Hon. Mr. SCOTT Does the hon. gentleman include in this $28,000,000, the cost of surveys? Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL - I include the cost of those portions of the survey which relate to the line of railway, a little over $1,000,000 I am told. It was not necessary to include the $3,500,000, which is the cost of the exploratory survey of the territories, from east to west and from north to south, but only the portion of the cost of the survey for the sections of the road as now adopted, amounting, as I have said, to $1,000,000, which sum is, I am informed, properly applicable to this work. Very opportunely for the purpose which I have mentioned of ascertaining what had been done in the United States on this subject. I came upon a speech the other day in Congress made by Senator Blaine, of Maine, who said : would give for 712 miles a million and a we are giving them $25,000,000, and half of money. All this the company that we have spent, or are committed to undertake to do in addition to building an expenditure upon the railway of the road, and yet the comments are for $28,000,000, making a total of $53,000,the most part on the cost of the line as 000. In considering this point let us a work of construction, and no stress is look for a moment at the assistance laid upon the other burdens and expenses which has been given to railways in the which the company assume. Now, I United States. have tried to describe the contract as it is, I have tried to describe to you the undertaking which the company has entered into - to draw a distinction between what they have to do and what the Government has to do, and to portray to the House what further responsibilities, in addition to the construction of the railway, are imposed upon the Company. To this plan of ours which you will observe is a cheaper one than any that has ever before been proposed to Parliament, which is $26,000,000 less than the proposition of Mr. Mackenzie's Government in 1874, and six or seven millions less than the proposition of Sir John Macdonald's Government in 1873 to this proposition, which involves so many advantages to the country, some of which I have attempted to describe, and imposes so many burdens upon the Company which I have attempted to describe shortly to this proposition a great many objections have been taken. It would be impossible for me, and I should feel that I was trespassing upon the patience of hon. gentlemen if I should attempt to reply to and meet the various objections which have been made. They have been urged at great length, and reiterated with a pertinacity, and in various shapes, in a way which I am sure hon. gentlemen have noticed, and I am satisfied that the hon. members in this House, who are opposed to this contract, will admit that nothing more in the way of contention could have been 'desired than has already been shown elsewhere by gentlemen who are opposed to the measure. I shall take up some of the more important of those objections, because I think it should be done in the discharge of my duty representing the Government in this House and presenting this measure for your consideration. It has been said in the first place that we have given the company a great deal too much money-that "It was a remarkable fact that Congress though they had not done anything in the interests of the United States on the Ocean, by rail: it had given 200,000,000 acres of land had passed 92 Acts for the aid of transmission worth now about $1,000,000,000, and $70,000,000 in cash." I desire to draw attention to this states ment as showing that in other countriesituated as we are, a similar course has been pursued to that which we are adopting in Canada. I also desire to draw attention to this fact, that of the $53,000,000 which, under this arrangement, the country will expend for the purpose of constructing this railway, more than $24,000,000 are involved in the works already under contract, or absolutely constructed. A portion of those works included in this sum for contracts let by the Government, of which my hon. friend was a member; and a considerable portion has been placed under contract by the present Administration. But what I wish to call attention to is the fact that the country is at present without this Bill, committed to the expenditure of $24,693,700 made up as follows: 120 Lake Superior to Selkirk... Kamloops to Emory's Bar... $14,705,000 revenue may be very properly considered Total constructed or under contract 24,693,700 Which will leave the amount of money dealt with by the present Bill, and which Parliament is now asked to commit the country to $28,306,300 of which $25,000,000 go to this company and $3,306,300 to construct the railway from Emory's Bar to Port Moody. The total expenditure in money, however, from beginning to end, will be as I have said. $53,000,000. The interest, at 4 per annum. amounts to purpose upon the mile. But let us look at the cost of Ottawa Montreal, The this sum, cent., upon $2,120,000, but take the expenditure to which we are committing ourselves by the present Bill, and which, as I have shown, is less than $29,000,000 (the other $24,000,000 representing contracts already entered into, and the Pembina branch already constructed) the interest upon this amount, which, for the of this calculation, I will put at $30,000,000, would be $1,200,000 per for Against this let me suggest a moment the probable result of the peopling of that country by immigrants, and the probable result to the revenue of its settlement, even in its infancy. I have before me a statement of the revenue per capita of the country. It try, and would represent not unfairly amounts in some of the Provinces to some of the country through which $3.06 per capita; in some to $3.05; have had and in Manitoba and British Columbia, the Pacific Railway is to pass, cost I mile. $17,424 a where the consumption of goods is more statement prepared of the cost in proportion to the population, the amount is larger, being $9.14 in Mani-mile of the various railways in the toba and $10.32 in British Columbia. Suppose we divide that by half, and say