PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER moved :: That the papers covered by the return to the Order of the House of Commons, dated 12th February, 1901, Reference No. 3, with supplementary return of said Order, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
He said : That is the itemized statement of the gallons of spirituous and malt liquors sent into the Yukon. The Minister of the Interior knows the return, and the subject is referred to in the Auditor General's Report. Some inquiry will be made into that, and these papers would be useful.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 47) to amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens. He said : The leading feature of the first amendment which is proposed by this Bill concerns the third section of the present Act, which provides for a penalty for a violation of this Act of $l,O0J, no more and no less. The object of the amendment is to make the penalty not more than $1,001) and not less than $50, giving to the judge discretion to apply the penalty according to the offence. Then, it is stated in the Act that tlie penalty is to be recovered only by the consent of the Attorney General. We propose to modify that section, and to provide that the penalty shall be recovered with the consent, either of the Attorney General of the province, or of the judge of any court in which the penalty is sued for.
The second amendment concerns section 5 of the Act. I have not the Act before me, but section 5 provides that a settler, that is to say, an intending settler, may bring with him a relative or a personal friend. It has been found in practice that this word ' personal friend ' is too elastic for practical purposes, and that it may be made an occasion for evading the law ; therefore, we propose to strike out the words * personal friend.'
Section (i of the said Act provides that if there has beeu a violation of the Act, the party who has been introduced into tlie country illegally shall be sent back at the expense of the person previously coutraet-ing for the services. It is proposed to strike out these words, and to substitute | in lieu thereof :
At the expense of the person, partnership, company or corporation violating any of the provisions of section 1 of this Act.
Then, it is proposed to repeal section 8 of the Act altogether, and to substitute the following section therefor :
That it shall be deemed a violation of this ' Act for any person, partnership, company or corporation to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner who resides in, or is a citizen of any foreign country to which this Act shall apply, by promise of employment through advertisements, printed or published in such foreign country, and any such alien or foreigner, coming to this country in consequence of such an advertisement, shall be treated as coming under a contract as contemplated by this Act, and the penalties by this Act imposed shall be applicable in such case. Nothing in this Act contained shall be held to affect or control the government of Canada or of any provision of the Territories in respect of promoting immigration.
This last amendment has been inserted at the suggestion of the labour organizations, who have strongly pressed for its adoption.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	When did the authority to distribute the long service decoration and long service medals reach the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	Have the forms of applications for either been issued to district officers commanding; and, if not, when will they be forthcoming?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	Approved regulations to govern the issue were received at the Department of Militia and Defence, February 4, 1901.
2.	No. The regulations will be promulgated in General Order of March 1, 1901- the first orders submitted for the approval of His Excellency in Council since the receipt of the approved regulations. Application forms will be printed and distributed without delay.


LICENSES FOR PACKING LOBSTERS.
Mr. BELL (Pictou) asked :: 1.	How many licenses have been granted for packing lobsters on the shores of the island of Anticosti?
2.	If ar.y, to whom have such licenses been granted?
3.	What fees have been paid for such licenses?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Assuming that the hon. gentleman's question refers to the coming year :
1.	One.
2.	M. G. Daggett.
3.	$100.


LACHINE CANAL LOCK.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. HAGGART-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the contract for the Lachine canal lock been awarded? If so, to whom and at what figure?
2.	Who were the other tenderers, and at what figures did they tender?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The contract for the Lachine canal lock has not been awarded.
2.	Until the contract is awarded it is not in the public interest to make known the names and figures of tenderers.



SOREL HARBOUR WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. HAGGART-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the contract for the Sorel harbour works been awarded? If so, to whom, and what was the amount of tender?
2.	Who were the other tenderers, and at what figures did they tender?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: The contract has not been awarded.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has not answered the second part of the question. Who were the tenderers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Until the contract is awarded, I have nothing more to say. The contract is not awarded. That covers the whole case.



MONTREAL HARBOUR WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. HAGGART-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Who was the successful tenderer for the harbour works in the city of Montreal, awarded by the Public Works Department?
2.	What was the amount of the accepted tender?
3.	Who were the other tenderers, and at what figures did they tender?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) ;
1.	James C. Malone.
2.	$631,033.33.
3.	James C. Malone, Three Rivers, Que., $631,033.33 ; N. K. & M. Connolly, Quebec, $886,606 ; M. A. Pigott, Hamilton, Out., $827,000 ; W. H. Davis, Ottawa, $936,570 ; F B. McNamee, W. Stracban, J. Quinlan, Montreal, $1,019,000 ; R. Macdonald, Coteau Landing, Que., $1,185,000.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What was the nature of the contract made between the government and the Kingston Locomotive Works, or with private parties at Kingston, or elsewhere, for the supply of locomotives for the Intercolonial Railway?
2.	How many engines were ordered, and when were they to be delivered?
3.	What price is being paid for each engine?
4.	Are the government making advances to the contractors on account before the delivery of the engines, and if so, on what basis?
5.	Were tenders asked for the supply of the engines?
6.	What was the date upon which the contact was entered into?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	There is a contract with the Canadian Locomotive Company of Kingston for single expansion consolidated freight engines with four pairs of coupled wheels.
2.	Twenty engines were ordered, and they are to be delivered in the following manner, viz.: The first engine on the first day of May. 1901, and an additional engine every ten days thereafter until all the said twenty engines shall have been delivered.
3.	$19,000 each.

4.	SO per cent Is allowed the contractors on each progress estimate.
5.	No, upon a submission to the Governor in Council, it was ordered that as the department had obtained prices for similar engines from United States manufacturers, the government would be justified in paying this price with duty added, less $500 each.
6.	The agreement originally made was with Messrs. William Harty and others on the 22nd December, 1900, and transferred to the corporation formed by the original contractors under the name of the Canadian Locomotive Company.



YUKON DISTRICT-LIQUOR REGULATIONS.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER asked :: 1.	Will the government lay on the Table of the House ' The departmental regulations with reference to liquors for personal use ' referred to in letter of Deputy Minister of Interior to Mr. Turenne, January 11, 1901, (return to Order of the House, Ref. No. 3, 1901)?
2.	Will the government lay on the Table the departmental regulations with reference to liquors fcr the Yukon district?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Yes, I will lay the regulations on the Table to-morrow.



SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-RECRUITING IN CANADA.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, 1 would like to put a question to the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). According to the notice that was given some days ago that the government were to take Thursday, I expected to-day that the government would go into Supply, and that I would be able to bring up the motion of which I gave notice some days ago. The government did not take Thursday, and to-morrow being Friday, and some hon. members desiring to be present, who will be absent, I would like to give notice to the House that I will bring the motion up on Tuesday, unless there is a special reason why I should not do so.



VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.

Hon. E. G. PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the right hon. leader of the House to the fact that two nights ago I asked a question in the House when the right hon. gentleman was not present, and that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) intimated that he would rather I should wait until the Prime Minister was in his place. It was in regard to the visit
of the Duke of Cornwall and York. There is a notice in the Globe, quoting it as from official sources, that their Royal Highnesses are going to Vancouver, and I would ask the Prime Minister if he can give any official information ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I stated some time ago to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior) that we are corresponding at this moment with the Colonial Office upon the subject of the visit of their Royal Highnesses, that the correspondence is not concluded, and that I would not like to make any statement until the correspondence has been concluded. But, in the meantime, I think without divulging any secret, I may assume to say that it would be, I think, quite fitting and proper that their Royal Highnesses should visit Vancouver, B.C.


Edward Gawler Prior: I presume Victoria at the same time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I should say so. THE BUDGET.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would make an announcement as respects the time at which the budget will be presented. Our present intention is that the budget speech shall be delivered on Thursday of next week unless something should occur to postpone it, of which, of course, due notice will be given.



TRAINING OF OFFICERS AND MILITIAMEN.

Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, I do not for a moment wish to interfere with the budget or with the motion of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), but I would say that I also gave notice of motion on going into Committee of Supply. I would not think of intruding upon the privileges of the hon. member for Labelle, but I would say that my notice has precedence over his, and that it was held over at the request of one of the ministers who was ill.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) The motion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) also concerns the Transvaal, and perhaps we can agree to compromise.



TRANSPORTATION OF GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Bennett :
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived when a fixed and definite line of action should be undertaken on the question of the transportation of the grain and other com-
[Stage Direction]
modifies of the North-west Territories, Manitoba and the western states, with a view to centreing the same to the greatest possible extent in Canadian channels.
Jilt W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, this motion was before the House yesterday, and the debate was cut short at six o'clock. I had intended saying something then, but was prevented by that fact. I just wish to say a little more in regard to the transportation problem and something in regard to the features of it that were brought up in the House yesterday. I would like to take a strictly non-partisan position in regard to this transportation problem, but when I remember how the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) treated me last night, and has treated me on several occasions, I do not think I would be discharging my duty unless I pointed out some of the mistakes that he has made in the past in connection with this question. The other day, the recognized organ of bon. gentlemen opposite, the Globe, in Toronto, was discussing the railway question as it affected the people of Manitoba, and as it affects them to-day in relation to a certain proposition that is now before them in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway. The Globe, said that there is an element of resentment in the attitude of the people and their representatives in the matter. What gave rise to this element of resentment in the minds of the people of Manitoba ? It is because this government failed in 1898 to do what they should have done for the protection of the people in connection with certain transportation problems then before the parliament of Canada. In 1898, when we had this matter up in the House, I directed the attention of both sides of the House to the fact that a great railway proposition and a new proposition was being brought to their attention. I quoted from the Globe newspaper of that day outlining the scheme of Mann and Mackenzie, having in view the establishment of a new transportation route, and I said that this is the opportunity when so much money is being expended to protect the people of Manitoba, and to protect the whole people of Canada. I will quote from the Globe newspaper a statement of what was done in 1898 in this House, in the legislature in Toronto, and in the legislature in Manitoba, in three legislatures that were controlled absolutely by the Liberal party. The Ontario and Rainy River Railway has 286 miles in the province of Ontario, and that province gave it $1,110,000 without a single condition being imposed. The Dominion government gave $960,000 in connection with the same railway without conditions, and the province of Manitoba guaranteed bonds to the extent of $5,800,000 on the portion of the road both within the province and without it. On the whole there was


Wilfrid Laurier: granted to that road $27,000 a mile of public money for 290 miles in Ontario ; $8,000 a mile guaranteed by Manitoba for the Minnesota section and the section in Manitoba ; and the Dominion government in 1898 gave 6,400 acres a mile. The Manitoba government guaranteed $10,000 a mile bonds which, with the land grants, made a donation of $20,000 a mile to that concern. In 1898 three Liberal legislatures in this country : the legislature of Ontario, the legislature of Manitoba, and this parliament controlled by the Liberal party, gave the equivalent of $20,000 a mile for this road. I called the attention of parliament and the Minister of Railways to these facts when the measure was going through here, and I said : Now is the time to protect the people of Manitoba. But the minister replied : You are wandering far afield ; you are trying to pose before the country, and he made all kinds of charges of that kind against me when my only desire was to get him to protect the interests of the people. What was the defence that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) set up then '! He said : This is not a great continental project ; it is only a little railway and does not involve any great interest. That statement of the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) is on record, and when 1 divided the House, the right hon. the First Minister rushed the measure through and he neglected to seize the opportunity which would have protected the people of Manitoba to-day. The people of Manitoba are now seeking to right the wrong that was perpetrated upon them by three legislatures controlled by the Liberal party. The province of Ontario is to blame for not taking some sort of satisfactory guarantee from the Rainy River road ; the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) is to blame in the same way, and the Greenway government is most of all to blame. If what I proposed had been done, namely, to unite and make that road a national road, there would be no grievance in Manitoba to-day, but on the contrary, the Rainy River Railway would have been a link in the new national system. It would in a short time have been connected with the Crow's Nest Pass Railway and with the Intercolonial system, and for the money that Canada has expended on these railways we would have practically had a national system across the continent without costing us an additional cent. The Minister of Railways on that occasion failed to protect the interests of the country ; he failed to protect the interests of Manitoba, and the same charge applies to the Liberal governments of Ontario and Manitoba.
I want to pass, Mr. Speaker, from that partial view of the case. I am sorry to have to say of hon. gentlemen opposite that they failed in their duty. Now. with what the hon. gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has said in regard to transportation of Lake Superior, I agree to some extent, but I 1 do not agree with all he said, for if his argu-

ment means anything it means that the Grand Trunk Railway system from Midland to Montreal isi the system Rest adapted to solve the transportation problem, and that after we are finished with the canals we should do nothing more. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) in that respect. On the contrary, I agree with hon. gentlemen opposite. I say that there is or will be enough traffic for every system of transportation which we have got, and the thing for us to do is to find that system will give us the best and most immediate results. The Grand Trunk Railway has a good harbour at Midland and a good system to Montreal, but just when it reaches Montreal it does the worst thing possible for Canada, because it deflects that traffic to Portland. That should not be, nor should the Grand Trunk Railway be allowed to continue that practice. The best way to stop that and to afford a remedy is to do just what the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) said we should not do. I believe we should nationalize the Booth lines and nationalize the Ross line, and from all I can gather to-day Quebec is the natural port for a great deal of that trade. At very small cost Quebec can be made a splendid shipping port, and can be developed and put in running order this year, and extended every year in the future. I believe that there is something in winter navigation, but I do not intend to enter upon that subject to-day. Be that as it may. Quebec is the most available port we have in Canada for the greatest length of time during the year, and it can be equipped with the least expense. I believe that the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Great Northern Railway would make a first-class extension of the 'Intercolonial Railway. I do not believe that our national line, the Intercolonial Railway, should end at Montreal. I believe in its extension to the great lakes where the traffic originates and where it will find a feeder. If these ports are to be built up ; if the 200 million bushels of grain -which I believe will be 400 millions before a great while-which comes to the great lakes and which will come to Midland and to Parry Sound are to toe handled in Canada, I want to see the Grand Trunk Railway get a share of it and I want to see the Canadian national railway getting its share of it and taking it to Quebec in the summer time and to St. John, Halifax or Sydney in the winter time, or if need be. all the year around. I am applying my system of nationalizing the railways as a solution of the problem submitted to us yesterday by the hon. member (Mr. Bennett). I believe that the people of Canada are in favour of nationalizing the Booth system and the Ross system and making them part of the Intercolonial Railway. I believe that if the government had in 1898 secured a proper control over the Rainy River road, Canada would have a national system of railways in a short while right into the city of Winnipeg, and in that way we would have been able to discipline all the other railways in this country. My hon. friend from Simcoe iMr. Bennett) said that we had spent enough money on the canals and that we should now iet the railways have a show. I do not agree with him there. My opinion is that for twenty years the railways have done their best to prevent the deepening and enlarging of our canals, and now that our canal system is coming into vogue I would like to see it largely improved and extended.
We in Toronto, also believe that probably one great solution of the transportation problem is to make a national road somewhere between the Georgian Bay and Toronto, by which we could use the canal and river system from that city down to the sea.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the idea.


William Findlay Maclean: That may be the cheapest and best way out of it ; that may be the complement of what the government is today doing in the harbour of Collingwood. They are making great improvements there, and we would like to know if they are making them with the idea that they will have a railway between Toronto and Collingwood, or Toronto and Midland or wherever the port may be. The port may be Penetanguisliene. But that is a proposition which must be in the government's mind, and it may be one that will go a great way in solving the transportation problem. The only satisfactory solution of the transportation problem of this country, however, is by the parliament and government taking over the railways, and making them a complement of our canal system. When you control the railways and the canals, you can use the one or the other or the two in combination; they will work in harmony in the best interests of the country.
I wish briefly to enumerate some of the positive advantages of the nationalization of railways. It will secure the absolute control of our own lines, and absolute equality of treatment to all, rich and poor, individual and corporation. Government ownership will restore the land grants to the people, and some of the money the people put into these roads. Government ownership will make the canals and our water navigation, and all the improvements thereof, and the railway system of the country, complementary one of the other. Government ownership will necessitate the ocean terminals of our railways being at Canadian ports and in that way make our railways patriotic. The only way you can make Canadian roads patriotic is by compelling them to have their terminals at Canadian ports. Government ownership will build up a British Canadian ocean service on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Tt will secure the fullest use of all trains for a greatly im-

proved postal service. It will secure the control and extension of tlie parcel express business, and will allow of the railway telegraph service being consolidated with a national telegraph system; and all this will be secured at a much less cost than now for administration, and at a much less cost to the people who use the service. Government ownership means that a national policy with regard to railways can be made complementary to the national fiscal policy, and one will greatly aid and reinforce the other. Government ownership means lower freight rates for the producers, whether farmers, miners, lumbermen, stockmen, or fishermen. Government ownership means cheaper passenger rates, with a greatly improved passenger service. Government ownership means the opening up of new country with the money now sunk in unnecessary roads in older sections. Government ownership means that the entire energy of the management of such a national system will be devoted to the service of the people, and to solving the problem how best to handle the traffic of the country at the lowest cost to the producer or consumer, instead of wasting the best part of that energy, as is done to-day, in fighting rival roads at the expense of people along the lines or the country at large.
What are the things which the nationalization of railways will prevent or render unnecessary ? It will prevent the creation of a railway commission. If we can avoid the creation of an expensive railway commission, it will be a great point in favour of tlie nationalization of railways. Government ownership will prevent the everlasting war between such a commission and the railways which is sure to occur after the commission is created. Government ownership will prevent the unpatriotic conduct of private railways like the Grand Trunk going to Portland, and the Canadian Pacilic Hailway going to Boston. Government ownership will wipe out the frightful corruption in politics by the great corporations. Government ownership will do away with the extravagant and unnecessary extension of the present national system of railways. Government ownership will do away with the duplication of existing roads by unnecessary lines. Government ownership will avoid the expensive and extravagant system of competition for business, involving many unnecessary officials, offices, advertising, solicitors, commissions, &c. Government ownership will prevent foreign ownership and control, and the consequent unpatriotic policy that might emanate therefrom. Government ownership will prevent the hostile attitude that existing roads show to new roads coming into and getting into cities, and will put an end to all unnecessary and expensive entrances into cities and ports. Do you know what happens in a city like Toronto or Montreal when a new road wants to come in ? It involves the Mr. MACLEAN.
expenditure of millions of money, a great fight, and the waste of a tremendous amount of energy. With government ownership there will be a national entry into each city, and none of the fighting and expense now indulged in by competing roads. That alone will be an enormous saving. The more you look at this railway question in all its aspects, the more evident it becomes that the only way to avoid the troubles ahead is through government ownership. The more we do to build up rival roads, the more we complicate the problem. When you stop giving to railways, subsidies of money and lands, and gradually get control of them, you will be in a position to give the people transportation at the lowest cost.
.lust one other feature of this transportation problem I want to refer to, that is, the Atlantic service. This country has made no progress in getting an Atlantic service since this government came into power. We are rather worse off than we were before. We find our Canadian ports becoming deserted. My idea is that the government should run an Atlantic service in connection witli the Intercolonial Railway. I believe that the coming Atlantic port is Sydney. The government could make the experiment with two moderate-sized steamships, which would give a service once a week; and if it were found to pay, it would do more to advertise this country, and build up the Intercolonial and the Canadian national system of railways than anything else. The traffic would have to pass over the national railway of Canada. Not only the people of New York and Boston would use the service, but all the west would use it; and I believe that before ten years were over, we would have a fast Atlantic service running from an Intercolonial terminal, which would send a steamer across the ocean every day in the year. I believe that a fast Atlantic service is coming, and as a Canadian I would like to see it quick. The way to secure it is to hold the national system of railways which we have to-day, and gradually extend that system, and not to be afraid to go ahead and take over the other systems, which can be done at a very small expense.
As I have said before, the people of Canada to-day, are paying all the cost of these railways. It is not the companies or the shareholders who are paying for them; it is the traffic, and the greater burden you put upon the traffic by establishing unnecessary lines, the harder it is for the people to bear. There is no getting rid of the difficulties of the situation other than by coming to a straight national system of railways. -
I hope that the government will yet see its way to come out in favour of the nationalization of railways, and extend the national system to the upper lakes. We have only got a portion of the way. While I agree with a great deal that my bon. friend from Sim-

coe (Mr. Bennett) has said in criticism of the government, I do not agree in his policy of malting the Grand Trunk Railway the line over which this traffic will pass, but would prefer a line owned and controlled by the people, and which would be an extension of the Intercolonial Railway. I trust that hon. gentlemen opposite will not charge me with posing before this House, because the very policy I am advocating to-day I drew attention to three sessions ago in this House ; but I do make this charge to-day, and am sorry to have to make it-that if the government had maintained control of those roads, and the money they gave the Rainy River Railway in 1898. there would not be the trouble in Manitoba which exists there to-day. I believe, however, that the Manitobans are a self-relying people, and that they will work out a solution which will not impose any great burden on them in this connection. They are making a step in the direction of government ownership, and the province of Ontario proposes hereafter to maintain some kind of control of the railways, so that we can fairly say that government ownership is in the air ; and those politicians who first tried to impress that policy on the public and have it carried out. will be those whom the people will recognize as having had the courage of their convictions, and as having-advocated a policy which cannot fail to be beneficial in the public interest.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Peter Macdonald, East Huron).: 1 rise to express my views upon the transportation question irrespective of any route. The transportation question, in my opinion, is one of the most important engaging public attention. I do not regard it as a party question at all. Nor is it a local question, for we are all desirous of establishing- the very best system of conveying from one part of the country to the other the products of the energies of the Canadian people. It is not to be supposed for one moment, that any one route will carry all the products of the country. Some will go by the waterways, and some partially by waterways and partially by railways ; but it is undoubted that the most effective way of controlling railway rates is to put our waterways in the very best condition. It has been the experience everywhere that a waterway has a very-strong controlling influence upon railway-rates owing to the cheapness with which a waterway can carry the freight and traffic of the country, and the time has come when we must devise the best means of meeting the extraordinary expansion of trade we are now experiencing. Our trade is happily increasing by leaps and bounds. It would probably surprise many' who have not given attention to the figures, that in 1888, 9.000 vessels passed through the Sault Ste. Marie canal, south and w-est, the average tonnage of which was 600 tons, and the
amount of tonnage carried through was 5,495,000, and the value $79,000,000. That will give an idea of the extraordinary-trade which passed through the Sault canal in 1888. Twelve years have elapsed, and I find, on looking over the figures, that instead of 9,000 vessels having passed through last year, 20,000 vessels passed through, with an average tonnage of 1,000 tons ; and these y-essels carried, not five and a half million tons, but twenty-five million tons. And instead of the value being $79,000,000, the freight carried amounted to $218,000,000 in value. That shows the expansion of trade in Lake Superior during the past twelve years, and impresses upon us the importance of providing increased facilities for that trade, so as to prevent its being handled by a foreign country. Our government have been doing what they could to improve the greatest waterway in the world. Canada's waterway extends from the Atlantic Into the very heart of the continent, a distance of no less than 2,700 miles, but nature, in giving us that unrivalled waterway, left some obstacles which we are in duty bound to remove as far as possible. A portion of that waterway belongs to us, and a portion is common to us and the United States. We have spent no less than $75,000,000 to $80,000,000 in constructing canals, w-hich, I think, was a wise policy. But we must remember that there are other things to be done. We have canals now 14 feet deep, which will accommodate vessels carrying from 60,000 to 100,000 bushels of wheat, but we require also deep harbours and better terminals. We sometimes lament that we are not getting more trade, but the reason is because we cannot handle satisfactorily the trade we are now receiving. The large vessels that come down laden with wheat pass in sight of Port Colborne and sail into the port of Buffalo, and one of the most important things Canada has to do is to make that Port Colborne sufficiently- deep to enable large vessels to come in and send the wheat in our direction. There is another thing required, and that is a guard pier ; and I am glad that the parliament of Canada voted money last year for the purpose of providing it. Without that guard pier, particularly when the wind is blowing from the south and south-west, the waters become so disturbed that the elevating of wheat becomes very- difficult.
Now, I wish to show that the particular attention of parliament should be directed, not for the purpose of constructing railways, but for the purpose of putting the waterways in the very best condition. It is well known to those Who have given consideration to this question that the waterway, no matter how inefficient, has a very large control over the rates charged by the railways during the open season. The lowest rates in the world for carrying wheat to-day are the charges front Chicago to New York. And What is the reason of

that ? Tlie reason is that the lowest charges by waterway are the charges by water from Chicago to New York.	The best
equipped railways in the world to-day are the railways from Chicago to New York, the reason being that the waterway adjoining has forced the railways to improve in this respect. Twenty years ago the curves on these roads were much more numerous and much more difficult than at the present time. The railways saw that, in competing with the waterways, they would be obliged to improve their means and methods. They straightened their curves, they lowered their grades, they increased the size and capacity of their ears, they increased the capacity of their engines ; and the consequence is that where, a few years ago, they could carry only from twenty-five to thirty cars, now they draw forty, and even fifty cars. This is owing to the improvements that I have spoken of. And, as I say, these improvements have been forced by the proximity of the waterway upon wlioise bosom floats tlie vessels of commerce. This shows us the importance of putting our waterways in a condition to control the railway rates in our own country. Another thing that we must bear iu mind is that the western states, in order to control the railway rates, seek an outlet at some place on the waterway. And as soon as they strike that point they can control the railway rates, because they can say to the railway : We will take the waterway unless you give us reasonable rates. The very best authorities in the United States who have investigated this matter agree on these points. No doubt lion, members will recollect, that in 1885, the Senate of the United States appointed a commission to investigate the transportation question. This is known in history as the Cul'lom Commission. Before this commission sat to hear evidence, they formulated questions which they sent out to men who were particularly well informed on this business, and one of these questions I will read to you. This question was sent out to ninety different individuals, for the purpose of ascertaining their opinion as to the controlling power of waterways over railway rates :
In making provision (or securing cheap transportation, is it or is it not important that the government should develop and maintain a system of water routes ?
The parties to whom this was sent included expert railroad men, steamboat men, engineers and others who had paid attention to these matters for many years. And of the ninety to whom the question was sent, seventy-three sent an answer to the following effect :
That a national system of water communication is the most certain and effective method of regulating railway rates and of insuring t.o the people the advantages of cheaper transportation.


