1901-04-30

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARROLL moved that the fees and charges paid on Bill (No. 88) to incorporate the Canadian Nurses Association, be refunded, less cost of printing and translation, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the sixth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['Railways.']
Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Before you leave the Chair, I wish to offer some remarks to the House in regard to the disabilities and disadvantages that the province of British Columbia is labouring under at the present time, owing, in large measure, as I think, to the neglect of the government in not placing sufficient sums in

the estimates before the House. I did not speak on the budget, so, perhaps, the House will grant me indulgence if my remarks are somewhat lengthy ; but, I make no excuse, because I think the importance of the subject warrants me in so doing. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) said last night that if eight men stood together they could get justice in this House. Well, as there are only six members from British Columbia in this House, l am afraid we may not be able to get it as easily as we think we ought; but, I feel convinced that in what X am going to say, not only shall I have the sympathy and support of my hon. friend (Mr. Earle), who is the only other Conservative besides myself from British Columbia, but also of the four government supporters from that province ; for, I may say to the House that whatever differences we may have at election times in British Columbia, we are as one in working for the good of the province when we come to Ottawa. Now, Sir, the faet is that the province of British Columbia is so far away that it is impossible for large delegations of business men often to come that distance to interview the government of the day. We are not in the same happy position that gentlemen are who live in Ontario, and Quebec, and the maritime provinces, who can run up to Ottawa in a day or two and lay their views before the government and go home again. But, as you know, Sir, it is a long and costly journey from British Columbia to Ottawa, and, therefore, the people of that province have to depend wholly on the efforts of their members and the communications they send to the government. As many gentlemen know, and as the government know, some three months ago the premier of British Columbia, the Hon. Jas. Dunsmuir, and the Hon. Mr. Eberts, Attorney General of that province, came to Ottawa and interviewed the government as a whole, and many of the ministers individually, in regard to the requirements and wants of British Columbia, that this government has power to alleviate. The government, therefore, are thoroughly conversant with nearly everything I shall lay before the House, but I think it is my duty to acquaint the members of the House with it also. At the beginning of this session, I moved for all the correspondence that had taken place between the Dominion government and the provincial government, but, before it was brought down, I found that the provincial government had got leave from the right hon. leader of this government to print the same, and they having done so. I did not press for it to be printed again. Now, that document, I may say, is a very able, a very comprehensive and exhaustive document, setting foi'th all the wants of British Columbia ; it has left nothing unsaid, I think, that can be said on the subject, and reflects great credit, in my opinion, on the gentlemen who drew it up.


Mr. PRIOR.: I wish to-day to speak on some of the most important subjects it deals with, but I shall not go very much into detail, except in one or two instances. 1 am sorry to see that in the last few years the members from British Columbia on the government side of the House have not seen fit to rise in their places and talk more about the requirements of that province. I am well aware that when a member is on the government side of the House he has the ear of the government, he can interview the ministers privately, and do more good, perhaps, than by speaking in the House. At the same time, I think it is a pity that they do not speak in public, and thereby educate members from other parts of the Dominion as to how matters stand in the far west. We have now two members from British Columbia who have not sat in this House before this session, and I hope and feel convinced that they will lay their views also before the government when I sit down.
Now, one of the most serious matters, but one about which I shall not say very much, because I have already spoken about it year after year-one of the most serious matters that is engaging the attention of men in British Columbia, is Mongolian immigration. That, in conjunction with railroad development, are the two matters that seem most important to the thinking men in that country. A Chinese commission is, as hon. gentlemen know, sitting at the present time in British Columbia, and has been doing so for some weeks past.
It has had men of all classes and all trades before it in order to get their evidence. But I very much doubt whether i.t will be able to give any more reason for the Chinese being kept out of the country than did the commission of 1884, because I believe that almost everything is known that could possibly be known about the reasons why these people are not wanted in the country. The local legislature and the majority of the people in British Columbia are, without doubt, in favour of a prohibitive tax on the Chinese. As we know, the government were asked to fix this tax at $500 per head. There was some little opinion expressed in this House by gentlemen who were not so well up in the question as the western members-(I speak not for myself alone, but for all the western members)-who thought it was a hardship and a shame to put on such a tax and keep these people out of the country. But we thought otherwise. The end of it was that the government brought down the measure increasing the head tax from $50 to $100, at which it now stands. This, undoubtedly, is not sufficient to keep these yellow' men out of Canada. For I see that on the 24tli of this month, one of the Empresses that run between Canada and Japan and China, was due at Vancouver, and she had on board 500 Chinese, for whom the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would have to
40S1

deposit with the customs $50,000, before they could land one of them. Of this 500 Chinese, I am informed, 250 at the very least were for the province of British Columbia, while the remainder were for the United States and Mexico. So that, although $100 is charged for every Chinaman coming in, they still come in In large numbers. The reasons that have been given to the House for a prohibitive tax on the Chinese I am not going to repeat, because everybody is au fait with the reasons. Briefly, no white man can compete with these Chinamen in wages. The Chinamen do not live like white men, do not spend the same amount of money for their living, and it is impossible for white men to compete with them in a country like British Columbia. I only wish to ask the government to further consider this matter. Perhaps it is asking too much to ask them to take it into consideration before the report of the Chinese commission is presented, but when it is presented, I hope the government will not put the matter off from year to year, but will take it up at once, as it is a very serious matter, especially for the province of British Columbia.
The Japanese are not coming into the country as they did at one time, the reason being that the Emperor of Japan issued an edict to prevent them leaving their country. But what the province of British Columbia wants is an assurance from the government that, if this edict is withdrawn, some means will be taken by this government to keep the Japanese also out of the province. The question of Japanese naturalization is one that ought to be taken up immediately by the Justice Department of the Dominion. We have seen not hundreds merely, but thousands of Japanese coming to the Pacific coast and, before they have been more than a week or ten days there, managing to get fraudulent naturalization papers, and being enabled thereby to take their place on the rivers and compete with white men who have been doing that work. Now, that is not fair to the white fishermen of British Columbia, it is not fair to any class of the labouring element of that country. The difficulty is simply that the law is defective. I have it on the authority of one of the Supreme Court judges of British Columbia that nothing can be done until the Dominion government alters the law making it so that justices of the peace and men who have the right to issue certificates, whereby these naturalization papers are obtained, shall be placed in a different position from that in which they are at present. Now, as to the head tax that is imposed on the Chinese, now fixed at $100 per head for Chinamen coming into Canada for the first time, the revenue collected for the year 1900. was $190,552. Of this, one-quarter was paid back to the province of British Columbia, $47,362.50. As British Columbia is the only portion of the Dominion that
suffers to any great extent from the presence and competition of these men, we consider that it is not fair that the Dominion should obtain three-quarters of the head tax and the province only one-quarter, we think that as we have to suffer we should get the reward-if you can call it a reward -and that at least three-quarters, if not more, of that revenue shall be paid into the provincial treasury. I am aware that this matter has been brought up before. But I wish to press it again in the interest of the coast. We see that the fishermen of Nova Scotia are given the whole of the Fisheries Award. That was not divided up amongst the different provinces, it was not put into the Dominion treasury for the benefit of the whole country, but, as it was obtained for the benefit of the fishermen of Nova Scotia, it was paid to them.


