1901-03-06

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 46) to amend the Unorganized Territories Games Preservation Act, 1894. He said: The object of the Act is to amend a certain clause providing that the articles confiscated might belong to the convicting magistrate. That is not in accordance with good policy.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the question :
Mr. Blain-At what dates were the changes made in the prices of binder twine during 1900, and what were the changed prices?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: We are getting some information from Kingston to enable us to give the information my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) asks for. I shall probably be able to answer the question to-morrow.


PREFERENTIAL TARIFF-GOODS OF FOREIGN ORIGIN.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Has the government taken any, and if so, what steps, to ascertain the percentage of value of the goods of foreign origin which have been imported into the United Kingdom, and thence exported to Canada, to which the preferential tariff has applied?
2.	What percentage of value of goods entered under the preferential tariff is of foreign origin ?
3.	In what foreign countries did goods or material originate which have been enhanced in value by British workmanship so as to be entitled to the advantage of our preferential tariff?
4.	What are the names of such countries, and the value of the goods coming from each?


Tlie MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I do not know whether I have fully apprehended the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clarke's) question, but I think the answer I am about to give will convey the information he desires to have. Under the regulations and practice governing the preferential tariff, manufactured goods entitled to be admitted under such tariff, must be finally manufactured in Great Britain or her colonies and possessions entitled to the preference, and there must have entered into the production of such articles British labour to the extent of at least 25 per cent of the value of the articles in each case. Exporters of such articles to Canada are re-

quired to subscribe to the following certificate :
I, (1)	
the exporter of the articles included in this invoice, have the means of knowing, and do hereby certify that said invoice being from myself
to (2)	 and
amounting to (3)	
is true and correct; that all the articles included in the said invoice are bona fide the produce or manufacture of one or more of the following countries, viz.:-(4) -	
and that a substantial portion of the labour of one or more of such countries has entered into the production of every manufactured article included in said invoice to the extent in each'article of not less than one-fourth of the value of every such article in its present condition ready for export to Canada.
Signed	
Dated at	this
	189....
In certain cases where doubt has arisen regarding the right of preferential entry, inquiry has been made through the High Commissioner's office, and by correspondence with the exporters as to the proportions of British labour or material, and foreign material represented in tlie article exported to Canada.
There is no record of the amount of foreign material which, in some cases, enters into British manufactured articles entitled to the preference, nor is there any record of the countries where such foreign material originates. Quite a number of manufactured articles imported under the preference are, of course, entirely British, both in respect to material and workmanship.


IMPORTATION OF TOMATOES.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: What was the quantity and value, each week, of tomatoes imported during July and August, 1900?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The hon. gentleman's question asks for a return of the quantity and value of each week. I can only give the hon. gentleman that information by a special return from all the ports, which would entail a length of time, and perhaps I would not be able to secure it for the hon. gentleman during the session. However, if he wishes, I will do so. But I can give him the imports by the month, and perhaps that would answer the purpose that he has in view. The quantity and value of tomatoes imported into Canada as entered at the custom-house during July and August, 1900, are as follows :-
Quantity. Value.
July	 9,409 bushels $8,569
August	 4,458 bushels	3,758


Mr. PATERSON.: 


STAFF IN RAILWAY SHOPS AT MONCTON.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	How many mechanics have been dismissed from the railway shops at Moncton since the 7th day of November last?
2.	For what reasons have these men been dismissed?
3.	At whose instance were they dismissed?
4.	Were charges preferred against them, or any of them, and if so, by whom, and were investigations held?
5.	Have their places in the shops been filled by new appointments?
6.	What are the names of the men dismissed and of the new appointments?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Changes to the number of tbirty-one have been made in the railway shops since November last.
2.	These changes were made by the officers at Moncton, under general authority, but without individual instructions as to any men in the employ, the superintendent exercising his own discretion in such cases. The changes were made in order to improve the organization and to secure more efficient service.
3.	The department takes the entire responsibility of the changes made.
4.	No charges were preferred, nor investigations held. It has not been customary to do so in the past.
5.	Others have been taken on in the shops, and are on trial as to their competency. ,
6.	The names of the men whose services were dispensed with will be furnished by a return, if the hon. member will move for the same.


REQUEST FOR BI-LINGUAL COMMISSIONER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU-by Mr. Pope-asked :
Whether the hon. Minister of Railways is aware that in making investigations in cases of damage to property on the line of the Intercolonial Railway, between Montreal and Ste. Fla-vie, the commissioner sent from Moncton was an official who neither spoke nor understood the language spoken by those living in the province of Quebec, and who had suffered such damage?
If so, is it the intention of the department to remedy this faulty and expensive mode of proceeding; and how does the department propose to attain that end?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Yes, I have learned that such was the case In one instance, and I propose to remedy the difficulty by assigning a clerk for the claims agent who speaks and understands the French language.


SCHEDULING OF CANADIAN CATTLE.
Mr. BICKERDIKE asked :: Has the government taken any steps to secure the repeal of the Imperial statute scheduling Canadian cattle imported into the United

Kingdom? Is it the intention of the government to press this very important question on the Imperial authorities at an early date?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I may say that, as representing the government, I have taken every opportunity for a number of years back to urge this question upon the Imperial authorities, through Lord Stratheona chiefly. When I was in England myself 1 interviewed the Minister of Agriculture and the veterinary authorities of that department. I may say that I hope to proceed to England again this spring, and I shall make it my business to urge this matter with the utmost insistence upon the Imperial authorities, as I have continued to do ever since I have been in office.


HONORARY DECORATIONS AT PARIS EXPOSITION.
Mr. LEMIEUX asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that no honorary decorations have been granted to members of the Canadian commission, or to exhibitors, at the late Paris exposition, in which Canada participated officially?
2.	Were such honorary decorations awarded to Canadians in connection with the previous expositions at Paris, in 1855, 1867 and 1878?
3.	If so, how many; and to whom?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: The government is aware that no honorary decorations have been granted to members of the Canadian commission, and no orders were conferred by the French government on any of the colonial attaches at the request of the Imperial authorities. In 187S Mr. J. X. Per-rault, Dr. May, and others, received the Legion of Honour. I have no means of finding out what was done in 1855 or 1867, there being no records of it in the department.


PURCHASE BY GOVERNMENT OF PROPERTIES AT SYDNEY.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER asked :: 1.	Has the government or the Department of Railways and Canals purchased within the past ten months any properties at Sydney, North Sydney, North Sydney Junction, and other places from Sydney to Grand Narrows Bridge, for Intercolonial Railway purposes?
2.	From whom have such properties been purchased ?
3.	What is the area of each property respectively?
4.	What price has been or is to be paid to each person from whom each property was purchased?
5.	In what way was the price fixed or determined?
6.	Will the Minister of Railways lay upon the Table a sketch plan showing the properties purchased or arranged to be purchased?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Answering the first five questions together, properties
have been purchased within the past ten months as follows :-
At Sydney-6,480 square feet of land from Henry Lecras. Price paid $1,500. Offer reasonable from owner, accepted by Railway Department.
10 2-10 acres of land from heirs of Birchall. Price paid $10,000. Offer reasonable, accepted by Railway Department.
3 84-100 acres expropriated from Nelson E. Muggah, June 14, 1900. Valuator recommends $33,300. Amount not tendered. Considered excessive.
7,314 square feet expropriated from Edward C. Leahy, June 14, 1900. Valuator recommends $2,000. Amount not yet tendered, but may be offered.
Two lots, total 48,906 square feet expropriated from Henry Mitchell. Valuator recommends $11,320 for land and $4,000 for damage to six lots at rear. Amounts not tendered.
At North Sydney Junction-5 5-10 acres from Edward J. Johnson. Price paid $200. Reasonable offer from owner accepted by Railway Department.
75-100 acre from William H. Johnson for $40. Reasonable offer of owner accepted by department.
No land has been purchased within time mentioned at North Sydney, or between North Sydney Junction and Grand Narrows.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: I call the minister's attention to number six, and ask whether there will be any trouble in preparing a small sketch plan to indicate these properties concerned ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not imagine there will be. On the other hand, of course, the lands in Sydney are not lying together, but we will be able to make a plan.


RETURNING OFFICER FOR WEST PRINCE.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Was Mr. Benjamin Gallant, returning officer for the riding of West Prince, P.E.I., at the election held on the 7th November, 1900, paid all amounts asked by him to defray expenses in connection with said election?
2.	If he has not been supplied with money to pay said expenses, on what grounds were the payments withheld ?
3.	Has he been forwarded money to pay the fees of each of the deputy returning officers at the twenty-seven polling divisions in West Prince, opened, and at which votes were polled at said election?
4.	If he has not paid all such deputy returning officers, why not, and what are their names?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. AV. S. Fielding) :: 1.	Mr. Gallant bas not been paid all amounts asked by him in connection with the election in West Prince. The accompanying statement shows the accounts paid and unpaid.
2.	The notes on the statement referred to above show the grounds on which payment has been withheld in each case.

3.	He lias received money to pay the fees of the deputy returning officers, but in some cases the total mileage claimed has not been allowed for the reasons given on the statement.
4.	As Mr. Gallant has not yet reported the distribution of the amount placed in his hands to pay the fees and allowances, it is impossible to say whether he has paid all the deputy returning officers or not.
The Auditor General has accompanied this with a memorandum which I will send across the floor for tlje hon, gentleman's information.


PRINTING OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT BUREAU.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	In what printing office was the official catalogue cf Canadian exhibitors at the Paris exposition, last year, printed?
2.	What was the total issue of said volume?
3.	What was the average cost per volume?
4.	Who supplied the paper for the work?
5.	If printed in any establishment other than the Government Printing Bureau, why was this done?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher) :: 1.	The Herald Publishing Company of Montreal.
2.	5,000 copies.
3.	384 cents per copy.
4.	Herald Publishing Company.
5.	Owing to pressure of work in Printing Bureau.


TRANSPORTATION OF GRAIN.
Mr. WM. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe) moved :: 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 commodities of the North-west Territories, Manitoba and the western states, with a view of centreing the same to the greatest possible extent in Canadian channels.
He said : Last year I had the honour of making a motion in the same terms as the one which I have just read. At that time it attracted the attention of a large number of gentlemen on either side of the House, and it also excited a considerable amount of attention and caused a large amount of discussion throughout the country by the public press, showing that the public are greatly interested in the question of transportation. The question of transportation is doubtless one of the largest questions in the public eye of Canada at the present time. That is shown by the fact that the Dominion government is from time to time expending large sums of money in the) improvement of the canal service and in the construction of railways, either directly or by granting large subsidies for that purpose. And beyond that, private capitalists are from time to time investing in railways In this country, or constructing railways,


Mr. FIELDING.: showing, as it does, the great interest in the work. To the farmer of the western prairies the question of transportation is to-day probably the largest one before his view, because, the cheapening of grain transportation or carriage from the west to the east must result, in some part, in his participating in the cheapening of that transportation, and with the development of the northern part of Ontario, rich in mineral and timber resources, a great deal of interest centres in the fact that transportation may be cheapened from the west to the seaboard. The question also is of great importance in the province of Ontario and in other provinces in this that we are hoping to build up in the older provinces a large manufacturing trade and if we are to have customers for the manufactured products of these provinces we must after all expect to find them on our western prairies. The people of the older provinces, burdened as they have been for a great many years by raising large sums of money for the construction of railways in the west, and particularly the Canadian Pacific Railway, are anxious to see any plan of transportation adopted that can result in their being able to place manufactured goods in the west at cheaper rates than they can now be placed there. Now, in regard to tfhe question of the policy of past governments a most striking point doubtless is the large expenditure on the canal system, and I presume that I am within the mark when making the statement that $75,000,000, or even more, has been expended on the construction of the St. Lawrence and Welland canal systems, and according to the signs of the times large sums of money are to be expended by this government in still furthering these projects. While we are spending these large sums of money there is something which is withdrawn from the public to-day, and it is the idea of stability on the part of the government because members of the government are from time to time speaking of going farther in this, and of the possibility and chance that the government will take up other plans and projects with the view of ending this transportation question. So long as the government dangle before different sections of the provinces and the Dominion these gigantic projects, there can never be the possibility that the public will be assured that any plan is to be a permanent or lasting one for the future.
I am quite well aware of the fact that political considerations may in the past have weighed in some of these projects, but has the time not arrived when political considerations should be dropped, and even at the risk of offending the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in this debate, I must say this, and say it ait the outset, that I fear and I think the public believe too, that too much heed is at present being paid to political considerations in the expenditures and in the expected expendi-