Peter Macdonald: Hon. members will probably remember reading the history of this committee and its report to the Senate. As a result of the findings of this committee, and based upon its report, a Bill was introduced and carried under which the Inter-state Railway Commission was appointed. I find in that report the following, which gives the opinion of the committee on this point of water communication, and shows the important effect of waterways upon railway rates in that country :
The evidence before the committee accords with the experience of all nations in recognizing the waterways as the most efficient cheapeners and regulators of railway rates. Their influence is not confined within the limits immediately accessible to water communication, but extends further and controls railroad rates at such remote and interior points as have not competing lines and the means of transport by water. Competition between railways, sooner or later, leads to combination or consolidation, but neither can prevail to secure unreasonable rates in the face of direct competition with free natural or artificial water routes. The conclusion of the committee is, therefore, that natural or artificial channels of communication by water

Now, note this :-
-when favourably located, adequately Improved and properly maintained, offer the cheapest method of long-distance transportation now known, and they must continue to exercise in the future, as they have invariably exercised in the past, an absolutely controlling and beneficial regulating Influence upon the charges made upon any and all means of transit.
Now, you will notice that there are three things as specified in this report as necessary. One is that the waterway Shall be favourably located. We have a favourable location ; we have a far more favourable location than the United States. The United States waterway is not to be compared with the Canadian waterway. For instance, they have one mile of canal for every four miles of open water; we have only one mile of canal for every sixteen miles of open water. They have only the Erie canal with its depth of seven feet, we have our canals with their depth of fourteen feet. We have rapid transit from Port Colborne to Montreal practically. It takes a barge on the Erie canal one month to make the round trip ; it does not take a week to make the round trip by our methods of transit. We are as near Liverpool at Hamilton as they are to Liverpool at New York. Montreal is 158 miles nearer to Chicago than New York is to Chicago. These are the advantages we possess. But they have a few advantages which we have not. They have no tolls upon the Erie canal, we have some tolls upon the Canadian canals. There is another advantage that we possess. The AYelland canal, on an average of twenty years, is open nineteen days longer in the season than the Erie canal. The La-chine canal is on an average open four days

longer than the Erie canal. Now from these facts you can see that our advantages are far In excess of those offered hy the Erie route ; therefore, other things being equal, we should be more than able to compete with the other route running through Buffalo to New York.
But there are disadvantages. They have better terminal facilities than we have. We have no facilities of any importance at Colborne compared with those at Buffalo. We have no elevators at Colborne elevating 40,000 or 50,000 an hour, as they have at Buffalo; therefore we cannot reasonably ex-pcct to handle the trade. They have elevators at Buffalo with a capacity of 21,-000,U00 bushels. They elevate grain at the small price of one-eighth of a cent per bushel. We have never done that, we have not been able to do it. It costs our people four times as much as that to elevate either at Colborne, or at Montreal; and can any reasonable man expect that Shippers and exporters, knowing these facts and these difficulties, will send their produce our way when they can get so much better facilities by other routes ?
Now let me point out the disadvantages under which the port of Montreal labours. Montreal is not a first-class harbour, it is not a second-class harbour, it is uot a fifth-class harbour. It is entirely deficient in facilities for handling the trade that might centre in Montreal. Therefore, it will be impossible for shippers and exporters to take advantage of that route when Montreal is in such a bad condition. I do not say that for the purpose of throwing cold water upon Montreal, because I consider that Montreal, if it had the proper equipment and apparatus, could handle the trade of this country, and that in less than twenty years its present population would be doubled or trebled. It is the gateway standing between the eastern and western trade. Our import trade must of necessity, if it comes by Canada at all, come through that door, and our export trade converging from the different points of the west must pass through the city of Montreal. Therefore, I have been of the opinion, that instead of waiting for private enterprise to put Montreal in a proper condition, it should be made a national port., the government should provide proper equipments at Montreal for that port to handle the trade of Canada. If that is done, rest assured that the trade will be largely diverted from other routes to Montreal on account of the natural facilities and advantages which that port possesses, and a large proportion of the trade now handled by the Americans will be handled by the Canadian people, and we will get the advantages of it.
Now, I want to give some facts showing the lack of facilities at the port of Montreal. The way that cattle are handled in the port of Montreal has largely driven the export of cattle to the port of Boston. Boston is
one of those ports thoroughly equipped and prepared for handling the export of cattle. Let me give you an idea of how they use cattle in the city of Montreal when farmers send their cattle by that way. The cattle come in, say, on the Canadian Pacific Railway. They are run down to Iloclielega where they are untrucked, and where they are fed, watered and rested, and that is proper. Then when the ship upon which they are to be sent across is ready, they are retrucked and run back to the point nearest to the ship, and that very frequently is 100 or 150 yards away from the ship. Then they are run down a steep gangway on to the platform of the wharf, thence they are urged along a narrow way between merchandise on the right and merchandise on the left, till they get to the gates of the sheds. Then they are urged through the narrow doors of the sheds on the front, and out of the narrow doors at the back, and then forced by twisting their tails, by goading and whipping, on board the steamer. When the cattle get on board the steamer, they are excited, they are heated, they are bruised, and consequently they enter upon the voyage in that condition. Cattle exporters in this country, who have given the matter consideration, tell me that this treatment depreciates the value of each animal from $2 to $5. Taking the lowest figure, last year we exported 115,000 head of cattle, a loss of $2 each would mean *230,000 lost to the farmers of this country by the poor means which are afforded them to handle the cattle, and to put them on board vessels in the city of Montreal. Now, *230,000 would pay the interest on six or seven million dollars. It would be cheaper for the farmers of this country to borrow five or six million dollars to equip the port of Montreal for the proper export of cattle.
Then again, Montreal is not a good port to ship flour from, and that is one of the reasons why the Grand Trunk Railway carries nearly all its flour to Portland. Mr. Lond, who was a prominent official in the Grand Trunk Railway service, has stated that the cost of shipping flour in Montreal is so high that they are seeking another way of shipping. He says this :	We come
into the city of Montreal with a train load of flour, we have no place to put that flour. There are not sufficient storehouses, and consequently we have to allow our freight to lie upon the track until we get an opportunity of loading it directly from the train. The cars are so far away from the edge of the wharf that we have to employ drays and carts, and the consequence is that it costs us about *4 a car for unloading, whereas if we had proper facilities and a proper place we could unload for at least $2 a car. That probably comes out of the exporters' pockets in Montreal. But, do not hon. gentlemen see that the profit of the farmer is lessened in proportion to the expense which it takes to remove these diffi-

culties and to overcome them ? All that comes ultimately out of the pockets of the farmers of this country.
Now, let us take another article, that of lumber. We export lumber from the city of Montreal very largely. I think last year we exported about 336 million feet board measure. When a ship is expected by the agents of shippers In the city of Montreal, they telegraph to the lumber exporters up the river, and other places, to send their lumber forward because they expect the ship on a certain day. The lumbermen send down their lumber, some in barges and some by rail. Very frequently it occurs that when the lumber arrives at Montreal something has detained the ship, the ship is not in the harbour; and consequently they have no pilling wharfs there, and the cars have to remain there with the lumber on board until the ship arrives, it may be one, two, three or four days, in some instances. On the other hand, the barges which come down have to remain with the lumber on board until the ship arrives. Well, the railway charges $2 demurrage every day that the car remains, and the barges charge $10 a day demurrage for their retention in the canal or harbour. The steamboat company has to pay that in Montreal, but of course ultimately the expense all comes out of the freight. If they had not to pay this expense the cost of the freight would be less, and that amount ultimately comes out of the pocket of the producer. Therefore, it is a loss to the producers to have this condition of things prevail in the city of Montreal.
Now, how do they do in Boston in loading cattle ? Cars run right down to the sheds on the edge of the wharf. The ship is lying in her berth. There are level tramways running from the floor of the cars right to the hold of the ship. The cattle are urged along quietly and put into their stalls. In that way the city of Boston has been known all over the continent; in fact one-third of the cattle imported into Liverpool two years ago came from the city of Boston. Until we, as Canadians, put the port of Montreal in such a condition as that it is impossible for us to expect the trade to go there. Now, there is another point ; how about the elevating capacity in the city of Montreal ? There is one elevator owned by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or, at least, used by the Grand Trunk Railway. It is situated upon the canal where it cannot be reached by an ocean vessel at all. The other is operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I think, together, their capacity is 2,000,000 bushels. Now, how do they load ships ? Just let us look at that for a moment. They load the ships exactly as they did twenty-five years ago. They load the ships just as if the world were not moving forward at all. They have uie same equipment in the city of Montreal to-day as they had twenty-five Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
years ago. They have the old exploded system of floating elevators. A barge goes to the elevator, gets a load then floats down to the vessel, and the load is transferred to the vessel at the rate of 4,000 bushels per hour. The best business that they ever did in the city of Montreal was loading the steamer Montcalm with 100,000 bushels in twenty-six hours. In the first year of the twentieth century, think of them loading in the city of Montreal at the rate of 4,000 bushels per hour, while at Duluth last year, they loaded a vessel at the rate of 193,000 bushels in 153 minutes. Do you really suppose that you can expect trade to go to the city of Montreal and wait to be loaded at the rate of 4,000 bushels per hour, and when we are so far behind in adopting the most recent inventions for expediting the transfer of freight to vessels ? It is impossible that any reasonable man can expect it. If we expect to do business in Montreal we must equip that port for the purpose of doing business as well as other ports are equipped. If not, do you expect to get trade ? How could you expect that the trade of Buffalo could toe diverted to Montreal when shippers know the conditions existing at one port and at the other ? At Buffalo 50,000 bushels of grain are elevated in an hour, and at Montreal 4.000 bushels are elevated in an hour. Do you suppose the shippers would be foolish enough to send their grain down to Montreal and pay half a cent a bushel for elevating it there, when they can get it elevated in Buffalo for one-eighth of a cent a bushel V Let us make our port a fraction of a cent cheaper than any other, and we will have the trade just as sure as we are existing, because the other conditions in Canada are far superior to those elsewhere. Now, I am going to give another instance. One of the Hamburg-American vessels came into Portland two years ago to be loaded from Grand Trunk Railway cars. Prom the time the vessel came in, was unloaded, and was reloaded with 265,000 bushels of grain and ten car-loads of other freight, only three days elapsed. Do you really suppose that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are wrong in seeking a port where their goods can be handled with such despatch allowing their trains to return to do business again ? If we want to get the Grand Trunk Railway business in Montreal, we will have to do better than we have been doing. Let me give a few figures which will probably astonish some hon. gentlemen. These figures are authentic. They are in regard to the congestion of trade in the port of Montreal during the season of 1897-8. On October 11, 1897, there were 447 cars lying on the sidings in the city of Montreal waiting for accommodation to be unloaded ; on November 2. 1897, there were 473 cars ; November 9, 451 cars ; November 10, 438 cars ; November 15. 427 cars ; or an average during these mouths of 464 cars

standing idle waiting for the accommodation which should be there to receive their freight as soon as they come in. Do you really suppose in ordinary business that if there were such congestion of trade as that, or that if any of you hon. gentlemen were wishing to transport your products, knowing these conditions to exist, you would send your goods forward to be exported from that congested centre ? I do not think you would. Taking the whole season from the opening of navigation in the spring until the closing in the fall, there were 315 cars on a daily average lying in that city waiting to be accommodated at the elevators, or on the wharfs. Let me give you a few more figures to show that the figures I have already quoted do not have reference to a special season or to special conditions. In May and .June, 189S, the Grand Trunk Railway had more than 1,000 cars upon the tracks waiting for accommodation, and the Canadian Pacific Railway about 500. On May 12, 1898, there were 439 cars waiting for accommodation ; on May 18, 314 cars ; on May 30, 532 cars ; on June 15. 446 cars ; and on June 17, 181 cars at Point St. Charles, and 423 were standing around the elevators without receiving the accommodation they desired. Now, I think I have said enough to show the House that while we express surprise that after all we have done we are not getting the trade for the port of Montreal, we can see the reason for this. We have deep canals and deep water, but this is a link in the same transportation route. The strongest part of the chain is the weakest link in it, and the strongest part of this transportation chain is the city of Montreal, which is a very weak link indeed. What do I propose to do ? I am not speaking for the government, but I think I am speaking for a large proportion of the people of the west, and I think I am speaking for the whole country when I say that parliament should direct the government to assume the port of Montreal. and make it a national harbour. They should have plans drawn by the most expert engineers in the country upon a magnificent scale, and let them go on with a portion of the plan as we can find the money. Let them go on for five, ten. fifteen or twenty years with the improvement of the port of Montreal, and then we shall have a port there of which Canadians may be proud. By that time trade will be very largely diverted along the lines to which we now look, and our trade will have reaped the advantages it can never have unless such things are done. We cannot leave the improvement of such a large harbour as that to private enterprise, and therefore, it is the duty of the government, in my opinion. to spend money, if it requires $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 to complete that work. Ten million dollars of an expenditure simply means about $300,000 a year, and I have shown that on cattle alone there was a loss
of $230,000, and the loss coming from lumber, the shipment of flour and a hundred and one other things would be three times covered by the $300,000 which I believe the government will be called upon to pay annually for the equipment of that harbour. There is another thing about the city of Montreal, and perhaps I should not say so much in regard to Montreal in the presence of an hon. gentleman who is a representative of that city. I am sure that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blckerdike) will endorse every word I say with regard to the condition of the Montreal harbour. The wharfs in Montreal are on too low a level. It is impossible to erect permanent sheds on them, because the sheds would be carried away when the ice moves, and the result is that the sheds along the docks are temporary structures, which have to be taken away in the fall, stored during the winter, and replaced when navigation opens. You will see there is a great loss of labour and of money in all this. If the wharfs were built on a higher level the freight sheds could be permanent structures and they could be enlarged to meet the requirements of the trade. In Boston and New York the trains move down along the centre of the sheds on the wharfs, and the merchandise is unloaded into different sections ; one section for Liverpool, one for Glasgow, one for London, and so on. Then, when a vessel comes to port her loading is quite a simple thing. We have no such arrangement at Montreal, and consequently the railway cars have to unload in the night time. According to the rules of the harbour commissioners, trains cannot unload from 7 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night, because the general traffic occupies the space during the daytime. The consequence is that at 7 o'clock in the morning if a ship is not loaded and the cars are not unloaded, the train has to draw out and remain there for 12 hours before they can resume their work. It can very well be seen, therefore, that, as I said in my opening remarks, Montreal is not a first-class harbour, nor even a fifth-class harbour. I do not believe that you will find on the Atlantic coast any harbour worthy of the name which is so much behind the age as is the harbour of Montreal. Another reason why importers do not do their business through Montreal is this : When a vessel arrives, there is very frequently no cover for the merchandise she brings, and cement and tin and wire, and such goods are exposed to the weather and very often injured, notwithstanding that sometimes tarpaulins are used for covering. The importers who bring such goods into the country, and whose goods have been damaged will certainly not use that port again, but will seek some other, where the accommodation is better. In view of all this, would it not be wise for us all, irrespective of political parties ; would it not be judicious for us as Canadians to put the

port of Montreal In such first-class shape that it will accommodate the trade that we are soliciting. The federal government of the United States consider New York as a national harbour. They look upon it as the centre towards which a large portion of the western trade converges, and they have given about $10,000,000 towards the construction of piers, warehouses, and other works at that port. In like manner the United States federal government recognizes Boston as a national harbour, and they have made a grant of $5,000,000 to it, and so with Galveston, and so with many other ports on the Atlantic coast. Look at the port of Liverpool. One hundred years ago the annual trade of that port was only 500,000 tons, but the yearly trade of Liverpool today is over 11,000,000 tons. What is the reason for this vast increase in the trade of that port ? I will tell you. Liverpool, during the last 100 years has spent $100,000,000 on its port, or at the rate of $1,000,000 a year. Hamburg has spent $34,000,000 during the last twelve years, and many other cities in the old country as well as the new, have been spending large sums upon their harbours. Indeed, we might say that this is not an expenditure at all, but it should be viewed in the light of being simply an investment of money in the interest of the people. In Canada we would pay 3 per cent for the money expended on our harbours, and we would realize not 3 per cent but five times 3 per cent, which comes back to the people ; maybe not in the form of a few cents which we can see, but in the form of increased trade, increased credit, and increased development of our country in the various avenues of our greatness. I, therefore, believe that the government should make Montreal one of the best harbours ou the continent. Montreal cannot be considered as being a competing port unless we make such improvements as will enable us to compete. We cannot to-day handle the traffic as quickly or as cheaply as can other ports that have modern equipment. We must have such facilities as will enable a vessel carrying 80,000 or 100,000 bushels to have her cargo elevated in two hours and the vessel ready to resume her return journey. It has been said that a great difficulty is that we cannot get sufficient return cargoes for Canadian ports. Well, Sir, my opinion is that when we have our transportation system in proper shape and when exporters find it profitable to send their goods from our Canadian ports, then the merchants in Chicago, Duluth, Superior City, Winnipeg and other places west will import their goods through Canadian ports. The time will come when our trade will increase in the import line as well as in the export line, and when we have modern facilities in Canada the goods that now come to New York and Boston will come through Montreal or Quebec or Halifax or St. John, and be handled by the Canadian people to their advantage.


Peter Macdonald: Now, there is also the question of the navigation below Montreal which must be attended to. My hon. friend from West Quebec (Hon. Mr. Dobell) pointed out the weaknesses there. We have an artificial ship channel, and that channel is not sufficiently wide, nor are there a sufficient number of navigation lights. There are jutting rocks which have to be removed and there are curves which have to be straightened, and with all these improvements made the insurance would be less and a large proportion of our trade would find its outlet by the St. Lawrence. I do not know of auy other subject which could better or more profitably be discussed by the members of this parliament. There is no question more interesting to the people of Canada, because our great fertile plains are so far removed from the seaboard that the question of cheap transportation to the markets of the world must ever be one of great concern to us. We cannot increase the price of our products, but we can so lower the rates of transportation that the producer will get the benefit, which will encliance the value of his products to him. I have deemed it my duty to place these facts before the House, because I have taken considerable pains to obtain them. I twice went to Montreal and I examined the port that I might be able to deal with this question intelligently, and for that reason I thought it advisable to present my views on this question in a 11011-political light. I say that both political parties are deeply interested in accomplishing this great aim in the interest of our country, and I trust we will all be able to move hand and hand towards success in that direction.


Mr. BICKERDIKE..: Can the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald)' tell the House how much money the government has spent in improving the harbour of Montreal in the past ?


Peter Macdonald: Up to last year, I believe, there has not been one single dollar spent by the Dominion government. True, they loaned money to the harbour commissioners for which they receive interest ; but they have never spent independently on the port of Montreal one dollar. so far as I know, unless they have spent it since the last session of parliament.


Mr. ALBERT E. KEMP (East Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very much interest to the discussion which went on yesterday afternoon in this House, and the discussion which has been going on this afternoon, on the transportation question. The proper solution of that question will result in great benefits to the people of this country. I am a great believer in water transportation, in regard to which we have advantages in Canada which no other country in the world possesses. We have a natural system of water communication ex-

tending into the very heart ot this continent, 2,000 miles from the Straits of Belle Isle ; and what the government of days gone by, as well as the present government, have been trying to do is to make that whole system navigable for vessels of 14 feet draught, of 22 feet draught, of 2S feet draught, Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that I support the policy of the present government in going ahead and deepening the St. Lawrence canals to 14 feet. In the discussion of this question, I fear that it will be impossible for me to avoid criticising the government for some things which they have done in connection with what I may term their transportation policy ; but I desire to say at the outset, that it is not a studied criticism, and I am sure they will receive it in the spirit in which I give it.
On the motion which is before the House. I suppose we may reasonably consider the transportation question not only as it affects the great railways of this country, but as it affects the fresh water navigation and the salt water navigation. I was very much interested yesterday, or the day before, in the Railway Committee, in hearing a note of alarm sounded by the hon. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) in reference to the action of the Grand Trunk Railway in transferring Its terminus to Portland from a Canadian port, in which we had all taken great interest, which we had been trying to build up in the hope that it would ultimately rival the port of New York. Some years ago the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said he hoped to make Montreal the Buffalo of Canada. I also recall a letter which the hon. Minister of Public Works wrote a few days ago to the president of the Montreal Board of Trade, in which he expressed alarm at the position in which we found ourselves owing to the Grand Trunk having transferred its terminus from Montreal to Portland. The government of the last four years have made rather loud professions in regard to their transportation policy, and, therefore. I think it is fair to criticise what they have accomplished.
What we have been trying to accomplish in the last few years has been to secure for Canadian channels the carrying of the products of Canada and their delivery at Canadian ports at the lowest possible cost. The question is, how far have we succeeded in accomplishing this ? In connection with the transfer of the terminus of the Grand Trunk to Portland and the diversion of the business which should go to Montreal, I desire to refer to a matter which has already been very thoroughly discussed in this House ; that is, the agreement which the government made with the Grand Trunk Railway for bringing the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. I would like to point out that Mr. Hoys, who was at that time the general manager of the Grand 35
Trunk Railway, stated plainly and publicly, before the agreement was consummated, that it was his intention to carry out the policy which the Grand Trunk are now about to put into effect, of making Portland their terminus in the summer as well as winter seasons instead of Montreal. In a speech which he delivered in Portland in the year 1898, and which was reported in the public press, he made that statement. In this connection I would also direct the attention of the House to the following figures. The total amount contributed by the present government towards the reconstruction of the Victoria bridge was $500,000. The amount paid annually by the government for the use of the bridge is $40,000 ; the amount paid annually for the use of the track from Ste. Rosalie to St. Lambert is $37,000 ; and the amount paid annually for the use of the Grand Trunk terminals at Montreal is $62,000. I have come to believe that owing to the great liberality of this government to the Grand Trunk Railway, that company have been enabled to use the money paid by the government for these purposes, in obtaining communication with Portland all the year round ; and my contention is that as this agreement was not consummated at that time, it would have been fair for the government to have said to the Grand Trunk : If you intend to do what your general manager says, the people of this country will not put up with it, and we must insert in the agreement a clause prohibiting you from going to Portland, and passing by the port of Montreal in the summer season.
A good deal has been said here this afternoon about the difficulties of transferring freight from railways to steamships at Montreal, and there is a good deal of truth in what has been said. At the same time, we must not forget that the Grand Trunk Railway Company have spent an enormous sum of money at Portland in the last few years ; and I think it would have been fair to have said to the Grand Trunk Railway, as a business proposition : You spend so much and we will spend so much on Montreal harbour ; you are the great gatherers of freight in the country, and especially in Ontario; you are the people who control the commercial arteries of this country; you control the lines of traffic which carry the produce, and we cannot and will not submit to your making Portland your terminus to the detriment of a Canadian port during the season of open navigation of the St. Lawrence.
In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the House to the number of miles of railway which the Grand Trunk own in this country. They own 3.194 miles, of which 2,600 miles, or about 80 per cent, are in the province of Ontario. As this House knows, the province of Ontario is gridironed with lines of the Grand Trunk Railway, and the exports of this country