Mr. WADE.: No, no.


Mr. FRASER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prior) excuse me-that is not the fact. Nova Scotia does not get it all.


Edward Gawler Prior: Well, of course, New Brunswick


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Edward Gawler Prior: The maritime provinces-I am glad that about twenty of the Nova Scotia members have seen fit to correct me. What I mean is that it does not go to Quebec or Ontario.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes-some of it goes to
Quebec.


Edward Gawler Prior: I have always been given to understand, and I think that this matter has been spoken of before, and it never has been contradicted in my hearing, that the whole sum was distributed in the maritime provinces.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, Quebec shares.


Edward Gawler Prior: The people on the Quebec coast may get some benefit. At any rate it is certain that none of it goes to the fishermen of British Columbia. I think that you might put us in the same position with regard to the Chinese revenue as you put the maritime provinces fishermen with regard to the Fisheries Award.
The second matter of great importance, if I should not have mentioned it first, is the question of railroad development. I think, and all British Columbians think the same, that, taking into consideration the amount we pay into the revenue, the province I come from deserves far more liberal treatment at the hands of the government than it receives. I do not mean at the hands of the present government alone, but it deserved it at the hands of the former gov-

eminent-for I never was backward, when I sat on tbe other side of this House in calling attention to tbe fact that British Columbia did not receive its just due from the Conservative government. There is no politics in this. Now, as everybody who knows anything about that province, knows, it is a land of enormous resources, it is a province teeming with gold, silver, lead, copper, coal, iron, timber, fish-everything to make a country prosperous if its resources are at all developed. But we find that, instead of the government coming to the aid of the men who are trying to build up that country, instead of treating them with an open hand and giving them a fair share of the sums that are distributed all over the Dominion, British Columbia does not get anything like its fair share.
We have a magnificent coast line of some thousand miles, we have water stretches innumerable, we have water powers such as I suppose there are in other portions of the Dominion, but in almost no other country in the world, and to develop these resources we must open up the country by railroad, it is a hard and an expensive country, owing to its rugged nature, to build lines in, and. therefore the government should, I think, in their wisdom, see fit to subsidize the lines pretty heavily that we wish to build. Enormous sums have been spent in other portions of the Dominion in railway building and in opening up the country. Large sums have been spent in British Columbia in putting the Canadian Pacific Railway through to the coast, but, this is a national highway, just as much for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec as it is for the benefit of the province of British Columbia. Now, if the government saw fit to subsidize such roads as I shall mention later on in British Columbia, so that we could get them built, it would not only be British Columbia that would derive benefit from these roads, but it would be the eastern manufacturers of every sort. I have no hesitation in saying that in a very few years, when British Columbia is developed, as it will be developed, and as it must be developed, eastern manufacturers and merchants will find it one of the very best markets for their goods. The four roads, that, at the present time, are needed in British' Columbia, are these : The Victoria, Vancouver and Eastern Railway is a railway from Victoria and Vancouver, from the coast along the Fraser river, through the rich delta lands, and up through Chilliwack and Hope to Midway in the Boundary country. That would give direct communication between the rich mining districts of the Kootenay, through the agricultural districts of Chilliwack and the Fraser river, and afford an outlet to the coast where the merchants might do business with the interior. The distance is about 200 miles, in a line as the crow flies. Another line that the people are agitating for is the line from Wellington to Cape Scott.


Edward Gawler Prior: Wellington is a mining town close to Nanaimo on the Island of Vancouver and the railway now runs from Victoria to the town of Wellington. The people wish to have the road continued from Wellington to Cape Scott, a distance of about 230 miles, traversing the east coast of the Island of Vancouver, an island which is as rich as any island in the Dominion of Canada in minerals and forest wealth. Another line is one projected from Ashcroft, on the Canadian Pacific Railway near Kamloops, in the constituency of my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher), and running up through Cariboo district, the great gold mining region, in years gone by, of the Pacific coast, a district which has turned out, since it was discovered, more than $50,000,000 worth of gold, mined under the most primitive circumstances. There is at present a wagon road running up that distance, but freight rates on that road are so high that it is impossible for any mining development of any magnitude to be carried on there unless very rich diggings are found. If a railway were built into that country it would not only develop large agricultural and grazing districts, but it would open up one of the finest mineral countries that can be found in British Columbia. The fourth and last line that we wish to construct is a line for which the provincial government are asking assistance, from Kitmat, on the west coast of this continent, to run up to the Yukon, wholly as a Canadian line, so that we shall not have to pass through any American territory. In speaking on this subject, I wish again to say that the people of British Columbia beg that this government will take into consideration the amount that was paid and will deal liberally with the province in regard to subsidies. I know nothing, nor do I suppose any hon. gentleman on this side of the House has any idea, as to what the intentions of the government are in regard to railway subsidies to be brought down this session. The last time railway subsidies were brought down there was a meagre $96,000 given to British Columbia, but I sincerely trust, that when the railway subsidies are brought down we shall find that some large amounts are placed in them to develop one of the most magnificent provinces there is in the Dominion. It will pay well. The appeal to the government's pocket, I suppose, is the same as the appeal to the pocket of the private individual, the strongest that can be made.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What does the hon. member for West Toronto say to that ?