tures of vast sums1 of money in this country. We have in all lines of business a guiding star to lead people on and that is the success that others have attained in any particular project or enterprise of a similar kind, and looking to-day at the question of transportation, it must be plainly manifest to the world that the Americans in their route by way of Buffalo and New York by water from different points on the great lakes have seemingly achieved the solution of the transportation question. It is to be regretted that, while we in Canada have spent and are spending- millions of dollars on the St. Lawrence canal system year by year, we see with mortification that less grain is being shipped down this canal system upon which such large sums of money are being spent. Let me say, so far as this government are concerned, that if the St. Lawrence canal system is a failure, comparatively speaking, no blame is to be attached to the present government, because these gentlemen came into power finding a well-defined line of policy on the part of the late administration, and the present administration woidd have been blameable,
I believe, and would have been blamed by the country and by the press, had they not done exactly as they did, finding the work uncompleted and under tender, had they not gone on with the contracts that were then pending and completed the work as the work has been completed to-day. It is true that the government have claimed a great deal of credit in the past for the construction of this St. Lawrence canal system, while, as a matter of fact, they have simply carried on the lines of policy laid down by the late administration and whether it is a failure or success no blame can attach to the present administration, because the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals simply followed out the line of policy formulated by the late government. Last year this question was under discussion ; last year the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals had warning notes thrown out to him not only from this side of the House, but by his own political friends, but despite the warning notes then thrown out to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and the hon. Minister of Public Works, because, in their departments occur these great expenditures in this regard. these hon. gentlemen have still kept the public in a vacillating and doubtful frame of mind wondering what possible move is next to be made on the transportation checker board, so to speak, by this administration. While speaking from his place in this House the hon. member from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who is not present to-day, made these remarks : Whether the building of the St. Lawrence canals was a mistake or not, and whether or not a heavy expenditure at Port Colborne is necessary, I think we have gone far enough in that direction until we have more reliable data as to effect of improvements in railways and reductions in cost of transportation by railways in Canada and the United States.
If that word of warning from the hon. member for North Norfolk was timely last year, how much more so is it to-day, in view of the
fact that the government have a great many plans and projects before the public asking for commendation and in due time I have no doubt parliament will be asked to sanction the expenditure not of hundreds of thousands of dollars but of millions. At the outset, I 'think there is a sort of mistaken idea in the minds of the people as to the extent of the trade which is to he assured to the Canadian system of transportation. At first sight it would seem that it is not a question of our reaching out simply for the Canadian trade or reaching out for a large portion of the trade of the United States. A glance at the map will show hon. gentlemen the fact that there is a certain area of the United States export trade which we in Canada may successfully hid for. We may, in Canada, hope, in time, to ensure this to our Canadian facilities and this has been demonstrated for two or three years beyond the possibility of a doubt. In this connection some figures may be interesting, which are compiled from the public reports to show the extent of the trade from certain American ports which we in Canada have a fair means of reaching out for by way of our Canadian schemes of transportation. At the port of New York I find from the figures of 1899 that there were exported no less a quantity than 93,830,352 bushels of grain. At the port of Boston there were exported 28,905,095 bushels of grain, and at the port of Baltimore 56,335,397 bushels. I have not the figures of the other American ports because I think that these are the only exporting points which we may hope to compete with to a certain extent.
Let us look for a moment at the vast trade that is done at the port of Buffalo. In the year 1899, the immense quantity of 153.393,1S4 bushels of grain passed through that port, and in addition to that there was handled at Buffalo, 40.899,928 bushels of grain in flour, or in all nearly 200,000,000 bushels. I have before referred to the superiority of the Buffalo system as shown by the immense trade that port does, compared with the relatively small quantity of grain passing through the St. Lawrence canal system, and which I regret to say is lessening year after year, compared with what is known as the Grand Trunk Railway and Canada Atlantic systems. The trade of Buffalo has largely increased in the last few years, owing to the fact that the railway and the shipping interests have worked hand in hand in modern improvements. There was a time on the great lakes, when a vessel carrying 20,000 or 25.000 bushels of grain was supposed to be of very considerable size, but that day lias gone past, and the grain freighter of the present time is a vessel carrying a quarter million bushels. Last year a vessel was launched at Cleveland, 'with a capacity of carrying 300,000

bushels of grain. A little consideration will show that that class of vessel is the one which has come to stay on the great lakes. These large vessels can be run at a comparatively less cost than the smaller ones, because the crew carried by the large vessels is not very much larger than that of the small vessels, while the expense of the higher class of officers is practically the same on both, i have seen on the lakes between Port Arthur, Chicago and Midland, a rate of live cents a bushel; so that a vessel carrying 300,000 bushels will earu $15,000 in freight, while the smaller vessel carrying 20,000 bushels will only earn the trifling sum of $1,000. It stands to reason that the demand should be for the large vessels, and the large vessels alone. I know that in the debate last year, there was a difference of opinion on that point between the hon. member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Ilobell), and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). I am not here to decide between these two gentlemen, but in my humble opinion the signs of the times go to show that the hon. member for Quebec West was wrong in his contention. I believe that the time has not yet arrived for what may be termed canal freighters, but the day has certaiuly come for the larger class of vessels on the great lakes.
And, while they have been increasing the size of the vessels on the great lakes, the railways have not been idle by any means. There was a time when the railways between Buffalo and New York ran comparatively small trains, and with cars capable of carrying only GOO bushels; but I am credibly informed that to-day, there are cars on this railway system carrying 1,500 bushels, and locomotives which can each haul thirty of these large cars. A comparison can easily be drawn as to the very great saving which will be effected by the present railway system of doing business as against that of former days. There are many indications that the Buffalo grain trade is likely to increase. One reason is that there is always to be had cheap freight by boat between Buffalo, Duluth and Chicago. By reason of what are known as the coasting regulations, only these large American vessels can ply between Buffalo and Chicago, or any other American port on the great lakes. A Canadian vessel cannot trade between Buffalo and any American port, and so she is restricted to carrying between Buffalo and Port Arthur, or some other Canadian point. The result of that is that these American vessels are able to enter the ore carrying trade, which is now a very considerable factor in the United States, when the heavy grain trade of the spring is over. They leave the grain trade in the spring, and engage in the ore carrying trade during the summer months, and again in the fall they enter the grain carrying business. From time to time they are constructing more boats on the Ameri-Iv.tr. BENNETT.
can side, in view of the guarantee which they have that they will not only be able to engage in the grain trade in the spring and fall, but that they can carry ore during the summer months. There is another factor which militates against the grain carrying trade of Canada, and that is that ocean freight rates have been much cheaper from American ports than they have been from the ports of Montreal, St. John or Halifax. The reason is that there are always to be found a large number of ocean steamers in these American cities plying to European countries. In that respect the Buffalo grain trade has had a decided advantage in the past. The receipts of grain at Buffalo during the past year amounted to 57,000,000 bushels, from Chicago; 50,000,000 bushels from Duluth; 17,000,000 bushels from Milwaukee; 3,500,000 bushels from the Canadian port of Fort William, and the balance of 26,000,000 bushels fx'oiu other points, mainly on Lake Michigan. These figures show that the American people have been able to attract the bulk of the trade of the western states to the port of Buffalo, and not only that, but that they have been able to encroach on the Canadian trade from Port Arthur or Fort William to the extent of 3,500,000 bushels. This certainly should not be the case. With this condition of things staring us in the face, is it not time that we should take some measures to endeavour to cope with the enterprise of the American people, and to direct the current of trade into Canadian channels. We in this country, are to-day, largely relying on the canal system for this trade as the Americans relied on it in the past, but the Americans have changed their principle of doing business, and we can see for ourselves that the canal system is a failure.
Surely the time has arrived when this parliament, before it plunges into an expenditure of millions of dollars more through the government of the day, should adopt some fixed and definite policy, so that for a few years to come we may know where we are at. The grain trade of the west is going through Buffalo to the tune of nearly 200,000,000 bushels per year, while the grain trade at Montreal year after year is lessening. In the year 1898. 38,710,259 bushels of grain passed through the port of Montreal ; in 1899, 30.541,702 bushels passed through ; and in 1900, according to a computation which one must make, as the report of the Montreal Board of Trade does not show exactly what was carried in grain and what was carried in flour, only some 22,000.000 bushels must have passed through.	Unfortunately, we are not able to ascertain whether that grain went down the St. Lawrence canal system ; but, from all I can learn, instead of that quantity going down the canal system, less than 10.000.000 bushels actually passed down the St, Lawrence canals. The figures of the Canada At-

lantic show that that line handled some 13,000,000 bushels from Parry Sound to Montreal, which would leave only 9,000,000 bushels to go down by the St. Lawrence canals ; and the facts point to this being the case. While at Prescott and Kingston a large grain-handling trade has been done in past years, it is a regrettable fact that at Prescott no trade at all was done last year, and the trade of Kingston has diminished to a very appreciable extent. We have been attempting to build up the port of Montreal ; yet, after the large expenditure which we have incurred with that object, the truth must dawn on us that year by year, in spite of the deepening of the canal system from 10 feet to 14 feet, the grain trade of that port is very greatly diminishing.
It may be said that there are many reasons why the trade of the port of Montreal has not been built up. I am free to admit that that is so. In discussing this question with marine men and men conversant with the shipping trade, one hears that there is a great shortage of Canadian vessels. There will always be a shortage of Canadian vessels so long as the government continue to play fast and loose with this transportation question. What inducement is there for a man to-day to engage in Canadian shipping ? If he builds a Canadian bottom, he is restricted to the trade between Port Arthur and the port or Montreal, or Georgian Bay ports, whereas if he builds a vessel in the United States, he has not only tli,e grain trade between Buffalo and any point in the northern lakes to reiy upon, but he has during the summer months recourse to the vast ore trade, which is even a more profitable carrying trade than the grain trade. While the government are vacillating in their policy, vessel men hardly know what kind of vessel to build, if they are inclined to build a Canadian craft. They are told that the government intend to have the St. Lawrence canals so constructed as 1 to accommodate vessels going all the way from Port Arthur to Montreal. If you are going to have on that trade vessels with a capacity of 50,000 bushels, these are a class of vessels whicli cannot possibly compete with the larger vessels on the great lakes. In the same breath lion, gentlemen bespeak for use in Canada a class of vessels to carry grain from Port Arthur to Port Col-borne-Ayessels which are very much larger than those which have been projected.
There are some other points in Canada to which we have been attempting to attract trade ; and in this connection I am going to refer to Halifax and St. John. It must be remembered that every one of these plans of transportation that have been projected contemplate the expenditure of hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. What did we see last year ? The government of Canada had at Halifax a large grain elevator. The construction of that elevator, from all I can learn, had been
demonstrated to be practically a failure ; yet, in the face of that, the Minister of Railways and Canals saw fit in his wisdom, last year, to construct at St. John a large elevator, which, with the docks and wharfs and approaches, has involved an expenditure of half or three-quarters of a million dollars ; and I am sorry to say that one may fairly attribute to the hon. gentleman political I'easons for his action. What happened at that port last year ? The minister had his elevators and canals completed ; he had his railway system established to that point; yet, with that elevator standing there a monument, I will not say to his folly, but to his lack of business judgment, the Minister of Railways and Canals, in order to please the people of St. John, brings to that port, over the Canada Atlantic Railway to Montreal, and from there by the Intercolonial to St. John, 390,000 bushels of grain, to demonstrate that grain could be carried over that system of railways ; and the demonstration meant a loss to the revenue of Canada of $10,000. It is all very well to be patriotic ; it is all very well to build up a trade in the interest of the port of St. John ; but, surely the people of Canada are not to be asked to spend money at this rate simply to prove that the elevator at St. John has an adequate carrying capacity.
Now, looking at the canal system of the Dominion, we find from the experience of the past season, that the largest boat that passed from the upper lakes and went through to Montreal carried 45,000 bushels of grain ; and it is the opinion of practical vessel men to-day that it is utterly impossible to carry at a profit so small a quantity of grain so great a distance. What was the opinion of the hon. Minister of Railways last year on this question ? Speaking in this House, the hon. gentleman said :
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.
After a number of years, we find that the grain shipments at the port of Montreal have decreased to a most visible extent. Therefore, the opinion of the Minister of Railways last year was, I regret to say, rather a mistaken one. That hon. gentleman considered that one of the most desirable things in our canal system was this, that we would be able to carry through from points on the upper lakes heavy freight to Montreal, and to-day, with the deepening of the canal system, we find that last year the largest vessel that went down carried some 45,000 bushels. I am free to admit that the Welland canal to-day is only 14 feet deep, and that no doubt larger vessels should pass down that canal than those carrying 45,000 bushels. But there is this fact to be borne in mind. The Welland canal system is still water, and freighters

will not take the risk of carrying vessels deeply laden down the St. Lawrence that they would through the still water of the canal. But whether there are 14 feet or not in the' St. Lawrence system, I am informed that experience will prove that even with 14 feet, you can never hope to carry through vessels with much more than 50,000 bushels capacity. If you take vessels with 50,000 bushels from Fort William through to Montreal, you will find that they must of necessity return unloaded. There is no freight for vessels from Montreal to Toronto, or other points, to any appreciable extent. True, you may have freight for 'some of them, but not to any great extent, and the result is that boats are going back up the St. Lawrence system with comparatively little freight, and the more boats there are employed in that service the less quantity of return freight wall there be for each.
It was demonstrated in the past year by the Algoma Central Railway Company, that it will not- pay to send vessels right through from points on the lakes to the old country. They sent some boats over to the old country laden with steel billets, and the result was that these boats carried at a much less sum than paid their expenses, and the company were considerably out on the deal.
I need not go into the question of vessels leaving Fort William, and going clear to the old country. This proposition is so absurd that it does not require to be refuted. If you were to secure vessels capable even of carrying 00,000 bushels from Fort William to Liverpool, you would be brought into competition with the large first-class freighters fit Montreal; and could uot compete against the mixed cargoes and passenger lists on the ocean passenger vessels from the port of Montreal, so that transportation from the head of the great lakes through to Liverpool is a matter altogether out of the question.
Might I call the attention of the House to the fact that the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals has not been able to carry out the pledges he made last year as to the deepening of the St. Lawrence canal system. That is uot a matter anybody can find fault with. We can only regret it, but
have not come up to his expectation of 20 per cent.
I am not here to complain of the action of the government in going on with this St. Lawrence canal system. The government and the Minister of Railways came into office and found this fixed line of policy adopted by the late administration, the policy of deepening the St. Lawrence canal system, and if it has been a failure, the government cannot be held to account, nor can the late government be considered responsible, because the changes on the American side in the improvement of transportation, have militated against the interests of the St. Lawrence canal.
Hon. gentlemen may say that it is all very well to offer criticism, but some solution should be suggested, and he who simply stands and complains ought not to be listened to. But, I do not pretend to be voicing my opinions on this question, because I have no practical ideas. I am simply stating what I learn from vessel owners and others interested in the shipping-trade, and what I have learned by the experience of the past. That experience has taught us that the people of the United States have laid down a definite line of policy. Their shipping interests, both by rail and water, have laid down the policy that you must construct on the great lakes the largest possible freighters, and have the most complete and modern means of railway communication. Carry that grain by vessel to the nearest point of navigation on the great lakes, and then on to the seaboard by the most modern means known to railway enterprise. Keeping in view the fact that we have been spending millions of dollars on our canal system, and that the more money we have been spending the poorer results we get, surely it is time to call a halt, and before all our grain goes into American channels let us see if we cannot improve upon the present canal system by some other means. The government could do this. They should at once as a whole, bind themselves to a fixed line of policy, and not have each individual member of the government formulating different lines of policy on the question of transportation. That they should stop at
we can hold the minister to this, that he J once and for ever, and adopt as a body a
ventured a prophecy, with all the informa tion at his hand as chief of the department, and so did the hon. member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell), as a member of the administration, concerning trade that would accrue to the St. Lawrence canal system this year, and despite that prophecy we find that the St. Lawrence canal system is going behind in grain receipts. The hon. member for Quebec West said last year : We only got 8 per cent In the past year, and in the year 1901, we would obtain no less than 20 per cent of the grain-carrying trade.
If 8 per eent was the correct figure last year, we have fallen far short of that, and Mr. BENNETT.
fixed and definite line of policy.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What does the hon. gentleman mean by that. I would really like little light thrown on that question.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not intend to refer to that at present, but will do so. The hon. Minister of Railways last year told the country that the St. Lawrence canal system was to be the system of the country. The hon. member for Quebec West (Hoii. Mr. Dobell) said that we were only doing 8 per cent of the trade, and that next year, when we had 14 feet of water in the canal, we would do 20 per cent of the trade. How

lias that prophecy been fulfilled ? The trade has fallen far short of his expectation, and I regret that such has been the case. And while you were endeavouring to build up our transportation trade by the St. Lawrence canals-and you can only build up any successful means of transportation by engaging capital in the business-you are frightening every man who may wish to engage in the vessel business