are gathered by this railway and are taken to the various ports for export.
It cannot be denied that the rates of freight which the Grand Trunk Kailway collect for the transportation of this business are of a character sometimes described as burdensome to the producer, and I think that in consideration of the great fa\ ours which the Grand Trunk Railway have received at the hands of this administration and of previous administrations, and the great amount of Canadian traffic they carry, they are not treating the country fairly. The government, I think, could have prevented this. It is a cold and heartless proposition to come from the Grand Trunk Railway. This company practically say : We will pass through the city limits of Montreal and carry freight to Portland, a greater distance by 300 miles, at the same rate as to 'Montreal. I hope that the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Public Works will not content themselves with merely protesting against this but find some way of effectively checking it. For what does it mean ? It means that by the great influence which this corporation can wield over steamship companies, steamship after steamship will be driven away from Montreal, and we find that although last year the great Dominion Steamship Company declined to make Portland its port, in the summer season, this year it has had to bow to the inevitable. What now is the policy of the Grand Trunk Railway 7 In 1899, they made arrangements with the Reford line for a service to London from Portland ; in 1900, they made arrangements with the Thomson line for a similar service; and in 1901, they have arranged with the Thomson line for a service to London from Portland. In 1901 also they will have taken the whole fleet of the Dominion Steamship Company from Montreal, and I am informed on good authority that they are engaging with a company which now runs to Montreal, to run a steamship service from Portland to Glasgow. I am further informed that it is likely that, in 1902, they will have a Bristol summer service from Portland, and expect to have a service to Antwerp and Hamburg also during the summer. Where are the steamships to be engaged in those services to be taken from ? From Montreal, and instead of the St. Lawrence route becoming more popular, instead of our building up business over that route, and utilizing the great expenditure on our canals, we will find business being diverted to Portland, and we will have to spend enormous sums to get the steamship companies to come back again. We ought to deal with tins question very soon before any more steamship companies are engaged to go to Portland and give up the port of Montreal.
I wish to refer to our canal system. 1 believe that the government was justified in spending sufficient money to give fourteen feet draught to the St. Lawrence canals.
I put a question a few days ago upon the Order paper with reference to the depth of water in the St. Lawrence channels and canals between Lake Ontario and Montreal, and the reply of the Minister of Railways seemed to indicate that some transportation companies have been trying to depreciate our canals in the eyes of the public. I am not in sympathy with any such tactics. I believe that the railway companies perhaps in yeai's gene by tried to curtail the expenditui'e on those canals. The question I asked was : When does the government expect that vessels of fourteen feet draught will be able to pass from Bake Ontario through the carals and St. Lawrence channels to Montreal without lightei'ing ? And the reply of the minister seemed to indicate that we had that depth of water last season. We had the assurance of the Minister of Railways and Canals that there is foux-teen feet depth of water on the mitre sills in the canals, but the infox'mation which I had previously, and which I have obtained since, is that you cannot get foui'teen feet of water in the St. Lawrence channels except when the wind blows in a favourable direction. If the wind blows from tlie east, you cannot get more than twelve feet or eleven feet and one-half. This is a matter which ought to be looked into. 1 am not stating this for tlie purpose of criticising the government, but simply to assure the government that if it be necessary to spend more money in order to complete tlie channels, I will support it in that expenditure.
I noticed a report a few days ago that four large steamers wei'e being prepared in Chicago to go to Eui'ope by the St. Law-l-ence straight through without transhipment. These steamers are intended to take perishable products in cold stoi'age and also lumber and iron, and steel manufactures, and they prefer the northern route rather than that via New York. This is an experiment and is based on the belief that there is a depth of fourteen feet of water along the St. Lawrence route. Would we not be in a peculiar position, if, when those vessels reach the canals, after passing through the first canal, they should find the wind blowing from the east and have a wait over in the channel until the water rose ?
Let me draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to an article which appeared in the press on this subject, written by a very reputable gentleman, Captain Thomas Donnelly. I shall not take up time by reading tlie letter, but he stakes his reputation on the facts and accuracy of of statements he makes.
If these steamers can go straight through to Europe with the produce of the United States, it is fair to assume that we might reasonably hope to work up a through service from Canadian points on the upper lakes. This problem of transportation is of immense interest to the people of our great North-west, from which we hope, in a few


Albert Edward Kemp: years, to have a greatly Increased export trade, and are therefore bound to open every avenue that will prove profitable to our farmers. But the province of Ontario is our great producing province, and it is in the interests of that province that the canals should be deepened to fourteen feet, and that we should encourage the building on the lakes of ships under the British flag, in which we are now very deficient.
We have discussed this question as regards the railways and the St. Lawrence canals, but 1 would like to draw attention to the fact that while a very large amount of money has been spent by the government on small harbours on the lakes, and while we have spent millions of dollars on improvements in Halifax and St. John

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) There have been no improvements by the government in the harbour of Halifax because none are required.


Albert Edward Kemp: I refer to the statements made in this House with regard to the amount of money spent for an elevator in Halifax and for improvements at St. John. Now, Sir, it may be an astonishing fact to the members of this House, but still the fact remains, that when the canals were eight feet deep the vessels that traversed them could come into Toronto harbour ; but, for years we have been trying to get a sum of money voted to take out of Toronto harbour the silt, the deposit of clay that has been flowing down a river from the country at the back and filling up that harbour. We have not been able to get that vote from the government. I hope, from the pressure that has been brought to bear and the explanations that have been laid before the government, that they will make' an adequate grant at this session of parliament in order to make Toronto harbour in depth the same standard as the St. Lawrence canals. Toronto is a great gathering point, it is the point in Ontario to which the freight comes from all directions; and we want to be placed in a position to take that freight down the St. Lawrence and out to the sea and deliver it at Montreal or Quebec if necessary, and so enable the farmers of Ontario to get cheap transportation.
I would like to draw the attention of the House while I am on my feet, to the importance of the shipments of freight from the city of Toronto. In the year 1898, there was occasion to get some facts made public, and these facts were then made public by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They involve comparisons in freight traffic between Toronto and Montreal. I have no doubt that it will be surprising to this House to learn that Toronto is a greater shipping centre, notwithstanding that Montreal is a sea port, than Montreal is. In the month of January, 1898, the freight on the Grand Trunk Railway system from Toronto was 103,754 tons, against 58,091 j 35J
tons for Montreal. In the month of September, 1897, at a season when, it will be observed, Montreal has the benefit of ocean steamship traffic, the freight handled in Toronto was 105,000 tons, as against 9(5,000 in Montreal, while the passenger receipts for Toronto far exceeded those of Montreal. I would like my hon. friends from Montreal to understand that I give these figures, not to disparage Montreal, but to show how important it is to keep open this water communication and to equip Toronto harbour in a suitable way for this traffic. Something has been said about the various schemes that the government has in hand with regard to the transportation question. I think it was the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) who stated that there were so many schemes on hand in connection with this matter that the public were somewhat confused. There is the Parry Sound Railway matter to which that hon. gentleman referred. I do not know that I can say that I ever heard the Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) state that it was his intention to purchase the road on behalf of the government, but I think there was a discussion a year or two ago with respect to some remarks on that subject that fell from the lips of the hon. Minister of Public Works. Then there is the question, which has recently been resurrected, about the Georgian Bay canal, or the initiation of a project to improve the French river. Then, a year or two ago, the people of Port Hope sent a deputation here to interview the government and try to convince them that $8,500,000 could be save to the country in the Trent Valley canal scheme, if the terminus were made at Port Hope, instead of at the point intended on Lake Ontario. Then, there is the matter of Port Colborne to which I do not intend to give any time ; but I would like to have some one rise in this House and explain if it is not a fact that the improvement of Port Colborne was initiated to a great extent on account of a gentleman of the name of Conner, who expected to erect elevators at that point, and also had a scheme to improve the equipment of the harbour at Montreal. Were not the plans adopted largely under his supervision, and approved by him ? And now that this Conner syndicate is not materializing, 1 would like to know if it is the intention of the. government to go on and develop that scheme also. We have also another difficult question before us. and that is the matter of a Canadian marine on the lakes. We are at present, to some extent, in an experimental stage ; and the great difficulty is that we have not Canadian bottoms on the lakes, but the ships are all mainly those under the American flag. I would like to have the government propound some policy whereby we might encourage the building of a Canadian marine on the lakes. I believe it will bring great prosperity to this j country. And, in considering the trans-

portation question, and all these various routes, I hope the government of the day will take Into consideration this fact, that we cannot bring influence to bear in regard to water transportation to the same extent that influence can be brought to bear through the transportation companies who own and run railways, companies that represent an existing and fully established interest. If we could get more capital invested in a lake marine, we should be able to start the ball rolling, and should have a constant influence in the direction of improvements in water transportation, and the question would be raised to a position of importance equal with that which it holds in the United States. And further-in considering all these questions, I hope the government will not forget the part of the country (the province of Ontario) where the great volume of our exports is produced, and will not forget the importance, in any scheme they may have of interesting centres of population, for instance, Toronto, Kingston, Montreal and Quebec. If you [DOT]can get these centres of (population interested in any project, in the nature of things, that project will attain all the greater importance. I have to thank the House for the very kind attention with which they have listened to my remarks.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It will be expected, I presume, that, as the minister chiefly responsible for the canal system and its operation, I should have a word or two, at least, to say upon this subject before the conclusion of the debate, and I choose the present as likely to be the only opportunity that may offer, in the event of the debate concluding this evening. At the outset I wish to express to you, Mr. Speaker (Mr. Macdonald, Huron), the obligation which, I think is generally felt in the House, and which I certainly feel, for the very interesting contribution that you have made to the present discussion. We certainy got from you information, which, no doubt, had been collected with a very great deal of labour, information exceedingly valuable in itself, and tending to raise the discussion upon this occasion to a distinctly higher plane than that upon which, I am sorry to say, it had been placed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say that because both the hon. gentleman who made this motion (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), while disclaiming the slightest intention of giving the discussion any party political character, and while declaring that the question was one of a nonpartisan character and should be so treated, did not fail to devote a very considerable portion of the time they occupied to criticising from a party point of view and censuring in a party political sense, not only my [DOT] Mr. KEMP.
own acts and my own alleged omissions, but the acts and the alleged omissions of my colleagues. And I am sorry to have to acknowledge that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who has just taken his seat, has also sinned very notably in this direction. Let me refer at the very outset to what my hon. friend from Toronto has just spoken of. As I say, I am compelled to make reference to these matters, but would have very much preferred if we could have dealt with this question upon general principles, and dealt with it in something of a broad way, rather than that I should be compelled to answer statements and criticisms which are really beside the question, and which are practically of no interest or importance to the people of this country.
is'ow, one of these sinners is my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat. He thought it would be appropriate to drag in the arrangement that was made between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company when we took over the Drummond line and arranged for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway into Montreal. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, understand how the carrying of the business of the Grand Trunk Railway to Montreal was either encouraged, or promoted, or could have been prevented in any way by that transaction. The acquisition of the rights which were obtained by the government in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway from the Grand Trunk Railway, was an acquisition of interests and rights which were secured, because it was felt that they would be immensely to the advantage of the government railway. We paid no more than we believed they wei'e worth; we paid no more than we are sure the experience of the future will show that they are worth. We treated with them upon a distinctly business basis; and I think we would have been laughed to scorn, I know we would have been ridiculed by the Grand Trunk Railway people if, wheu we were offering to give them less than they were claiming, and no more than the privileges were worth, we should have attempted to annex some condition such as the hon. gentleman suggests; If, when we acquired from them the right of running our railway over their line from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal, and using their terminals, paying, I say, no more than those privileges were worth, they should have been asked to contract on their part to withdraw from the port of Portland.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I think you paid them less than they asked.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Now, my hon. friend will not deflect me from the course of my argument by making so entirely an immature and so inappropriate a suggestion as that. My hon. friend is an intelligent gentleman, one of the most intelligent on that side of the [DOT] House, and he knows that there is nothing

in tlie suggestion that lie now makes. My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) asks this House to believe and to credit him with believing that in making a business transaction with the Grand Trunk Railway Company-when we were making no gift to them understand, when we were giving them no bonus, but simply paying them a moderate and reasonable price for valuable concessions-we should have attempted to make it a condition that they should withdraw from the harbour of Portland, and cease to make Portland a terminus of their line. Why, Sir, Portland has been a terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway since the line was first completed.


Albert Edward Kemp: I referred to the summer traffic, not to the winter traffic taken to Portland.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend says he refers to the summer traffic. Well, if we had attached any such condition as respects traffic in any portion of the year, the Grand Trunk Railway would never have entertained the proposition, and as a result we would not have been able to have made any arrangement with them for securing an entrance into the city of Montreal, and we would not have been able to make that arrangement which, outside of a few red hot and extreme opponents, is approved by the judgment and common sense of the people'of this whole country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes it a ground of criticism against us that we did not do as he suggests we might have done. If the hon. gentleman wants to make a political question out of it, I would ask him to consider the conduct of his own party and of his own government whose policy he has uniformly sustained. I would ask him to carry back his recollection to 1884, when the government of Canada was making, not a business arrangement, but practically giving a bonus of thirty million dollars to the great Canadian Pacific Railway corporation. A modest suggestion was made .to the government and to parliament at that time, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in consideration' . of their receiving so munificent a grant from the exchequer of this country, should bind themselves not to expend any portion of the money that they were receiving as a gratuity from the people of Canada, in building up or creating a terminus or termini for their railway in any foreign country. How was that proposition received by the gentlemen whom my hon. friend is associated with, and by the government which he, during Its life, continued to support ? It was treated with absolute contempt, the proposition was voted down, received no sort of favour from the friends of the hon. member. I think when he compares the two propositions, the proposition which he says I ought to have
entertained, and the proposition which was submitted to parliament at that time, it will not be open to my hon. friend to make any great amount of political capital against this government.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Will my hon. friend permit me ? He referred to what he calls a gift of thirty million dollars to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I had always understood that that was a loan, and that it was repaid before it was due.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is the amendment which was proposed at that time :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the said motion be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof : The said resolutions be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with power to provide as a condition of the proposed advance, that so long as any part of such advances or interest thereon remains unpaid, none of the resources of the company shall be expended towards acquiring interests in railways or railway securities in the United States, with a view to an Atlantic ocean terminus in the United States territory.
I think you could not put anything more clear.


Robert Laird Borden: I merely wanted to understand the hon. gentleman, it was not merely a grant in aid of the Canadian Pacific Railway construction that he was referring to, but a loan.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was referring to the thirty million dollars which was procured by the Canadian Pacific Railway from the government of this country in 1884, and which was not given to them in consideration of any rights that we were acquiring from them, though, no doubt, the grant was secured by the obligation of the company who promised to return the money; but it was all the same a practical gratuity to them, given to them at the time, though it enabled the company to attain a very laudable object, no doubt. The company was receiving this enormous, this splendid grant, from the government of this country, and they declined to entertain the proposition that no portion of this grant should be expended outside of Canada in building up a terminus in a foreign country.
Now, so much for the political bearing of this question. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to refer to a subject which I am glad he has taken up, because it justifies me in taking up some little time of the House in speaking upon it in order that I may, if possible, remove any impressions there may be in parliament, or in the country, with regard to the condition of the canal waterway. The hon. gentleman has convinced himself that we have not what might be called a fourteen-foot waterway; he does not believe that we have more than twelve or twelve and a half feet, possibly we mar have twelve and a half feet, he says,

but when the wind blows from certain directions we surely have not a fourteen-foot waterway. Now, let me state to the House exactly what endeavours have been made, what means have been adopted in order that we might convince ourselves, and that I might be in a position to make a positive statement on the subject to parliament concerning this waterway. As soon as doubts began to be thrown upon the actual existence of this depth of waterway, and that was immediately after the announcement being made that we had a fourteen-foot channel, certain statements appeared in one of the New York papers, and a letter which the hon. gentleman has referred to, was published. They came very shortly after to my notice, and upon my seeing the statement which was made by Mr. Donnelly, I called the attention of the officers of my department to it. I quite agree with what the hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Kemp) has said, that Mr. Donnelly is a gentleman of the very highest reputation and standing. I do not believe that Mr. Donnelly would make such a statement unless he was convinced that it was true. But, all the same, Mr. Donnelly, I am satisfied, from information which has been given to me by my officers, and who must know whether they are right or whether they are wrong, is entirely mistaken in the facts upon which he relied. Mr. Donnelly specifically mentions the particular parts of the canal system which he says are defective, and upon which he grounds his statement. He put us in a position in which we were able to ascertain whether or not what he said was or was not correct. He did not confine himself -and that was very fair and honourable conduct on Mr. Donnelly's part-to a mere general statement, but gave us particulars, and furnished us with the facts, or what he believes to be the facts, which justified him in criticising the correctness of our assurance. Immediately upon that coming to my notice, we asked the superintending engineers of the three different districts into which the St. Lawrence canal system is divided for the purpose of superintendence, to come to Ottawa. They came here, and we asked as to what their knowledge was, and they were asked to tell us whether or not all or any of the statements that Mr. Donnelly made were correct. They were informed that the information which was beiing sought from them was being sought for the purpose of giving a reliable and authoritative statement to 'the public and parliament upon the question, and they were charged, therefore, that they should be accurate to the utmost degree in the answers which they gave. These gentlemen have made their reports to us. i have, in my hand and which I will now read to the House, the compilation from these reports and statements, which the deputy minister gives me in an official manner, so that Mr. BLAIR.
it may appear upon what authority these statements have been made. I imagine that no person supposes that the Minister of Railways can, himself, of his own personal knowledge, know whether there are ten, or five, or more feet of waterway along these routes. All that he can do is to convey to parliament the information which is furnished him by his responsible officers ; but, at the same time, taking care that these officers are charged that the information which they furnish shall be absolutely reliable in every particular. Now, this is what the deputy minister has prepared, and what I would ask permission to read in reference to this subject.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) will lay It on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I will lay it on the Table of the House. He says :
In order to avoid any misconception as to the depth of water afforded by the new works of enlargement, generally termed a fourteen-foot navigation, it must be clearly understood that the scheme as devised and carried out is based on the construction of locks of such depth that there shall he fourteen feet of water on their mitre sills.
I apprehend that no person has imagined that anything that has been said, either before this government took charge, or since, that there would he anything more than 14 feet, or that we engaged that there should be anything more than 14 feet of water on the mitre sill. Whatever draught of water the water over the mitre sill shall afford shall be tlie draught which the canal system shall afford to the shipping of the lakes.
Allegations have been made, however, that vessels drawing no more than 121 feet have struck in the intermediate channel ways of the River St. Lawrence and doubt has been suggested as to the full efficiency of the works executed. These allegations are most practically met by the fact that the new system has been safely navigated last season by lake vessels drawing from 12 to 13 feet 6 inches of water, an instance being the steamer Arabian, which passed down safely on the 1st December, 1900, drawing 13 feet 6 inches of water. Mr. Wolvin, of the American Shipbuilding Company, Cleveland, has stated that he can answer absolutely for a depth of 13 feet, as one of their steamers had gone through drawing that depth of water.
Sir. BRODEIl. Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question ? That does not state what time of the year is referred to. The water varies considerably in depth at different times in the year, and when the wind blows from one direction or the other, and it Is very important that we should know whether this was in the spring of the year or later in the season.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was on December 1 that this particular vessel passed through drawing 13 feet. My impression is that there were

no vessels which went through the canal, throughout the entire length, until the season was well advanced. Hon. members may rely upon it that we have 14 feet of water on the mitre sill as we assume we have. We have a depth of channel all the way through deep enough to enable you to navigate a vessel which can cross the mitre sill of these canals. There has been no close limit in the dredging of the channel in order that it should just fit 14 feet and stop there. There has been a foot of leeway in the dredging from one end to the other. There has not been a contract that has been executed which has not had 15 feet. That is what the engineers say, and with absolute confidence, so that hon. members will see that the question does not admit of doubt from the standpoint of the men who are charged with the serious and grave responsibility of seeing that this work is properly done, of a particle of doubt. It does not appear, to me at all events, that any doubt can arise in the minds of hon. members of this parliament with advice from this authoritative quarter.