Edward Gawler Prior: The hon. member for West Toronto is certainly capable of answering for himself.


Fletcher Bath Wade: He did, and he answered for the opposition.
40S5


Edward Gawler Prior: If the government do this, in a very few years they will have an enormous increase in customs and excise duties that will come pouring into the Dominion treasury. Now, I shall say a word or two In regard to the financial aspect.


Mr. MACLEAN.: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prior) think the population of British Columbia is now ?


Edward Gawler Prior: I think the population of British Columbia at the present time is about 180,000. Of these there are about 35,000 Indians, Chinese and Japanese. I think that will be found to be about the population.


William Findlay Maclean: About 150,000 whites ?


Edward Gawler Prior: I should think there would be 150,000 or 160,000 whites. Of course, it is only surmise on my part. Anybody who has read this correspondence that has taken place between the provincial government and the Dominion government, will see that the premier of British Columbia says that since confederation the province of British Columbia has paid into the Dominion treasury the enormous sum of $42,475,349. I suppose these figures are correct, because I cannot believe they would have been put forward in a document of this sort on such responsibility unless great care had been taken in their compilation. The Dominion government have paid back to the province in every manner possible, for subsidy, interest on loan, railway subsidies, customs, and for anything that can possibly be found in the Auditor General's Report, $28,968,091, leaving a balance still in the Dominion treasury to the credit of British Columbia of $13,507,258. That is to say, the people of British Columbia have paid out more than they have received to the amount of that sum. Every other province in the Dominion, I believe I am right in saying, and if I am not, there are plenty of lion, gentlemen who will check me, has received far more than it has paid into the treasury. If that is not the ease, how is it that the public debt has increased from $122,400,000 in 1872, to $346,206,000 in 1900, or an increase of $223,806,000. Not one cent of that has gone to British Columbia, because we find that she is credited with $13,1)00,000 odd. She has not only paid that $13,000,000 but she is responsible for a share of the increase of the public debt.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Edward Gawler Prior: The Canadian Pacific Railway is not taken into account, for the simple reason that it is not a British Columbia railway. It is just as much for the benefit of Prince Edward Island as for the province of British Columbia. It is a national highway.


Mr. CLANCY.: Its construction was one of the conditions upon which British Columbia came into confederation.


Edward Gawler Prior: As my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) says it was one of the conditions under which British Columbia came into confederation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Prior) reverse the rule in reference to the Prince Edward Island Railway, and say it is for the benefit of British Columbia.


Edward Gawler Prior: I do not think it is. I do not think the railway built from Victoria to Nanaimo is for the benefit of the rest of the Dominion. But the $750,000 given as a bonus to that railway by the Dominion government as part of the terms of confederation, is included in the sum which I say has been spent in British Columbia.


Mr. GOURLEY.: The Canadian Pacific Railway is in the same situation.


Edward Gawler Prior: Just exactly the same; for the benefit of the whole Dominion. W'hen I stated last year that British Columbia paid more revenue per head than any other province in the Dominion, even than Nova Scotia, the Minister of Railways and Canals doubted my statement very much. I was then under the difficulty of having to say that I had not reckoned up what Nova Scotia did pay, but I am happy to say that I am not in that position this year. I have gone very carefully through the Public Accounts, and I have before me now exactly the revenue paid by Nova Scotia. I am therefore able to compare it with the revenue paid by British Columbia. I will give the figures paid by British Columbia first. The revenue paid by British Columbia into the Dominion treasury for the year ending 30th June, 1900, is as follows
British Columbia Revenue (June 30, 1900).
Customs	
$2,358,726	73Excise	
512,494	92Public Works (Esquimalt dock) _________ 6,659	94Sick Mariners' Fund	
9,078	02Steamboat Inspection	
6,188	18Gas inspection and law stamps ....	4,225	50Weights and measures	
1,211	05Fisheries	
53,195	35Miscellaneous	
6,382	47Fines	
7,519	44Excise seizures	
72	15Superannuation	
56	00Penitentiaries	
1,627	97
Post Office-
Gross postal revenue	
237,355	90Commission	
15,895	28Total	
$3,220,688 90
I will now give to the House the revenue
paid by Nova Scotia into the Dominion