Mr. GERMAN.: What proposition does the hon. gentleman make as a remedy ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like my hon. friend to answer my question. He alleged that the government were split up and divided in their policy, that one member of the cabinet had one view and another another. Will the hon. gentleman give his justification' for this statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I will deal now with that point which the minister has raised. I recall -the circumstance that two or three years ago the Minister of Railways spoke in the city of Halifax at a meeting of the board of trade, and he drew there what I believe was a truthful picture of the position of the transportation question in the country. He said : It is true, against the wishes of our political opponents, but in accordance with what we thought was the proper idea, we have now a means of communication from LSvis, which had hitherto been the termination of the Intercolonial Railway, clear through to the city of Montreal ; we have now a railway system from St. John and from Halifax to the port of Montreal, still I am free to confess, said the minister, we are in a very handicapped position. Our cars arrive at the city of Montreal and we find them empty. These cars we wish to take down to build up the trade of St. John and Halifax. As soon as we arrive at Montreal we are confronted with the fact that there are loaded cars there belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway and to the Grand Trunk Railway. In our dilemma, he said, we approached the Grand Trunk Railway people and said to them : You have grain at Montreal, we wish to take that grain over the Intercolonial Railway system down to St. John or Halifax. The Grand Trunk Railway replied at once : AVe can carry our grain to Portland, which is some 300 miles shorter-I believe that was the distance-than the Grand Trunk Railway haul to St. John. As a result of that, he said, we are not able to secure from the Grand Trunk Railway Company a bushel of grain to carry down to the ocean. Now, he said, in our dilemma, we turned to the Canadian Pacific Railway and we asked them to give us the grain brought from the west to the port of Montreal. and the Canadian Pacific Railway replied to us : AVe have a shorter route to St. John than you have by the Intercolonial Railway, by some 300 miles. The result is.
said the hon. gentleman, that we have our empty cars at Montreal, and we are not able to get freight from the Grand Trunk Railway or from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and therefore we had nothing but failure staring us in the face.
Now, I think I have correctly stated the gist of the hon. gentleman's remarks in the city of Halifax on that occasion. But he went further at that time and outlined a policy on the part of the government, and that is the question which is to-day before the public. He said, there is a line of railway known as the Canada Atlantic Railway which runs from Montreal to a point on the Georgian Bay, to Depot Harbour. Now, he says, the policy of the government might be to acquire this line, and if we acquired that line we would have uninterrupted railway communication from a point on the Georgian Bay, by the Booth system, clear through to St. John or to Halifax, and then we would be in a position to bid for the grain trade ourselves. I think the minister will give me credit for stating correctly what he said on that occasion. But a sign of the times appeared later on. An hon. member who has the honour of representing the county of Hants (Mr. Russell) in this House, and who is accredited with holding a pretty prominent position in the House on the government side, came shortly afterwards to the rescue of the government and of the minister's line of policy, because there appeared from him in one of the Halifax newspapers a strong letter favouring the purchase of this Booth railway system. Now, I do not know whether the hon. member for Hants had the authority of the minister for formulating that policy for the government; but I do know that neither the Minister of Public Works nor the Minister of Railways and Canals will to-day stand up in the House and say that the government has not discussed, and that the government has not contemplated, the acquisition of what is known as the Booth line. Let me tell the Minister of Railways and Canals this, that it is in the mouths of the people east and west that that line is to be purchased by the government. Let me tell him more than this, that last winter when there was a good deal of discussion over the purchase of this road, a prominent personal friend who has the honour of sitting in this House, who is a gentleman of wealth, paid a flying visit to the town of Parry Sound and was looking around for real estate in that quarter. Surely that gentleman must have had an idea that the government were about to acquire the Booth line. So the minister is blowing both hot and cold. At one moment his government is going to buy out the Booth railway and throw the St. Lawrence system to the winds, and going to secure an uninterrupted railway communication clear through from a point on the Georgian Bay to a point on the Atlantic.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit an interruption. I understand that to be the ground upon which he made the statement a few moments ago. Now, at the risk of disturbing the completeness of his argument, I may say to the hon. gentleman that down to this moment, so far as I am aware, there never lias been a word, not one syllable of a discussion in council on the subject of the purchase of the Parry Sound Railway, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been among the members of the council.


William Humphrey Bennett: Of course I accept the statement of the Minister of Railways that in council the question has not been discussed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no hesitation in making that statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I must say the hon. gentleman puts himself in a very odd position. He goes before the public in the province of Nova Scotia as a responsible minister of this government, and he there lays down a line of policy for the acquisition of this railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg your pardon.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then the hon. gentleman was not sincere at Halifax, he was humbugging.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I never made such a statement. The hon. gentleman will find it difficult to find, even in a hostile newspaper or from any other source, a report that I stated the government was to purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway or the Parry Sound Railway. I think that the hon. gentleman is confusing two things. As I recollect the speech I delivered then, the idea I had in my mind was that arrangements could be made whereby an interchange of traffic could take place between the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Intercolonial Railway. I had no idea of purchasing the Canada Atlantic Railway.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then I will take the minister's word.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman will find that to be the case if he will read the speech.


William Humphrey Bennett: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, not that either. The hon. gentleman does not understand the meaning of the English language.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand an interchange of traffic to mean a participation in profits between the Intercolonial Railway and the Booth system. That is correct, I think.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not understand that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, what I understand by an interchange of traffic is that both parties to the contract would like to have some of the profits-or it may be that the minister was prepared to concede to the Booth people all the profits. But I will accept, and ask the House to accept, the hon. gentleman's own word that an arrangement was to be made between the two companies by which there would be an interchange of traffic. In other words, that the trade down the Booth line would be diverted over the Intercolonial Railway to the interest and to the benefit of the Intercolonial Railway. Now, mark what the hon. gentleman was doing. He was giving the public of Canada, who might be favourable to the transportation by way of the St. Lawrence route, fair notice that he was going to fight them with another arrangement, and that arrangement was the Booth line. That is the position into which he has brought himself to-day. He has got the carrying trade of this country into this position, that they have no faith in the stability of the government as to their line of policy. And to-day they have this additional fact, that the Minister of Railways and Canals has had in his mind-and no doubt, because he is an active man, he may spring it on the council soon-that this plan must be carried out of a trade arrangement with the Booth line, and if that is done, then it follows that it must be at the cost of the St. Lawrence canal system. Now, I think there are proofs, outside of any statements made by the hon. gentleman opposite, that the government is about to acquire the Booth system. If they are not going to acquire it, I can only say that they are proceeding very strangely with the expenditure of public money. This government has been advertising for tenders for the construction of large works at Depot Harbour, the terminus of the Booth line. And, may I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals- for the time has gone past for that contract-if the information is correct that comes to me that these works are to cost $150,000 or $200,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are no works being carried on in my department of that kind. I do not know what progress has been made by the Department of Public Works in connection with the matter. Some aid, I think, was granted by parliament last year toward piers there, the same as for other harbours. But that has nothing to do with any proposition to acquire the Canada Atlantic, so

far as 1 ever heard, or so far as it has been Quebec, and if you can keep Quebec open discussed by the government.	in the winter months


William Humphrey Bennett: I have been informed- and I asked the question so as not to mislead the House-that the contemplated jmb-lic works are to cost the country upwards of $200,000. That is to say, at the terminus of the Booth system they are expending $200,000 for works in which the public will have no real interest, aud which will be a benefit only to the Booth system of railway. It is openly stated in that section that it is the intention of the Booth system to construct an elevator on those docks, or rather the intention of the government, for it is expected that the government are about to take over the railway system. Now, the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals says that these ideas are not going forth by the authority of members of the cabinet. Where is the hon. member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell), and the lion. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), who has an important place in this government '! He has been telling us, and the Quebec press are all the time assuring the public, that the whole scheme of the St. Lawrence canal system is practically at an end, that it is to be revolutionized in its entirety, that the Booth system is to be purchased, that the Great Northern road, which connects, I believe, at Hawkesbury, is to be taken over and used to carry the grain from Parry Sound direct to Quebec, there to be transhipped to vessels and to be taken out of the country.


Hon. Mr. DOBELL.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) to say that that is what I have been saying in Quebec V


William Humphrey Bennett: If I attributed the words to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Dobell), I should not have done so, because I have not read any speeches of his. But I have seen it stated in the public press, and it has been a matter of current comment, that the government intend to acquire the so-called Great Northern Railway, and then the connection will be made through from Parry Sound to Quebec.


Richard Reid Dobell: Quite right.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the hon. gentleman agrees with that ?


Richard Reid Dobell: That is not the statement that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) made, but I shall be pleased to say a few words when the hon. gentleman has finished his speech.


William Humphrey Bennett: And I will be bound to say that the hon. member for Quebec West will be too loyal to the interests of his constituents to oppose such a scheme. The papers are full of it. And I think the Solicitor General told us the other day that he would speak on the transportation question. I think he will say the solution of the whole question is a system of railways through to


Richard Reid Dobell: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman must understand that the House will not be surprised to know that there are differences of opinion in the cabinet. That is quite usual. We shall see a difference of opinion iu the cabinet inside of a week. One section, probably a large section, will contend for the entrance of American railways into the southern portion of British Columbia, and a small section will oppose it. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals remembers that, a few years ago, on the question of the Kettle River Railway, he announced in the Railway Committee, with all the authority of his position, that the government's position was that that railway should have entrance

*


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bennett's) pardon.


William Humphrey Bennett: All I can say is that for many days, in the Railway Committee at that time, there was weary watching and waiting to see what was the stand to be taken by the government on that question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was no watching and waiting to see what was my position on that question.


William Humphrey Bennett: But there was waiting a good many days before the Minister did speak-and I think he was sorry afterwards that he had spoken at all. His position as Minister of Railways and Canals should carry a good deal of weight on a question of railway policy ; and he must have felt humiliated, to see the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) kill the proposition to which he (Hon. Mr. Blair) has announced himself as favourable. And it was a question of vital import to that country, and to the whole carrying trade. There was a clear line of cleavage in the council ; and we all remember the cheerful countenance of the Minister of Public Works when the division showed .that he had carried more votes than had the Minister of Railways and Canals.
Now we have the question of the Great Northern and transportation by way of Quebec. I do not see my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works here. But he steps into the arena and announces what the policy of the government on the transportation question will be. And, remembering the fact that the Minister of Public Works had his own way in the Kettle River Railway matter, it is fair to assume that he will have his own way on the transportation question. He says that the solution of the question is to open up the French River and make a system of water carriage through to North Bay, and from there bring the grain down on the Canadian Pacific. It is intimated to the

lion, gentleman that that means an expenditure of millions. But, in his ' airy fairy Lillian ' way, he treats that matter lightly. Surely the government's supporter from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) will not be pleased, but will be much disappointed if he realizes that the government is going to throw the Ottawa and Georgian Bay ship canal overboard. That also is a bantling of this government that they are keeping before the people all the time. The hon. gentleman *who represented West lork last session, Mr. Campbell


Mr. COCHRANE.: Kent.


William Humphrey Bennett: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has given no explanation of the statement he made a short time ago ; he has not even touched it yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: All I can say is that when the hon. minister makes the statement that he did at Halifax, if he thinks that the public disregard him, I think they take him at his word.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What has that to do with the canal system ?


William Humphrey Bennett: It has everything to do with the hon. minister building up rival


William Humphrey Bennett: systems to the canals. He has given the public notice of that, and given them fair notice, that in his opinion he does not think the canal system is a proper one to be carried out.


William Manley German: Where has the government built up a rival system to the canal system in this country ?


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) does not hear me, perhaps, if he eomes closer he will hear. I have been pointing out what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said in reference to making trade arrangements with the Booth line. I have pointed to the line of policy announced by the government press of the acquisition of the Booth line and the Great Northern line, and to every word of that the member for Quebee West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) says amen, and the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) will too when he comes in. I have also pointed out that the hon. Minister of Public Works is to-day announcing that a proper line of policy would be to act in conjunction with the Canadian Pacific Railway in building a canal system to North Bay on Lake Nip-pissing, and then hand over to the Canadian Pacific Railway the carrying trade of the west to Montreal and the seaboard. Surely these are schemes gigantic enough even for the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). They are sufficient to cause the public to stop and think, and to ask if the time has not arrived for the government to come down and enunciate a line of policy, particularly in view .of the fact that so long as you dangle all these schemes before the public, so long are you going to hamper the usefulness and injure the interests of the St. Lawrence canal system. What are the government going to do in this dilemma ? Is the canal system to be thrown up ? Fourteen feet of water has been reached, I believe, the department having so announced. If there are any drawbacks to that it is to be hoped that parliament will be asked to make a sufficient grant of money for fourteen feet of water, but, while the government are going to provide fourteen feet of water, andVhile they are going to attract all the freight they can, in the name of the public, and in the name of the public treasury, let these hon. gentleman individually, and as members of the cabinet, stop formulating these different lines of policy, let the public breathe easy, let them know what is to be the transportation system of the future or the solution of it. The hon. member for Welland asked me what I would suggest. I am not here to say : This is my opinion. I am not going to be so egotistical as to say : This is my opinion. I am simply referring to what is advocated by railway companies, by men prominent in public life, and backed up by men who are investing their money in these enterprises. We find

that despite the fact that you have increased the depth of the canals to fourteen feet, you are carrying a lessened quantity of grain through them, that you have almost ruined Prescott's carrying trade, that you have almost ruined Kingston's carrying trade, that you are ruining the ship building industry of this country, and I am also here to argue that when this vast sum of money which you propose to spend is spent at Port Colborne, you are not going to have a system superior to the system that is now in vogue.
Coming down to the Port Colborne expenditure, let us pay some attention for a moment to that. Last year the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals and the Department of Public Works came to the House with a proposition. They said : We find that owing to the fact that we cannot carry large vessels through to Kingston because the Welland canal intervenes we must make, at Port Colborne on Lake Brie, very large and very great improvements. Those who were here at the time will recollect that the hon. Minister of Public Works came down from his department and laid on the Table of the House a proposition that involved an expenditure of $5,000,000 at Port Colborne. The government said : We are prepared to spend $5,000,000 at Port Colborne, and by referring to the debate of last year, it will be seen that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said that the expenditure would not reach that amount. He said : The works that we have contemplated and the works that we have tendered for will involve an expenditure of about $2,000,000. I think I can find in 'Hansard' that reference. We are spending $2,000,000 at Port Colborne on what the hon. minister himself must admit is an experiment simply in anticipation, and when the House realizes that the results of trade through the St. Lawrence canals fall far short of the anticipations of hon. members of the government, it is fair to say that such a large expenditure should not be made without a good deal of foresight and looking into. What is the hon. minister going to do at Port Colborne ? He is spending $2,000,000 in constructing large public works, in deepening the water, in the construction of docks upon which elevators can be built at any time, and in connection with the breakwater there. I do not know if it is the intention to proceed with the construction of elevators at Port Colborne.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No steps have been taken in that direction.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says that he does not intend to construct them.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) asks me a question and I give 33
him an answer, he might at all events correctly quote what I have said.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then I misunderstood the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No steps have been taken in that direction.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will quote from the report of the hon. gentleman for this year :
The improvements comprise the deepening of the approaches to the canal to twenty-two feet and the construction of two docks, with piers 200 feet wide, upon which grain elevators will be erected to transfer grain to fourteen-feet draught canal boats when required.
Of course, there is the saving proviso ' when required.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That does not say that the government are going to erect elevators upon them if it were decided to erect elevators.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the government are not going to construct elevators at that point, then why have the government built these very large piers or breakwater which would serve the same purpose ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The breakwater would not serve the same purpose.	1