Albert Edward Kemp: May I ask the hon. minister if the reports which we have say anything in reference to the depth of water when the wind blows from the east ? It might vary a foot and G inches or 2 feet in depth.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Our officers are thoroughly familiar with the effect of the winds, and they would not be justified in stating that we could furnish a 14-foot channel of water unless we were able to furnish 14 feet of water, and they say that ails was at low water. I was going to say, speaking of Mr. Wolvin, that he was here the other day and had a conversation with the deputy minister upon this subject. I asked, when I heard of this conversation, if the deputy minister had procured from him a written statement, because it would be of interest and value to the members of parliament to have a statement made from such a reliable source upon this subject. He said that he had omitted to do that, but he telegraphed and received a reply from Mr. Wolvin. He is a very large shipper, and the head of the American Shipbuilding Company of Cleveland. He wired on March 5 to Mr. Schreiber :
Your telegram of the 4th reached me here today. I remember stating to you that I am satisfied there was deeper water through the St. Lawrence canals and river than many people claim, as one of our steamers went through this route drawing thirteen feet. You made the statement that you had fourteen feet of water, and I replied by saying I felt there was that draught, but could answer absolutely for only thirteen feet.
(Sgd.)	A. B. WOLVIN.
That is Mr. Wolvin's statement. It is unfair and unjust to the canals to say that we only have twelve feet or that we only
have thirteen feet, when we are able to submit a statement to this House that a. steamer went through the entire length of the canals drawing thirteen feet six inches without meeting the slightest obstacle at any point of the route. Writing under date of June 30,	1900, Mr. Ruhidge,
the superintending engineer of tile Sou-laiiges canals, says :
I again desire to state most positively that there is a practical fourteen foot navigation between Prescott and Coteau Landing at low water and during the season of navigation.
That is from Mr. Ruhidge, who has been in charge of that portion of these canals for a long term of years, and than whom no one is better acquainted With the condition of the canals. He is not a person whose report to me might he doubted by hon. gentlemen opposite. I found him in the department and he has been in the same position he now occupies for many years. What right has any one to discount that statement of Mr. Ruhidge ? Mr. Schreiber further says :
As to the existence of certain shoals which were referred to in a letter of the 3rd December from Mr. Donnelly, the inspector of the Canadian Lake Underwriters Association, published in the Montreal Star, the superintending engineer states, in regard to the shoal at the upper entrance of the Galops canal, that it is entirely outside of the new channel, and is located between the old and the new channels.
Those who may have read Mr. Donnelly's statement will recall that Mr. Donnelly speaks of this particular shoal at the upper entrance of the Galops canal as having been tibe place where some vessel went ashore, and he has given that as one of the reasons upon which he bases his condemnation of our channel. Now, when I show that that shoal is entirely outside of the new channel altogether and is located between the old and the new channel, the value of that statement as leading to such a conclusion becomes abundantly clear. Capt. Donnelly referred to the shoal at Sparrow Hawks and to the shoal at Rapide Flat, and Mr. Schreiber states :
There is a deep channel at the west of the shoal ; and at Rapide Plat, vessels have the option of using the canal at low water, in which there is a fourteen foot waterway, instead of the river channel. In order to straighten the channel, however, the shoal spurs will be cut off next season, and indeed, even though at the present time there is a safe channel for fourteen foot navigation various features of improvement may, and no doubt will, from time to time, present themselves in the practical operation of the system, and the public may rest sure that the department will not fail to carry out such further minor works as experience may show to he desirable.
Mr. Schreiber goes on to say :
In March, 1900, the superintending engineer notified vessel-men that they should proceed with caution in traversing the new channels, as


Mr. BLAIR.: enlargement should be utilized with perfect safety, and it remains confident that the necessary channel ways in the waters lying between the several canals have been formed as required for that purpose, and, further, that such channels have been indicated with care, leaving to pilots and others the necessary mastery of the details of this, as of any other similar navigation in which they may be efmployed, and adhesion to the rules laid down for their guidance. So important a change as is implied by this enlargement will, naturally, tend to create in some quarters a desire that it should fail of its objects, rather than it should be successfully operated, and possibly this attitude may for some little time act to its prejudice. It stands, however, as an accomplished fact, and must be so regarded.
(Sgd.) COLLINGWOOD SCHREIBER,
Chief Engineer.
That is the official statement furnished me by the chief engineer for the purpose of communicating it to the House. I do not know of any other way or by what other means I could give the House more positive assurance.
1 ask boil, members to dismiss from their minds any such idea that we are deficient in respect of our St. Lawrence channel. I am not going to say, I never have said, the officers have not said, that many things cannot be done to greatly improve the channel -to straighten it probably, or to widen it; but we have everything which it was stated we had. We have enough if the people who navigate the channel will use proper care and diligence. We have a good channel, and I think it is only fair aiul just to the men who have done this work that I should take the present opportunity of saying that in various quarters and from men who are fully competent to form a judgment on the question, the very highest testimony has been freely offered to me as to the skill and ability with which this great work has been carried to completion. The men whom I found in the department in charge of the work have continued, and have about finished what was proposed to he done ; at all events, in connection with the main works. They have been indefatigable in their efforts and have exhibited a great deal of skill ; and people who have made a study of these matters and who have such information ns to qualify them to express an opinion, do not form the same inferior judgment as to the character of our channel or our canals or our works generally that some of our own people seem to do. I have reason to believe that the people wlio are engaged in transportation in the United States look upon what we have achieved and at the present condition of our canals, as a matter of grave anxiety and alarm to them. They think we have provided a very adequate and efficient waterway. They recognize, as we do ourselves, that there are some things to be done at the two extremes which do not, however, affect the sufficiency of a 14-foot channel. They recognize that

we have not all the details perfected ; but they do acknowledge that the government of Canada has made a most thorough and efficient channel throughout the whole St. Lawrence route, and they look upon it as a most grave and serious rival of their various transportation routes.
My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) who has made this motion-I am sorry I shall have only a very few moments to devote to his address-starts out by affirming that the time has arrived when we should stop and ask ourselves what we are doing-or, as he expressed himself in the course of his speech, where we are at-before we spend another dollar. My hon. friend asks us to come to a decision as to what the policy of the government is, because, as he affirmed, not once, but many times', not with any qualification, but in the most unhesitating language, the Canadian canal system had proved itself a failure. Now, why does the hon. gentleman say that ? He is a member of the Canadian parliament, entrusted by his constituents to represent them here in an important capacity. What he says is published in the newspaper press ; headlines can be read this morning in all the opposition papers : ' Canadian canal system a failure- killing the traffic.' That will be read not only at home but abroad, and is it going to tend to our advantage for my hon. friend to utilize the prominent position he holds as a member of parliament to give currency to such a statement, and particularly to do so on the insufficient grounds on which he supported it ? What were those grounds ? What was his reason for asserting that the canal system had been found a failure ? He says that I made a prediction last year in parliament, that I held out great hopes and expectations that we were going to have an enormously increased business this year, and that my hon. friend from Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) made a similar prophecy. What was the language I did employ ? In another portion of his speech he quoted from ' Hansard' what I said last year, and I leave the House to judge how far that quotation bears out, not the pessimistic, but the absolutely hopeless view which he has taken of this matter, and which he is seeking to impress on parliament and the country. This is what I am supposed to have said, and no doubt did say :
We will see that with Montreal properly equipped, there is no reason in the world why we should not he able to offer sufficient inducements to shippers of grain in the west to prefer the St. Lawrence to any other route.
Well, it strikes me that that is a very conservative. very modest, and very cautious statement. Made in July, 1900, it was by no means to be taken as an assurance that in that year with the season nearly gone, the business was going to be so much greater than it had ever been before. We have not yet got into the year 1901, and do not know
what the business of 1901 will be. It may be better than that of 1900, or it may be worse. If worse, it proves nothing ; it does not prove that the canal system of Canada is a failure-no, a thousand miles away from establishing such a proposition. It proves that we are not yet in adequate condition to compete successfully with the Buffalo route ; and is that a very unreasonable or unexpected thing ? Why, Sir, you cannot change the character of our canals in a day. You cannot expect shippers to equip themselves with barges and other facilities and adapt themselves to the deeper channel in a year or in two years or possibly in more. If our business seems declining on the canals, we can find sufficient explanation in the fact that probably the largest steamers are continuing, and continuing in a greater measure, to absorb the traffic on the lakes, and are necessarily taking away from us a portion of the traffic which we would otherwise have, and which we will have when we are in a position to receive those large ships in our harbours connected with our own canals. It may be three or four or five years before we get into full swing, but there is no doubt, in my mind, that the improvements which are in contemplation at Port CoLborne, properly and efficiently carried out, and In the harbour of Montreal and the route perhaps below, will make the St. Lawrence superior to any other route. Why should my hon. friend use the language of despair ? What .object is to be served by telling us that the canals are a failure ? I do not think that he reasoned this matter out. I do not think he could have informed himself as to the superior advantages of water over all rail communication or the superior advantages of our lake and canal system over the joint lake and railway system on w'klch the shippers from New York, Boston and other American ports have to absolutely rely. These shippers will undoubtedly give us a hard fight, hut as was stated by Mr.< Deputy Speaker (Mr. Macdonald) if we can get down the cost of transportation by the fraction of a cent below the cost by any other route, we will have the advantage, and we surely can do this.
My hon. friend made a number of assertions, and very extraordinary assertions they were. He asked : Why, he asked, do you not stand by the St. Lawrence route V Why is not that your policy V


Mr. BENNETT.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If that is not our policy, what is or what has been our policy ? That is what I am curious to have my hon. friend inform me upon. Not once but several times did he tell us that the late government had a fixed and definite policy of making the St. Lawrence canals the Canadian water route. Well, what did they do more than we have done ? If what they



did convinced my hon. friend that tliey liad a fixed and definite policy, why should he withhold from us a similar acknowledgment '? He seems to think that because some men of this government expressed the view that it would be an advantage to make traffic arrangements between the Intercolonial Railway and some other system, we were turning our back on our canal route. But I do not apprehend that any traffic arrangements between any two railways is going to fill up the channel we have got or will have the effect of tearing down the locks and rendering it impossible for vessels to navigate our canals. Because, in the city of Halifax, I made a speech in which 1 spoke of getting something from the railways as well as the canals to increase the business of the Intercolonial Railway, my hon. friend takes alarm. And because the Minister of Public Works refers to some other railway undertaking as a means ot inn-easing our carrying trade from the west, my hon. friend is again alarmed. He puts these three statements together, and says you are going around the country holding out terrors to the people ; you are going to favour some other means of carrying grain than the St. Lawrence canals. I must say that I think my hon. friend has not done his superior intelligence justice in constructing an argument of that kind. 1 am aware that he knows better. I would not speak slightingly at all of my hon. friend's mental capacity and powers, because I know they are very considerable, and he has also had the training of a professional man. And I am sure he knows that you could not put these three facts to go flier and draw the logical inference from them that our canals were to be prejudicially affected in the remotest degree.
We are not going to hurt the canal, if, as a matter of policy, we took a dozen other means of getting into the western country. Our canals are there. We are proceeding witli all possible despatch to put them in perfect shape ; we intend to complete the works at Port Colborne. But my hon. friend does not want to see the canals equipped and finished in a proper way. He does not want to see the steamers that are now going to Buffalo invited to Port Colborne. Wliat he does want, I cannot say. I can only draw tile conclusion that he is looking- for a grievance against the government and the Minister of Railways and thinks he lias found one. We are not going to hurt the canals. They will run, I hope, for all time and will be maintained. And if we can maintain those canals and control the business, what harm to Canada or the canals will accrue if the railway companies could, by any process, reduce their ccst of transport to a figure which would enable them to induce traders to ship a portion of their traffic over these lines. That will not hurt anybody and may help the railways.


Andrew George Blair: My hon. friend, drawing a conclusion, told us-and I am going to quote his words because they are the concluding words of a very lengthy address, prepared by my hon. friend with very great care, possessed as he was, of very elaborate notes, and after he had devoted, no doubt, a good deal of time to the collection of these facts, as far as they were facts, which lie submitted to tlie House. This is the conclusion which he draws :
In conclusion, I have only to say that I have introduced this resolution, as I did last year, hoping that it would evoke some little discussion-hoping that any views thrown out in the debate-not any poor views of mine-would be taken up by the press and discussed, and that the gentlemen sitting behind the government and retaining them in their position, would be moved, in a spirit of patriotism, to ask themselves: Is there any means that can be adopted for increasing the grain trade through Canada -not only our own trade, but by taking part of the trade now going through the United States? I believe the solution of the whole question rests on this-that some encouragement should be given both to the Canada Atlantic system and to the Grand Trunk system.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) looks with displeasure upon the idea of a member of the government suggesting that some traffic arrangements might be made witli some one of these railways, and has nothing but condemnation for the conduct of the hon. member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell), because be thought that the Great Northern Railway would be a useful feeder for the Canadian Pacific Railway to Quebec, and for my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, because of what he said with regard to transportation on Georgian Bay. But, though lie condemns all this, and says that we are floundering and blowing hot and cold, that we do not know what we are about, that we ought to come to our senses and fix our minds upon something, and have a definite policy-yet, after all this, he winds up his entire address by suggesting that a bonus should be given to the two railways, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway. Why, is my hon. friend serious when he talks, as he did in the few words that he spoke afterwards about our want of fixed policy, and our want of judgment ? He says :
But, above all things, here and now is the place and time for the Minister of Railways and Canals, before this debate closes, to announce that the government intend for the future, at least for a fixed period of five or six years, to pin their faith to the St. Lawrence canal system, and not introduce any of the side schemes or projects which are now before the public.
That is my hon. friend's serious conclusion to his very lengthy address. I answer to my hon. friend, I say that we are as deeply interested in the success of the St. Lawrence canal system as he or any other member of tliis House. We require no stir or stimulus to induce us to do anything and every-
thing which we may regard as reasonable, and which is in our power, and in which we are satisfied we shall be supported by opinion in this House and in this country, to raise our transportation system to the greatest possible degree of efficiency. We have committed ourselves to it. Whether it was wise or not, it is too late to say. Looking over the field, one might be inclined to think that, with the expenditure of less money, the canalization of the Ottawa river to twenty feet or thereabouts, would, beyond nil peradventure, have given us the absolute control of the western traffic. But we are not discussing that question now. We have laid out our money on the St. Lawrence. As a result of the fixed policy of both Houses of parliament, and of all parliaments, and as the result of united opinion in this country, that money has been expended. I decline to yield to the hon. gentleman and stop in our expenditure till we have perfected that system, in a way which will put us in a position to achieve the best results.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at 8.10.


Samuel Hughes: Just prior to the rising of the House at six o'clock, we were treated to an address from the Minister of Railways and Canals upon this all-important question introduced by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). I am sure that I was not alone in being surprised at the unusual weakness of the minister in reply. The time at his disposal was largely occupied in seeking to prove that certain officers in his department had not found any channel in the St. Lawrence that Vas less than .14 feet deep. The minister did not reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for East Simcoe, by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), and by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp). I was more than surprised also at one of the breaks made by that lion, gentleman. We all admire his ability, and as a rule we look for the fairest of l'air-play from the Minister of Railways. But his treatment of the loan of 30 million dollars made by the former government in this country to the Canadian Pacific Railway, his insistence on retaining the expression that the Conservative government had made a ' gift' of 30 million dollars to the road, when the records and data of every description show that it was a loan, and so intended from the outset, every dollar of which was repaid to this country, placed that lion, gentleman in a very unenviable light before the House. Now. what was the effect of that loan ? The effect of that loan was to save the Canadian Pacific Railway to this country and to make it a success. It gave this country a highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, every foot of it on Canadian soil. It opened up our prairies and the great mining districts of British Columbia. Without that loan of 30 million dollars we would not to-day have the north shores of Lakes Huron and Superior opened up as they are, and attracting capital in large volume, as is the case at the present moment. The inexhaustible resources of this country are only at present being disclosed and beginning to be utilized. In short, we may say the Canadian Pacific Railway has made Canada a nation.
The hon. member for East York, in the course of hiis remarks, made reference to the Canada Northern Railway, or that portion of it locally known as the Ontario and Rainy River Railway. In order that any misconception in the minds of hon. members or among the people regarding the construction of that road, may be removed, X will take the liberty of pointing out here that the Manitoba government, up to 1897, had for some years been aiming at a line from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Duluth. The Manitoba government were going to assist that road with enormous subsidies, and were merely going to take a guarantee from the company that the grain should be carried from the city of Winnipeg at the rate of 10 cents a bushel. There was no provision at all about controlling rates at other points on the Northern Pacific line in the province of Manitoba. But that was the policy of the then Liberal government of Manitoba. I may say that my own efforts at upbuilding Canadian ports and Canadian trade have not been confined to the last few years. On that occasion, having the interest of Canada at heart, 1 visited the city of Winnipeg. I need not go into details, suffice it to say that the Liberal-Conservative friends in that province took up the project of having, instead of an American road, an all-Canadian road from Winnipeg to a Canadian port on Lake Superior. That was the beginning of the present line between the city of Winnipeg and the town of Port Arthur. I find in the Manitoba Free Press of November 17, 1897, an interview with myself which I will read to the House. I was asked a question as to how the plan of the Manitoba government to assist a line from Winnipeg to Duluth, with a guarantee of reduced rates for the carriage of grain, would take in the eastern part of Canada, and with my usual frankness


Some Hon. MEMBERS.: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: For I have never found, in any avenue of life, any advantage in hyprocrisy or in trying to play Machiavellian policy, and I find that 1 have done fairly well in pursuing a policy of frankness. I had no reason to change the policy on that occasion, and I said this :
The Dominion government will not be able to support financially Mr. Greenway's railway
mi

scheme, because nine-tenths ot the people are opposed to a road terminating in the United States territory. They have had experience in that line, for in the east we have built up the United States cities, Boston and Portland, and starved our own seaboard cities, Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal. If they must have a railroad let it be to some point on the Canadian lake, Port Arthur or Fort William being much preferable. And then what assurance have the people that the bond required by the Manitoba government re the Duluth route will be fulfilled? Positively none.
Some lion, gentlemen here will hear me out in saying that ten sessions ago 1 drew the attention of this House and country to the fact that we had upon our seaboard some magnificent cities. The hon. member for Halifax rightly stated in this debate that at the port of Halifax we had a harbour that required no money to be expended on it to make it fit for any vessels to enter it. The city of St. John is also possessed of a magnificent harbour. In the Straits of Canso and along that shore there are numerous excellent harbours. Louisbourg and Sydney are historic. These are Canadian harbours that nierely require to be developed to attract to their wharfs the trade of the vessels that rightly belong to them. It has been my policy and the jiolicy of my friends of the great Liberal-Conservative party for many years to develop as far as possible, from a government view point, the harbours I have already named. Why should we not ? We are frequently told by the advocates of railways, those who favour railways in preference to canals, or to water-hauls, and experience also teaches the same thing, that the improvements in railways, in the road-beds, in low grades, In powerful engines and large cars, have reduced the haiuilage of grain to a minimum. I am told that the New York Central has volunteered that, if the state of New York, in case it retains control of the canal, will hand over to the New York Central Railway the sums of money that it will take to enlarge the Erie canal, they will guarantee to haul to New York all the grain that will ever present itself at Buffalo, at cheaper rates than they now haul grain through the Erie canal. 1 am not saying these statements are true, but if they are true, why should we not set ourselves to work to develop our own seaboard ports V Why should we not improve, the grades of our railways ? The superintendent of the Grand Trunk Railway, Mr. McGuigan, has worked a revolution in the Grand Trunk Railway that is not known to the general public. On many of the American roads they can haul, from the city of Chicago to the seaboard, 1.000 tons of freight with an engine of a certain power. A similar engine on the Grand Trunk Railway from Chicago to the seaboard can only haul 800 tons of freight. You can see at once how our Canadian ports and railways are handicapped. Fully alive to their own Interests, as well as the interests of the country, I Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
believe both the Grand Trunk Railway and me Canadian Pacific Railway are reducing tlie grades and putting their roads in such a condition that, in the course of a very few years, they will be able to haul from the west to the seaboard as heavily loaded trains as the American roads.
The question now is : Why should we not develop and have on our own seaboard winter and summer ports? Why should we not develop the city of Quebec, and why	should	we not also	develop
the city of Montreal ? I maintain that While we are criticising the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway for going to Portland and Boston, we have ourselves largely to blame for that state of affairs. If we had taken proper precautions and had provided approaches to our own ports at Montreal and Quebec, and had provided proper accommodation, I think these roads would have undoubtedly preferred shipping from Canadian ports rather than from American ports. But, Inasmuch as they have already established themselves at these other ports, it now becomes the duty of Canada, irrespective of party, to develop some plan that will recall this trade to our own ports, that will bring shipping again to Canadian harbours, and upbuild our own country instead of upbuilding foreign nations.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I presume that lion, gentlemen have exhausted themselves on the subject. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) made his reply this afternoon, and I regret he is not in his place this evening. One would have thought that with the matter that had been introduced ou both sides of the House the subject would be considered of such Importance that it deserved a little more in the form of a reply than the hon. gentleman gave it. because the hon. minister simply contented himself with a very extravagant amount of scolding in answer to the questions brought up in the debate. One would have expected, that, when the hon. minister's department and his own method of doing business in relation to large' enterprises had been brought iuto the question, the hon. minister would have attempted to defend his administration, but from the minister came not one word in explanation as to the erection of a large elevator, at a very considerable cost, in the city of St. John, and the minister did not vouchsafe to the House the information whether or not he intended, during the coming season, to attempt to do business by way of St. John. The statement goes today. and is not contradicted by the hon. gentleman, that he, last year, at the city of St. John, for purposes best known to himself, attempted the experiment of freighting grain in that direction at a cost, for 300,000 bushels, of some 810,000 to the country. It may not be a matter of interest

to lion, gentlemen opposite, but 1 think it will be to the country, to know whether this government is going on with that principle of business year after year, whether we are going to see freighted down to St. John large quantities of grain, at a great loss, simply to place the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals in the position that he has been able to justify, in the city of St. John and before the country, the construction of an elevator at that point. Now, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals waxed very indignant at my statement, that the question was in contemplation of the purchase of the Booth system of railway. 1 would have thought, when the hon. gentleman gave the very stiff denial he did to the statement I attributed to him, knowing as he did the time when such address was delivered by him in Halifax, that he would have produced files of the newspaper published on that occasion, which, I regret, I have been unable to locate as to the date. I think if the hon. minister had produced that paper it would have borne out the fact that the minister held out to the people of Halifax on that occasion what the hon. minister was apparently afraid to place before the House and the country ; that is, that he had the idea in his mind, and that idea prevailed, not only in the city of Halifax, but also in Montreal, that the government would acquire that railway. Now, Sir, extrinsically, I introduce this matter as evidence of the fact that the government contemplate the purchase of the railway ; I introduce the fact that the government have, for some time, advertised for tenders for the construction of a large public work at Depot Harbour. I make this statement on the authority of people who live in the neighbourhood of this place, who have seen the plan, who know what the contemplated work is, and the government have closed a contract, I believe, for the expenditure of a large sum of money, some $200,000, for the construction of docks at Depot Harbour. The government stands in this position, and the Department of Railways and Canals, and the Department of Public Works are in this position, that if they are not spending that $200,000 at Depot Harbour with the view of the government's taking over that railway and the docks, which will be a complement to the railway, they are taking $200,000 of the people's money to construct docks for Mr. Booth at Depot Harbour, which will be exclusively his own, which will be altogether his, and do not constitute a work of public necessity or benefit. I think this afternoon that the statement which was made, that $200,000 is to be expended by the government on large public works of interest to no person else except to the proprietors of that railway, should have been met by the hon. minister, or explained in some manner or other. Now. coming down to the question of our transportation facilities, let me say that the words put into
imy mouth toy the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals this afternoon, of wholesale denunciation and condemnation of the canal system, were not borne out by anything I did say. I say that every man must regret that after such a large expenditure of public-money on the canal system, it is not bearing better fruits. I regret, as much as any man regrets, that our trade has not increased, and is not increasing by way of that system. The hon. minister attempted to make merry, and it was a sorry exhibition, tout X must say that I regret he is not here tonight to express his view as to my idea, that there should be a proposition made to these railway systems, to the Grand Trunk Railway from Midland to Portland, or Midland to Montreal, and to the system from Parry Sound or Depot Harbour to Montreal, or Boston, by way of bonus or bounty for the carrying of grain. Hon. gentlemen are fond admirers of the principle of bounty. These hon. gentlemen, after years of decrying the principle of bounties in this country, at the very first opportunity embraced the proposition that they had denounced for years, and went in for the principle of giving bounties on iron. I say it would be in the interest of the country, in place of seeing the grain of the western states and a large proportion of the grain of our Northwest Territories carried by way of New York, Boston, Baltimore and other American ports, and by American railway systems, that we should endeavour to secure that trade for our own channels at the cost of giving some bounties or assistance. How might that be done ? While on both of these systems from 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 bushels of grain are now being carried, the proposition might be made, that having carried 25,000,000 bushels in a season, all that is carried in excess of 25,000,000 bushels should be paid for at so much a bushel by way of bounty. The result would be. in the first place, that the fact that we were going to carry such a large quantity of grain in a season would tend to the making of contracts far in advance, and the result of making these contracts would be cheaper rates, which would enure to the benefit of those in the west who had produce to transport. Another great advantage would be that if you once attracted trade so that through these two systems there would be an annual carriage of from 50,000,000 to 75,000.000 bushels of grain, the chances would be that trade, once attracted in that direction, would in all probability remain there in the future.
Further, these railway systems, benefited by the cash concessions which would be made by the government would be in a better position to equip and maintain their roads for the increased trade. Every one knows that in the transportation of all kinds of merchandise through the country large sums of money are spent by the railways and by the shipping interests, which of

course is a great advantage to the country as a whole. The minister (lion. Mr. Blair), spoke of the grant to the Grand Trunk Railway, which enabled them to greatly improve the Victoria bridge, and as a result of which they are now carrying the grain beyond Montreal to Portland. This is a matter to be regretted by all Canadians. The minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) does not admit, as he should, that this was bad policy, and that there was lack of foresight on the part of himself and his colleagues in reference to it. His defence now is, to say to us : Why you did exactly the same thing with the Canadian Pacific Railway, when you gave them large concessions, and you did not restrict them to carrying freight to a Canadian port. Well, one would think that time and experience would teach the Minister of Railways something, and the government having had before them the example of the Canadian Pacific Railway in this respect, we would naturally expect that the aggregation of wisdom which composes the present cabinet, would have learned something, and that their Minister of Railways would not be forced to come here to-day with an idle tu quoque argument. I made this motion partly with the idea that the government would state to the House and to the country, that their policy was that they were going to be bound for a number of years at all events by the St. Lawrence canal system, so that those interested in maritime business might feel a sense of security in investing in vessels in Canada. Unfortunately any one who takes what the minister has said and scans it carefully, will not find a single word to show that the government stands pledged even for the next five years not to acquire the Booth system or the Great Northern Railway, it must be remembered that freighters that would be restricted by their construction to the canal trade between Port Colborne and Montreal, would on account of their limited capacity not be able to compete with the larger vessels for the trade of the great lakes, and of course if the government acquire this railway system it would to a large extent put them out of the business. I Therefore, those interested in the trade in ' Canada are afraid to invest their money in such vessels. I presume the public are to be kept in suspense for some years to come, and that the newspajjers in the meantime will be filled with statements to the effect that the government intends to purchase the railways I have referred to. So long as tlie ministers will go from one end of the country to the other giving their individual opinions as to what the future transportation system of the country will be, there will be uncertainty in the public mind as to the policy of the government. I expected when I moved this resolution that there would be a profitable discussion upon it, and in that I am not disappointed. I regret, however, that the government did Mr. BENNETT.
not give a complete denial to the statements made throughout the country that they intend to purchase the Booth system, and the Great Northern Railway system. At least some good purpose has been served by the motion, and I now beg leave to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LAND GRANTS.

