade. We must cut down our tariff duties. We are prepared to take our place in the commerce of the world, prepared to export our great natural products, but in order to do that to advantage we must cut down our tariff, so that we can purchase abroad, because if we purchase abroad we will be able to sell abroad to the best advantage. We must bend to the axiom, ' If you want to sell, you must toe prepared to buy.'


Mr. THOMAS MURRAY (Pontiac).: I do not intend to detain the House very long in discussing this question, and more particularly so as there are a good many empty benches at this late hour, but I see two or three of the ministers present, and perhaps I may be able to impress them with the importance of proceeding at once with the construction of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. I shall not go into the rival merits of Montreal or Quebec harbours, but I will say that the Georgian Bay canal is a work of prime national importance and of vital necessity. I represent a constituency that to a large extent remains undeveloped. We have only fifty miles of railway in that county, for which the county is indebted to the sum of $200,000 in granting a bonus. Hon. gentlemen will therefore readily understand that my constituents are deeply interested in the early construction of the Georgian Bay canal. My predecessor, Mr. Poupore, dealt with this subject in the last parliament, and he presented it to the House in a forcible and intelligent way. He went into the details and spoke of the merits of the scheme, and I believe made out a strong case in its favour. I understand the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) referred to the can-alling of the French river at an early date. I may say that I travelled with the chief engineer on the Parry Sound road on his return from making a survey on that river, and I understood from him that the work was quite feasible. Of course, that would be part of the Georgian Bay canal system. I do hope that the government have decided to go on with that great national waterway. We have the St. Lawrence canal system, we have the Booth railway system, carrying the products from the west, and in the Georgian Bay canal we will have a means of transportation that will be of incalculable benefit to this country as a whole. The member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told us how cheaply the Booth system was able to carry wheat and other freight. We have also the Canadian Pacific Railway, but we require the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Mr. KENDALL.
Bay canal to open up this great northern country. I believe it was stated by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that it would cost $60,000,000 to make a 20-foot channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know the cost of it.


Thomas Murray: Well it is to approximate that, and suppose it does cost $60,000,000, that money will come back speedily in the way of revenue, because it will increase the population and it will enormously develop the resources of that great country. And, Sir, these resources are vast indeed. Within a short distance of Pembroke where I live, in the district back of Fort William there is a good showing of iron, also at Bristol and other places ; and at Temiscamingue there is a silver mine in operation. The resources of that great northern country are as yet unknown and undreamt of. If we have the Georgian Bay canal, then of course, other arteries will reach back to the interior, and the wealth of that region will be placed at the disposal of capital and labour. We knew nothing of the nickel deposits of Sudbury before the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but look at the great work which is going on there now. So it will be with this great northern country when the Georgian Bay canal is built. There are, of course, rival schemes, but every man with any feelings of patriotism must admit that the construction of this canal is a national necessity. I trust that the government have decided not only to canal the French river, but that they have also decided to continue that scheme to its completion. I am here as a supporter of the present administration, because I believe that they are an honest government and a business government. From my early history in the country, and I am not a boy, I have heard talk of the Georgian Bay canal, but the time for talk is over and the time to get down to practical work has arrived. I am in hopes that we have now a practical government. They have given evidence of that already, and I trust they will give further evidence of it by completing at an early date this great undertaking.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At this late hour, I would ask the permission of the House to withdraw the motion to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion withdrawn.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply at the next sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES moved the adjournment of the House.

Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimates of the Minister of Public Works, or the estimates of the Minister of Militia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 o'clock midnight.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, April 19, 1901.