William Humphrey Bennett: The breakwater would serve the purpose of erecting elevators.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The breakwater is a mile away from where the elevators could properly and usefully be placed. What is the use of talking about erecting an elevator on the breakwater ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have not seen the plan. But, here is the fact that the hon. gentleman is spending $2,000,000. I think I am within the mark in that statement-at Port Colborne-and what are you going to gain by that expenditure ? Without this expenditure of $2,000,000, more grain has gone down to Montreal in former years than went last year. You will have to increase the depth of water at Port Colborne, and you will be able to carry larger freighters to Port Colborne than the freighters employed in the past, but when you carry these freighters to Port Colborne you will kill the trade at Kingston and Prescott. You will transfer at Port Colborne into small boats which will be capable of carrying 50,000 bushels at the outside, and carry the grain on down to Montreal. What benefit are you getting by the proposed system over the present system ? The present system is that you have vessels carrying 75,000 bushels of grain to Kingston where the grain is transferred to a canal barge carrying 50,000 bushels. The only difference possible is that you are transferring at Port Colborne instead of at Kingston



from a 250,000 bushel boat, instead of a
75,000	bushel boat. Does not the minister see that at Kingston you can bring into requisition a comparatively cheap class of vessels. At Kingston you can load into a barge carrying 50,000 bushels, and you can tow four or five of them down to Montreal, but you cannot put that same cheap class of vessel into Port Colborne. The vessels in the Port Colborne trade must be expensive vessels.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why cannot you put it into smaller vessels if you want to.


William Humphrey Bennett: The whole contention of the hon. gentleman is to deepen the canals so that we can have larger vessels.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, but you can use smaller vessels if you want to.


William Humphrey Bennett: I grant that, but you must get the maximum size. The point is that the vessel which you take from Port Colborne to Montreal, must be a high priced vessel, because you cannot use canal boats on that route.
The MINISTER OH' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Why cannot you ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Does not the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) know that Lake Ontario is one of the roughest of the great lakes, and that the principal part of the grain trade is done in the fall of the year, when that lake is at its roughest ?


William Manley German: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) suggest that tow barges are not used from Port Colborne to Montreal ? If he does, he does not know what he is talking about.


William Humphrey Bennett: The reputation of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) for lack of courtesy has preceded him here, and he need not make a display of it now. Let me tell him that I do know something about it.


William Manley German: Will the hon. gentleman suggest that tow barges are not used from Port Colborne, to Montreal and Kingston and Prescott ?


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Not from Port Colborne. The hon. member knows nothing
about it if he talks that way.


William Manley German: They are used from Port Colborne and Port Dalhousie.


John Graham Haggart: There are no canal barges towed through Lake Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: There are no canal barges towed through Lake Ontario. You have a class of vessels that can be towed from Kingston to Montreal, but no man would embark upon them in Lake Ontario or in Lake Superior in the fall of the year.


William Humphrey Bennett: The vessels that are to-day towed from Port Colborne, and that will ever be towed from Port Colborne, must of necessity be expensively built vessels, in order that the lives of the men who sail them may be protected. From Kingston down, where you are in smooth water, there is a comparatively cheap class of vessel which I am informed by men in the trade will not cost one-third of what the other expensive vessels cost. I know well that the vessels which to-day ply in Lake Superior and through Lake Ontario, vessels like the Rose-dale, are large and expensive vessels, and the barges which they tow are expensively built barges which must be equipped with canvas, because no mariner with a regard for the safety of the lives of his men on the consorts would ever put vessels on Lake Superior without masts, similar to canal barges. From Port Colborne down, you must have expensive and well-built vessels, whether these vessels contain their own propelling power or whether they are vessels in tow. The result is that on this expensive class of vessels between Port Colborne and Montreal, the rates will be higher in comparison than the rates from Kingston.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How was the grain got down in times past from the Welland canal ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have just been telling the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair). It comes down in first-class boats like the Rosedale, the Algonquin boats, iron built boats that cost $125,000, or well-built wooden boats that cost a large sum of money, and, as my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Calvin) knows, they are not towing cheaply-built boats on the great lakes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will there be anything to prevent these vessels continuing to go down in the future, if people want to use them 7


William Humphrey Bennett: The point I make is, that these canal barges cannot be used between Port Colborne and Montreal, because you will have to navigate the rough waters of Lake Ontario in the fall, when stiff gales are to be met with.
Now, Sir, what is being done by the government to-day ? Here is the minister spending $2,000,000 at Port Colborne, and all that is to be brought about by this large expenditure will be simply that you will be able to transfer from a large boat into an expensive freighter on to Montreal; while if the minister had permitted affairs to go on as they have been going on, you might transfer at Kingston into cheaper boats, and the result would have been-as I am told by vessel men it will work out in the long run-that it would have been much better to go on with the old state of affairs. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) asked me what could be done under the circumstances ? In the first place, the gov-

ernment of tlie day through the Minister of Railways, told the people of Quebec, and told all these other people who had those baits held out before them, that the policy of the government is to adopt the St. Lawrence canal route system


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would the hon. gentleman please tell me what he means by 'bait' being held out before them ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Having baits held out before them. All I can say is that the minister, when he spoke at Halifax, told them the only advantage they ever could get in the carrying trade would be by the acquirement of the roads in the Booth system-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) venture to make such a statement as that seriously in this House ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I will say ' traffic arrangement ' if that suits.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I defy the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) to produce any statement that 1 ever made that will bear out his statement. I absolutely defy him.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) has said within a few minutes


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg your pardon.


William Humphrey Bennett: You have not heard what I am going to attribute to you and you cannot know what it is


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know why the hon. gentleman should think that it is any advantage to him or to his party to misrepresent what I said. The hon. gentleman professed to give a statement which I made. I did not say that the only hope was to acquire the Booth system, but what I did say was : That one of the directions in which we hoped to get more business for the Intercolonial Railway was by having a traffic arrangement with the Booth lines, whereby we could exchange traffic. That is what I did say, but the hon. gentleman now puts it forward that I affirmed in Halifax that the only hope was to acquire the Booth system. I made no such statement at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) held out to the people of Halifax the idea of a business arrangement-if that term will suit him-with the Canada Atlantic system. I state here that any business arrangement with the Canada Atlantic system by which you have to carry grain via the Georgian Bay, must be at the expense of the St. Lawrence canal system.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see that.
33J


William Humphrey Bennett: I will refer to some facts that will perhaps convince the minister that the Booth system and the Grand Trunk Railway system from Midland have had the effect of diverting trade from the St. Lawrence canal system. We find that there are two well-defined lines of transportation in Canada, as against the St. Lawrence route. First, there is the Grand Trunk Railway system, which carries grain from its terminus at Midland on the Georgian Bay through to Montreal, and now, (thanks to the generous aid the government gave the Grand Trunk Railway in the matter of the Victoria bridge), on to Portland. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have been building up that trade, and they have been building it up successfully, and we find that in the past season, there was carried from Midland over their lines to Portland and to Montreal no less a quantity than 10,214,841 bushels.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Was there a bushel of that sent to Portland ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I think probably there was a portion of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do you know it ? Have you any statement to that effect ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not in a position to know from the return whether a portion of that went to Portland or not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then why drag in the imputation that because we helped the Grand Trunk, therefore they got this business ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am here to say that by reason of the fact that the government contributed so handsomely to the Grand Trunk to enable it to carry trade past Montreal, the Grand Trunk to-day are building up Portland, and I leave it to the hon. members from Montreal to say whether or not that is at the expense of Montreal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is altogether a different statement from that which the hon. gentleman made. The statement he made was that by reason of the assistance which the government had given the Grand Trunk for the bridge, they were carrying the grain which they received from the Parry Sound Railway, to Portland. Now, my information is that there is not a bushel of grain received by the Grand Trunk; from the Canada Atlantic Railway and taken to Portland.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the minister makes the statement that none of the grain from Midland goes to Portland-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not talking about that. I am talking about grain received from the Parry Sound road.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister misunderstood me. The grain taken to Portland is from Midland, not from Parry Sound.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then I was in error.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Grand Trunk bridge, by means of the half million dollars contributed by the government, has been so improved and strengthened that the Grand Trunk are to-day building at Portland an elevator with 2,000,000 bushels capacity. More than that, I know that the company which owns one of the large elevators at Midland is constructing at Chicago an elevator of 1,000,000 bushels capacity. My argument from that is that the Grand Trunk have every confidence that the carrying trade of this Dominion, not only from our own North-west, but from western points in the United States on the great lakes, will in future be done by way of Midland to Portland, with any trade which may incidentally enure to the port of Montreal ; and the result, I believe, will justify that confidence. It is, I believe, expected by the Grand Trunk Railway people that they will succeed in building up a very large trade.
Now, it is a fair question to ask, why can grain be successfully carried from Midland to Portland as against from Buffalo to New York ? There are many advantages in favour of the Midland-Portland system as 1 against the Buffalo-New York system. One of the first advantages is this, that you can make three trips from any point on the great lakes to Midland as against two trips to Buffalo, which is a very decided advantage, especially in the fall of the year ; so that a large vessel, with a capacity of from
200,000	to 300,000 bushels, would earn on that route from $10,000 to $15,000 more on three trips than if she went to Buffalo. That is the reason, I believe, why the Grand Trunk people are making preparations at Portland and at Chicago for a large carrying trade. The line of the Grand Trunk froth Midland to Belleville or Port Hope is poorly equipped ; they can only haul fourteen or fifteen cars, and those not of the largest size. When the day does arrive that the Grand Trunk has as complete a system of railways from Midland to Portland as there is from Buffalo to New York, there will be seen carried on that line, not 12,000,000 bushels of grain, but twice and probably three times that quantity.
I am not going to say anything in reference to the Parry Sound route. That route has asserted itself in the past year, and has shown that it is capable of carrying 13,000,000 bushels in a season. The other places on ! the lakes-Sarnia, Goderich and Colli ngwood -carried comparatively trifling quantities as compared with the systems from Parry | Sound to Montreal and from Midland to Portland.
Now, what is to be done under the circumstances ? " First, I say, in the very
words of this motion, a halt should be called on public expenditures. The government should at once drop the propositions which have been discussed before the public, by giving an official and authoritative denial of the statement that they have in contemplation the taking up of any of those propositions, and announcing that they intend in the future to pin their faith alone to the St. Lawrence canal system. When they do that, we shall have the satisfaction of seeing the vesselmen of the country embarking in the shipping interests of Canada.
If these railway systems, both the Grand Trunk and the Canada Atlantic, are able to compete with the Buffalo system, we may be sure that we can attract trade from Buffalo through Canada, which will be to the advantage of the Canadian public ; because every bushel of grain carried by vessel or by rail through Canada must be to the advantage of the Dominion as a whole, and more particularly to the advantage of the province' of Ontario through which it will pass ; and it is a debatable question to-day whether it would not be well for the government even to pay these people a bounty of so much a bushel for the grain -carried through Canadian channels for a year or so. The effect of giving such a bounty would be this, that they would be able to imi>rove their roadbeds to such an extent that, I believe, they would cut appreciably into the Buffalo trade.
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 1 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, provided they carry a largely increased quantity of grain over what they are now carrying. 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.