Mr.  R. L.@: RICHARDSON (Lisgar) moved second reading of Bill (No. 17) respecting the Land Grant of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
He said :	The Bill which I have before
the House is similar to one which I introduced a year ago for the irurpose of interpreting a clause in the charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the brief explanation I gave when I introduced the Bill, I did not go over the ground so fully as I should like to, and if the House will bear with me I shall now go into the particulars a little more minutely. When the charter under which the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed was made with the syndicate, and ratified by parliament on the 15tli of February, 1881, the land grant to the company (comprising about 25,000,000 acres) was under clause 10 exempted from taxation. That clause 16 is known as the ' exemption clause ' of the charter and it exempts the tracks, rolling stock, road-bed, stations, ground and appurtenances for all time, and the clause concludes thus :
And the lands of the company in the Northwest, until they are either sold or occupied, shall be free from taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
Now, Sir, the twenty year period contemplated by this clause expired on the 15th of last February. Various constructions have been placed upon the wording of the clause. It is contended by a number of persons, including the right lion, the Prime minister, that * the grant thereof from the Crown ' means the issue of the patents for the land. Although the twenty year period of exemption has expired, the company has not applied for the patents for these lands. The government has been questioned from time to time during the last five years on this matter, and we find from the answers given that only a small portion of the entire lands granted-I think less than 2,000.000 acres- have been patented up to the present time. The company state that they have not even selected all their land grant. The position seems to be somewhat like this. The company have indicated to the government certain districts throughout the North-west Territories where they are willing to select their lands, but no definite selection has been made of a large portion of these lands up to the present time. I was looking up the other day the speech of the right lion, premier, delivered last session, and his con-

tent ion seemed to be, and 1 may say it was also the view held by the late leader of the opposition, Sir Charles Tupper-that the exemption runs from the date of the issue of the patents. If that contention is correct, then inasmuch as the patents have not been issued for this vast land grant up to the present time, the exemption period will extend for another twenty years ; and j if the. delay in issuing the patents is continued, the exemption will go on indefinitely.
Now, I think I shall be able to convince reasonable men, from quotations which I will give to the House, that it was the clear intention of parliament that the twenty years period began when the contract was ratified on the 15th of February, 1881. If that is true, the twenty years period expired on the evening of the 15tli of last month. If there is any doubt on that point at the present time, I claim that it is the clear duty of parliament to say now what that clause meant.
I have no doubt that I shall be told that this is a remarkable proposition ; I shall probably be charged, as I have been on other occasions, with being a socialist because I ask parliament to determine what that means. I bow very often to the views held by the leader of the government in many matters ; but when he says that we would be interfering with vested rights if we were to interpret this clause, I judge from a perusal of his speech of last year that the vested rights he is afraid of interfering with, are those of the bondholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Without assuming to criticise the position which the right hon. gentleman takes upon this question, let me, as one who has lived in the North-west for nearly twenty years, who has witnessed the development of that country, who has seen the people there bear the burden and heat of the day, who has witnessed the hardships of those people, and has always felt a great deal of sympathy with them-let me say that I think they have vested rights, and it is their vested rights that ought to be respected. When those people settled in that country and took up land, they doubtless had read this contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and doubtless had clearly understood that at the expiration of the twenty years period they would not be obliged, as they are to-day, to bear a double burden of taxes. When a settler in that country takes up his quarter section, he is obliged to pay taxes for schools, for roads, and for local improvements ; and inasmuch as the section adjoining his belongs to the railway company, and is included in this land grant, and is therefore exempted from taxation, the burden that falls on the settler is just double what it should be. And I want to appeal to members of this House and ask them, what must be the feelings of those settlers when they discover that though the twenty years period is now up,
yet, by the interpretation placed upon this clause by leading members of this House, they are obliged to go on and pay taxes for another twenty years ? I want to appeal to the members of this House in the name of these settlers ; I want to speak of the vested rights which they have ; and I think that notwithstanding the views which many may j hold, and honestly hold, on this question, those who consider the hardships which those settlers have endured must recognize that the first duty of parliament is to the people who settle on the land, and to whom that country practically belongs.
I said that I would endeavour to show, by the position which parliament took upon that question some twenty years ago, that it was clearly and definitely understood that the twenty years period began when the contract with the company was ratified. Let me first, however, make a slight reference to the fact that when parliament grants a title, it may be what is known as a title by statute. Title by statute is recognized in Great Britain as being quite as good as title by patent. I claim that it is not necessary that patents should issue in order that the title to these lands should be vested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. When the contract was ratified on the 15th of February, 1881, to all intents and purposes the land became the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I shall be told, no doubt, and correctly, that the lapd was not at that time all set aside for the use of the company, and this section will, no doubt, be quoted to me- and I may just as well deal with it now :
Section 9. Upon the construction of any portion of the railway hereby contracted for, not less than twenty miles in length, and the completion thereof so as to admit of the running of regular trains thereon, together with such equipment thereof as shall be required for the traffic thereon, the government shall pay and grant to the company the money and land subsidles applicable thereto.
, I admit that that is quite a strong section, and will be used against my argument with considerable effect ; but for the last four or five years, I have endeavoured to obtain [DOT] from parliament information as to when . this land or any portion of it was set aside . for the use of the company, and I must \ confess that I have been absolutely unable ; to get that information.
:	As I said at the outset, the Canadian
* Pacific Railway Company, seeing the , strength of their position, seemed to get the i government to fall into line with their view, } and not to issue patents to them ; so that 5 they will claim that the land has not been i set aside or made available for them up to L- the present time. If I were able to find out [ exactly when this land was set aside, it i might make some difference to my argus ment.
t But the point is this, that the Canadian , Pacific Railway have had as much use oi

tliat land grant as if they actually had it in their possession from the first moment, and I will show you how. In addition to the vast subsidies which we gave that company, in round cash, completed railways, exemption from taxation, exemption from duty on the materials that entered in the construction of the road-in addition to all these subsidies, we exempted their lands from taxation. And, in my opinion, inasmuch as they have not chosen to take up that land, but still have had the benefit of them, the time lias come when they should pay their share of taxation. Let me point out that no sooner was the ink dry on the contract than the Canadian Pacific Railway raised $25,000,000 in land on land grant bonds. They mortgaged their entire land grant and raised the money required to go ou with their work. Therefore, I say they had the use of these lands just as much as if they had taken possession of them at once. That being the case, Why should not parliament interpret that Act as it should be interpreted, taking all the circumstances into consideration, and declare that twenty years' term of exemption at an end.
The night bon. gentleman who leads the House told us last year that it was a .question for reference to the courts, and lie said: Let the municipalities take ouit a writ against the company and sue for the taxes. But I would point out that as these lands are up to the present unpatented, it is legally impossible for any municipality to take any action. Had the government issued the patents, as it should have, at least after 1885-6 when the road was completed, the exemption would have expired in 1906, and there would not be such a serious grievance. But the patents never having been issued, these municipalities are not in a position to effectually or satisfactorily collect the taxes.
Further, I do not think it would be quite fair to expect any municipality to undertake a lawsuit with the Canadian Pacific Railway. These municipalities are not wealthy and have not the resources to enter into litigation with that powerful company, winch litigation would be very costly, as it would be carried to the last court of resort. Why should not the government itself, if it is bound to have it that way, obtain a legal opinion and relieve the municipalities from that task ?
But I say that we ought not to take the risk of referring it to the courts. I have discussed this question with lawyers. Of course, the committee of the Privy Council might take a different view. They might look at the political aspect, they might read the speeches delivered at the time the contract went through, and give a decision according to what they thought was the * understanding of parliament. But I am informed that the courts are apt to rely upon the wording of the Act and the technical construction of the clauses, and that being Mr. RICHARDSON.
the case there would be extreme danger, if this matter were referred to the courts, of its being decided against the people. This is a case in which the interests of the people suffer to such an extent and in which the meaning of parliament is so clear that no risk ought to be taken. Why should this idea of vested interests be held up to terrify us on every occasion ? If the wording of the contract were clear and distinct, if tlhere could be no doubt that the exemption should date twenty years from the issuing of the patents, I would not ask parliament to place any interpretation on the Act. But the wording may appear to 'some miindls slightly ambiguous. I think that to any one who reads the clause in connection with the debate which took place in parliament, what was meant Is perfectly clear. If that be true -and I think I shall be able to satisfy almost any one by quotations from ' Hansard' that it is-why should parliament not now say what its intent was on the 15tli of February, 1881 ?
Parliament is supreme. What do the people of Canada send a representative to parliament for if not to see that they are justly dealt by ? Why should we think of the bondholders in Holland or any other country.


William Findlay Maclean: We must weep for them.
Mr. Rl>
iRDSON (Lisgar). We may, but there are people who have lived on the plains all those years, who have borne the burden and the heat of the day, who have paid double taxes all these years, and it is they who, if they are to be told that they must go on paying double taxes in perpetuity, will have just cause to weep. They have vested rights in this matter too.
I wish to give the House some little idea of the views of members of the government and the opposition when that contract went through on the 15th February, 1881. I may first say that the word ' granting,' that is the granting of the lands-1 after the grant thereof from the Crown'- is used frequently through the contract, and I would infer that parliament intended that the grant meant the bestowal of the land when that vote went through in 1881. The first speech to which I shall refer is that of Sir Charles Tapper, then Minister of Railways, and who was the chief force in putting this contract through. He did not say in so many words that the granting thereof from the Crown meant twenty years from that time, but he made a comparison to show that the contract was a very favourable one compared with those put through in the United States. He pointed out that the exemption period in the United States was generally 25 years, and in this contract it was only 20 years, and he emphasized this point, that the land grant, until either sold or occupied, should be exempt for 20 years. Sir John Macdonald made the estimate that in ten years half that land grant would be sold and

would have passed into the hands of settlers and became taxable, so that the bonus given by the country would not be so large. Sir Charles Tupper emphasized the point that in view of the development of that country the land grant, until sold Or occupied, would be free from taxation for 20 years, and made the point that the contract was better than the American contract because it had that saving clause, that until sold or occupied, the land grant was free of taxation, but that once it became the property of the farmers and settlers it was taxable.
So much for the speech of the late leader of the opposition. Now, 1 wish to refer to the speech of one of the greatest Liberals this country has known. I think my hon. friend the leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will consider the testimony of the Hon. Edward Blake pretty good authority with regard to this matter. Hon. Edward Blake is a tribune of the people. I remember sitting in the press gallery when he fought that contract. I think he used to occupy the seat where the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) now sits. I remember how Mr. Blake battled for the interests of the settlers in the western country. And, in this connection, let me pay a tribute to the right hon. leader of this government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I spent nearly a week going through the debates that then occurred, and I lound that the right hon. gentleman took very strong ground on that question. The Liberal party did noble work for the country in those days. Amendment after amendment was moved-I think twenty or twentv-tive amendments in all-affecting every clause in this contract. Even the matter of this tax exemption was referred to by many leaders of the Liberal party at that time. And I think, as a Liberal, that I can appeal to the Liberals to stand by the position which they took in 1881 in regard to this matter. This is what Hon. Edward Blake said :
They have freedom to reject land they deem not fairly fit for settlement and to choose the best land elsewhere. They have perpetual exemption from taxation of their enormous property, a most monstrous provision, in my opinion. Why, this monstrosity is not to last merely twenty years, which is to be the period of bondage in other respects, but it is to last for ever.
Can any man with a mind doubt what lion. Edward Blake had in his mind when he made that declaration ? The period of bondage, he says, is perpetual, with regard to the road-bed, and rolling stock, and that is a monstrous thing; but the other exemption, he says, is for a period of twenty years. Surely that is plain language. Twenty years must mean twenty years. If that was the position Hon. Edward Blake took that time, surely I shall not appeal in vain to Liberals to take the same position now, notwithstanding there may be repeated 36
[DOT]to us the talk about the vested rights of the bondholders. I could read from Hon. Edward Blake's speeches many passages which would be excellent-reading as showing the interest he took iu the settlers of that western country, in whose behalf he, assisted by tlie right lion, leader of this government, made at that time such a magnificent fight. But, let me read another sentence :
That, on a gigantic scale, will be the effect of the exemption on the syndicate, who can hold their lands from year to year for twenty years without any drawback in the way of taxes.
Here are two quotations from that great Liberal tribune of the people to show that lie understood that twenty years was intended when the contract went through. Now, I will quote an authority which, I should think, must satisfy the Conservatives in this House as -to what view the Conservative government, and the Conservative party, took of that clause at that time ; I will quote from no less an authority than Sir Hector Langevin, the Minister of Public Works in the Conservative government of that time, and a colleague of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper. At the close of his speech he says :
Therefore, in a very short time, the parish or municipality will be settled, and the exemption of taxation on these lands will not be felt, because really the lands remaining to be sold will remain there only until the settlement can be extended in this direction.
Now, mark these, words :
So that, after these twenty years, what will remain exempt from taxation will be just the 100 feet in width the length of the municipality.
Could you desire stronger testimony with regard to the position the government of that time took on this question ? After twenty years from that time, said Sir Hector Langevin, all that will remain exempt from taxation will be the 100 feet-merely the roadd>ed, because, as you know, road-beds are 100 feet wide. Surely, I need not appeal to any hon. member who sits do your left, Sir, in view of the statement 1 have read, and surely none will hesitate to support the Bill I have the honour to place before the House to-night. Surely every Conservative will support this Bill without hesitation, on the ground that it is the duty of parliament to interpret that clause more particularly in view of the testimony I am now able to produce. Let me now quote from the speech made by Mr. Rinfret, who was a Liberal member from Quebec, and a man of considerable promise in the councils of the Liberal party at that time.
The exemption of the syndicate's lands from all taxation, whether municipal, school, federal or local, can be estimated at half a million dollars a year, making for the twenty years a sum of $10,000,000.
So, there could be no doubt about the position Mr. Rinfret took. At that time ela-



borate calculations were made as to what this tax exemption would amount to. There were various estimates, but the estimate generally adopted by the Liberal party at that time was that the subvention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was increased by this exemption by a sum of not less than $10,000,000. We had given them $25,000,000 in cash, $35,000,000 of completed road, and 25,000,000 acres of land- which was estimated by a number of hon. gentlemen the other day to be worth at least $75,000,000. The Liberal party of that time, as represented by its leading men, held up its hands in protest and said: You are going to give another $10,000,000 by this exemption from taxation. According to the interpretation of the right hon. leader of the government, we are bound now to give them exemption of another twenty years, which would be more than an additional $10,000,000, for that land has vastly increased in value, and the value of this exemption from taxation is increased in proportion. The argument I make with regard to Mr. Rinfret's utterance is that he said the exemption would be worth $500,000 a year, and he estimated that the total at $10,000,000, showing clearly that he meant exactly what he said when he stated that that exemption would be for twenty years. Now, let me quote a few words from another great Liberal. I refer to Hon. (I. W. Ross, the present Prime Minister of the great province of Ontario. He was then a member of this House for Middlesex, sitting with the Liberals and taking a prominent part in their discussions and in their councils. I shall abbreviate this quotation, as I have abbreviated the others, because I am anxious not to delay the House :
Every man that settles on a section of government land in the North-west will be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water to these great corporations.
You see he was prophetic. The people up there have been hewers of wood and drawers of water to these great corporations, and unless parliament to-night does its duty in this matter, we are going to relegate these people to another twenty years, probably for perpetuity, to the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water to these identical corporations.
Every road he makes, every bridge he builds to span a little stream or rivulet will be clear gain to this syndicate. Every dollar he invests in the improvement of communication between the back parts of the government lands and the front will benefit the syndicate. Moreover, if the settlers wish to levy rates to secure the construction of roads or erection of school-houses, instead of levying a single rate, which they would do under other circumstances, they will have to levy two rates on their own properties, because the syndicate property is free.
Just exactly what I said myself a few moments ago. Settlers are obliged to levy two rates on themselves for a school-house, Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
two rates for a road, and two rates for any other improvement, and unless parliament decides to do its duty to-night, the settlers will be obliged to levy two rates for another twenty years at least, and probably for all time.
I believe this would be a practical bar to the settlement of the lands in the North-west.
It has been a practical bar.
It is tantamount to telling every man we invite from the other side of the Atlantic that the moment he settles on our lands in the Northwest, instead of contributing of his means for his own advantage and comfort of his family, every dollar he invests for the benefit of himself and neighbours will be so much to the advantage of the company that contributes not one dollar itself.
And', Sir, it has continued to be. The company sells a quarter section of laud to a settler, that moment the land becomes taxable, and the settler is obliged to pay taxes ou it. But the company uoes not have a patent issue lest that settler should fail in his payments, and the land might revert to the company, and should it revert to the company, as it has done in many cases, the land becomes non-taxable. It is always the case with the company of ' heads I win, tails you lose.' Under no circumstances must they be called upon to pay taxes, because parliament !in the past has been protecting these railway companies instead of protecting the interest of the settler, of the men who form the brawn and sinew of this country, who contribute the taxes that help to carry on the affairs of the country. Now, Mr. Ross, speaking at another point, said this :
The hon. member has been reading the Railway Acts of the United States. He will find that some of the railway lands of the United States were taxed 14 cents an acre, and some 11 cents an acre, and the hon. gentleman knows that lands in Manitoba, held by non-residents, are taxed from 5 cents to 6 cents an acre. Put that same rate

Now, I would like that each member should see what the Hon. Mr. Ross had to say on this point:
-on 25,000,000 acres for twenty years, and it will amount to $10,000,000,

You see, the present Premier of Ontario at that time had it clearly in his mind that it was to be twenty years from that date, because he makes an estimate of half a million a year for twenty years, and that gives $10,000,000.
[DOT]-an enormous sum, which shows the immense gain which this tax is to the company. It not only relieves them from a regular payment of, say $50,000 a year, but enables them to hold their lands in order that they may increase in value.
That is just what has happened in the North-west Territories. The company does not appear to be anxious to sell their lands, they simply leave them there, and by the work which the settlers put upon their

lauds, by tlieir improvements in fencing and in cultivation, the value of these railway lands is enhanced, sometimes doubled ; therefore, by the work of these very settlers, the railway companies are enaDled to make enormous sums of money. Now, let me quote briefly from a speech which my honoured friend-because I always take pleasure in referring to the Minister of Customs as my friend-a speech which he made upon that occasion :
He was cognizant of the evils of exemption in the case of the Canada Company in days gone by, and he told the House that he had given power to the resident settlers to tax the lands of the non-resident, and therefore, those nonresidents must either pay the taxes or sell out. He thus qualified that clause himself, and yet the same gentleman has since become a party to a contract wiping out that exemption clause and giving the company freedom from taxation for twenty years-
He was chiding, I think, some gentleman on the opposition side. He says that the gentlemen on the opposition side had even gone so far as to give an exemption to the company, or to give freedom to the company from taxation for twenty years.
-so that the settler will have an unsettled mile on the east, west, north and south, exempi, from taxation. He will have to bear the whole burden, build churches and make road improvements, and the hon. Minister of Railways asks parliament to adopt that clause.
I think, anyway, I have got one friend sitting at your right, Sir, to-night ; 1 feel satisfied the Minister of Customs will, at least, stand up and fight for this Bill. He chided a member of the opposition for daring to support that clause, and I honour Mm for doing It. He spoke, as did the other gentlemen from whom I have quoted, about compelling these settlers to pay double taxes, even for churches-the hon. gentleman introduced the church-and for schools and other such improvements. I am sure I will not appeal to him in vain to-night to stand by the position he took then, and to support this Bill. If this Bill passes, then these poor settlers will not be obliged to pay double taxes for churches, schools, roads, and so forth. Now, I want to quote, because It comes in here consecutively, wliat the Globe said at that time. I feel satisfied that the Globe would not go back on the position it then took.


Some hon. MEMBERS: What ! Oh, oh.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: I remember when this question was up last year, the Globe quoted the speech of the Hon'. Edward Blake, from which I have quoted to-night, and while it did not commend me for the position which I was taking, neither did it say I was wrong, and I felt that was at least a point gained. The Globe said this :
This land grant is infinitely more valuable than that of the Union Pacific. Therefore, the least value that can be put upon the exemption from taxation of the Canadian Pacific land grant is twenty times $835,023, or $16,700,460.
36*
That was the estimate the Globe placed on the value of this exemption. Now, suppose we to-night, by defeating this Bill, agree that this exemption should be extended for another twenty years, you make a subvention, in exemption from taxation, to the Canadian Pacific Railway of something like $33,000,000. That is a vast sum, almost half enough to build the entire Canadian Pacific Railway, taking the company's own estimate of the cost of construction. The Globe continued :
The exemption from taxes of the railway itself is worth at. least as much to the company as the liability to taxes costs the Union Pacific, namely, $279,158 per annum. Capitalizing that sum at 4 per cent, we arrive at the value of the exemption from'taxes of the railways-it is $6,978,950. Add value of twenty years' exemption from taxes on land grant, $16,700,460. Total value of exemption from taxes, $23,679,410.
So you see the. great Globe at that time was perfectly clear, no doubt whatever, as to what that meant; and we all recollect how unalterably hostile the Globe was to the then government. If the Globe could have interpreted that by any stretch of imagination to mean that it should be twenty years more, or in perpetuity, how it would have wrung its hands and declaimed against the government. I am not so sure hut that it might even have succeeded in defeating the government had they attempted to make that exemption in perpetuity. Yet the twenty years are gone, and here we are to-day face to face with a proposition for another twenty years, if this exemption is to go on. I think we will certainly rely upon the Globe to stand by us in this fight and advocate the interpretation of that clause as I say it should be interpreted. Now, I will quote from the speech of another prominent Conservative of that period. Mr. Charles Rykert. He was a man of scrap-book fame, and a man whd was great at going into calculations. I find that he entered into most elalbofiate calculations in reference to tins land grant. He speaks as follows :
Now, I go still further. I will give them the benefit of last year's taxation. Mr. Poor says

He is referring to the American railway statistician.
Mr. Poor says that the taxes last year were $108,437. I will double that, which will make $216,874 a year, multiply that by 20, allowing one-third off for sales only, and I find 'the total amount would be $2,891,654, or a difference of $13,808,806. It does seem to me that the hon. gentleman ought certainly to withdraw that statement upon the floor of this House or admit that the organ

He is referring to the Globe.
-was incorrect or misinformed. It Is an unfortunate thing that these statements should go about the country In order to mislead the public mind with a view of getting a snap verdict against the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.