venue the revenue from settlers in the North- Hon. Mr. SCOTT $30,000 a mile. -- It cost about Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL Then the Prince Edward Island Railway, which runs through United States Western and a level coun per of those in Minnesota and Dakotah, and in the whole group of Hon. Mr. SCOTT Watered stock. In Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL - No, it is the actual cost of construction per mile as given in Poor's book. Dakotah there are 138 miles of railway, which cost $24,000 a mile. The average a red cost of railways in the Western and South-Western States is $46,000 per mile. The total of all the railways of the United States is 84,715 miles, which cost $4,416,510,867, or $52,000 a mile. In Canada the cost per mile, leaving the Grand Trunk Railway out of the question, varies from $14,428 to $50,000, and in the group of States which I have named from $23,000 to $65,000. I do not think it is an unfair thing to conclude, as gentlemen speaking in the other branch of the Legislature did a few days ago, that our road might reasonably and fairly be calculated to cost, for 1,000 miles of it west of Winnipeg, $10,000 per mile, and for other portions, amount ing in all to another 1,000 miles, $40,000 per mile; or a total of ten millions for the one and forty millions for the other and for this the company get $25,000,000 and 25,000,000 of acres of land. I do not think that it is at all an unfair calcution. I think from the statistics given, hon. gentlemen will admit it is not an unfair calculation in comparison with the cost of railways in the United States, and the cost of existing lines in Canada. Then, it is said that we give too much land that the 25,000,000 of acres is an enormous amount of land to give. In the first place before we discuss that, I desire to present to the House the amount both in land and money which Parliament has repeatedly placed at the disposal of the Government the Government of 1873, and the Government of 1874. I quote from a speech of the Minister of Railways delivered elsewhere. In 1873 the cash subsidy authorized by Parliament was $30,000,000, and the land grant 54,700,000 acres. In 1874, at the instance of the Government of which my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) was a member, Parliament placed in the hands of the Government a subsidy of $10,000 and 20,000 acres of land per mile for a road 2,797 miles in length - equal to $27,970,000 in cash, and 55,940,000 acres of land, and that is over and above a distance of forty miles from Calendar Station to what at that time was intended to be the point where the eastern end of the Pacific Pacific Railway Railway was to commence, so that Parliament has again and again placed in the hands of the Executive for the time being a very -- large amount more of land and money than we propose to expend. In speaking of this land, I desire to present this con-sideration to the House: the land is not given to this company in the same sense that money is given. When you give $25,000,000 in money that money is gone; it is of no more use to the country. But give them. 25,000,000 acres of land and that land is not gone, but in many senses remains and becomes of much more value to the country than ever it was before. These lands are not poured into the St. Lawrence as you pour water. They remain ours as Ontario is ours, and Quebec is ours, and when they come to be peopled with prosperous settlers and afford comfortable homes to immigrants, we shall find them a hundred times more valuable to us than they have been in their existing state. I have said as much as I desire to say about the land and money, my suggestion being, in general terms, that the expenditure in cash involved in this measure is $29,000,000, which will impose a tax of $1,160,000 per annum, and the revenue yielded by settlers upon the lands, which must be settled in order to make the undertaking prosperous, will amply repay the country for that expenditure. I say with reference to the land that we are not giving it away in the sense of its being lost to us, but placing it in a position in which it will be more valuable to us than it has ever been before. It is said that we have adopted an improper standard in taking the Union Pacific Railway as it was in 1873, as that upon which our railway is to be formed. When the debate began in another place, it was supposed that we had taken as a standard the Union Pacific Railway at a period prior to 1873. That error, if it was an error, was immediately rectified by a letter from the contractors, who stated that they understood, as the Government did, that the Union Pacific Railway, as it was in 1873, was to be the standard. Hon. Mr. SCOTT. Is that mentioned in the Bill? Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL No; but it has been mentioned in a letter written by the contractors to the Gov ernment, which has been read in ancther miles, and 487,484 tons of freight over place. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL would be inconvenient, aud I do not think it is necessary. 223,000,000 miles; the net earnings, over and above working expenses, amounted to $5,291,000. A road that can carry that number of passengers and that amount of freight over so many miles, pay all expenses and net to the good $5,791,000, is a road in good order. Hon. Mr. MILLER It is a declara-Then, another objection is that it is a tion by the parties as to the construction EXTRACTS from a report made by the Government « The Government Directors found the road its equipment, and the appointments necessary to the maintenance thereof in a condition highly satisfactory. Probably no equal number of consecutive miles of railway in the United States can be found in better condition." Nothing can be stronger than that; Overcomes. - It was the same Hon. Mr. MILLER standard in the second Syndicate. gigantic monopoly. It was necessary to make it a monopoly in a certain sense, but that it is a gigantic monopoly in any sense prejudicial to the country I entirely deny. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that the road will run west not far from the parallel of Winnipeg. We will suppose that it runs on that parallel-it does for the first hundred miles, and I believe for the second hundred also--it may afterwards run a little south, but it turns to the north again. There is no monopoly of any description north of the line. The country on the north side of the Pacific Railway is left perfectly free to anybody and everybody, and no provision whatever is contained in the charter making a limitation of anv kind. The greater part of the country is to be found to the north of the line not to the south of it: to the north an immense territory stretches out towards the Peace River, containing the bulk of the valuable country. To the south there is a monopoly in this way: that all railways must run in a westerly or southwesterly direction, and only the Pacific Railway Company itself is allowed to run lines in a southerly or southeasterly direction. Hon. Mr. SCOTT Hear, hear! - Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL My hon. friend says "Hear, hear.” The object of that is to prevent other people-I will show presently why there is no danger to be apprehended from the Pacific Railway Company-from constructing railways which would carry off business to the south by lines through Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL And Minnesota and Dakotah. But there is no as my hon. friend from Richmond says, occasion for such a restriction as against the same standard was adopted in the the Pacific Railway Company, because second offer. I have looked at the they will own the whole line of railway business done by this road in 1873, be- running from Selkirk to Thunder Bay cause you can infer from that whether and eastward, north of Lakes Superior the road was in a good or a bad condi- and Huron. Fifty millions of money tion. I find that it carried 174,894 pas-will be involved on their part in the sengers more than ninety-five millions of maintaining of business on the line of and What danger. | Minnesota will come to us and pass over "If they owned and controlled that portion of the Canada Central or Canada Pacific east of Sault Ste. Marie it would be obviously fo their interest to make it the outlet for their Minnesota system by a connection between St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie. They would thus carry their freights to the seaboard for the greater part of the distance over their own. lines, instead of being dependent, as they now at St. Paul and Minneapolis. They do not are wholly, on the Chicago lines terminating own a mile or a foot of railroad between St. Paul and Chicago, and they have, therefore, no interest whatever in feeding those lines, or in diverting to them the traffic either of their Minnesota lines or of the Canada Pacific. On the contrary, it is plain that if they owned the Canadian Pacific eastward from the Sault Ste. Marie they would have a vital interest in making it the outlet not only of their Cana the Pacific Railway. therefore, so far as they are concerned, is there that they will build lines elsewhere to take business from it? They can have no other object but to get traffic for their road. Other people are not cut out. It is not said that other lines shall not be built south-westerly, but they must come to Parliament for authority, and the difference between the Pacific Railway Co. and the others is this: they are allowed to build anywhere, while others only build in a certain direction, and must come to Parliament for the right to build. This Company is interested in preserving the business on the Pacific Railway. They must, in order to make their undertaking a success, bring all the business they can to the Pacific Railway, and therefore they are allowed to build branches. The very name "branches" conveys the idea of roads which will be feeders, tributaries to the trunk line. The moment they construct a line to carry traffic away from the Pacific Railway it ceases to be a branch line; so I do not think there is any danger there. This view, which seems to me a very just one, is strongly put forward by paper published in St. Paul. It is said by some gentlemen who are opposed to this measure that the cate will carry off business to the south because they are interested in a road runrung to St. Paul; but it must be borne in mind St. Paul is not a terminus. The freight must go to Chicago and New York. Therefore they are supposing this: that this Company, owning a line of railway through Canada which cost them $50,000,000 will, for the purpose of getting business for a comparatively short line of 480 miles carry off freight from the longer line and run it to the States. They have nothing to do with the lines connecting St. Paul's with New York, and is it not unreasonable to suppose that they will carry off business to the line. in which they have a comparatively small interest? It must also be borne in mind that by giving them the right to build branches running to the south it will enable them to carry business to the Pacific Railway. In the future it is confidently believed by gen-nesota and Dakota hlines to the Chicago and tlemen who have given attention to the subject that the business of Dakotah and a dian Pacific business, but of all their Minnedestined to the seaboard. A connection besota and Dakota business which might be tween St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie would be to the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba an Syndi-imperative business necessity, because in no other way could they make the eastern section of the Canadian Pacific pay. "We suppose it is a plain business proposition that their earnings depend upon the lines, and not on those of some other corporation; that therefore they will necessarily make every effort to secure all the business they can for their own lines, and especially see that their own business shall, it over their own lines. It amount of business they do on their own to possible, go traffic of the Canada Pacific and of their Min New York railroads, in which they have not a dollar's interest, from the eastern outlet built |