Richard Reid Dobell: Mr. Speaker, I must offer my congratulations to the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) for having so fully drawn the


Mr. BLAIR.: attention of tlie House to this important ' question. I do not think there has been a matter brought before the House this ses- ; sion of more importance than this question of transportation ; and in congratulating the hon. gentleman upon having brought it to our attention, I wish I could also compliment him upon the accuracy of his statement of the case. But, I regret to say, he made many grievous mistakes. There were many causes operating against the removal of grain to Montreal last year on which he did not even touch. And 1 am quite sure that when these exceptional causes are brought before the House, hon. members will at once understand why there was not more grain brought down the St. Lawrence last year.
I confess that I read the motion of the hon. gentleman with some degree of doubt, because I could not quite see what it was intended to cover. He says that it is now time this government should state its policy in this matter. But I do not think that the government has ever withheld from this House the policy it was intending to pursue. The government has acted upon the policy that every possible avenue that could be utilized for the transportation of grain and other produce, not only from our own great North-west, but also from the north-western states, should be taken advantage of and improved, and I do not care whether those improvements are confined to water navigation alone or extended to a combination of water and rail. We all know that if we depend simply on our water navigation, we will be shut off during the winter months from a very large supply of grain, and,
. therefore, it is desirable that we should make provision ahead by establishing large storehouses at different points. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals, was fully justified in the large expenditure he undertook at Port Colborne. To use the hon. gentleman's own argument, we will be able to bring to Port Colborne steamers drawing 20 feet of water and carrying grain to the extent of 200,000 bushels, and certainly 150,000 bushels, and that grain can be transhipped thence in barges and steamers, not merely carrying 45,000 bushels, as mentioned by the hon. member for Bast Simeoe (Mr. Bennett), but 200,000 bushels, for I maintain that a steamer and two consorts can bring down from Port Colborne
200,000	bushels, and even more. As I figure it out, two barges and a steamer would be able to bring 210,000 bushels from Port Colborne, and we have been told by a most reputable and trustworthy shipbuilder in the west, that that will prove the most economical way of moving grain from Port Colborne or Port Arthur or Duluth or any other point to the seaboard.
The hon. member for Bast Simeoe dwelt at considerable length on what the port of Buffalo has done. But how has Buffalo managed to do what it has accomplished ?
That port obtained command of the grain trade simply through our supineness in years gone by. While we made the Sault Ste. Marie canal 20 to 22 feet deep, and the Welland canal 14 feet deep, when the grain got into Lake Ontario it was shut out from the St. Lawrence canal, because our locks and canals there would not carry vessels drawing 10 feet of water. The greatest draught that could get through the St. Lawrence canals was about 6, 7 or 8 feet, and, under the most favourable conditions, never more than 8 feet. What, therefore, are we doing '! We passed through our ' Soo ' canal 4 000,000 tons of American shipping the year before last entirely free of toll, and then gave it to Buffalo. Why ? Because there was no other place to receive it. Therefore, the government took in hand the work at Port Colborne, in order that that port might accommodate these large steamers, even as large as 6,000 tons, and from there the grain would be reshipped to Montreal, or Quebec or elsewhere. The hon. gentleman laid great stress on the probability of our killing the trade of Kingston and Prescott and other places by these improvements at Port Colborne. But he is not able to see far enough. If we are to get any proportion of our western trade, we shall have a trade not only for our Welland canal and our water navigation-which, I believe, will in the main be the most economical way of moving our crops-but it is probable that our railways will be utilized in order to bring the grain through much quicker, even though it cost a little more. But, as regards the bulk of the grain, I believe there are no advantages on the American side over our St. Lawrence and great lakes. We should not belittle our advantages, but should instead show to the people of the whole continent that our ports of Montreal and Quebec will not only be national ports, but great international ports for the transhipment of grain in ocean steamers, and also for the , transhipment of products from England to the far west.
The hon. gentleman also laid some stress upon the quantity of grain that could be carried through our canals to Montreal, and very much underrated it. He said that no : vessel had brought more than 45,000 bushels through last yaer.


William Humphrey Bennett: I must say this, that that 1 was in reply to a question I asked the Min. ister of Railways and Canals.
i Hon. Mr. DOBELL. I am not saying that
*	the hon. gentleman was not correct in his - statement of quantity, but what was the ; cause of that ? It was simply this, that i there were so many detractors of the work
*	of deepening the St. Lawrence canals to 14 feet that the report was circulated broadt cast that such work had not been accom-C plished, and to-day you will find some people i arguing that it is not jjossible to bring ves-? sels drawing 14 feet of water through the

St. Lawrence canals. But my hon. colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals,
gave us the assurance a few days ago that there is not the slightest risk or danger to barges or steamers going through our St. Lawrence canals drawing 14 feet of water. The hon. gentleman also forgot entirely the very abnormal state of things which existed last year. We could not get steamers to go up the St. Lawrence. I pointed out two years ago the discrimination that existed in our insurance rates, and if those rates cannot be amended, the Grand Trunk Railway have acted wisely in taking their grain to Portland, where they ship at less than one-third the insurance rates charged -from the St. Lawrence. This is far more serious than people imagine.
I believe it is the duty of the government and of every member of this House to do all they can to have that remedied. I do not believe that there is any good cause for the discrimination that has taken place. If the hon. member for East Simcoe had really thought out the subject carefully and wanted to put a fair case before the country, he should have given the government his assistance by pointing out what steps should be taken to have this insurance matter put right. I believe that for all these years we have been debarred from using the St. Lawrence in the winter or as early in the spring as we might. I believe, for my part, in absolute winter navigation, that we have nothing like the difficulties that Russia is now combatting, both in the Black Sea and in the Baltic, in the matter of ice. There may be a time in the middle of March, and perhaps up to the early part of April, when in the gulf the northern ice blocks the channel between Cape Ray and the Bird Rocks. But that happens only once in three or four years, perhaps not so often. But the matter of snow storms is very much exaggerated. It is true we have snow storms on the lower St. Lawrence, and all along the valley of that river as well. But, you have snow storms in the English channel, which render navigation there very dangerous because of the number of steamers navigating those waters. But we have good anchorage in the St. Lawrence, for from the time you enter the river up to Quebec, there is no difficulty when a storm comes on in anchoring and waiting until it is over. A snow storm does not last, ordinarily, for more than twenty-four hours. So, there is no such reason for this discrimination against the St. Lawrence as is alleged. If we could establish winter navigation in Quebec, and make Quebec a great emporium for trade by building large elevators, a great step in advance would be taken. And I believe that the Grand Trunk will find that they have made a serious mistake in going to Portland, because you can carry grain from Montreal to Quebec for less than half what you can carry it


Richard Reid Dobell: for from Montreal to Portland. So, if this insurance question is challenged and remedied, as I believe it will be by the government, we shall do more for St. Lawrence navigation than has ever been done before. The hon. member for East Simcoe said that I had told the House that the proportion of the grain trade carried through the St. Lawrence river never exceeded 8 per cent. I am not quite sure that it ever reached 8 per cent, but that is very near it. The hon. gentleman says I said that in 1901 it would be 25 per cent. I have not had the opportunity of consulting * Hansard,' but my recollection is that I said that we ought to have 25 per cent, and that we will get 25 per cent, but I do not think I limited the acquiring of this 25 per cent to one year.


John Graham Haggart: Before the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Dobell) leaves the question of insurance, which is a very important one, and one on which, I am sure, the House desires to be informed, can he give me the figures of the amounts paid to the underwriters for insurance on the St. Lawrence and the losses to those same underwriters.


Richard Reid Dobell: 
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Shillings ?


Richard Reid Dobell: 
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: What about Montreal ?


Richard Reid Dobell: I would not belittle
Montreal at all. Montreal has incurred very heavy expenditure in deepening Lake St. Peter and they deserve credit for it. At that time Quebec was asleep, but now we have wakened up a little, we see our advantages, and we hope to utilize them to such an extent that there will be shipped from Quebec, not merely 25 per cent of the grain which I mentioned twelve months ago, but a very much larger proportion. I believe that this government, by its policy of improving every avenue of shipment, will ultimately increase very greatly grain shipments at the port of Quebec. I do not know' much about the Georgian Bay canal, but if opening it up to North Bay will give us increased advantages for getting grain down, I'will go in for it. I do not think the result will be what the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) fears, that is, to rob our St. .awrenee canals of their trade, because there will be more grain to carry than the St. Lawrence canals can handle, and all the railways you can build. We are not able to realize the possibility that lies before this Canada of ours. We ought to have more faith in our future than to think that by improving Port Colborne we are going to ruin the trade at Kingston. I am sorry the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) is not in his place, because I do not think he would share in the fear of ruining Kingston. I presume there will be trade enough for all possible routes. Instead of getting forty million bushels, or fifty million bushels down the St. Lawrence canals, we want to get that two hundred millions that is going now by Buffalo, or a large share of it. Certainly, we ought to get all our Manitoba wheat. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that next year the hon. member for Simcoe will be able to change his tone a little, and have a little more faith in the government and in the St. Law'rence route.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).: I shall not say much on this subject, because I do not profess to have that intimate knowledge of the internal transportation of grain which some hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have, and which every person ought to have in dealing with a subject of this nature. But I am encouraged by the remarks that have fallen from some hon. gentlemen in this

House wlio have made long and strong arguments containing the scantiest modicum of intelligence on the subject. Now, *Mr. Speaker, if there is any subject which the Liberal-Conservative party placed before the inhabitants of Nova Scotia and of the lower provinces generally, it was the prospect that by means of the railway system of Canada, and by means of the improved transportation, our ports would be made the point of shipment for immense quantities of produce from the west on the way to Europe. If I understood the argument of the hon. member for Simcoe it was that the quantity transported by water and by rail to the port of Montreal this year was very much less than in previous years, and from that fact he deduced the ' argument that the means which the government had provided for transporting the grain were not successful, were not proper. Now, I have been led to understand that there was less grain produced in the North-west during the past year than in previous years, and that would account for the fact that less grain was shipped from the port of Montreal, and therefore the long and laboured argument of the hon. gentleman directed against the government would fall to the ground.
Moreover, the hon. gentleman must know that tlie carriage by steamers of different kinds on the lakes does not cover the whole transportation question. He should be able to tell us what proportion the cost of lake carriage bears to the cost of the transportation of grain between the terminal points, that is to say, between the point of production in the west and the point of shipment in the east, wherever that may be. The small cost on a portion of the route may be balanced by advantages on the longer portion of the route, and that would destroy the value of the hon. gentleman's argument. I do not know what the exact amount of toll is between the point of production and Buffalo, or those other ports on the lakes. But there are other considerations, after the grain has reached the place of shipment, and those considerations are connected with the question of Atlantic navigation. We have heard something this afternoon about the tempestuous character of navigation on the lakes, that vessels cannot navigate the lakes with masts. Well, Sir, do modern vessels navigate the great Atlantic ocean with masts ? The great steamers on the Atlantic all dispense with their masts, they do not depend upon sails at all. but entirely upon steam power. Now, if large vessels are to be employed to carry this grain after it has reached the point of shipment, the larger the vessel employed on the longer portion of the route the greater will be the profit of the shipper. I say there is no port in Canada, there is no port in the United States, there is no port in the western world, which affords better


William Roche: facilities for the shipment of grain across the Atlantic than the port of Halifax.
Perhaps some hon. gentleman may think that I am an amateur on this subject, as some sceptical people thought the other day that I was an amateur on the subject of farming. I know something about the subject of navigation also. Into the port at Halifax there come the largest steamers in the world. I was on board two of the largest steamers in the world in Halifax, one the steamer Pennsylvania, of the Ham-burg-American line. This, the largest ship in the world, came into Halifax without a pilot, and the captain turned her around himself, under my direction, and went out again without a pilot, showing the superior navigating facilities of that port. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is this point, and it is the solution of this question of navigation : We know that the tramp steamers, those that carry the grain in bulk, and nothing else, are the vehicles of communication which make the rates on grain. You cannot bring them up to Quebec or to Montreal in the winter time. They go to ports in the United States because the grain is collected there for them, and they go to those ports in ballast. What is the great difficulty of winter navigation ? It is that these ships have to come out from England or continental points empty, and that is the great difficulty of winter navigation, as the captains tell me. I only repeat what a number of them have told me. They say : We can get no cargo to bring out to United States ports, and we have to depend on the back freight to make the enterprise pay. Here is the solution of it : Bring out the western trade, bring out the freight from England and other ports to Halifax in these steamers and the whole question is solved. You will have back freights which will reduce the rate on grain one-third or one-half, and there is no other port in Canada to which you can bring those back freights. What about the winter navigation of the St. Lawrence ? Did they not try to run a steamer from Paspebiac to Europe, and what was the report we got ? Steamer still in sight, still in the ice ; a week later, relief steamer gone out, steamer still in the ice ; at the end of a month, steamer still in the ice, steamer in sight, and relief steamer in the ice. They will always be in the ice, and they will always remain there while the St. Lawrence goes out, while the Arctic ocean is to the north, and while the Atlantic is beyond. Hon. gentlemen may talk about intermediate points upon the lakes, about one point on Lake Erie and another point on Lake Ontario, but the only solution is to get down to deep water on the Atlantic. Political parties have been trifling with the question all along. An hon. gentleman said that there was an elevator at Halifax. There was an elevator at Halifax, and grain was shipped through that elevator, but

through the carelessness of the Conservative party the elevator was burned down. There is an elevator at Halifax now, a beautiful, capacious elevator, with every facility adapted to the movement of grain. It only requires the grain to be brought there when the superior advantages of the port of Halifax will be at once demonstrated. What keeps it back 1 Why is not the experiment made ? Is it the timidity of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, or is it owing to the lack of rolling stock to transport the grain which is ready to go over the railway ? I am told it is the absence of rolling stock, the paucity of locomotives, and a great many other detrimental circumstances which prevented the experiment being tried.
In regard to insurance upon the St. Lawrence, I may say that amongst my other qualifications, I was 21 years in an insurance office, and I know that the insurance companies who want to make money very shrewdly conjecture where the risk is which calls for these high premiums, and they know that the navigation of the channel of the St. Lawrence from the month of October is very dangerous. In the summertime, with a certain depth of water, the St. Lawrence is good enough, but for all seasons of the year, for all depths of water and all sorts of tonnage, there is no port in the world, certainly not on the western hemisphere, that can compare with the port of Halifax. There is another rival springing up, and a rival with which the St. Lawrence will have to struggle, perhaps in the summer time, perhaps in the winter time. I am informed by the captains of these ships which carry grain, that desperate efforts are being made to make New Orleans the terminus of the grain-carrying trade, and that the navigation of the Mississippi is going to be the great rival of the St. Lawrence. They have prepared their elevators, they have a variety of products to give a variety of cargoes, and they believe that they can successfully compete with any means of communication possessed by us ; but, in the meantime, until the question of these rival ports is settled, we must have some outlet for the trade of Canada, and the problem will not be successfully solved except by means of back freights from Europe, which will lessen the rates of freight, coupled with the use of the free port of Halifax, with all those facilities which are necessary to enable the produce to be handled at a cheap rate, and which will prevent the trade from going by any other route.