treasury, and in quoting these figures I do not do so with the idea of belittling Nova Scotia, or in any way hurting the feelings of any Nova Scotian. But, if a member of this parliament believes that his province is not getting its just dues, I believe it is his duty to show what other provinces are getting in comparison. The revenue paid by Nova Scotia into the Dominion treasury for the year ending 30th June, 1900, is as follows :-
Nova Scotia Revenue (year ending June 30,1900).
Customs	
$1,907,847	73Excise	
232,986	61Public Works, minor	
3,773	02Sick Mariners' Fund	
22,624	85Steamboat Inspection	
4,459	22Gas inspection and law stamps _________ 1,333	75Weights and measures	
3,485	45Fisheries	
5,494	49Fines	
1,171	86Excise seizures	
688	56Superannuation	
74	00Penitentiary	Post Office	
306,706	81Commission received from public ..	12,949	73Total	
$2,503,596 08
I can, perhaps, congratulate the Finance Minister that Nova Scotia paid no revenue from her penitentiaries, as she has none.
It will be, therefore, seen that British Columbia paid into the Dominion treasury 28 per cent more revenue than Nova Scotia did. I have before me the estimated population of Nova Scotia; estimated by the statistician on the same basis as the Minister of Finance estimates population when giving his calculation. On April 4th, 1900, Nova Scotia had a population of 459,434, and therefore Nova Scotia paid 85.45 per head into the Dominion treasury. The population of British Columbia, estimated on the same basis on the 4th of April, 1900, was 181,950, and therefore British Columbia paid 817.70 per head of her population into the Dominion treasury, or more than three times that which Nova Scotia paid per head of her population. Out of this population in British Columbia of 181,950, there are, I believe, between 30,000 and 35,000 Chinese, Japanese and Indians, and of course they do not pay nearly as much per head into the treasury as the white population do.
I have not estimated this year, as I did last year, what British Columbia has received in return from the Dominion treasury, but any one can see from the estimates this year that they are not quite so large for British Columbia as they were last year, when I showed that British Columbia paid something like 81.800,000 more per annum than she received back from the treasury. Those who have looked over the Auditor General's Beport and the estimates from year to year, will not deny that more has been spent in Nova Scotia by the Dominion government than has been spent in Mr. PRIOR.
British Columbia. I can make that assertion without fear of contradiction from any gentleman in this House, although I have not been able to devote the immense amount of time and labour necessary to the collation of these figures. Now, Sir, let us compare the customs and excise revenues of these different provinces. For the year ending the 30th June, 1900, British Columbia paid in customs and excise together $2,867,273.98 ; Nova Scotia paid $2,137,958.44 ; New Brunswick paid $1,353,307.44. Therefore, British Columbia paid over $730,000 more in customs and excise than did Nova Scotia.
Taking the imports and exports together the total trade done by British Columbia was $28,412,344; by Nova Scotia $23,255,089; by New Brunswick $20,839,215. This shows that in exports and imports British Columbia was ahead of either of these two provinces.
In sea-going tonnage, inwards and outwards, we find that British Columbia, with only nine ports of entry, had 3,915,969 tons. Nova Scotia with 91 ports had 4,545,144 tons. New Brunswick with 30 ports of entry had 2,002,093 tons. This shows that Nova Scotia had about 111 per cent more tonnage than British Columbia, and New Brunswick had just half the tonnage that British Columbia had. Nova Scotia, with 2J times the population of British Columbia pays $730,000 less duty than British Columbia, and has $5,000,000 less trade in imports and exports.
I now propose to show the increase in excise and customs duty in British Columbia owing to the development of that province. The customs and excise duty paid by British Columbia for the year 1900 amounted to $2,867,273.98, or an increase of $243,456.62 over the year 1899. I may call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that this is in addition to the goods which British Columbia bought in eastern Canada, and on which duty had already been paid. The merchants of British Columbia buy a tremendous quantity of goods from eastern merchants, upon which duty has been paid before we get hold of them.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Does that not hold good of Nova Scotia too ?


Edward Gawler Prior: I expect that holds good of all the provinces more or less. I shall now quote the sea-going tonnage of the different provinces of the Dominion, and I particularly call the attention of the Minister of Pubiie Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to this. I give the following figures, taken from the Trade and Navigation Returns, of sea-going tonnage inwards and outwards :
Tons.
Montreal	 2,068,313
Victoria, B.C	 1,796,331
Halifax	 1,707,785
St. John, N.B	 1,213,298
Quebec	 1,088,630
Vancouver	 925,244

We see from these figures that the port of Victoria, B.C., has within 10 per cent as much sea-going tonnage as the port of Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is very nice ; you should he highly pleased.


Edward Gawler Prior: And yet my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works cannot or will not see fit to give the paltry sum of $15,000 a year for the purpose of dredging and putting the harbour of Victoria into better shape than it is at present. Notwithstanding all the pressure that has been brought to bear upon him by boards of trade in the district and by members representing it, the hon. gentleman has not seen fit during the past year to expend more than between $6,000 and $7,000 on that harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am doing very good work there now.


Edward Gawler Prior: And whereas, it is believed that the only method under which the funds can be properly administered is by a local fishery board (nonpolitical in its constitution) with power to expend for several years the whole of the revenue upon conservation ;
And whereas, the provincial government expressed to the canners' deputation its strong sense of responsibility in respect to the preservation of the industry, and its general approval of the views set out in the memorial of March 30, 1901.
Therefore, be it resolved, that with the view of remedying the evils above mentioned and for the benefit of the industry as a whole, as well as for the general good of the province of British Columbia, the provincial government be urged to assume control of the fisheries and administer them on the following lines :-
1.	That a local fishery board be established, under government supervision, composed of men experienced in the business ; such board to be strictly non-political, and empowered to make all requisite by-laws and regulations in connection with the conservation of the fish supply. The majority of the board to be elected by those providing the revenue from assessment, to be raised as suggested in paragraph (b) of clause 2.
2.	That the present method of raising a revenue, by license only, be altered, in which connection the following suggestions are offered :
(a)	That the license be reduced to, say, not more than $2.50.
(b)	That the fishery board be empowered to levy an assessment on all salmon packed, cured or preserved in British Columbia, the revenue so derived to be used exclusively for the conservation of the industry.
3.	That the local fishery board shall act as an advisory board to the provincial government in all matters in connection with the regulation of the fisheries.
And it is further resolved, that should the Dominion government agree to pay to the province an annual sum in consideration of previous overpayments made by the fishing industry, the whole or a large proportion of such moneys should be spent forthwith in erecting and equipping hatcheries and otherwise in the conservation of the fish supply.
The undersigned committee will be glad to learn when it will be convenient for your honourable government to receive them to discuss matters fully.
Yours obediently,