What would Mr. Rykert himself have thought, what would he have said if he had been face to face with the proposition that we have to face to-night that this exemption is for quite a number of years, if not in perpetuity. Let me read next a brief sentence from a speech delivered by the Hon. Timothy Anglin, a distinguished predecessor of yourself, Sir, in the chair. Mr. Anglin said :
It was very extraordinary. There was a very remarkable fact in reference to the lands. Eleven million acres would furnish 10,000 acres per mile for 900 miles, making a total of 9,000,000, and furnish about 2,000,000 acres more for the three-tenths of the road of the eastern section, which the company were required to build within the first three years. So that within three years, the company should have acquired and obtained possession of the two twenty-four mile belts in the prairie section.
Now, I do not propose to .go any further into the speeches delivered at that time upon the contract, but I want to place in the witnessJbox another very important witness, and I am satisfied that the testimony of that witness will be accepted as being very important by the House to-nliglit. I want to put the Canadian Pacific Railway Company inlto the witness-box, and find out What they thought in regard to this land grant. I took the troube last year to borrow from the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals the reports printed by the Canadian Pacific Railway, from the time of the inception of the syndicate. I went very carefully through all these reports, and I found some important statements made therein. The first report of the company was dated the 12th of December, 1882. Mark the date. Sir, December 12, 1882, shortly after the ratification of the contract:
The proceeds of the $20,000,000 of land grant bonds, as sold, are deposited with the government, which pays interest on such deposits at the rate of 4 per cent per annum.
I started out with the proposition that this
25.000.	000 acre land grant was available to the company from the date of the ratification of that contract. To-day we find that on the 12th December, 1882, they had sold land grant bonds, and that they had raised
820.000.	000 on mortgage. Surely we are not to be met with the argument of vested rights when we find that the company have had all the use of the land grant that they could possibly desire. Then the statement proceeds :
These proceeds are paid to the company in agreed mileage proportions (in the same manner as the government cash subsidy), as construction progresses ; and the balance of these proceeds and of cash subsidy coming to the company amounts to about $31,500,000.
I will now read from the report published by the company on the 31st December, 1883 :
A statement of land sales from the commencement of the company's operations, is also submitted.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It will be observed that a considerable reduction is shown in the acreage sold, as compared with the statement published in the official memorandum, dated December 12, 1882.
This has been caused, mainly, by a reduction of the acreage originally sold to the Canada North-west Land Company, from 5,000,000 acres to 2,200,000 acres.
The point I wish to make is that before the 31st December, 1883, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had sold to the Canada North-west Land Company some 5,000,000 acres of land. Although you will find by the public records that the company did not have that amount of land set apart for them, ait that time ithey seemed to have been able to transfer any portion that they desired whether it had been set apart or not. Let me quote briefly from the Canadian Pacific Railway report of 1884, signed by George Stephen. He was asking for certain legislation from parliament to enable the company to do certain things, and he says :
Should this measure become law the position the company will occupy on the opening of the through line next spring may be summed up as follows :-*	.
It will have a cash deposit in the hands of the Dominion government sufficient to pay semiannual dividends at the rate of 3 per cent per annum on its $65,000,000 capital stock for seven and a half years, or until the end of the year 1893. It will own 3,299 miles, and will hold under lease 695 miles, of fully completed and thoroughly equipped railway, forming a total mileage of 3,994 miles. It will own more than 21,000,000 acres of agricultural lands.
We have the statement of President Stephen himself, that the company Will then have 21.000,000 acres of agricultural lands. In the report for 1885, we find this :
It will own three fine steel steamships on the great lakes, and an extensive and well-appointed telegraph system, with power to extend its telegraph linos to all parts of the country.
All this property, together with certain outside assets, in all valued at $230,960,585, will bo represented by a total indebtedness of $53,892,545, bearing an unusually low rate of interest ; and by $65,000,000 capital stock, for which dividends for seven and one-half years will be in hand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow a diversion, I would like to refer to that matter. According to the president's own statement at that time they had set apart sufficient money to pay interest on the $65,000,000 of capital stock which the company had issued. You will find in the sessional papers a return made to parliament, in obedience to a request of the Hon. Edward Blake, in regard to that $65,000,000 of stock. That $65,000,000, in the then state of affairs of the company, they pretty generally admit was an unnecessary over-capitalization. The members of the syndicate distributed the stock among themselves at the rate of 25 cents on the dollar. They reserved a large quantity of the proceeds which were set aside to pay themselves dividends on this
MAT?OH 7, 1901
stock, and they actually paid tliemselves dividends at the rate of 6 per cent par value, or 24 per cent on the amount of money they had paid in.
Instead of turning the money in for the purpose of constructing the railway, they set it aside for the purpose of paying dividends on their stock at the rate of 24 per cent, so that in five years they had paid themselves more than they originally paid for the stock, and they owned the stock besides, and it was recently quoted at 102. Yet, Sir, we will probably be asked to-night to protect the vested interest of these stockholders. Well, when the House understands that these people pay themselves 24 per cent on this stock there will not be much sympathy felt for the vested interests of these gentlemen. I quote from the report of 1880 :
To represent this capital liability, the company has a well-equipped railway system of 4,651 miles, a thoroughly efficient commercial telegraph system, and nearly 15,000,000 acres of selected agricultural lands.
In 1880 they had nearly 15,000,000 acres and that was about the time the railway was completed. 1 think there is no hon. gentleman here who will not take the view that all the land became taxable at least at the time the railway was completed. I do not propose to weary the House with more than one other quotation, and that is the report of the company, dated the Sth May, 1889, which says :
In addition to the lands embraced in the foregoing statement, the company holds 1,389,424 acres of land in southern Manitoba, which came to it from the purchase of the Manitoba Southwestern Railway. These lands are among the best and most available in the North-west. At the average of the sales last year, $4.64 per acre, their value Is $5,944,785. They are subject only to a Hen of $884,773 in favour of the province of Manitoba. Your directors believe that they will yield at least $5 over and above the amount due to the province, and, as they are not liable to any other mortgage or lien, the surplus will be available to the general purposes of the company.
Therefore, according to the statement prepared on the authority of President Van Horne, the price the company received for their lands was $4.64 an acre, and he added that they would be worth and would sell for $5 an acre. But, take the price at $4.64, and we find that the subvention of lands to that company at 6,400 acres per mile was worth $32,100 per mile. I do not think that prairie roads cost more than $10,000 a mile, so that we practically gave to the company in lands alone three times the cost of the road, and yet we will be told that if we ask parliament to declare what parliament clearly meant, will be Interfering with vested rights. I could give further quotations from the statements submitted by the company, but I do not propose to go further into any technical argument on the question. I wish before concluding to point out that
the request which is made in this Bill is a reasonable and a just request. I remember that Mr. Blake in his speech quoted the statement of Sir John Macdonald when he was justifying the contract to parliament and where Sir John said : That by virtue of the vast subsidies which Canada was giving to this company it would be able to carry freight for at least one-quarter the cost that a road built out of private funds would be able to carry it for. In view of the fact that we gave that company $25,000,000 in cash, $35,000,000 worth of completed road, and $75,000,000 worth of land, it is only fair and reasonable to ask that that land grant should not be exempted from taxation in perpetuity. The greatest curse the North-west labours under at the present time is the exemption from taxation of these vast tracts of land, and the Minister of the Interior told us the other day that some 60,000,000 acres of laud had been given as subventions to railways in this country. 1 should think that at least 90 per cent of these lands are exempt from taxation. and parliament must see that it is handicapping that country for all time to come to continue this exemption. We have now a ciliance to set free about 20,000,000 acres of land and hon. gentlemen would understand what an immense relief this would be to the country. If parliament does its duty with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway lands it will surely be expected to do its duty with regard to lands belonging to other railway companies. The Bill sets out in brief form some of the considerations I have mentioned, and it concludes with the following :-
Clause 16 of the contract mentioned in the preamble, between Her Majesty and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, is hereby Interpreted to mean that the period of exemption from taxation of the said land grant terminated twenty years after the date of the ratification of the said contract.
I beg to move the second reading of the Bill, seconded by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This is a question which has already more than once engaged the attention of the House, and my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) has just reminded us that last session we threshed it out at greater length than I care to do on this occasion. The hon. gentleman knows that the legislation against which he protests is contained in the original contract which the Liberal party of 20 years ago fought with all its might.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I said so.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Blake, who was then the leader of the party, opposed that contract with such vigour and ability as has never been equalled in this House. All the arguments which the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Richardson) has quoted to-day fell from the lips of Mir. Bliake and Mr. Ross and the other leaders of the Liberal party, upon a deaf House, and against the protests of those Liberal leaders this clause was put on the statute-book, lit was decreed that the lands conveyed to the Canadian Pacific Railway should be for 20 years exempted from taxation. There may be a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the clause, but there can be no misinterpretation as to the meaning of ' twenty years.' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) has truly said that 1 20 years' means ' 20 years,' but the question is as to what date that 20 years should run. My hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) says that the 20 years should run from the date the contract was ratified, namely, when the Bill was passed, and he has quoted from the speeches made on that occasion to prove that such should be the interpretation of the contract. I wish it were so ; but, unfortunately, the language of the statute is very different from the language which was used in debate. The statute does not say, as my hon. frined will have it say, that the exemption of the said land grant shall terminate 20 years after the ratification of the said contract. If such had been the intention of parliament, it would have been very easy for parliament to have said so ; but that was not what parliament said. What parliament said was that these lands should be free from such taxation for 20 years after the grant thereof fi-om the Crown. I am sorry that it is so ; I wish it were otherwise ; but it cannot be argued seriously that the grant from the Crown was made at the time of the ratification of the contract. That is one reason.
But ther-e is another reason which my hon, friend has not alluded to, and which is very conclusive on this point. There was a contract entered into in 1880, between Her Majesty, represented by the government of Canada, and certain gentlemen-Canadian, Americans, Englishmen, Hollanders, and Frenchmen-who undertook to build a railway on Canadian soil. For this undertaking on their part the people of Canada agreed to give them $25,000,000 in cash and 25,000,000 acres in land. Did that grant operate and become valid so as to be exacted by the company on the day of ratification of the contract ? Quite the reverse. If on that day the Canadian Pacific Railway Company could have claimed their $25,000,000 of money and their 25,000,000 acres of land, there would be some reason for the contention of my hon. friend. But, on the contrary, the Act said positively, in so many words, that the grant would be available, not on that day. but at the time the subsidy would be earned by the building of the railway. Here is the clause :
In consideration of the premises, the government agree to grant to the company a subsidy in money of .$25,000,000 and in land of 25,000,000 acres, for which subsidies the construction of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the Canadian Pacific Railway shall be completed and the same shall be equipped, maintained and operated.
My hon. friend agrees with me, I am sure, that under the terms of this clause, the subsidy could not be paid to the company except as tbe construction of tbe road proceeded. It seems to me that Is quite clear without further argument.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It could not with regard to the money ; tout so far as the 'land is concerned, they borrowed money on it instantly.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not instantly, but later on ; and if my hon. friend were to contend that the twenty-year period were to run from the day the company mortgaged the land, there would toe some argument for that.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Would the right hon. gentleman support me if I modified my Bill to that effect ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will not support the hon. gentleman when he asks parliament to interpret its own Acts. I said last year that my hon. friend could take the matter before the courts. He says that last year, when he made his argument, I called him a socialist. 1 said that his argument smacked of socialism, if it were not the pure article itself. In what other way could I characterize it ? Why should a contract be sacred, why care for the Bondholders, why not make the bondholders weep ? Because we are in a British country, and if there is anything held sacred in a British country, it is a contract. My hon. friend says, do not leave the courts to interpret the contract, tout put on it sucn interpretation as you hold. My hon. friend asks us to do something which has never yet been done in a British parliament. If there is anything which the British parliament has a horror of, it is to interfere with contracts. I regret that provision of this contract as much as my hon. friend does. He has argued that it is a serious blot oil our statute-book, that it is an injury to the settlement of the North-west. I agree with hinj that it is so ; yet, for my jjart, I am not prepared to say that the bond holders must bleed or weep, or to take away their property and their security from them. My hon. friend should not bring such a proposition before this House. I suggested to my hon. friend last year that he should go before the courts and get their interpretation of this contract. How, my hon. rriend asks, can this be done ?-the lands have not been patented. Well there are many thousands of acres which have been patented, on which the matter can be tested in the courts.
My hon. friend made another argument: he said that these municipalities are poor, and that this government might do this. If I understood the hon, gentleman's argu-

ment aright, he did not want any judicial interpretation. He said the meaning was too clear-we could interpret it ourselves.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is my position.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If that is my hon. friend's position, it is a position against which I contend with all my might. If my hon. friend is sincere and earnest in this matter and wants to have it tested in the courts, I am here to tell him that the government will back him with all their might in so doing ; but, if my hon. friend says, 1 do not want a judicial interpretation, but I want parliament to say that the exemption started on such a day, whether we would rob the- bondholders or not, I am not prepared to assent to anything of the kind. The proposition I make to my hon. friend is a very reasonable one-to have a judicial interpretation, and we will give the poor men of those municipalities all the assistance we can in order to have their rights, whatever they are, established. If my hon. friend is satisfied with that, the government will assist him with all their power to have this contract judicially interpreted. But if he is not willing to accept that, and says there is nothing to do but to have parliament interfere and say whether it is right or wrong, whether it is according to the truth or not. that the twenty years must run from a certain day, then, I hope that such a monstrous proposition, such a socialistic proposition, will receive no countenance in this parliament ; and the only position I have to take is to move that the Bill be not now read a second time, but be read a second time this day six months.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would ask the right hon. First Minister if the government would not state a case for the Supreme Court, and have the contract interpreted themselves V


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have just said that if it be the wish of the settlers of the North-west to have it interpreted, I will do so.


Robert Lorne Richardson: You said you would assist me in the matter. I ought not to be placed in the positon of having to take the initiative.


William Findlay Maclean: We have heard a lawyer's argument from the leader of the government and the great exponent of Liberalism in this House. Is there no other course than to refer this matter to the courts ? I say there is. We have had grievances of the people of the North-west brought before this House time after time. The greatest grievance the people of the North-west had was the monopoly clause in that contract, which prevented any other road than the Canadian Pacific Railway building to the American frontier. That grievance was aireu in this parliament, and eventually the Conservative party,
which put that monopoly on the country, found a way of removing that grievance. When the Canadian Pacific Railway came here for further concessions, it got them, but only on condition that it removed this grievance. The Canadian Pacific Railway has come to this House session after session, since hon. gentlemen opposite have been in office, asking fof favours, and I have always contended that we should take advantage of these applications to make terms on behalf of the North-west people.
The hon. Minister of Railways gave the Canadian Pacific Railway great concessions in connection with the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, and he obtained in return reduced freight rates for which he claimed great credit. Two years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway demanded further concessions, and got a blanket charter over the whole of the North-west. I then protested that then was the time to get rid of some of these monopolistic clauses in the contract, particularly the 10 per cent clause, which prevents this government from interfering with the freight rates until the company earns 10 per cent over its expenses, but 1 protested in vain. The Canadian Pacific Railway is asking again this session for further concessions, and hon. gentlemen opposite will, no doubt, be as supine as they were in the past. They have not the courage to insist on the removal of these monopolistic clauses. There are two such clauses remaining. One is the clause granting exemption from' taxes, and the other is the 10 per cent clause. Time and again attention has been drawn to these grievances by gentlemen from the Northwest, but all we can get is a lecture from the right hon. the Prime Minister on vested rights and the iniquity of interfering with them. But that is a lawyer's plea, and not that of a statesman. A statesman is a man who can take advantage of opportunities and always find a way to remedy grievances, but here we have Liberals going about the country before elections weeping for the farmers, and in parliament weeping for the bondholders.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to give any more to the Canadian Pacific Railway than we have given. According to his contention, this monopoly is at an end, and the twenty years exemption have expired. If the courts maintain his view, why need we grant any further favours to the Canadian Pacific Railway in order to obtain this concession V


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman has given a great many concessions to the Canadian Pacific Railway since he came into office, without obtaining any corresponding benefit from that company. The Canadian Pacific Railway is here this session asking further concessions, and the right hon. gentleman will have his opportunity of settling this disputed point and

obtaining something for the people in return for what he will give the company. But he will not take advantage of the opportunity. Instead we will have the lawyer's plea that vested rights are sacred, that contracts must he upheld, and not a word will we hear about the grievances of the people. But a statesman can find a way to remedy the grievances of the people, and at the same time do no injustice to vested rights.


Mr. DAYIS.: Give us a way out of it.


William Findlay Maclean: I have two cures for it. The Canadian Pacific Railway came here some years ago and got a most valuable blanket franchise over the whole of Manitoba that had not already been pre-empted. Let us impose on them some conditions tills year in return for the favours they ask. The hon. the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) laid down last session the doctrine-and so did the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), who is not here this evening-that the present administration was composed of statesmen who would get something for the people from great corporations in return for anything they gave. That was the whole justification advanced for the Crow's Nest Pass deal. The only justification was that the Canadian Pacific Railway was compelled to give up something in the way of monopoly.
I have another cure for the situation, and that is government ownership. We can get that railway, into our hands for a very small consideration, and we will get all these lands back.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Will you buy the lands back ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, if you buy the road you will get the land with it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Not necessarily.


William Findlay Maclean: If you buy the shares you get everything the railway owns, and you get the lands back. There are very few lands left in the North-west now to give to the settlers, and the easiest remedy would be to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How much would it take to buy it ?


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Shaughnessy has told you that you can get it absolutely for S3P.vo0.000. I believe you can get the control for less than $25,000,000. and there is enough land there to pay for all that. You can get that land back into the hands of the country. You could give it to the settler free. Or you could devote the proceeds of sales to paying the taxes and helping the settlers. Instead of spending our time talking about the great corporations, we should be doing something for the people. We should do away with this most unfair sys-Mr. MACLEAN.
tem of exemptions under which the poor man has to pay the piper. The poor man in Toronto and every little hamlet in Ontario, and all over Canada to-day, is paying the municipal taxes, while great corporations go scot free, which would not be the case much longer if Liberals would stand by their pledges. But they have gone back on their pledges, and to-day are defending the corporations and weeping for the bondholders. They only weep for the farmers when out in the country looking for their votes.
I believe that this wrong can be made right. As soon as I can get away from here, I intend going up to the North-west and telling the people there how this parliament regards a question of this kind, and I will let them know that the little Napoleon was not in his seat to-night when this question was being discussed, and that the young bucks from the plains, who talk so much about the people's rights on the public platform, are out to-night at some kind of a sun dance or corn dance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: That no doubt is great sport for hon. gentlemen on the other side.


Mr. SCOTT.: Which one of the young bucks is at a sun dance ?


William Findlay Maclean: I see that some of them have come back from the sun dance.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Will the hon. gentleman uarne one who was absent ?


William Findlay Maclean: Now, it is very fine to hear these interruptions from the Northwest whenever a proposition in their interest is before the House. But, I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite and to tell the Premier that there is a way to cure such evils as we complain of. He has availed himself of it once; he has failed to avail himself of it several times. He had better avail himself of it hereafter. For the people do see that parliament in this country is supreme, that parliament can rectify every wrong. And parliament does not rise to its responsibility if it does not find a way to right a known wrong. Law, we are told, is for the purpose of righting wrong; and, if there is no law, or if it is found that the law cannot right the wrong, this parliament can if it will but find a way. And some of us will find the way, and some of us will stake our reputations and our future on the finding of a way. I am one of those who will consecrate what strength I have and what effort I can put forth to that end. It is a strange thing to hear a Prime Minister of this country, a man who professes always to be a Liberal, throwing out some kind of insinuation against those of whom he speaks as socialists. I am something of a Socialist, and something of a Tory.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is a bad mixture.


William Findlay Maclean: No, it is not. I am one of those who do not regard socialism as a crime. Somehow, the world is suffering under great grievances, and the men who profess to be socialists are men who are trying to do something for humanity. I belong to two or three clubs in this country, and some are rather exclusive. And when 1 go into those clubs, 1 hear the members talking about these socialist fellows on the hill here. 1 wish these gentlemen, and some hon. gentlemen opposite, who speak in this manner could be in some of the London clubs to-day. They should hear what is said in those clubs by men of great family connections, leaders in the universities of England, men high in the service of the state-and nine-tenths of these men are socialists, if you call them such. And the great city of London has set an example to the world in the last two or three days of what socialism on good lines means. The London County Council is taking over the control of the great utilities which, until now have been in the hands of private corporations who have been robbing the citizens of London right and left. Of all the robbing corporations, some of the very worst were the water companies that controlled the water supply. They are going out of existence. The city of London is taking over every tramway there. The state owns the telegraph and telephone services. The gas works and electric light works of the city of London are owned by the public. That is the kind of socialism I believe in, and I am not afraid to say so, even though I am opposed by gentlemen who profess to be Liberals. But, I hope that this is the last time that a Liberal Prime Minister in this country will say a word against socialism of that kind. Before I finish, let me say again that the responsibility rests upon parliament of righting this wrong of the Northwest settlers. That wrong may have been inflicted upon them by the Tory party. For that, the Tory party is responsible. But equally does the responsibility rest upon members of the other side as well as upon members on this side to right what is a wrong and to find a cure for what is a grievance.
The SOLICITOR	GENERAL (Hon.
Charles Fitzpatrick).	In 1S80, a contract
was entered into between the government of the Dominion of Canada and a certain corporation, under which the corporation undertook to build a railway extending from central Canada to the Pacific ocean. As a result of the making of that contract, certain grievances, apparently, have resulted to the people of the North-west Territories and Manitoba. Now. these grievances were pointed out by the Liberal party at that time as being the necessary and inevitable result of that contract. Since that time, this parliament has been asked, by means of the Bill now before the House for consideration, to remedy that grievance-that is to say, the hon. gentleman who presents this measure asks that the remedy be applied in this way. He says : The contract was made between the people of this country and a firm of contractors or a railway corporation, and we now ask you to undertake to construe that contract, and practically to set the contract at defiance. The government now in power says :	We do
not think it proper to consider the contract in that way. We do not think it proper that one of the parties to the contract should take it upon himself to construe the contract as against the other party, but this contract once made, should be left to the courts for judicial interpretation. And the hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean), who now leaves the House, says, the course adopted by the government is an improper course. He says :	It is all right
for lawyers to talk about the sanctity of contract and about respecting their obligations contracted under such conditions as those under which this contract was made, but we statesmen deal otherwise with these things. We statesmen, he says, take out our knives and put them through these contracts and put an end to them. It is all right for mere lawyers to talk about keeping sacred their covenants, but we statesmen deal otherwise.


William Findlay Maclean: Now, did I say that ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, having stated the xiositioii taken by the hon. gentleman and by the government, the matter is at an end. We say :	The contract is made: in consequence
or as a result of this contract, certain obligations were entered into by the jieople of Canada towards the bondholders who made the advances necessary for the purpose of enabling this road to be built; and, if there is any doubt about the terms of this contract, let the courts settle it and put it at an end: but it is not proper for us to interfere and to construe this contract ourselves, violating obligations we have entered into towards these bondholders. Let me go one step further. What are the facts ? When this contract was entered into, it was provided that the road was to be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. To enable the company to build that road certain grants of lands were to be made to the company as the road progressed. The company was authorized to use the land grant for the purpose of borrowing money, not only upon the land granted, but the lands to iie granted under this agreement. These bonds were sold, and the money for which they were sold was taken by the company and put into this road. And now we are asked to take that land grant which was made at that time and given to the bondholders as security for their advances, and to say that we are going to alter the con-

ditions under which the grant was made. Now, is that common honesty, Mr. Speaker?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) allow me to ask him whether he would be willing to have this interpreted to mean that these lands shall be taxed twenty years from the date they were earned ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not going to say how I should be willing to have this contract interpreted. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) will try to understand the position the government takes, I am sure we shall be at one in a moment. The government say : The contract is made providing that these lands shall be exempt from taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown. All that is necessary is to ask the courts to construe the words ' grant thereof from the Crown.'


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, but you have not issued the patents up to the present time.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Now let me go on. Are these words to be construed as of the date of the making of the contract, as my hon. friend wishes them to he construed ? Are they to be construed as of the date of the earning of the lands, or are they to be construed as of the dates when the patents issued ? These are the three constructions that may be put upon these terms : and what we say is that as these terms are vague and indefinite, and are possible of any one of these three constructions, let us refer the matter to the courts and let the courts construe them. If the court says that when this contract was made the meaning of these words was of the date of the making of the contract, then we have no responsibility. If the court decides that the grant is to be understood as of the date when the land grant was earned, we have no responsibility. If they say it is of the date when the patent issued, we are equally without responsibility.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, you are responsible, because you have allowed five years to elapse, and you have not issued the patents.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is for the courts to say the date from which that grant is to run. Now, any hon. frieud takes this position, he is endeavouring to tax the government with responsibility for not having granted patents during these five years. Why does he not bring in a Bill to discuss that question ? What we are dealing with now is the hon. gentleman's Bill ; I presume he drew it, and if he drew it, I presume he understands it. What the hon. gentleman wants to do is to say that this grant is to be construed as dating from the date of the ratification of the contract. That is what he asks us to do ; and I submit respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that we should not by an act


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: of this parliament say that such is the meaning of that contract and the Act that was based upon it ; and if there was a possibility of construing the contract in that way, then we must not forget that the land never passed out of the possession of the Crown until such time as the road was constructed and the grant earned.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It has not passed out of the possession of the Crown yet.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: So the position is this : My hon. friend, if he is sincere about this matter-


Robert Lorne Richardson: Do you suppose I would be doing it if I were not sincere ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: if he is sincere about that matter, as sincere as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) was when he spoke on this subject last year, he would adopt the suggestion thrown out by the government, that is to say, he would have the contract referred to the courts and the courts, would judicially construe it. Then the people of the North-west would benefit by it, and no individual would succeed in obtaining some political benefit out of it. I say the position of the government takes is one which will commend itself to the House. Let there be a judicial construction put upon this contract, that is all any member can ask, then we will know where we are, and how far this evil complained of can be remedied.