Robert Bickerdike: Mr. Speaker, a good deal has been said by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) in support of that very valuable port, and a good deal has been said by the hon. minister without portfolio ! (Hon. Mr. Dobell) in favour of Quebec. ] Every person seems to have forgotten that i
there is a little place called Montreal. There have certainly been solutions offered both by the hon. minister without portfolio and by the hon. member for Halifax, but I do not think that we have quite yet arrived at the solution of the difficulty. It is a very simple one to my mind, and I think the Board of Trade of Montreal, a very important body, as well as the Board of Trade of Toronto, have made known to the government just what they think would be the solution of the difficulty. The solution of the difficulty would be a safe 14-foot channel from the west to the foot of Laehine canal, a safe 30-foot channel, 500 feet wide, from the foot of Laehine canal to the ocean, and having these channels lighted so that steamers could proceed as well by night as by day, as they do in other countries and in the ports to the south of us.- The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has stated that the grain export trade from Montreal and the shipping have fallen off considerably in the last few years. I think he is slightly in error about that. It is true that during 1899 there was not as much produce exported as in 189S. That,
I believe, was owing to the fact that we could not get steamers last season, because many of the very best of our steamers were taken by the British government for transport service to South Africa, and that diminished the tonnage out of Montreal. There was no very serious falling off, however. In the year 1899, there were 30,000,090 bushels of grain shipped from the port of Montreal, and 39,000,000 bushels was the highest point ever reached. Last year a larger number of inland vessels arrived at the port of Montreal, but there was a falling off in the ocean steamers. In 1S98, 830 ocean-going steamers arrived in Montreal, and in 1899, only 771. That falling off, as I have said, was largely due to the vessels being engaged by the British government in the war service.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have had considerable difficulties at times with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), but I am happy to say that he had grasped the situation on the present occasion and solved tiie problem by affording us a thirty-foot channel, 500 feet wide in the St. Lawrence river. If the Minister of Marine aud Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) will now do his part, and have our navigable waters down there lighted and buoyed to the same extent as are the American ports, then we will certainly get the insurance rates reduced. The hon. gentleman from Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) expressed the wish that we had a responsible Canadian marine insurance company in this country. I can tell the hon. gentleman that we have such a company. We have the Western Assurance Company of Toronto, than which there is no better or more reliable assurance company in the world. I might mention that the hon. member for Toronto Centre (Mr. COMMONS
Brock) is one of the directors of that company, and the Hon. Senator Cox is president. I can tell the House that the experience of that company during the last ten years has been that they have paid out three dollars for every dollar they have received. In view of that, how can we expect lower insurance. An hon. gentleman spoke about the Clergue steamers going down the St. Lawrence last fall. I remember the circumstances very well. The steamers were delayed somewhere up the lakes, and they went through from Montreal after the buoys had been moved from the channel, because the buoys must be removed from Lake St. Peter before the ice takes, or they cannot be removed at all. These four Clergue steamers went down, and one of them came to grief. I do not know whether or not that is the one the hon. gentleman referred to as being insured, but at all events some one of them came to grief and was obliged to go into dry dock at Halifax. Now, I would point out to hon. gentlemen that it will not take a very great deal of money to put our navigable waterways in first-class condition. The only fault we have to find with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is that he does not ask for sufficient money in his estimates, and I can tell the minister, and I can tell the House, that if Canada is ever to be made commercially great, now is the time to do it. I repeat that it will not take a great deal of money to carry out this very important work, and the present is the time to do it or not at all. A great many of our friends, especially the Board of Trade of Montreal, are much exercised over the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway has made its terminus at a foreign port. Well, Sir, I am of opinion that that is not altogether an unmixed evil, because I believe the result of it will be that both political parties will be spurred on to a supreme effort to protect the trade of Canada, so that in the end good will result. The hon. members who represent the province of Manitoba will bear me out in the statement that out of the 56,000,000 bushels of grain annually shipped from the North-west, less than 15 per cent of it goes through Canada, and 85 per cent of the whole export goes through United States territory and from United States ports. There is no patriotism in business-except in a few cases at least-and if a man can ship his grain from Manitoba to Great Britain and save $8,000 or $10,000 a year by sending it through a foreign port, he is going to do it. What we have to do in this country, and what we have to do now, is to make our facilities for transportation so cheap and so good that we shall have all our grain and all other exports from Canada going through our own country and shipped from Montreal or Quebec, or from the maritime provinces in the winter.


Robert Bickerdike: When I mention Quebec, I do so because I know that in Montreal we are too broadminded to have any jealousies. We recognize that what is good for Quebec is good for the rest of the country, and that if Quebec prospers, then Montreal and Toronto, and our other Canadian cities will prosper too.
In my opinion the hon. gentleman from Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has not proposed the right solution of the difficulty. I believe that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is on the right course, and if he succeeds in carrying out these improvements there will be no question but that the insurance rates will be reduced. As I see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) in his seat, I would make a suggestion to him which I consider of great importance. I do trust that he will supply a steamer next winter to keep the ice broken at Cap Rouge. It is well known to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and to the hon. member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) that the ice at Cap Rouge sometimes attains a thickness of forty feet.


Richard Reid Dobell: Sixty feet.


Robert Bickerdike: I accept the hon. gentleman's amendment. Now that we have started to build the Quebec bridge at this very spot, the piers and abutments of that bridge will certainy have the effect of causing the ice to be thicker still.


Richard Reid Dobell: Oh, no ; the contrary.


Robert Bickerdike: Well, we will have to differ on that point. I believe that the effect of the bridge will be to keep the ice there longer and later in the spring. While I am not as sympathetic as my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Dobell) is towards the idea of having navigation all the year round, I do believe that if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would provide a steamer to keep the Cap Rouge ice broken we would have navigation at least ten or fifteen days earlier in Montreal, and I think the experiment would be well worth while making. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Dobell) is very strong on winter navigation, and I hope he will succeed. I trust Quebec may succeed in having winter navigation, but I have grave doubts that even if you do keep the river open between Quebec and the gulf, that you will get any one to use it. Steamers would have to come up there through severe snow storms, and I am afraid the insurance of the underwriters would be so high as to render navigation during the winter months well nigh impracticable.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) sits down, I would like to ask him whether he claims that there is not a fourteen-foot channel on the St. Lawrence route down to Lachine.


Robert Bickerdike: The difficulty to my mind is this. I believe there is fourteen feet of water, but the impression has gone out that fourteen feet of water means a fourteen-foot channel, and that a vessel drawing fourteen feet of water could come down safely through that. That is an impossibility. Fourteen feet of water would only mean, to my mind, a thirteen-foot channel, because a vessel must have one foot of water under her keel to navigate with any degree of safety.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Fourteen feet, on the mitre sills is what is claimed.


Richard Reid Dobell: That would pass a vessel drawing 134 feet safely.


William Manley German: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I wish to say a few words on this question which interests to a very considerable extent a portion of the county which I have the honour to represent. The motion as it reads, strikes me as being peculiar in its terms. It says :
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 transportation of the grain and other commodities 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.
Well, Sir, if no fixed idea had been arrived at, I would think that the time had certainly come when a fixed and definite line of action should be taken, but to my mind a fixed and definite line of action was adopted many years ago. It was adopted by the Conservative party when in power, and it has been followed up, and followed up properly and to greater advantage to the country by the present government. That fixed line of action was that we should open up the country to bring about as far as possible the transportation of the western products of Canada to the seaboard by means of our water communication. That was the policy of the Conservative party when they enlarged the Welland canal.
But, Sir, this line of action has been exceeded by the present government. They are not only carrying out the line of policy adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite when in power, but they are going further, to this extent, that they are deepening our harbours and opening every means of communication from the west to the east; and that is the proper line of policy to pursue. Whether It may affect Midland or Port Col-borne or Parry Sound has nothing whatever to do with the question. The question is, shall we open up every line of communication from the west to the east in this country, so that the products of the west shall be carried through Canadian channels to the seaboard, and not through American channels ? That is the policy which should be adopted, and that is the policy which has been adopted. If the hon. gentleman's resolution is an insinuation that such a policy has not been adopted, then, I say it should not pass this House. There should not go forth to the public the suggestion that there is not a definite line of policy with reference to the transportation of the products of this country to the seaboard.
It is said that we are not carrying the quantity of the products of the west that we should carry. It was stated by an hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdlke), who has had a wide experience in this line of business, that last year about 85 per cent of the wheat grown in our own North-west Territories was carried to the seaboard through American channels. That is a lamentable state of affairs, and we want to remedy it. The policy of this government is, I understand, to endeavour to remedy that state of affairs.
It is said we are not carrying to the seaboard the quantity of the products of the west which go through American channels. Is not the riddle easy to read ? Why, it is only a few years since we had a North-west. It is only a few years in the life of a country that we have had a homogeneous, united Dominion. It was only a few years ago that this Dominion was born. Prior to that time, though the Welland canal was built to some extent, there was not that united and energetic effort to acquire for the whole length and breadth of this country the mercantile supremacy to which this country is entitled. It was split up into disorganized communities-the provinces down by the sea, the North-west unexplored and unknown, Upper Canada a considerable country, Lower Canada a considerable country, but the different parts with divergent interests, and not working together along the one line of building up a great and united country. When confederation was brought about, these provinces were united, and then we began to see that what would be for the benefit of one section of this Dominion would make for the interests of the whole, whether it might be Montreal or Quebec, Midland or Port Colborne. Since then the North-west Territories have been joined to this Dominion, and now the products of that great North-west are pouring down to the seaboard to the open market in Europe. Who is to carry those products ? Are they to go through American or Canadian channels ? Are we to fill up that country with a hardy, intelligent and prosperous population, producing enormous quantities of grain and other commodities for the markets of the world, and are those supplies to go through Canadian territory ? The object of this government, I understand, and I trust to support them in carrying it out, is to develop every line of transportation which can be developed to bring those commodities through our own territory.

The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) made a very lengthy speech. He complained about everything in general, but nothing in particular. My reputation may have preceded me, though I doubt if that reputation is one of obtuseness ; but I must be exceedingly obtuse, for I could not grasp what the hon. gentleman was driving at. He gave us no suggestion of a remedy for the evils whiidh he claims exist, of (there be evils. He simply expressed the opinion that the Grand Trunk Bail-nay and the Canada Atlantic Railway should be bonused by the government in order to induce them to carry grain in competition with the very route which he says the government should pin its faith to. 1 failed to apprehend the argument of the hon. gentleman In any particular. He does not propose a remedy. He launches out with the statement that some member of the government made a speech in some section of the country that did not correspond with a speech made by some other member of the government in another section. I venture to say that there has not been a speech made by any member of the government in any section which has not been in the direction of developing the transportation facilities of this Canada of ours. The Welland canal has been talked of. The expenditure at Port Colborne has been talked of. Did not the Conservative party, when in power, spend millions of dollars in enlarging the Welland canal. Their policy was a mistake, for this reason, that the class of vessels now plying on the upper lakes could not go into Port Colborne, by reason of the low water there. Those vessels go to Buffalo, because they are obliged to go there. They will go to Port Colborne and tranship the products of the North-west in tow barges to Montreal as soon as the harbour is deepened to 22 feet ; and that is what the government is doing at the present time. I heard the suggestion made that the Welland canal should be enlarged to a greater depth, and that the transhipment should take place at Kingston. The hon. gentleman proposed something of that kind this afternoon. He does not propose that it should be the policy of the government, so that the larger vessels on the upper lakes could go to Kingston.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He cries a halt.


William Manley German: He cries a halt.' He thinks they should go to Midland. Probably the government will enlarge the harbour at Midland. At the present time I think the policy of enlarging the Welland canal would be a mistake. Let us deepen the harbour at Port Colborne so that the same class of vessels can go there as go to Buffalo, and can tranship their cargoes at Port Colborne as they tranship their cargoes at Buffalo. The distance from Port Colborne to the seaboard is nearly 500 miles shorter than from Buffalo to the seaboard.
When that is done, let us look around and see if there is not a means of bringing about the result we are striving for. There is one thing which has been to some extent a drawback, and that is the failure to get a return cargo. That is one of the drawbacks with which Canadian shipping has to contend. Ships go to Buffalo with a cargo of wheat or to Cleveland or Erie with a cargo of iron ore, and they go back with a cargo of coal. But anthracite coal is on our free list, and it can be laid down at the port of Colborne and shipped from that port just as readily as from Buffalo. It can be brought to Port Colborne just as cheaply as to Buffalo, and I believe there is sufficient enterprise in this country to bring about a condition of affairs which will give these large vessels return cargoes from Port Colborne to the west, and thus build up the great trade that should be ours.
I do not know that I have anything more to say on the question. The resolution is a peculiar one, and one hardly knows whether it should pass or not. It insinuates that the government of this country has not had, on this question, a definite line of policy. But that statement is utterly unfounded. The government has a definite line of policy, one which I approve, and one which I believe both sides of the House will be glad to see carried out-a policy which will build up this country, irrespective of whether the port of Montreal or Quebec or Port Colborne or Midland are specially benefited or not, and a policy which will aid in making this Dominion the great and glorious country we all desire it should be.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed at 8 o'clock.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 7) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Mr. MACLEAN.: I shall not take up the time of the committee at any length, but wish simply to call attention to the character of liis measure. It is a Bill legalizing a transaction between the Grand Trunk Railway and an American railway company, by which the Grand Trunk Railway assumes responsibility for a railway in the United States, which has been making deficits for years, that have been met by increased charges put upon the traffic in Ontario. I rise to enter my protest against this House endorsing any such arrangement between the Grand Trunk Railway and a corporation outside this country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It is very apparent to me, from the remarks I have just heard, that facts are things which cut no material figure with the hon. gentleman.