[Stage Direction]
Vancouver, B.C., April 10, 1901.
I have another memorial which sets forth some most Interesting statistics with regard to the value of our fisheries and the amount of labour employed therein. It is dated 23rd April, 1901 :
To the Honourable Premier and Council of the Provincial Government of British Columbia :
In reference to the memorial presented to your honourable government on the 30th March, 1901, the British Columbia Canners' Committee respectfully submits :
Mr. PRIOR.: 1.	That the value of the fishing industry in this province, according to the returns for the year ending 30th June, 1900, was $4,766,548.
2.	That the number of hands employed in fisheries, boats and canning was 18,977.
These figures demonstrate the magnitude of the industry, and its vast importance to the general trade of the province, a fact which does not appear to have been fully appreciated by the Dominion government.
The revenue derived by the Dominion government from the whole of the fisheries of Canada for the same period was $79,799. Of this amount British Columbia contributed $53,195.
The total Dominion government expenditure upon fisheries was $411,717, of which British Columbia received $13,662, the sum of $2,742 being in connection with the hatchery.
The extreme smallness of the relative expenditure to revenue in this province is manifest without comment.
It is respectfully submitted that the provincial government shall act promptly, and assume the control of the fisheries on the lines indicated in the memorial.
The suggested license fee of $2.50 for each fisherman in addition to the boat puller's fee of $1, is estimated to produce, on the basis of 4,500 boats, $15,750, which, as the Dominion government expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1900, was only $10,920 for administration, will amply provide for all provincial outlay for the same purpose.
It is suggested to levy an assessment on the output of the canneries sufficient to produce at least $37,000 per annum, to be expended by the proposed fishery board in the manner following : During the first year to construct and
equip two hatcheries on the Fraser
river at $7*000 each	 $14,000
One hatchery on River's Inlet, $7,000.,..	7,000
One hatchery on Skeena river, $7,000....	7,000
Salaries and maintenance of six hatcheries	 18,000
Clearing spawning beds of log jams, &c., constructing fish ladders, the general conservation and the prevention of illegal fishing at the head waters by weirs,
&e., with salaries and office expenses.. 15,000

The annual expenditure in maintenance after the first year it is estimated should not exceed $25,000.
There should, however, be added yearly at least one additional hatchery, to keep up the supply of fish.
It is suggested in order to remove the effects of past neglect of the fisheries by the Dominion government, that the fishery board be empowered to borrow an amount for capital expenditure not exceeding $50,000, to be secured on the revenue and repaid within, say, five years.
The present uncertainty as to the intentions of your honourable government is creating great unrest amongst all interested in the salmon industry; and in conclusion, your honourable government is respectfully urged to intimate as early as possible your intention in regard to taking over the fisheries.
If you so decide, the committee will have much pleasure in preparing a draft scheme embodying more fully the ideas hereinbefore set out.
On behalf of the committee of the British Columbia canners.


W. D. BURDIS,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
April 23, 1901.

Those are the memorials of the canners of British Columbia-I may say of all the canners of British Columbia, because sixty canneries out of seventy-four were represented at the meeting which adopted these memorials.
One matter which I would like to call to the attention of the government especially is the fact that the canners are strongly in favour of the fisheries being taken over by the provincial government. But that- is a question about which even the provincial government itself does not seem to be quite sure, judging by the letters written by the provincial ministers to the right hon. the leader of the government. I interviewed the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) with regard to a telegram which 1 received the other day, asking whether it was the intention of the Dominion government to hand over the fisheries to the provincial governments and stating that such was the desire of the British Columbia canners. The hon. gentleman said that this government have not done so and had no intention of doing so. That, however, is a matter for the provincial and the Dominion government to thresh out between them. But there is one thing perfectly certain, and that is that a system of divided authority would never be a success-a system under which the Dominion government had jurisdiction below low water mark and the provincial government looked after the rivers above low water mark so far as the fish are concerned.
I find that the state of Washington spends $50,000 annually in building hatcheries and propagating the salmon. They have fourteen hatcheries in operation and three now being built, and yet they have only seventeen canneries which benefit from that number of hatcheries. That is really one hatchery to every cannery- On the other hand, while in British Columbia we have seventy-four canneries, we have at present only one salmon hatchery. I am aware that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is building another hatchery near Sicamous, but even when that is constructed the number will be absurdly small, considering the enormous rivers we have and the number of hatcheries that can be put on them. Hatcheries should be put up on the Nass river, the Skeena and many others that are well fitted for the purpose.
Another thing for which the canners have been agitating many years is to be allowed to catch fish with traps and seines as the American canning men are doing. As the hon. minister knows, the salmon that are hatched in the Fraser river go down to the sea, and when they come back-as most people say they do three years later-they come round the west coast of Vancouver Island and sweep- around the shores of Washington territory, past the mouth of Puget Sound, up the American coast round
by Point Roberts. While they are passing that territory, they are caught by the millions by Americans who use traps and seines and every other imaginable device, which are forbidden our fishermen. Just a mile or two below our water, our fish are being caught by the Americans, who use all these instruments of destruction, whereas our fishermen are only allowed to use the ordinary gill net. That seems a great hardship, especially when we know that our canning men have to send their boats across the boundary and buy our own fish from the American fishermen in order to fill our own canneries. Thus the fish which these Americans catch are sold to our own canners to be put up in our own canneries. Last year 2,269,245 pounds of salmon were bought by Canadian canners from the American fishermen, who caught our own fish and sold them to us at a cost of some hundred thousand dollars.
With the permission of the House, I shall read a letter from a canner of great experience, and who does a very large business in British Columbia. This gentleman writes as follows :
The canners are thoroughly disgusted with the manner in which the Dominion government, both past and present, treats the industry in this province, and with the exception of a few, are in favour of the provincial government taking hold of the whole proposition, if possible. I think every one is in favour of the fishery board.
Mr. Stumbles, in his report of his investigation of the salmon industry in this province in 1899, strongly recommends the building of additional hatcheries on Fraser river, Skeena river and Rivers Inlet, and the stocking of Naas river with fry, and that a liberal expenditure be made in connection with fostering and extending the industry, and the improvement of streams for natural propagation. I am sorry to say his recommendations have received about the same attention as the canners' requests from time to time on the same lines.
Mr. Stumbles also points out that in 1899, forty-nine canneries on the Fraser river packed, approximately, 464,000 cases (they actually did pack 510,383 all told)-
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is, all kinds of salmon.