Mr.  T. S.@: SI'ROL'LE (East Grey). The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) deserves credit for the anxiety he displays ou behalf of the people he represents. There is no doubt, people in Manitoba are labouring under a grievance, under a hardship, and there is no doubt they desire aud deserve a remedy, no matter from what quarter it may come. The hon. member brought this question up last year, and, if I remember right, he brought it up before that; but he has always aimed at redressing the grievance under which the people of Manitoba labour. But I regret to say, personally, that I cannot agree with him in the remedy he proposes. If there is one thing more than another that ought to be held sacred by parliament, it is the contracts that we make with corporations or individuals ; and there is no doubt that this was a contract that parliament entered into seriously and intentionally, whether it was a wise oue or not. We are one of the contracting parties, and to violate that contract by an arbitrary declaration, to make that Act mean what we desire it to mean, I think, would be entirely out of keeping with the principles usually obtaining in ail constitutionally-governed countries under the British Empire. The

hon. member for Lisgar quoted from several members of the Reform party, giving their interpretation of that Act when it was being passed, and amongst them he quoted from the Hon. Edward Blake. Now, it seems to me that Mr. Blake thought at that time that the twenty years were to run from the time when the agreement was entered into. That being the case, I respectfully submit that it justifies any person in holding a similar view, and the hon. member for Lisgar is not so much to blame if he comes to the same conclusion and desires to act on it. That was Mr. Blake's opinion, and that was the opinion of several members of the Reform party, but it does not happen to be the opinion of those who constitute the other contracting party.
When this question was up last year I made a suggestion which the 'First Minister has intimated he is willing to act upon tonight. I suggested that the government should state a case for the court to decide, instead of leaving it to any private individual to prosecute a case in court in order to secure the rights of the people interested.
I understand the First Minister to say tonight that he is willing to join with the hon. member for Lisgar, and to have a case stated for decision by the court in order to ascertain the correct interpretation of the law. It seems to me the hon. member for Lisgar should accept that offer. I do not think it is possible for him to secure any remedy that will redress this grievance at an earlier date ; and since the government have assumed responsibility and given their Solemn pledge in the House that they will act in this manner, I think that ought to be acceptable. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), I regret to say, stated some propositions that 1 cannot agree with. I cannot agree with him in the conclusion he reaches in regard to this and many other cases of a cognate character. He gave us an example of remedying a grievance suffered by the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories some years ago with regard to the monopoly clause ; but he evidently forgot that we did not arbitrarily interpret that clause, but we entered into negotiations with the contracting parties that were controlling the situation, and induced them to abandon their rig-fits.


William Findlay Maclean: That is my proposal exactly, negotiate now respecting the lights in order to get rid of the grievance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, if the hon. gentleman had only gone that far il should have been glad to support him ; but to say that we should arbitrarily interpret a law in a manner to suit our own side of the question, is going much too far.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say that for a moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the other hand, to say that parliament is above the people and
above the contracts, and that we should violate a solemn obligation we entered into with a corporation, I think is also going entirely too far. Now, had the government acted on this suggestion last year, they would have done right. They have agreed to what is, in my opinion, the only remedy, and I am sure the House will sustain the First Minister in that suggestion. Therefore, I think it will be the part of discretion, and it will be the honest way of securing a remedy, if the hon. member for Lisgar, who is entitled to great credit for the perseverance he has displayed in the interest of the people, would accept that suggestion and withdraw his Bill.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: It seems to me this is a very simple question, and there has been a great deal of discussion wide of the mark by one or two hon. gentlemen who made long speeches. A great many matters that are not pertinent to the question were brought in. I think the House understood the hon. member for East York in the same way as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) understood him. He, as an old parliamentarian, must know that he was entirely out of order, because his argument would have nothing to do with the question before the House. I am glad to hear that he did not mean anything like as drastic as he said and as we understood him.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, no.


David Tisdale: That is the way we all understood him. I will now leave it and say nothing more about it. The whole question is rather broader than the statement of it by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr, Fitzpatrick), In my opinion. The whole question is not the interpretation of the contract, but it is that we shall not interpret it at all. We have no business, as a House, or as a legislature, to put a construction on a contract that has been entered into.	.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree with that.


David Tisdale: If you do agree with it, I do not think it is wise or fair in discussion to bring these other matters into contention for the reason that those hon. gentlemen who stick closely to the question, and -who argue it upon that line are placed in an unfair position, because in arguing a lot of other matters it would look as if those of us who are strong on this question are not standing up for the rights of the people. I am one of those that willingly will never consent to one tittle of that sort of legislation, because it is the bulwark of the poor man. The poor man is the man who most often requires the law to protect him within his rights. I grant there is no socialism about me as I understand socialism. There is no socialism about Conservatism, as I understand it;

otherwise, I would be beginning to think of becoming a Liberal, because I am glad to say that as far as I hare observed the legislation of this country, there is no record of the Liberal party being socialistic in their actions in parliament. We all, I think, agree upon that ; at all events, excepting the new members in the House, we all agree because we voted upon it last year. I was going to read a few words from the speech of Sir Charles Tupper, our then leader on this side of the House, but I do not think it is necessary. He endorsed entirely, I think, the words of the right lion. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), as he expressed himself last year, and I think all of the members of this side of the House endorsed him also. To-night, I believe that nearly all of us, I think probably every one would do the same, if the question came to a vote. As the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) quoted from some of the speeches and transactions which occurred at the time of the passing of this contract, there are one or two quotations that I will detain the House by referring to, for a minute or two, because I do not see the pertinency of the hon. gentleman's quotations any more than the pertinency of some of the things the hon. gentleman 'said. He quoted what Liberal members said in opposition to this contract at that time. He did not quote, as the Prime Minister has remarked, from these discussions one thing pertinent to the question, or that would help us in the consideration of it. As great a lawyer as Edward Blake would seem to have been satisfied with it. He left us in this dilemma as to what the contract does mean, because, I agree with the hon. Solicitor General and with the right hon. Prime Minister that it is doubtful what the construction is. But, the hon. member for Lisgar went on to speak as if the Liberals were all against the proposition. He forgets that the Hon. Alex. Mackenzie, while endeavouring to grapple with this question, made a much larger offer, an offer of 50,000,000 acres of land, $25,000,000 cash, and 4 per cent on whatever it might require beyond that, and asked for tenders upon that basis. So that the House will know that all the difficulties and all the extravagances, if there were extravagances in regard to the terms given by the Canadian Pacific Railway, were not upon our side of the House. The hon. gentleman read from the speech of the present Prime Minister of Ontario, but he forgot to read the recantation of that hon. gentleman. I will read it for his edification, because he ought to read what he said then, and what he says now. He was then dealing with a matter which was surrounded with difficulties, and which awaited the test of the future. He was in opposition to the proposition, because he then took the Liberal view of it. Mr. Ross, speaking in one of the constituencies in Ontario within a year past, said : Mr. TISDALE.
I remember when the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed, we thought Sir John 'Macdonald was undertaking a herculean enterprise, one which would crush the country. I think, perhaps, he was right, and we were wrong. I think, perhaps, he budded more wisely than he knew. No one will say to-day that the building of the railway was a mistake. Canada today would be a very small country, would be weaker in the councils of the empire, would scarcely be a confederated Dominion, as it is, were it not for the Pacific Railway.
In discussing a matter such as this I would prefer that we should briug no party politics into it. I merely make reference to these two statements because the bon. gentleman saw fit to bring before the House, and to the attention of the Prime Minister, portions of the discussion which took place then, that seemed to be, from his standpoint, evidence that the action of the Conservative party in reference to this great enterprise, this herculean task, which was undertaken by the great man who is here no more to give us his counsel, has not verified the anticipations of those who projected it. I wanted to give the views of one of the strongest men who existed at that time, and who still gives his counsel, wisdom and best efforts to the province of Ontario. I would prefer, and I always endeavour to carry out that view in discussing matters like this, where there are no party politics, that we should deal with them simply on their merits as the right hon. gentleman has done to-night. In his speech a year ago he went into some other subjects. This is not a matter of party politics. It is one of those things where both parties should feel some of the difficulties and responsibilities, and unless it is a matter in which party politics are concerned. I think the wiser and better plan is to deal with the subject just as we have with this, and pitch into each other on party questions.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go very far afield in the short remarks which I desire to make in regard to this subject, and I would not delay the House by participating in the debate at all, were it not that I think it is an extremely important subject, and it affects particularly that part of the country which I am supposed to represent in the cabinet. It is not by any means a new subject, as we all know, and it does not seem to me that it is a subject upon which there can be very much difference of opinion. I would be surprised if any member of the House of Commons of Canada would be found to take the position that this parliament would be justified in altering a contract which has been deliberately entered into. What certain members of parliament thought and said when this contract was passed, has absolutely nothing to do with the question. What this man or that man said as to the

intention of an Act of parliament lias nothing -whatever to do with the Act when it is passed. When a contract is made by this parliament with a corporation or individual, it makes no difference whether that corporation or individual turns out to be unpopular or not, that contract must stand absolutely. We have no more rights as a parliament to pass an Act interpreting that contract than you would have, Mr. Speaker, to place your own interpretation upon a contract that you might make with me in private life. For my part, I take most emphatic issue with the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) when he says that the House of Commons is supreme in the sense that it has a right to break its contracts or violate public faith.


William Findlay Maclean: The member for East York did not say that, nor did not advocate it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think he spoke for the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not speak for the Bill.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) is very unfortunate then in the language he used.


William Findlay Maclean: No, he is not.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The hon. gentleman told us, with great vigour, that parliament is supreme, and that parliament has the right and the power. We all know it has the legal power.


William Findlay Maclean: By concession for concession.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.If the	hon. gentleman	did not mean that
parliament had the power rightfully to alter contracts, then his remarks were totally irrelevant, and could not convey any intelligent idea to those who listened to him. The question was well and clearly put by my hon. friend the Solicitor General, and by my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale). It is not a question as to what Interpretation should be put on this contract. Parliament has no right to put any interpretation on this contract. The interpretation of a contract made betwen two parties must be decided by a judicial tribunal, independent of both parties. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) said truly that if this course were taken, it is not so much the large corporations that would suffer in this country as the poorer classes, because the trend of legislation in all countries shows that injury to the public credit, injury to confidence in contracts, injury to confidence in investments, brings its misfortune first upon the poor classes, and particularly upon tHe labouring men. We have had many discussions in this House as to
the benefit conferred upon the country by large sums of money being brought in here for investment. I fancy there is no man who has given careful consideration to the affairs of Canada who will not agree, that there is perhaps no country in the world which is in a position to profit so largely as Canada would, by the investment of capital from other countries where it has accumulated and where it cannot be as profitably used as it can be here. I can conceive of no more fatal blow that we could strike at that confidence, which we are happy to say has always been displayed in regard to Canadian securities, than that we should deliberately assume the power to alter to even the extent of one letter a contract that has been deliberately entered into by the parliament of Canada. As has been well said, the Liberal party has no reason to be apologists for this contract in any sense whatever. But, Sir, the Liberal party called upon to administer the affairs of this country must administer them with absolute honour and good faith, so far as the public contracts are concerned.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have had occasion to experience some difficulties in connection with this question. I have addressed public audiences when it would have been more popular for me to use such language as was used by the hon. member for East York, even though I did not wish to be responsible for the meaning of the words I used, as he did not wish to be responsible. I have been called upon to address many audiences where it would have been more popular for me to assume the attitude taken by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) and endeavour to confuse the minds of the people, so as to lead them in some way, directly or indirectly, to suppose that there was a way in which this contract could be got around which would relieve them from its effect. I am here to say. that never upon any occasion have I ever taken any other stand than that which I take to-night upon this question. I have expressed the opinion, and I express the opinion now, that I hope and trust there will never be a government in Canada that will be prepared to take the responsibility of introducing legislation to vary or change contracts -which have been fairly and honestly entered into by the parliament of this country. So far as my view of the matter is concerned, it is entirely a question of law. I have been asked a number of times as to what position the government would take in regard to this matter, and I have always said, that so far as 1 was concerned, my view was that the interpretation of the contract must be made by a judicial tribunal, and I further said, that so soon as the twenty years had expired from the date of the ratification of the contract, then, so soon as any municipality was

in a position to bring about a state of circumstances that would give rise to a test case, we would be quite prepared to have that test case carried to court at the expense of the government. I have no doubt that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is quite in accord with that view, and I believe that nine-tenths of the members of the House will also be in accord with it.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gnetleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has charged me with not stating my views intelligently. I think I did make myself intelligent, and I received an approving nod from the leader of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I protest.


William Findlay Maclean: I received an approving nod from the leader of the House when i said that he claimed as one of the great credits to his party, that he had negotiated with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the abandonment of some of their monopolies and the reduction of their rates. These gentlemen opposite have gone up and down the country making stump speeches to the same effect.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: What V


The PRIME MINISTER.: Spoken.


William Findlay Maclean: There is an amendment moved, and I have a perfect right to speak to the amendment. One reason why this Bill should not be hoisted for six months is. that parliament can maintain the sanctity of contracts and still right the wrongs of the settlers of the North-west. That is what this parliament can do, and that is what 1 advocate here to-night. It may be by compensation, and even if it has to be by compensation let it be done. Whatever way it be done, the Liberal party, in doing it, will only be vindicating the policy they announced twenty years ago, when they denounced this contract as an injustice to the settler. Even at this late date it is incumbent on the Liberal party to rectify that wrong. My argument was wholly on the line of the Crow's Nest Pass deal, namely, that when the Canadian Pacific Railway next comes to the government they can say to them : We will entertain the proposition you are making, but we want you to surrender that monopoly clause, which is a grievance to the people of the North-west Territories. That is what I argued, and if that is socialism, I am sorry to hear that the Minister of the Interior is not a believer in that kind of socialism, and that he tells the public of Canada and the settlers in the North-west that there is nothing else for the members of this House to do than to maintain the


Mr. SIFTON.: syndicate contract. They have more than that to do. Their duty is to rectify the wrongs of the settlers. These wrongs can be rectified, and the duty and responsibility of rectifying them is upon hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that the House has apparently taken the position-judging from what most of the speakers have said- that it does not intend to interfere in this matter. 1 am afraid that a good deal of the indifference of members of the House is due to the feeling that it is not their ox that is gored. As long as it is only a Northwest matter, and does not affect the rest of Canada, it is a question for the courts. But if it were a matter which concerned Eastern Canada, and concerned it very deeply, I think ways and means would be found for seeing that if we went to the courts, the play would not be with loaded dice at any rate. We are willing to go to the courts, but we want the law straight to go to the courts on.
Let me give the House a few figures to show what the present condition of affairs means to the North-west. There is at the present time a law of the North-west assembly taxing every quarter section of land under ownership within a statute labour district at the rate of $2.50. Under the law l'or tile organization of school districts, lands owned by homesteaders are taxed at an average rate of $3.50 per quarter section. There are thirty-six sections in a township, sixteen of these belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The company's exemption from taxation in each statute labour township amounts to $1(50, and there are in the North-west I think not less than 300 statute labour districts; so that the total exemption of the company from taxation in statute labour districts amounts to nearly $50,000 a year. There are about 500 school districts in the Territories. The country school districts are allowed to be five miles square. That would give at least twelve sections of Canadian Pacific Railway land in each school district. The average taxation is about $3.50 per quarter section. Taking for the purposes of calculation 300 as tlie number of school districts in the Territories, and not 500, we find that the company's exemptions from taxation in school districts amount to about another $50,000 a year. The point I want to make is this, that there is a tax of $6 on every quarter section of land owned by a settler or homesteader, and we claim that the adjoining section owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should pay an equal amount. What I want to impress on this House is that that means something to the people of the east. Ever since the North-west Territories were organized, the support of the schools and the improvement of the roads
have been carried on by means of a subsidy supplied out of the Dominion treasury, and year after year the plea has been made to this government by the government of the Territories that, because of this exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands from taxation the Dominion treasury should supply the deficiency, and it has been supplying the deficiency and will have to continue to supply it as long as the deficiency exists. Do not make the mistake that this eastern country is not interested in the question of the taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands. This eastern country is paying every year out of the general treasury because of that exemption. The people of the North-west are bearing part of the unjust burden, and you are paying the other part; and it is your question as well as ours whether you are going to continue to bear that burden or make the Canadian Pacific Railway Company bear its share.
The House is instructed that it has no right to interpret its own contract, and that if we touch this contract we break the good faith of this country, and do ourselves a great deal of injury. 1 hope we will never want to break an honest contract, but I trust that we will never submit to be buncoed by the misinterpretation of a statute. The right hon. the First Minister said that he agreed with the understanding of the House at the time, as that understanding was explained by the hon. member who moved the Bill, but unfortunately that was not what was embodied in the contract. If that be the case, I say that the understanding of the House at the time was our side of the contract, and it is our business to see that that understanding is maintained, and we are not acting fairly by the people if we do not. This House is not an ordinary party to a contract. When, in the course of debate, questions are addressed to ministers, the positions taken by ministers with regard to those questions, as taken down by ' Hansard,' are accepted as interpreting the law. That should be so, and is so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not so.


Frank Oliver: Well, I will have to accept the correction, for I certainly am not in a position to give instances to the contrary, but I know of instances in which such statements have been accepted as interpreting the law. I say that the bargain maxle at the time was understood by this country and parliament as having a certain effect, namely, that on the 14th February, now passed, the exemption from taxation terminated, and I say it is the duty of this House to see that the people are not robbed of $50,000 or $100,000 a year through a misinterpretation of the contract.
For my part, I do not admit that there is properly any necessity for the introduction of this Bill. I do not admit that there is any necessity for any interpretation of the contract, or any room for any misinterpretation of it. The necessity for the Bill has arisen from the doubts thrown upon the meaning of the contract by members of the government, as stated in the preamble. I am at the disadvantage of not being learned in the law, and of talcing a position entirely opposite to that taken by some members who are learned in the law, but I say that the words in this Act can have only one meaning, according to my understanding of the English language. The words in dispute, as mentioned by the Solicitor General, are :
Shall also be free from such taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
I say that the word ' grant ' means ' gift.' That is the dictionary meaning of the word, and it is not right to import into that word the technical legal meaning of ' patent.' I say that the land was given when the Act was assented to, and that the twenty years exemption has to run from that time. Do you tell me that the ownership did not begin until certain acts had been done ? But does not the homesteader, who makes a homestead entry, become in law the proprietor of his land at that moment, 'although he has not completed the homestead duties, and need not complete them for three years afterwards ? And is he not taxable for that land, as soon as he enters it as a homestead. And if he does not pay his taxes until he gets his patent, the land is then sold, and the back taxes are collected out of the proceeds.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no such law. The land cannot be sold for the taxes.


Frank Oliver: When a homesteader enters for his land, that land thereupon becomes assessable, and is assessed. An assessment is placed against that land each succeeding year, and if the taxes are not paid until the patent is secured, then the land can be and is sold for the taxes. Of course it cannot be sold until the patent is secured, but those taxes stand against it until it is patented.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. The taxes assessed against the land before it is patented cannot be collected from that land. No title can be conveyed in the case of land sold for taxes assessed before the patent is issued.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have seen hundreds of cases of lands advertised for sale for taxes, and no doubt so has the

lion, the Minister of the Interior, and you will find printed at the end of the list ' unpatented.'


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: They cannot give a title for these lands.


Robert Lorne Richardson: They may not, but they are sold for taxes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No one who goes to a sale for taxes and knows anything of the subject will buy any land that is unpatented. Time and again in the courts of Manitoba such sales have been set aside, and the most emphatic declarations made by the courts that lands cannot be sold or titles conveyed in respect of taxes assessed before the patent is issued. The provincial legislature can make the debt a personal one, but cannot convey the lands.


Frank Oliver: As regards the point whether land that is homesteaded can be taxed before it is patented, I cannot tell you what the law is, as I am not a lawyer. I can only tell you what is done. There is another case. Land is purchased sometimes under an agreement of sale. In such case, who has the ownership of that land, and who is taxed for it up to the time the agreement is completed and the last money paid ?
I say that the ownership of the land for the purposes of this Act commenced when the Act was assented to. As the company could negotiate its business on the strength of the money grant that was given by the Act, just so it could negotiate its business on the strength of the land grants given by the Act. It was given then, and the company proceeded forthwith to do business on it, because it was given. I am astonished to hear the contention that this land grant is not taxable until twenty years after it is patented. I understand that there are members who make that contention. If there are, do they understand the position in which it places them ? Do they understand the position in which it places this country ? Do they know that if that contention is admitted, so far from this exemption having expired at the time this whole country expected it to expire, inasmuch as not an acre of that land has been patented the twenty years exemption has not begun to run; and this country is robbed -I say robbed-for at least twenty years to come of whatever taxes they should have received, but for that exemption. Surely, the Prime Minister is not going to take that position ? Then, is he going to leave it to the chance of a judicial decision on a bunco Act as to whether we shall he robbed for that twenty years or not ? I cannot agree with him, that that is the duty of parliament or of this government. I cannot agree with him that we can afford to stand aside and let ourselves be robbed to any .such tune as that : because, whatever may be the strict legal interpretation of that Act. neither he nor any other man can contend that


Robert Lorne Richardson: it was in the mind of parliament-can contend that it was not furthest away from the mind of parliament at the passing of this Act-that any such contingency should arise. Would any man argue for a moment that, if it had been presented to parliament that that exemption was liable to extend for forty years it would have been granted ? Nobody would contend such a thing.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, yes, they do.


Frank Oliver: No one.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, 1 have heard it tonight.


Frank Oliver: Not with the cold facts before them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) means that the Tories would have given it for fifty years if they had been asked.


Frank Oliver: I say that if there had been any such idea in the mind of parliament at the time, it would have been brought out in the debate. But there was no such idea brought out in debate, nor was there any such idea in the mind of the country at that time. Those who desire, then, to take the position that this country is liable to the chance of a judicial decision on an Act which they themselves say they do not understand, may say that that is their duty ; but, so far as I am concerned, it is not my duty as a member of this House, as I understand it. I claim that the position of the members of this House Is not the same as that of a private individual. It is the business of this House to see that justice is done to the people of this country ; it is the business of tin's House to see that Acts which are faulty when they are passed are amended and made right, so that there shall be justice and substantial justice to the people of this country. This House is taking too great a responsibility when it says : We will do nothing in the matter ; we will throw it into the courts and let the people take chances on a judicial decision on an Act which we do not pretend to understand, though we know and every man kuows. what was meant when the Act was passed by the parliament who passed it. It has not been shown that there was anything different in the mind of parliament when the Act was passed than I have stated. If it can be shown that parliament had any other idea, that parliament thought exemption would extend for twenty-five or thirty or forty or fifty years, it was competent for any hon. member to show that. But it cannot be shown. There is no doubt that the country and parliament, on behalf of the country, made that bargain with the full belief that the exemption from taxation would terminate on the 15th February, 1901. Then,, if the understanding of parliament is not distinctly and clearly provided for in the Act,

it is the duty, as it is the right-and as it is admitted to be the right-of this parliament to make the Act as parliament understood it to be, and thereby protect the interests of the people of the western country and protect the treasury iu which both east and west are interested.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I ventured to express dissent to a remark of my hon. friend from Alberta, and I only rise for the purpose of explaining why 1 did so. Like him, I have not the good fortune or misfortune, that being a matter of opinion, of being a member of the legal profession. But I think that the principle involved in the Bill now before the House is so simple that even a layman could understand it and find reasons for voting against it. I understand my hon. friend to lay down the principle that the intention of parliament respecting an Act is to be learned from the discussions which took place in parliament. To that I said ' no.' Now, I venture to say that it is not necessary that one should be a member of the legal profession to reach the conclusion that the meaning of an Act of parliament must be gathered from within the four corners of the Act itself. As to coming to the reports of the debates of parliament and finding out what A, B, or C said he meant by that Act, I think no court would entertain that idea. I can give one or two notable instances in which that point had to be considered. One case, if I mistake not, arose in connection with this very contract. I remember, though I need hardly say I was not a member of this parliament at that time, that the question came up as to the meaning of the clause which has been referred to by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Macilean), providing that within a certain period no lines of railway should be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the matter was before parliament, the question was asked what that meant. I think I am correct in saying that a very prominent man who occupied an independent position in this House, Hon. Wm. McDougall, said he attached great importance to that and wanted an explanation of it. Then Sir John Macdonald, replying, said that that clause could only affect the Northwest Territories, which were subject to the government and under the control of this parliament, but could not affect the organized province of Manitoba ; and he used the very famous expression, 'You cannot check Manitoba.' Yet, when, a few years afterwards, the province of Manitoba, under that interpretation, tried to exercise the right to charter lines running to the United States, we were told, notwithstanding the assurance of Sir John Macdonald, that that was not the meaning of the contract, and it must be interpreted as it was, and not as Sir John Macdonald or anybody else said it should be.