William Manley German: 1049 MAUCH 6, 1901 * 1050	
The hon. gentleman was present at a meeting of the Railway Committee when this Bill was considered and disposed of. There was no division upon it. The statements that were made hy several members of that committee made it abundantly clear that there was not sufficient ground upon wliiidh the committee could refuse to report the Bill favourably to the House. Two or three of the leading facts, I may say the strongest possible evidential facts, were those : That there was, in 1878, an Act passed by this parliament which conferred in express terms upon the Grand Trunk Railway the right to acquire or make arrangements by leasing or otherwise, or make tr." i'c arrangements of any kind, with any radway with which it desired to be connected n the United States. There was no limitation whatever upon that power. That passed in 1878. I think it was only a year from that date when the government of this country, supported and approved by parliament, imposed as a condition upon its purchase of a portion of the Grand Trunk line-I mean the portion between Levis and Rivi&re du Loup-that it should go outside of the territory of Canada and expend its resources in making railway connection between Detroit and Chicago. It imposed that charge upon the Grand Trunk Railway. Later than this, and in respect of this road which is now in question, in 1890, the Grand Trunk Railway Company made a leasing contract with that company, which leasing contract was submitted to parliament and was approved. Now, they are not making a new contract at all with the company. They are revising the terms under which the other arrangement was made, and as the facts were presented to us, it is made abundantly clear that they were making a beneficial arrangement for themselves, and that the proposals were of a nature which from a business point of view, could not be other than approved. And the only obligation, apparently that they were assuming by this arrangement which was at all different from their previous existing contract with the company was an arrangement to pay a sum as rental amounting to $43,000 a year. This was not in addition, as I would gather from the facts, to their previous obligation in respect of this road, but it put the form of a specific rental when they were taking over and re-issuing in another form, certain bonds with certain guarantees which were associated with the transaction. Now, it is said that it is wrong for the Grand Trunk Company to go to the United States and acquire any of these roads. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) puts his objection to this Bill upon that ground. It might be a very wise conclusion for parliament to arrive at to say that we will not sanction any arrangement of this kind which the Grand Trunk Company might make as respects railways outside of Can-	ada from this time forward. I am not going to say that I would feel that there would be any public interest that parliament would serve by coming to such a conclusion ; but I can understand that there might be gentlemen who have extreme views with regard to these matters who might entertain that opinion. I would not quarrel with that opmion now-the time has not come to deal with it. But it is manifestly clear that we are not in a position to treat this proposal as a new one or one that has had no legislative sanction or no reason for existence. Tthe reverse is the fact. I can scarcely believe that the hon. gentleman has considered this matter. It seems to me that he must think that there is a little kudos, a little political prestige to be got out of jumping up and opposing, whether on tenable grounds or not, a proposition of this kind. I am sure if the hon. gentleman were called upon to take the responsibility of actually giving effect to the intention he has declared of defeating this, he would not take that responsibility. I am well assured of that. There was no member of the committee so far as I coud gather, except the hon. gentleman himself, who had any doubt that. this was a proper Bill to pass. It passed in committee nem con. Mr. MACLEAN. I have called attention to a practice which is growing and which the Minister of Railways himself, In a committee, yesterday pointed out as a dangerous one, so far as regards a similar Bill before the committee. I am well within my right in doing what I have done, the hon. minister will find other things happening that will justify what I am doing. Even if there was this general power given to the road of which the hon. minister speaks, surely parliament has retained discretionary power over any special application under that general power that may come before parliament. Bill reported, read the third time, and passed. SECOND READINGS. Bill (No. 35) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. German. Bill (No. 36) respecting the Great Northwest Central Railway Company-Mr. La-Rivlere. Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Bishop of Keewatin.-Mr. Osier. Bill (No. 38) respecting the Hudson's Bay and North-west Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The Great Northern Transit Company.'-Mr. Oliver. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS MAILS. Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds). Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mi\ Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of

the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), or, as he Is absent, that of some of his colleagues, to a matter in connection with the mail service of this House. The mail coming here over the Canadian Pacific Railway from Brockville arrives in Ottawa at nine o'clock, and goes to the Ottawa city post office. Yet, I observe, the daily papers from Brockville never get on the file in the reading room until 2 p.m. I went to the post office to-day for letters expecting one or two important ones. I inquired if the Brockville mail was in, and I was told that it arrived at nine o'clock. This was at one o'clock. At two o'clock I got one letter. At four o'clock in the afternoon I received another letter, which happened to be an important letter from the Bank of Toronto. I have the envelope, and will send it to the proper member of the government. It will be seen that it is endorsed by the postmaster of the House, as having been received at four o'eock, though it was in the Ottawa city post office at nine. It is quite evident that there must be something seriously wrong with the arrangements for getting our mails from the general post office.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House in committee on Bill (No. 2) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.- Mr. Ingram.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) to allow this to stand. The Solicitor General has a Bill on the Order paper which he was to have introduced to-day, but he came too late. I am under the impression that when that Bill is before the House, my hon. friend will find that it covers the object he has in view in presenting this Bill.
Mr. INGRAM, i suppose that if I am absent, that will not prejudice my position ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No ; but 1 think the hon. gentleman will be satisfied.
Order allowed to Stand.


THE DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton), moved the second reading of Bill (No. 9) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would ask my hon. friend to allow this to stand. I think he will find the subject dealt with by the Solicitor General in a Bill we propose to introduce.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Might I ask the First Minister if he will permit this Bill to go to a second reading in order that I may give the reasons for introducing it ? It will only take a few minutes.


Mr. TAYLOR.: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


David Henderson: The Bill I am introducing consists of only three clauses. The object of the first clause is to altar the form of oath provided in the Election Act to be taken by persons who come in and say they have a right to vote, but whose names are not on the voters' list. It was found in some constituencies in Ontario that persons came in and claimed the right to vote for a reason that was never contemplated by the Act. The Franchise Act passed in 1898 sets forth cleanly the reasons to be assigned toy the voter for asking for a ballot if his name is not on the list, and they are as follows :
(a) The holder of an office, or (b) any person employed in any capacity in the public servico of Canada or in the province, or (c) any person belonging to or engaged in any profession, calling, employment or occupation, or (d) a person belonging to any other class of persons who, although possessed of the qualifications gene-ally required by the provincial law, are by such law declared to be disqualified by reason of their belonging to such class.
Notwithstanding these reasons, some deputy returning officers, by mistake, I assume, permitted voters to assign other reasons than any of those I have read, as came out in the trial of the North Bruce election. One man said the reason he was left off was because he was neglected. Another man swore that the reason he was left off was of a somewhat similar character, because he was absent. Now these reasons were never contemplated by the election law. The intention was to provide for those cases that occur in the province of Nova Scotia where all Dominion officials are left off the provincial list, and, as a matter of course, off the Dominion list. The intention then of the first and third clauses is to provide against the possibility of such a practice by deputy returning officers. Instead of leaving a blank in the oath, I propose that the whole space be filled up by inserting the various reasons provided for by the Franchise Act ; and then when a voter chooses the particular reason which he will swear to, the other three reasons are to be eliminated. In this way il hope the difficulty will be got over. I may say that in drafting the Bill I inadvertently left out the latter clause of the oath, but that can easily be amended in Committee of the Whole.
The other clause of the Bill is intended to prevent errors by voters marking their ballots above the bar over the first name. In the county which I have the honour to represent that mistake occurred. Persons came in and marked their cross above the bar. Illiterate voters are frequently told to vote opposite the first name or the second name. There have been cases of that kind, and voters thinking they were properly marking their ballot by putting the cross over the bar instead of opposite the name, lest their votes. A peculiar case occurred in the election of my hon. friend from

Peel (Mr. Blain), which I will mention to show the far-reaching effect an error may have. The man who printed the ballots was named Dick, I do not know his first name ; his name appeared at the top of the ballot over the bar. Now, our hon., friend who represents the county of Peel is named Richard Blain, and is familiarly known as Dick Blain amongst his friends. Some 25 electors in the county thought they were voting for Dick Blain when they actually put the cross opposite the name of Mr. Dick who printed the ballot. Now, by having no space above the bar the possibility of such a thing would not occur. The proposal is that, in the words of the Bill:
Form P in the schedule I to the said Act is amended so that the broad black line above the first name on the ballot paper shall extend to the upper edge of the ballot paper, and the broad black line below the last name on the ballot paper shall extend to the lower edge of the ballot paper.
I propose that there shall 'be no space outside, either above or (below tbe 'black bar, and this will prevent tbe possibility of a voter marking his ballot outside tbe space which is intended.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, in this Bill which he proposes to bring down on behalf of the government, there will be a provision for avoiding what happened in the West Durham election. There, the gentleman who received a majority of the votes, by reason of some technicality raised by the returning officer, is not in his seat here to-day. There ought to he some provision in the law by which summary action would be secured in a case of that kind. There is a provision in the municipal law under which disputes of a similar character are referred at once to a single judge, and within a week you can get a decision. A case might arise where, if there were a dozen returning officers in the country, and they happened to be strongly partisan, and if tbe election proved to be very close, and those dozen returning officers declined to act or raised a technical objection, the government would be in tbe hands of a. party that did not have the majority of the votes of the people. Not only can this serious wrong be done to an individual and to a constituency, but by tbe present defect in the law a great wrong could be done to the whole country ; and I hope when the hon. gentleman is bringing in a Bill he will provide some kind of an appeal to a county judge, who will see that the intention of the people under the circumstances is respected and that their choice is returned to parliament. While I say this, I do not dispute the right of this House now, if it saw fit, to seat Mr. Thornton for West Durham, without any reference to the courts.
I believe it is to the discredit of parliament to-day that we have not righted that wrong,
and that Mr. Thornton is not sitting in the House as the representative of that riding. 1 am much in favour of leaving disputed election cases, as a general rule, to the judges and to the law of the land ; but in this case the law is defective, and parliament would be certainly exercising its just rights, and probably the right hon. gentleman would only be doing his duty if he came down to this House and made a proposal that Mr. Thornton should be allowed to take his seat as member for West Durham.


Samuel Hughes: X wish to add a word to the remarks just made by the hou. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). Mr. Thornton won his seat fairly, so far as any one knows. The right hon. gentleman will remember that when the law was amended only a few years ago, in relation to the deposit of a candidate, the intention was then to avoid the possibility of a returning officer declaring the election void or electing a candidate of his choice. The intention was clear that the receipt which the returning officer gave ihould he a guarantee to the candidate and all concerned that the deposit was perfectly valid. I think that if the remarks, made in the House at that time, are referred to. that will be found to have been tbe motive cause. X am not entering into the discussion here to-night of the question of the voiding of the seat, but I wish to suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister that when the Bill is brought before the House, the point involved in the West Durham election will be placed beyond peradventure. There is another Issue. The matter has not been brought before the House so far as I know during this session. It is in relation to a case which is, I believe, before the courts, and possibly it Is out of order to discuss it here upon its merits, but I am referring to it merely In order that safeguards may be put in the law to prevent a repetition of tbe Nipisslng scandal. Here we find a returning officer hiding on the day of nomination, secreting himself, in order that the legal nomination may not be held, and having what we call an irregular nomination subsequently held. I would like to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the law be so amended that errors of that kind, intentional or otherwise, should not be committed in future, and that no man should hold a seat in this House under such circumstances as the hon. member now representing Nipissing holds his seat here. Another point is this : We find that men who have been living for years out of the riding, but who chanced to be registered as farmers' sons, or owners, or occupants, are brought in to vote. I will not say one side does it any more than the other ; but the section of the law is not clear as to how long a man may be absent. It applies to lumbermen, labourers and students who are

absent from their homes. I would suggest to the right lion, gentleman that the section should receive his attention. A hired man living in one riding moves to another one ; he gets his washing done at his own home, and so on. I just bring in that one illustration. Where does that man vote ? There are a great many votes lost on each side owing to this, and a great many votes improperly cast owing to the improper construction of the law. I trust the right hon. gentleman will give these suggestions his consideration.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have no objection to allowing this Bill to go to its second reading, because 1 find most of the provisions which are contained in it are also contained in the Bill to be introduced by tne non. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) will be satisfied to know that the mistake which he wishes to provide against in so far as the marking of the ballot is concerned, is provided for in the Bill which is to be introduced to-morrow. There will be no space above upon which such an error may be repeated as that which occurred in the last election. In regard to the other provisions of the Bill, a provision which enacts that no one shall be permitted to vote whose name is not on the list except those who are specially provided for, I believe, is also contained in the Bill. Therefore, I will allow this Bill to go to its second reading, subject to it being taken up later on, if my hon. friend is not satisfied with the Bill which the government proposes to bring in. In regard to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). I am happy to say that the mistake which took place in West Durham is not to be repeated either. First of all, my hon. friend must allow that there is an improvement. The man who got the minority of votes in West Durham is not in the House. In former times he would have taken his seat in this House. But, the Bill provides. I believe, that if such a mistake as took place in West Durham occurs, it will not avail, because there is a provision in the Bill to be introduced that an accepted cheque will be sufficient deposit instead of money. As to the objection of my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I doubt whether we shall be able to meet all the requirements of his fastidious taste. We will try to do our best, but if we do not succeed it will be open for him to offer such amendments as he thinks best when the Bill comes up for consideration in the committee.


Mr. INGRAM.: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether the counterfoil of the government ballot is to be black ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, the ballot will be black.


Samuel Hughes: 


Andrew B. Ingram: I mean the counterfoil attached to the ballot.


The PRIME MINSTER.: I cannot say as to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, in respect to what has been suggested by some hon. members of this House as to a summary mode of dealing with mistakes made by returning officers, I think the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) might well keep that suggestion in mind, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has said. For example, there is a summary way of dealing with questions respecting the proper or improper marking of ballots that is open to a summary proceeding before the county court judge. It has occurred to me, in thinking over the West Durham case, that mistakes by the deputy returning officer or the returning officer, which brought about these very bad results in West Durham, might possibly be dealt with in the courts in some way other than by the cumbrous machinery of an election petition. I believe in having these matters dealt with by the courts. I have no doubt the House could amend the return in the West Durham case, but it did not seem desirable to bring that matter up in the House for the reason that the question had been committed to the courts, and I do not think the House should attempt to deal with it. But, while I say that, I do not think it would require a very great effort to so amend the Controverted Elections Act, that certain matters of that class might be dealt with in a summary way by some tribunal, as the question of proper or improper marking of ballots is now dealt with upon application before a county court judge. I trust that the hon. Solicitor General will take that matter into consideration, and see whether it is possible to make some additional provision in that regard. I would like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that although he amends the law in this respect, that does not obviate the possibility of a returning officer in future making mistakes of a similar character.


Mr. SPROULE.: Mr. Speaker, that case, I should think, would be a very proper case to. go before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. We have a right here to deal with it, and but for the fact that it was first taken to the courts, I think it would be proper to bring it before the Privileges and Elections Committee, and deal with it in a comparatively summary way.