Edward Gawler Prior: That is right. It says, as I read, that this is the pack all told. That means all kinds of salmon.
- and that on Puget Sound seventeen canneries put up 498,000 cases sockeyes and 374,000 other kinds, a total of 872,000 cases.


Mr.  A. C.@: Little, fish commissioner for Puget Sound, in his report of December 31, 1900, states :

That is, the American commissioner.
[DOT]-' The season of 1899 was a record-breaker in the point of new capital employed and in the value of the season's output. This remarkable increase was confined almost solely to the Puget Sound district.

These are the Canadian fish that they catch.

-the amount of capital employed showing an increase of 110 per cent, the number of employees increasing in the same proportion. In the amount of earnings of employees there was an increase of 300 per cent, the value of the output making the same extraordinary showing.
Now, I want the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to listen to this :
One hundred and fifty-nine traps, 325 gill nets, 330 set nets, 125 drag seines, 72 purse seines, were operated, employing with the canneries, 4,791 men.
This year preparations have been made to pack over one million cases on the Sound. Considering that in 1895 Only 50,000 cases of salmon were packed on the whole of Puget Sound, you can fcrm some idea of how the industry is growing with our American friends, and how soon it will come about that the salmon, which spawn only on the Fraser river, will be entirely fished out, or what few do come in will be caught by the Pudget Sound canners before they reach their natural spawning grounds.
To offset this, the majority of the canners are agreed that we should be allowed to fish traps, purse seines, and same appliances as the Americans, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, thus intercepting the fish before they reach the United States waters. By the hatching of salmon on a large scale a constant supply could be kept up from year to year.
I ask the particular attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to this^ letter. Of course, I am well aware that this is a very hard question for the minister to deal with. The late minister, Sir Charles Hib-bert Tupper, had just the same trouble about the same question. The question is, if we allow our Canadian canners to make use of the traps and seines and purse nets, as the Americans are doing, whether we should not in a few years have our rivers without any fish left in them. But, I am bound, as a representative of that province, to take the opinions of the cannery men, who know most about this subject, and I, therefore, press upon the government, as the canners wish me to do, that they should be allowed to use the traps and purse nets that the Americans now use.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prior) recommends that himself ?


Edward Gawler Prior: The hon. minister was not listening to what I say. I say it is a moot question whether this would be right or not. But, as I am a representative of the province, and as the canners, who are the men who understand this business the best, or are supposed to do so, and as they ask that this should be done, I am in duty bound to press it upon the government. In answer to a question put to me by^ my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), I may say the Americans do not fish in our waters. But, they use these purse seines and traps to catch fish that are going through their territory to their spawning grounds in Canadian terri-


Edward Gawler Prior: tory. It is a hard question to deal with. But, the canners are the men who are making a business of this industry and understand it best, and I suppose that their opinion ought to be taken
That is all I wish to say about the salmon fisheries, but I would like to call the attention of the minister to the great need that exists for his taking some interest in our deep-sea fisheries. We have, I believe, as fine deep-sea fishing on the Pacific coast as is to be found on the Atlantic coast. It only needs a small sum of money to be spent in surveys to find where the fishing banks are. And, no doubt, in a short time, a tremendously large industry in deep-sea fishing will be created. At the present time, there are vessels going out from Vancouver-owned or leased by Amerlcain companies-that take 80 or 90 tons of halibut in a day from our banks up near Hecate Straits.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: When the hon. gentleman speaks of these banks, is he speaking of our territorial waters, that is, within three miles of the coast ? Or, is he claiming as ours those that are outside of territorial waters, perhaps, 30 miles from the coast ? I ask for information, so that I can roiiow his argument.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am not sufficiently posted to say. But, I understand that these are within the territorial waters. I know that Captain Walbran, of the Quadra, has reported that the Americans were taking large hauls of halibut from our waters. If these are not our territorial waters, I do not understand how that could be.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: These fishing banks near: Hecate Straits are 20 or 30 miles from the coast.


Edward Gawler Prior: It may be. In any case, the hon. gentleman (Sir Louis Davies) is now building a vessel in British Columbia, I suppose for fishery protection, and I trust that he will see that one of the first things it is put to work at is surveying these fishing banks.
The next matter is the subject of shipbuilding. There is a very large export trade from British Columbia in coal and in lumber. In 1900, 879,497 tons of coal were shipped from the collieries there, and about 00,000,000 feet of lumber were shipped from the mills. The lumbermen have come to the conclusion that to be able to compete with the mills on the Puget Sound-mills of enorm'ous capacity-they must own their own ships. Last year sixty vessels carrying British Columbia lumber, paid $850,000 in freight. The trouble is. that the American shipmasters discriminate against British Columbia ports. They charge British Columbia lumber 60 cents per thousand feet,