Frank Oliver: Might I interrupt to suggest a correction, and that is that the action of the government of Sir John Macdonald in disallowing the Manitoba railway charters was not come to on a point of law, but was a matter of policy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And I believe that the government of Sir John Macdonald determined that they could not allow the claim of Manitoba until they had obtained the consent of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the way out of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That confirms my statement that not what Sir John Macdonald said but what the Act of parliament said must be the law of the land. I can give the hon. gentleman another illustration in a matter with which he is not familiar, because it arose in the history of my own province. It arose at a time when the office of Attorney General was occupied by an able lawyer, who afterwards became Prime Minister of this Dominion, the late lamented Sir John Thompson. The contract was made with a railway company, that is the class of contract in which these troubles arise chiefly. A question arose as to the meaning of a certain clause. Sir John Thompson gave his opinion, offhand, that it meant a certain thing. The House accepted that, and the country accepted it. Not many weeks afterwards. Sir John Thompson, in his capacity as Attorney General, was called upon to interpret that contract, and he interpreted it to mean, not what he had said it was. but what, in his judgment as a lawyer, the written Act of parliament meant. But nobody ever assumed that because Sir John Thompson said in parliament it meant something else, therefore it must be held to mean something else. Now, I think that is so simple a matter that even I, as a layman, may properly come to a conclusion at once. We are not called upon to discuss whether the Canadian Pacific Railway contract is a good or a bad contract; we are not called upon even to discuss, however much we may sympathise with the hon. member for Alberta as to the grievance of the North-west, we are not called upon to consider that tonight.


Samuel Hughes: Does not the hon. minister sympathize with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) also ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, the hon. member for Lisgar was said by somebody to-night to be a socialist; and my right hon. friend said something about socialism which gave offence to the distinguished socialist from East York (Mr. Maclean), who said he was a socialist of a cer-I tain kind. The right hon. premier did not



object to socialism of a good kind. There may be a wholesome socialism ; but the kind of socialism the Prime Minister objected to was the socialism of this Bill, which proposes that we, one of the parties to a contract, should interpret it in our own interest against the other party. That is a kind of socialism which this parliament has never adopted.


Mr. KENDALL.: It is not socialism.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Cape Breton, who, I believe, represents a good kind of socialism, dissents at once from that. Now, I want to say again that we are not called upon to consider to-night whether this was a good or a bad contract, or what Mr. Blake said, or what anybody else said ; and we are not called upon to consider whether the Northwest has a grievance to-day in this matter. Tlie only thing that we are called upon to consider is whether this is a matter for parliament, or whether this is a matter for the courts of the country, to deal with. I think tlie hon. member for Alberta made a pretty good argument to show what this means. I think if I were chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada I might be disposed to agree with him ; but we are none of us here exercising the functions of the Supreme Court. If there is one thing more than another which we all recognize, it is that the interpretation of contracts shall be determined by the courts and not by parliament. That would be true, even if we had no contract interest ourselves. But when we have, the very fact that we are ourselves a party to a contract, and that we propose to interpret it against the other party-surely. I think the hon. member for Lisgar will not press that matter any further. I agree with all that was said by my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, as to the sacredness of these contracts. Let the idea once get abroad that the parliament of Canada is goiug to undertake to interpret its contracts for itself rather than submit them to the judicial tribunals of the country, and I venture to say from that time forward there would not be the slightest faith in anything this parliament might do upon which a dollar might be required for any public purpose in Canada.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think the hon. gentleman has furnished, in his brief speech, the strongest possible reason why this Bill should be passed. He has laid down the proposition that tlie courts shall take no cognizance whatever of a debate that may have occurred, or of the understanding that prevailed when a contract was made. Now. this is not a verbal understanding, let me remind the Minister of Finance. There were not certain words passed verbally between members of both sides of tlie House and the syndicate ; but the understanding was taken down in black and white


Mr. FIELDING.: by ' Hansard,' and remains in ' Hansard ' up to the present time. I do not think even the hon. gentleman himself will contend that there is not some doubt at least in that clause itself. He will not contend that it is absolutely sure that the twenty years does not run from the date of the contract. I think the Solicitor General was willing to go that far, and he is the only one, so far as I know, who ever made that admission.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: What admission ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: That the language cannot be interpreted to mean that the twenty years began -with tlie ratification of the contract.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Undoubtedly.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I claim that you can read into that clause easily, auy layman, at least, can read into that clause, what it did mean ; and certainly the many able members on both sides of tlie House who spoke when that contract went through, understood what it meant, is the Solicitor General, or is any legal man to-day, able to say that they did not so understand it, or can he say that his opinion or tlie opinion of any other man at present, is better than the opinion of the members who sat on both sides of the House when that contract went through, and who clearly declared-because I quoted their utterances- that they understood that the twenty years would date from the ratification of that contract ?
If, therefore, the proposition of the Minister of Finance is correct, that the courts must take no cognizance wnatever of the understanding, not a verbal understanding, but a distinct printed understanding at that time, then why should we not pass an Act to-night and declare what parliament did intend ? I do not propose, so far as I am concerned, as a representative of the Northwest, to take any risk in the matter ; I do not propose to agree to a reference of this point to the courts. I claim, with the hon. member for Alberta, that it is perfectly clear what parliament intended. Parliament is supreme, far above any superior court, or even any judicial committee of the Privy Council, and let parliament say to-night what was intended. Let parliament protect the vested interests of the people. Why, we hear about ' the monstrous proposition of interfering with vested interests of these stockholders.' Let me tell you, Sir. Speaker, that when these bonds were sold, the men who bought them had the right to investigate that contract, and if they were honest men, if they were shrewd men, they had the very clauses of that contract before them, and having bought their bonds after reading the clauses of the contract, then, on their own heads let the consequences rest. The duty of this House is not to pro-

tect the bondholders of Holland and other countries, but the interests of the people, and it is for their interest that we stand up to-night.
I am not afraid of being called a socialist to-night, I am .proud to be a socialist, if socialism is standing up for the interests of the people. I do not think, from what we see here, that many people understand what socialism is. What is socialism ? It is serving the interests of the people as against private or corporate interests ; it is taking hold of public franchises and running them in the interests of the people. Is that a crime ? Is it anything for which any man need be ashamed ? I do not think it is. So far as I am concerned to-night, I am proud to stand here and allow the Prime Minister to call me a socialist, because I stand up for the interests of the people as against corporate interests. The point, however, is this: Why should not these patents be issued at once ?


William Findlay Maclean: That is the point.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I have a resolution in my desk, written a week ago, that I propose to bring up when the House is moved into Supply, declaring that the patents issue at once. I want these patents issued. I listened with pride to my hon. friend from Alberta when he said that the proposition of the right hon. premier was a monstrous one, that the twenty years period must date from the issue of the patents.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I never said that.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I will read from the hon. gentleman's speech of last session.
I am not prepared to say that the argument of my hon. friend is right or that it is wrong. It may be right, I do not think it is. I think it is only from the date of the issue of the patents from the Crown that the grant is to be construed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The patents have not been issued up to the present time, and it may go on for ever.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I said I would not undertake an expression of opinion. I did not say my own view was clear, that is a question for the courts.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would not put the Premier in any position that lie does not occupy, but surely the English language is plain and understandable. He said it was his own opinion that the twenty years period would date from the issue of the patents. Up to the present time not one patent for a single acre of land which has not been sold by the company has been issued. What position is the hon. gentleman in, according to the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) ? The government have been in *	37*	I
power for five years, and these patents have not been issued. Even, if you accept the explanation of the Prime Minister they have allowed five years to go, and if the patents are issued, now at least five years have been added to the burdens of the people in that country. That is the consideration that I want to place before parliament. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is not disposed to sympathize with me, and the hon. Solicitor General intimates that he thinks I am not sincere. I say that the hon. Minister of Finance is not disposed to sympathize with me, because I have been designated as a socialist.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I found no fault with you.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think I am entitled to this credit, that I have stood up here session after session in this House and have done what I could. What personal axe can I have to grind? Is my position right or is it wrong? When the fact exists that the taxpayers in that country are paying (and if the interpretation of the Prime Minister is allowed to go and if they are not to issue these patents, they will be obliged to pay for all time to come) double taxes that they should not pay for school-houses, roads, bridges and other considerations, is it right that such a condition of things should be permitted to continue ? I want to say it now, and I am glad the House is listening to me, that this is a question which we cannot afford to dally with. The people are not going to be fooled any longer. It is idle to say that it shall be referred to the courts. I am not willing to agree that it shall be referred to the courts. I suppose that makes no difference, as the government will do as it likes anyway. I am here as the representative of 50,000 or 60,000 constituents, and a representative man from Manitoba and the North-west Territories, to say that the people are watching the government and watching parliament very closely on this matter, that they will hold this parliament responsible if they are going to be obliged to pay double taxes for all time to come in order that this great corporation, into whose lap we have poured our millions, into whose lap we have poured $75,000,000 worth of land, in order that they shall go on for all time to come to take toll from the people of the country as they have been tolling the people, and as they will continue to toll the people unless parliament does something. This is a serious question, and I most earnestly hope the government will reconsider the proposition to give this Bill the six months' hoist.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker. I am fully in accord with the Bill before the House. If it is understood, here, to-night, that the people of the Northwest Territories settle and perform the duties of settlement while the rich corpora-

tions which own railways and lands around them escaped taxation, I think the best thing we can do is to recall our immigration agents in Europe, because I am satisfied that we will get very few emigrants to come in and settle, and perform all the statute labour and all the settlement duties in that country while allowing the wealthy corporations to get the benefit of it. I think it is time that this was fully understood. I think the government, instead of throwing this question over by giving it the six months' hoist, ought to take it into their serious consideration and see whether there is not something in the Bill. I think there is, and I shall therefore support the Bill.


Mr. LEIGHTON G. MCCARTHY (North Simeoe).: Mr. Speaker, owing to the heated deliverances of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), I feel it necessary that I should make some remarks in regard to this Bill. If the subject before the House had been to the effect that freight rates should be lowered, that some grievance which existed in the North-west Territories should be remedied as against the Canadian Pacific Railway, I would be inclined to agree with what the hon. gentleman has said, but, how, in the name of common sense, applying the ordinary interpretation of the English language to the Bill which he has introduced, he can apply his last remarks made in this House, I am entirely at a loss to understand. The question is whether we, as the parliament of Canada, shall interpret an Act which was merely an Act of ratification and which, in effect, is not an interpretation of an Act as he and the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) would have us believe, but is in reality an interpretation of the contract which was entered into between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which contract required the ratification of parliament to make it effective and operative. Now, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), and this is the part which struck me as being the most irrelevant and erroneous, said that hon. members on both sides of the House stated what in their opinion, was the meaning of that clause in the contract. What has that got to do with the judicial, or proper, or fair interpretation of that clause ? We have not before us, we cannot have before us, what took place in the negotiations between the government and the other contracting parties, which, in this case, was the Canadian Pacific Railway. Is it fair, therefore, for us to interpret the. meaning of the contract pursuant to a discussion which took place in the House, when we are not in a position to know what the other contracting party has to say. It is manifestly unfair, because, they cannot be said, although perhaps it is alleged that they have representatives on the floor of parliament occasionally, that they were in that


Jabel Robinson: sense represented so as to say or put before the people of the country what their contentions were in arriving at the conclusion which was embodied in the words of that clause of the contract. Looking at it as au abstract proposition, as the hon. member for Lisgar put it in his last remarks, is it fair that we should sit down here and interpret that contract according to a discussion which took place between the respective leaders or members of one party or the other ? I go a long way with the hon. member for Lisgar. I commend him in many instances for the effort he has made on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories. I think they have grievances, that they have grievances in regard to freight rates, and they may have a grievance in regard to this very question, which has been thrown into this discussion, that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be made to pay taxes upon these lauds which were granted to them twenty-one years ago and upon which, I dare say, they may have raised money; but the question is : Is a contract which was made between these two parties, namely, the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway, to be interpreted by one of the contracting parties without the other being present at all, on what we may call, in legal phraseology, an ex-parte application ? We are not, as the hon. member for Alberta says, asked to amend a statute, because that is not the case that the hon. member for Lisgar presents, or could present. If it were the amendment of a statute it might be different. What he asks us to do is to interpret a contract which was ratified by parliament twenty years ago. That puts it in an entirely different light and makes it an entirely different case which is presented to parliament in this Bill. I therefore feel myself absolutely constrained, speaking as a lawyer, to say that 1 would not be one to interpret the Act, either as between a corporation and the government, or as between two parties in the absence of one.
I am furthermore constrained to that conclusion by reason of the offer which is made by the government to pay the cost of interpreting that Act in the courts. It may be said that naturally a lawyer would do that because it brings grist to his mill, but although we lawyers have to live, that is not my reason for supporting the proposition on this occasion. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) says :	That may be a lawyer's
position, but that is not the position of a statesman whose aim is to right the grievances of the people. I think there is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman says, but is this an opportune time to do what he suggests ? Can we with credit to ourselves as the parliament of Canada enact the legislation which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) proposes ; can we interpret that contract to be in our favour in

the absence of the other contracting' parties ? A proper tribunal is given to us before which that contract shall be construed, and if we were to assume to interfere with it ourselves, it would be something that no British legislature has ever done before. As the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) has said, it makes it awkward to discuss this question when so many erroneous ideas are imported into the consideration of a plain proposition, namely : Whether or not we shall interpret a contract which was made twenty years ago and ratified by the parliament of Canada. We hear of the loss of money which has to be made up by reason of this contract, and we are told it was a bad contract and ought never to have been entered into. What has that got to do with the question at issue ? I say, Sir, that viewing the Bill as it stands and apart from all the erroneous and irrelevant discussion regarding it, I am constrained to support the motion to give the Bill the six months' hoist. I do so because I do not believe that with credit to ourselves and with respect to the country to which we belong, we can take upon ourselves to interpret any contract which has been entered into, we being one of the contracting parties.


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: I am not exactly satisfied with the position that this question has assumed to-night. I do not sympathize at all with the position taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson), who has moved this Bill. I do not believe that he represents true socialism when he tries to do that which is unjust, and it is quite evident to us English speaking people and French speaking people that we cannot be the judge and the jury and the witnesses in this case. There are two sides to it, but one thing is evident, and that is that something ought to be done, and ought to be done quickly to settle this matter. This everlasting drift that appears to surround a question of such moment to a large number of the people of Canada ought to be made disappear at the very first opportunity, and therefore, it is that I say that the resolution for the six months' hoist is not going to remove the grievances that the people are subject to. While I do not think it is the duty of parliament to put its construction upon that agreement, I do think it is the duty of the government to have a legal interpretation placed upon it, and that immediately. I do not believe that the poor settler who has been induced to take up lands in the North-west should have the onus of moving in this matter until his risks were guaranteed against. If I in my individual capacity were a party to that contract, and I felt my rights were being jeopardised by delay, I would take the first opportunity that presented itself to find where I stood and to get a judicial decision upon it. It is the duty of some authority in the state to get this question settled as soon as possible. I am constrained to vote against the Bill which, in principle, is vicious, dishonest and unjust. But while we may be compelled to vote for the amendment, which puts this case out of court for six months, I trust the government will assume the responsibility which attaches to them as a party to the contract of finding out where we stand, so that justice may be done to those people who are suffering in the far west. '


Frank Oliver: I wish for the information of the House to explain a certain point which has been in dispute.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) can make a personal explanation, but he cannot raise any question for debate.


Frank Oliver: I merely wish to read a section which I think would clear a certain point, and I wish to have the consent of the House for that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman can do so with the unanimous consent of the House.


Frank Oliver: It is on the question as to whether land is assessable while under homestead entry, and before patent is issued. I read from section 5 of chapter 101, Revised Statutes Manitoba, 1891, Vol. 2 :
Crown lands so occupied, whether under right of purchase or under homestead or pre-emeption entry, and unpatented land vested in or held by Her Majesty, which may be hereby hereafter or may have been heretofore sold or agreed to be sold, to any person or corporation, or which may lje located as a free grant, homestead or pre-emption, shall be liable to taxation from the date of such homestead or pre-emeption entry, location, sale or grant.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, I am too well aware of the feeling of the people of the North-west in this matter, and of the concern and fear with which they view this matter of tax exemption, to look upon the question lightly. I am sorry that a Bill of such importance as this should be introduced in such a shape that it is impossible tha't it can receive the endorsation of the House. It seems to me that a member of parliament to vote for the Bill must first deny the cardinal principle of responsible government. We are asked to change an Act of parliament which was passed in 1881, and which was proposed by a government which retained the confidence of the people of Canada from that time until the year 1896. In 1881 the Liberal party was in opposition, and they condemned this clause. The then opposition, now the government, still holds that this clause is an outrageous one, and we have a right to look to the government as the trustees of the people to guard the people's rights. I may say that the people

of tlie North-west are fearful that their rights are not being attended to. I would like to see such a course taken as would give confidence to the people of the west, and I would like to see the government say to this great corporation: You shall have all that is yours by virtue of this exemption ; you shall have your pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood. I cannot understand why the socialists have been brought into this argument and referred to in connection with this Bill. I have too much faith in the socialistic tendencies of the present time to wish to see them slightingly referred to in any way, and I see nothing in the legislative progress which has been made by socialism to cause it to be connected with a Bill of this kind. Taking the most socialistic countries, taking England and New Zealand, you will find that all the measures adopted along socialistic lines have been measures that in no way denied the responsibility of the people's representatives, that did not expropriate without due recompense, that did nothing antagonistic to the well-settled ideas of British law. Some previous speakers have referred to this contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as if it were an ordinary Act of parliament that could be amended session after session ; but it is not so. When it was passed it became a contract, and I can see no strength in the argument that before the matter has been referred to the courts at all, this parliament has any right to interfere in regard to the interpretation of that contract.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to give a silent vote on this question, particularly because I find my inclination in conflict with my common sense. My inclination, both natural and political, would lead me to support the Bill before the House ; but my common sense prevents me accepting the premises laid down in the Bill. I read one of the clauses, which is to this effect :
And whereas it appears from the debates which occurred when the said contract was before parliament, that the exemptions was intended to cover a period of not more than twenty years from the date of the said contract.
Now, I go very nearly the whole length with my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) on this question, and I do not find myself on the general question at all in agreement with the several members of the government who have spoken to-night, and the several other gentlemen who have laid particular stress upon the peculiar sanotity of contracts. It may be that having lived so long in the North-west and knowing so well the condition of the settlers in that country, the injustice that would be done them, should the possibility suggested by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Fitzpatrick) be realized, and the courts find that the period Mr. PUTTEE.
of exemption does not commence until the date of the issue of the patents, looms up too largely before my eyes. However, I think the Bill is unnecessary ; I think the question should go before the courts. Should the courts decide that the exemption period does not commence until the date of the issue of the patents, I would be ready, should I then have a seat in this House, to vote to void that condition of the contract, because it would subject the settlers to too great an injustice, and because it would give the company profits never contemplated by parliament. Nevertheless, if the Bill before the House expressed the common-sense view that the exemption should begin at the date when the company came into possession of the lands, I would be prepared to support it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If you think the House would accept that proposition, I think I would be willing to so amend the Bill.


Thomas Walter Scott: If the hon. gentleman can change his Bill to express that view, I will take great pleasure in supporting it. It seems to me entirely unreasonable to maintain that the period of exemption provided in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract commenced before the company could begin to enjoy the exemption ; and they could certainly not begin to enjoy the exemption until they were in possession of the lands. 1 listened carefully to the able address made by the hon. member for Lisgar, and I have read very carefully the speech he made on this subject in this House one year ago. Those speeches would certainly lead any one to believe that the debate upon the contract which took place in this House in the year 1880-1 showed unquestionably that it was the intention of parliament that the exemption period should commence on the date of the signing of the contract on the loth of February, 1881 ; and I must confess to you that I was considerably surprised, after I came down to attend this session and went to the Library and scanned the debates of that period, to find that the very opposite was the case ; and I think it is very unfortunate that speeches made by responsible members of this House should mislead other members, as an admission made to-night by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would show that he was misled. I think it is unfortunate that members of this House and the people of this country should be misled by speeches made by reputably responsible members of this House, and scattered broadcast throughout the country.


Robert Lorne Richardson: You do not charge that I misquoted any hon. member from ' Hansard,' do you ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I make no charge at all, but I leave the House to judge whether the speech made by the hon. member for Lisgar last session and the speech he made to-

night would not lead any one who listened to him to believe that the portion of the debate contributed by the Hon. Edward Blake, for instance, showed that he believed that the period of exemption commenced on the 15th of February.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The Globe quoted it last session to prove the very same thing.
sir. SCOTT. Well, I will quote just one sentence from the speech of the Hon. Edward Blake, as I find it in that debate, and peculiarly it is one sentence which the hon. member for Lisgar happened to leave out of the excerpt from Mr. Blake's speech which he quoted in the House last session. This is the sentence :
Then, Sir, there is freedom from taxation for the lands for the long term of twenty years, and that term of twenty years is from the day they acquire the lands, and therefore it is longer than twenty years from now. It is perhaps on the average twenty-five years.
I think that proves conclusively that the opinion of the Hon. Edward Blake was not that the exemption period dated from the signing of the contract; and one would have thought that a statement like that having been made by the leader of the opposition as a serious objection to the proposition of the government, if that statement was not a reasonable one, and if the point against the bargain was not properly taken, some member of the government would have arisen in his place to set the leader of the opposition right. Here is a statement made by a member of the Conservative party, Mr. Ives. I do not think he was at the time a member of the government, but this will show his view of the contract. He said :
But it is said they (the company) may not take the lands from the government, even when they have the right to them, until they find an opportunity of selling them, and in this way may prolong this period of exemption indefinitely. Surely the government can compel these gentlemen to take an assignment of these lands when they become entitled to them.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Archambault,
Bazinet.
Bernier,
Biclcerdike,
Blain,
Bourassa,
Bourbonnais,
Broder,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Cargill,
Champagne,
Clare,
Copp,
Davies (Sir Louis), Davis.
Demers (LSvis),
Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Dyment,
Erb.
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Flint,
Fortier,
Fortin,
Gallery,
Galliher.
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gilmour,
Girard,	,
Gould,
Gourley,
Guthrie,
Henderson,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Horsey,
Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Kaulbaeh,
Kendall,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Legris,
Lemieux,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Logan,
Lovell,
Loy,
Macdonald,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), MacLaren (Perth), McCarthy,
McColI,
McCool,
McCreary,
McEwen,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Martineau,
Matheson,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Morin,
Morrison,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Prior,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Victoria),
Scott,
Sifton,
Simmons,
Smith (Vancouver), Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Stephens,
Talbot,
Tarte,
Taylor,
Thompson,
Tisdale,
Tolmie,
Tolton,
Tucker,
Turcot,
Turgeon, and Wright.-104.
NAYS :
These two extracts, Mr. Speaker, and in fact, the whole debate as I have read it, lead me to the belief that it was the intention of parliament that the period of exemption should commence at the time the company had earned and come into possession of the lands. That being the case, and the Bill setting out that the period commenced on the 15th of February, 1881, at a time before the company had built a mile of the road under its bargain, before it had earned an acre of land, it becomes impossible for me, if I am to be governed by my common sense, to support the Bill.
House divided on amendment of Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :
Messieurs
Johnston (Cardwell),	Richardson (Lisgar),
Maclean,	Robinson (Elgin),
McGowan,	Roche (Marquette),
Oliver,	Sherritt.-8.
Amendment agreed	to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Friday.



Friday, March 8, 1901.