William Findlay Maclean: May I ask the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will he, under the circumstances and in view of this Bill, bring down a resolution giving Mr. Thornton the seat for West Durham ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is a little bit of a radical, I am afraid. I

do not know that lie would advise me seriously to take the case out of the courts and bring it into parliament.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I would.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think I am prepared for that.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he has examined any of the ballot-voting machines. I do not mean the professional ones that have been so aptly managed by hon. gentlemen opposite, but the ordinary voting machines. There are a number before the public, and I am satisfied that they do their work perfectly and accurately.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have seen a great many of these machines, and I stand by the ballot. I think that with a little attention very few mistakes must take place in future with the form of ballot we have now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

Mr.  E. D.@: SMITH (Wentworth) moved second reading of Bill (No. 10) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
He said :	I presume it will he expected
that I should briefly give the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. Many hon. members are no doubt aware that up to the present time we have had no standard size for fruit baskets. Many years ago, when fruit-growing first became an important industry, baskets were manufactured that were thought to be most suitable for different kinds of fruit, and custom established these baskets at certain standards. The largest of these is described in the Bill as a 15-quart basket, and it was used for shipping grapes by the ton. That basket still remains about the same size, and as the fruit is sold by the pound there was no inducement for any one to make a different basket. The second largest basket ; the 11-quart basket was originally made a 12-quart basket which was thought to be about the right size to conveniently ship peaches, pears, plumbs, quinces, apricots and tomatoes. It was not very long, however, before some smart 'Aleck ' thought he could make money by reducing the size of the basket to lli quarts, and as it was the same shape as the 12-quart basket, the only difference being a quarter of an inch in the depth, he found that he could sell it for the same price as a 12-quart basket. This went on for a time and then some one invented the 11-quart basket, until at the present time the basket that is called a 12-quart basket in some cases only holds 9 quarts. These baskets are all sold as ' baskets,' and not as holding any par-34
ticular quantity of fruit, but the consumer believes that he is getting a basket holding 32 quarts. It may surprise some to know that the consumers do not know the difference, but experience shows that to be the case, and consequently the producer who ships his fruit in an honest 12-quart basket, or even in an 11-quart basket, is defrauded because the average basket to-day only holds about 10J quarts. At a recent meeting a fruit-grower very happily put it when he said : The fruit producer is placed in a dilemma, because if he ships in an honest 12-quart basket he cheats himself, and if he ships in a 10-quart basket he cheats his customer, so betwixt the two he is sure to sin. In regard to the next size of basket described in the Bill as 6| quarts, there are several sizes used at present containing various quantities between 6 quarts and 74 quarts. This Bill seeks to do away with these various sizes, and to substitute one that practical men believe will fill the purpose of these different sizes. There is at present no standard. The smaller basket is called a 5-pound basket. Some ship in a basket that holds an honest 5 pounds, while others ship in baskets that hold 4 pounds and 3} pounds. As to the fifth size which is the strawberry box, I believe a Bill was introduced in former sessions to regulate this size. The size specified in this Bill is the standard size in a large section of this country. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the need of this Bill is so great that the Ontario Fruit Growers Association, a body of men representing the best fruit men in the province, passed a resolution last December appointing a committee to draft the details and arrange for the size of baskets they thought best suitable to the trade. That committee met at Grimsby a couple of weeks ago, and in conjunction with subcommittees from various other associations all over the Niagara district, they recommended certain sizes as being suitable, and practically drafted this Bill. Some objected to making a hard and fast rule as to size because there might be times when baskets would be hard to obtain in this country, and would have to be imported from the United States. To meet that difficulty it was proposed that baskets which were different from the sizes mentioned in the Bill Mioukl be stamped in plain letters with the contents of the basket. These are the main features of the Bill. The reasons why the sizes have been adopted will, I presume, be inquired into at a later stage.


David Henderson: I do not rise to oppose in any way the principle of this Bill, because I believe that a well-defined standard for fruit baskets is a very desirable thing. But, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. gentleman from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) has a thorough knowledge of the fruit business, and knows more about packing fruit than perhaps all the



members of this House put together ; yet 1 (hire to suggest to him that possibly he has not struck the best mode of determining the size of the berry basket. This matter was very fully discussed last session, and the session before, when I had the opportunity of meeting men who are well acquainted with that line of business. The impression seemed to be then that the better way to define the size of the berry box was by making it so many inches square at the top, so many inches square at the bottom, and so many inches deep, thus fixing the size by inches, and not by measurement in the form of a quart or four-fiftlis of a quart. My reason for thinking that mode of determining the size of the berry basket the better one, is this : A man may go on the market in Montreal to buy a box of berries and desiring to know if he is getting a box of the standard size he has no quart measure or four-fifths of a quart measure with him, but he has a rule in his pocket with which he can determine in three seconds whether the basket is 4J inches square at the top, 4 inches square at the bottom, and 2J inches in depth. If	that is the size, he
knows he has a standard box, and is getting all the berries he pays for; but in the other way it would be very difficult for a man to know whether he was receiving the proper quantity or not. I do not wish to oppose the principle of the Bill, because in the county which I have the honour to represent, a very large quantity of small fruits are grown and shipped to the larger markets of Toronto and Montreal, and my constituents are very much interested in a measure of this kind. I hope the hon. gentleman will not press the Bill too rapidly through the House, so that we may have an opportunity of hearing from persons interested in it; and it may be that at a later stage he will accept the suggestion as to the mode of defining the standard box instead of the one he proposes in the Bill.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: I do not rise to oppose the Bill, because I do not profess to be sufficiently familiar with the details of the business to take exception to many portions of it. I simply rise to ask that the House be very cautious in accepting this measure, on this ground, that while it may be satisfactory to the gentlemen forming the Fruit Growers' Association of Ontario, dealing as they do with a definite trade well understood by them, there is much danger that a measure covering in its operations the whole Dominion of Canada, if passed by this House, might work great hardships on many people in various portions of the country. I very much fear that this Bill, if passed in its present form, would be found oppressive and unsatisfactory in many portions of the maritime provinces; and if the measure ever reaches the committee stage, I will move that until fur-


David Henderson: ther information can be gained, the province of Nova Scotia be exempted from its operation. Another thing: as the whole subject of weights and measures applicable to berries and fruits of all kinds as well as other things, is under the control of the Department of Inland Revenue, I would ask my hon. friend who introduced the Bill if it has ever been referred either directly or indirectly to that department to be enquired into and reported upon. It seems to me that in regard to a measure dealing with interests which are large in some places and small in other places, but in every place important, a department of the government charged with making inquiries as to the effect of new legislation of this kind should have an opportunity of examining the Bill and reporting upon it through the experts of that department. In the county which I have the honour to represent which exports annually from $30,000 to $50,000 worth of blueberries, and in which a large part of the population at a certain season of the year is interested in the picking, packing, transporting and selling of those berries, none of the dimensions given here would apply, but the provisions of the Bill would operate with peculiar hardship. Assuming that other portions of the country may have other difficulties of a cognate character, I merely rise to ask the House to be cautious in accepting a measure which, in one portion at any rate, is of a very drastic character, because it makes any violation of the law a criminal offence. ' I would suggest that my hon. friend, if he takes the second reading to-night, allow the Bill to stand for some time before moving it in committee, in order that gentlemen may have further opportunity of looking into it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The suggestions of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) seem at first sight to be very good, and in many respects I think they are ; but with the baskets made as at present, they would not be practicable, because he gives the square measure top and bottom^ whereas the baskets are usually round.


David Henderson: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think one who has handled fruit for a great many years ought to know something about it, and it is a fact that the baskets are made in that way today. The baskets for either peaches or grapes are round at the ends. Therefore, a square measure would not do. But for that, I would say that the suggestion was a very good one.


William Findlay Maclean: My constituents are largely interested in the milk trade around Toronto, and they have long asked this parliament to give them a standard milk can. There are a lot of these questions coming up constantly, and

I would have liked to see the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) here tonight to give his views on this Bill. When it comes up again, I hope he will be here. If parliament deals with a matter of this kind, it must deal with it in a drastic way. It will have to make a lot of standards for almost every trade-an apple barrel, a flour barrel, and many other things; or we shall have to leave everything to the standard of weights and measures recognized in this country. Perhaps on the whole, that would be the best thing to do. Otherwise we shall have to provide a standard for every product raised in the country.


Mr. LOGAN.: I would suggest to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) that a panacea for all these ills would be a government ownership of baskets.


The PRIME MINISTER (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not in his seat this evening, as the duty of dealing with this Bill devolves upon me, and I must confess my utter incompetence. However, I am not very much ashamed of that, in view of the differences which exist even among members who are familiar with the subject. We have a difference as to whether the baskets used to-day are square or round. With such a difference on a question of fact, there must necessarily be differences of opinion on the measure; and I am sure that my hon. friend who has brought in the Bill will be satisfied if we take the second reading to-night, and take the committee stage at a future sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell) moved second reading of Bill (No. 15) further to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.
He said : I move the second reading of this Bill on the understanding that was come to at the suggestion of the right hon. First Minister some days ago, namely, that it be allowed to pass its second reading, and that discussion takes place upon it when the whole subject matter comes up.
The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection; but, perhaps, my hon. friend would give us the reasons which led to the introduction of the Bill.


Mr. CLANCY.: I stated the reasons briefly a few days ago when I introduced it. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent the worst form of intimidation, namely, persons telling voters that the mode of voting is not secret, thus placing the voters at the mercy of those who may state on the one side that the ballot is a secret one, or of others who may state that it is not. Under such circumstances, it is natural that the voter will be improperly influenced. It 34*
seems to me that there is no more insidious form of intimidation than for persons to make statements of that kind. The right hon. gentleman will see himself that it utterly destroys the secrecy of the ballot. That is shortly the object of the Bill, and I trust the right hon. gentleman will allow it to take this stage, with the undertsand-ing that it will be discussed when the whole subject-matter is taken up.


DRAINAGE ACROSS RAILWAY LANDS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 16) respecting drainage.
He said ; The object of this Bill is to give to the farmers the same privileges that are enjoyed by the railway companies. Since the country has become cleared up, the farmers are beginning to under drain their land, as it is impossible to successfully cultivate land unless the surplus water is taken out. In many cases where railways have been built, ditches have to be carried beneath the railways, and the railways are not amenable to the same laws as the farmers. This Bill will make the railway companies contribute towards the cost of those ditches the same as the farmers. The amendment to the Railway Act of last year reads as follows :
Whenever proceedings for the drainage of lands have been taken by any landowner under the provisions of an Act of the legislature of any province in that behalf, and it appears to the Railway Committee that an outlet for such drainage works is required over, across or under the lands of the company, the Railway Committee may, upon the application of the landowner or engineer in charge of the works, or of the clerk of the municipality and on due notice to and hearing the parties, order the company to construct and provide upon its lands all necessary means of drainage, as in such order specified upon the landowner first complying with such terms as to payment as to the whole or so much of the cost of construction and maintenance of the said drainage work as the Railway Committee in such order provides.
This is the clause that stings the farmers all through Ontario. In many cases it would cost the farmer more money to apply to tha.t Railway Committee and make the payments here required than the land would be worth. We require, consequently, that the railway companies should come under the same law as the farmer. All we have to do to accomplish this is to put in these few words into the Railway Act and take clause 14a out of it. I hope the farmers in this House will appreciate this measure and thoroughly examine it, and if they are satisfied no doubt the other hon. members will be satisfied also. If this Bill is allowed to go to committee, the farmers thoroughly understand it and will be able to convince that committee of its necessity. The farmers of this country have expressed themselves in stronger language against the Min-
[Stage Direction]
ister of Railways for having put that clause in last session than for all the other sins this government committed last summer.
I trust that this matter will he taken up and handled in the proper spirit.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I am very much afraid, if the hon. gentleman's view of the result of my action in this matter last session be correct, that in endeavouring to have this legislation put into the shape in which I think it ought, to be, in order to fully safeguard the public interest, I will be discharging a very thankless duty. This is happily a question which does not partake of a political character, and which we can therefore deal with solely on its merits and come to the wisest conclusion at which our judgments will enable us to arrive, without being hampered in the slightest by political considerations. I am not going to suggest that this Bill should not pass through its second reading, but I would ask the hon. gentleman to have it referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways and Canals so that it may undergo discussion in that committee.
There is more in the matter, I can assure the hon. gentleman, than he and his friends and the people who are calling for this legislation imagine, a great deal more. It involves the complete and total surrender by this parliament to the local authorities which are constituted under provincial drainage Acts of the means to be taken for the protection of life and property against the possibility of casualty resulting from carelessness in the way in which roadbeds of railways may be affected by this procedure. The duty is cast upon us as a parliament of seeing that the railways of the country are operated safely, that nothing that is necessary for the protection of those who use the railways-both, as I said, as to their lives and as to their property-shall be overlooked. And it will be a matter for the Railway Committee, and, if necessary, later, for this House to see whether or not that proper and necessary protection can be secured if this Bill becomes law. I take that to be a larger and more important consideration than the one which the hon. gentleman would wish to see provided for. I do not for a moment dissent from the view that this is a very important matter for people residing in many sections of the country. I can well conceive that it would be a great advantage to them if some means could be adopted, consistent with the proper protection of life and property, which would enable them to drain their property under more favourable conditions than, it appears, by law, they are now able to do. I grant the importance of the matter which the hon. gentleman has in view ; but we must not overlook the importance of the other considerations. It is the duty of parliament to weigh both and to examine both. We will Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
do that, I trust and believe, according to our very best judgment and ability when the matter comes to be considered by the Railway Committee, to which I would suggest that the Bill be referred. Let me say one word with regard to the legislation of last session. It is open under that legislation for any landowner to give notice to the Railway Committee that he has utilized the machinery which he has at his hand at home, and the Railway Committee, being then set in motion, can work the problem out.


James Clancy: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether the legislation of last session has resulted in any cases coming before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was just going to say that that has been done in one or two cases. I know of one ease, and I am under the impression that there was another, but cannot speak with confidence as to that. The parties did not require to send a delegation to Ottawa. They were told, when the Bill was before the House last session, that a simple letter would answer all purposes. A letter was written informing my department that a case had arisen which was within the contemplation of the Act of last year. We immediately sent an engineer for the purpose, and he met the parties, and they met the railway people. There was no further complaint about it, and I understood that an understanding satisfactory to all had been reached without any serious expense to the party. That is as far as I can speak with confidence at this moment. I believe that could be worked out ; 1 know of no reason why it could not be done. I think it is not possible for any one to say that they have endeavoured to utilize the procedure of last year and have failed. I am confident that that has not occurred, for if it had occurred, I am sure I should have known of it. I would urge that we do not deal with this matter too hastily, because we cannot conceive what the consequences might be if such a change as is proposed becomes the law of the land. There is one matter the hon. gentleman complains of which is not so easy of adjustment, and that is with regard to the expense that must be incurred when these works are required to be carried on, and the distribution which may be made by the officers of the department or by agreement between the parties as to the portion which each should bear of the cost. I can well believe that it would be somewhat burdensome, perhaps it might be found to be beyond the means of the applicants to comply with the requirements of the Act. But that is no ground of objection to the law. We can well imagine that conditions will arise that cannot possibly be remedied. But, if you are

going to insure fair treatment to all parties in such controversies, when such a question arises you must impose obligations upou each, and if the obligations appear to be heavier upon one than the other, if one of the parties is less able to bear what he justly ought to bear than the other party, that is no ground for criticism of the haw. We cannot prevent these conditions from existing ; we must take things as they are. And, therefore, I can see that it might be almost impossible to remedy the complaint which the hon. gentleman has dwelt upon with respect to the probable cost which may be imposed upon the landowner who would secure the right of making a drain or constructing works through or under the road-bed of a railway. 1 am content. as I said, that every opportunity should be afforded the hon. gentleman, and those who think with him, to thresh the question out again before the Railway Committee. Or, after it reaches there, should it be deemed wise to take that course, I would favour it being referred to a sub-committee for. perhaps, a closer and more thorough inquiry than would be possible before the whole committee.
Motion agreed to ; Bill read the second time, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lilies.
Oil motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.

Thttbsday, March 7, 1901.