board measure, more than they charge the Puget Sound lumbermen. The capacity of the mills of British Columbia, -which are in a position to cut for export, is 175,000,000 feet, working the ten-hour day. Of this quantity, 120,000,000 feet is available for foreign trade. Last year, the Puget Sound mills sent 63,000,000 feet of lumber to Australia-that is, three million feet more than the whole export trade of British Columbia. There is no doubt that, if we were in a position to compete with the Americans for that trade, we being of the same flesh and blood as the Australians, belonging to the same great empire, we should be able to capture the trade. At the present time, we cannot do it. Another thing is, that the United States Congress have before them a Bill called the Ship Subsidy Bill. This is a Bill for the building up of the American shipping interests, and I will read what the shipbuilders say to Hon. Mr. Dunsmuir, the local premier in the memorial they presented to him. In regard to a bonus for shipbuilding, they say :
This is the more necessary that there is now. under the consideration of the United States government a ' Ship Subsidy Bill,' which, if it goes into effect in its present form, will make it impossible for British Columbia manufacturers to compete in prices with manufacturers in the United States.
This measure provides that United States vessels, in trading from a United States port to a foreign port, shall receive a bonus per register of 1| cents_ per 100 miles of distance for the first 1,500 miles, and 1 cent for each additional 100 miles of the outward voyage, and the same on the inward. Applying this to, say, a voyage to Australia, the distance being roughly 6,500 miles, the bonus would be 22| cents for the first 1,500 miles, and 50 cents for the remaining 5,000 miles, or a total of 72J cents per register ton on a voyage to Australia. On the carrying of the ordinary type of vessel used in the Pacific in the lumber trade this would amount to about 55 cents per M feet, so that an American vessel would demand, if to be loaded in British Columbia, the 2s. 60., or 60 cents already referred to, plus the bonus, which would be forfeited if she sailed from a British Columbia port in place of one in the United States, thus making, in all, a discrimination of $1.15 per 1,000 feet against British Columbia, a difference completely beyond the power of the British Columbia manufacturer to equalize.
This measure will, therefore, have the effect not only of greatly stimulating the increase of the United States merchant marine, but also of capturing almost entirely the trade of the Pacific for United States manufacturers. This must be so evident that It Is of the utmost importance that the government take prompt steps to counteract, and, if possible, forestall the disastrous effects to be apprehended from such legislation by the United States.
Now, Sir, what the ship-builders ask is government assistance. They say :
Vessels of the type best fitted for our trade in the Pacific are built in the adjoining state of Washington at a cost of about $65 per ton for those of from 600 to 800 tons, and about $60 per ton for those from 800 to 1,000 ton3 129
register tonnage. Until the business got fairly established vessels could not be built at the same price in British Columbia, and we therefore hope that the government may grant some assistance to equalize the difference until the industry is fairly established. We would suggest the granting of a bonus equivalent to $15 per ton register on all vessels of 600 tons built in the province within a stated term after the passage of the Act.
We feel sure that such a course would result favourably to the province by, firstly, establishing an important industry, which would employ a large number of men; secondly, by creating a fleet of vessels owned in the province, thereby attracting and fostering a sea-faring population, whilst their outfitting, supplying and repairing would largely increase business in our ports ; and, thirdly, that by the possession of such a fleet our export trade would be extended and increased to the advantage of all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman understand that the reference there is made to wooden vessels ?


Edward Gawler Prior: To wooden as well as iron. They say :
We would ask a bonus for five years, amounting to $10 per ton register, on each vessel built in this province, either of iron, steel or wood, from 450 tons register and upwards.
We further ask that $5 per ton register be given as a bonus to all iron, steel or wood ships constructed in the province for a further term of five years after the expiration of the first five years.	-
We submit that the cost of building a vessel in the province of about 800 tons register is about $80 per ton or $64,000.
We estimate that the wages spent on construction would be about 75 per cent, or $48,000 on a ship of 800 tons.
It is estimated that $36,000 per annum are spent in freight to each vessel of 800 tons loaded in the province, which should be spent here instead of going away.
Now, that is the case set forth hy the ship-builders of the province of British Columbia. We find that the government is bonusing the iron and steel industry, they are also helping the beet root industry, and I hope and trust that in a very short time they will see fit to assist the silver lead industry of British Columbia. If they can assist these large industries where a case has been made out, as I hope I have done in this instance, I trust they will see fit also to assist by bonusing the great industry of ship-building, and if they do so they will at the same time, I think, stimulate to a large extent both the lumber and the coal interests of British Columbia,
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am tiring the House, but I would like to go on and speak of one or two other matters. I want to say a word with regard to a mint and assay offices. I have before me a copy of the Toronto Globe of October 23rd, 1900, which gives an account of a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and also one delivered by the Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister



of Finance. The latter gentleman, in the course of his speech, used the following words :
For some time there has been an agitation in favour of a Canadian mint, said Mr. Fielding, partly for commercial reasons, partly for sentimental reasons, for the coinage of gold coin. There is the material argument that trade follows the flag, and it is said that when Canadian gold is taken from the Yukon to the United States mint, trade follows in its course. I am not prepared to say that the argument is entirely well founded. Then there is the sentimental reason, and it is a matter of pride to mint our own gold. The president of the Bankers' Association delivered an address upon the subject, though some of the hankers did not agree. We thought a Canadian mint pure and simple would not do. We have a gold currency, hut in reality there is little of it in circulation. If we go to a hank we do not ask for gold, but for paper, which is guaranteed by gold. We felt that all the gold needed in Canada would not take up all the time of the mint, and therefore negotiated for the establishment here of a branch of the Royal Mint of Great Britain. We have obtained the consent of Her Majesty s government to establish a branch mint, which will make not only our own coin, but also British sovereigns, which are current the world over. We anticipate at the next session of parliament to establish assay offices, at convenient points, so that the gold turned into the Canadian mint can be made into Canadian coins, and, in^addition, British sovereigns known all over the world. (Great applause.)
Now, I would ask the lion. Minister of Finance if, when he made that statement, he really intended to bring forward at this session of parliament a Bill authorizing the establishment of an assay office or a mint in Canada. The hon. gentleman said that -he was going to bring down the Bill this session. Well, if he does, nobody will be more glad to hear it than I am ; but we are within a very few days, X hope, of the end of the session


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Gawler Prior: Yes, and nobody will be more glad of that than I am. I do not think it will be our fault any more than that of hon. gentlemen opposite if we stop here much longer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Allow me to say just now to the hon. gentleman that there have been some reasons why the measure was delayed, but it is our intention immediately to bring in a Bill for the establishment of a branch of the Royal Mint, as stated in the speech which my hon. friend has read. With regard to an assay office, that will follow, though we are not quite so clear at this moment as to what action may be taken. But I may say, as I announced in the speech reported by the Globe, that the policy of the government will be carried
ning to get a little suspicious that the speech of the Finance Minister was made for a purpose, because it had a good deal to do with the cry which was heard on the coast before the election, ' Maxwell and the mint.' Now, if it is going to bear fruit, we will be able to see the Royal Mint in British Columbia.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have got both Maxwell and the mint.


Edward Gawler Prior: We have got Maxwell but we have not got the mint yet. This matter is of vital importance to British Columbia, and let me tell the Minister of Finance that every day this is put off, and the mint and the assay offices are not established, means a huge sum of money lost to the merchants and people of Canada. Now, as a matter of fact, what do we find ? We find that nearly all the gold that is coming out of the Klondike, and a large portion of British Columbia is not going into the hands of Canadians in our own Canadian towns and cities, but is going to Seattle in Washington territory. Thereby, the merchants are losing the splendid trade that these miners bring with them when they bring their gold to the assay office. I have here a cutting from the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the heading of which certainly ought to make any man's eyes bulge out. It is dated January 1, 1901, and the heading is as follows :-
Forty-six Tons of Gold
Received at Seattle Assay Office in the Year 1900.
Over 7,000 Deposits Made.
Prodigious Quantity of Precious Metals, Valued at $22,038,775.12-Nearly $17,000,000 from the Klondike-$4,000,000 from Nome-Report for Calendar Year to Director of Mint Encouraging One.
At the close of business for the nineteenth century, Assayer Fred. A. Wing, of the Seattle office, announces that during the closing year of the century his receipts have issued for forty-six and one-eighth tons of gold and silver. Throughout the year the treasure poured into the office in a steady stream, reaching its highest mark and breaking all records for a single month in July, when in twenty-six working days over fourteen tons of precious metals were received.
The prodigious quantity of gold received during the year, as weighed at the assay office, amounted to 1,345,122-41 troy ounces.
It was owned and deposited by 7,106 persons and concerns.
Its total assay value was $22,038,775.12.
The average of the deposits is 190 ounces, valued at over $3,100 to each.
The bullion, as accounted for at the assay office, came from sources as follows :-
The Klondike	
$16,946,437	08Alaska	
4,291,730	40British Columbia	
667,225	47Washington and other states	133,382	17
out this session.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman say so. I was begin-
Total	 $22,038,775 12
Now, we find that $16,900,000 worth of Klondike gold, every dollar of it Canadian


Edward Gawler Prior: gold, and that $667,000 of British Columbia gold, went to the Seattle assay office, every dollar's worth of which, should, if there had been an assay office at Victoria or Vancouver, have gone into our own hands. The miners would have sold it to the mint or assay office and would have spent enormous sums of money buying their supplies in these cities. The paper also goes on to speak of what they are expecting this year :
It is also interesting to note the confirmation of the Post-Intelligencer's figure on the output of the Klondike for 1900. This was given at $20,000,000. The popular estimate ranged to $25,000,000 and higher. But the officers of the Yukon police, having charge of the collection of royalties on the output

I want the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to listen to this, or is it the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton).
-reported only $11,752,560, while the records of the Dawson custom-house brought the total only to about $14,000,000. The fact now appears that the Seattle assay office received from Klondike $16,946,437.08, and sufficient bullion is known to be now laying in safe deposit in this city to advance the total to more than $20,000,000.
We, therefore, find that the officers of the government in the Yukon, in collecting the royalty, have been fooled by the miners to the extent of nearly $9,000,000, which has gone into American territory, and has paid no tax to the Dominion treasury. Here is another :
Stream of Gold from the North.
This is dated April 7th of this year. It says :
More than $22,000,000 worth of gold-dust and bullion, out of the total output of thirty-three and a half millions mined in Alaska, the Klondike, British Columbia and the north-western states, passed through the Seattle assay office during the year 1900.
It goes on to say :
These are sums the colossal proportions of which, cannot readily be grasped or understood by the average man, but which, if handled on Wall street or some other eastern financial centre, would be treated and heralded the world over as phenomenal. Here, however, in the land of gold and plenty, millions are handled and talked, of with the nonchalance of speculators in breadstuffs or provisions, and form part of the everyday business transactions.
The present season is already far enough advanced to enable a fair estimate to be made of the probable output for 1901, and although many reports are coming out of Alaska and the Klondike, which place the increase in the output at fully 50 per cent greater than last year among the more conservative mine operators of the various districts, the belief is gaining ground that the increase over last year's output, from all sources, will be about one-third ; that is to say, where the 1900 output footed up a total of $33,590,000, this year it is expected to reach a total of $44,700,000.
So that we find that according to past operations the output is going to be $44,-129J
000,000 of gold taken out of that far western country and out of the Klondike, and it is estimated that from the Klondike $27,000,000 will be taken this year. I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) not to delay any longer in bringing this matter to an issue. The inference to be drawn from the hon. gentleman's speech in Montreal, I presume, is that the mint will be built in Montreal. If that is the case I must protest against such a proposal. The proper place to build the mint is in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Hear, hear.


Edward Gawler Prior: An hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear ' in a sarcastic manner.


William Alfred Galliher: No, no.


Edward Gawler Prior: Oh, I see where it comes from. I am glad to think that somebody is endorsing my statements. I will now show the reason why the gold goes to Seattle. The following is taken from the report published of the interviews and correspondence between the provincial and Dominion governments :
The reason why the gold is taken to Seattle is because the United States assay office there buys it at a higher price than is or can be paid for it in British Columbia. The gold is bought in Seattle at exactly the same rate as if handed in to the mint at Washington, the United States government paying the express and insurance charges on the bars from the branch office to the mint, so that the only deduction made from the gross value of the dust is the assay charge.
Gold brought to Victoria or Vancouver is taken to a bank and by the bank sent to the British Columbia government assay office. The charges are practically the same as the Seattle assay office, but the bank in British Columbia has to send the bars to the mint, and in addition to again paying assay charges has to defray the cost of expressage, insurance and other charges, and at the same time provide for a fair business profit. The price obtained for gold dust taken to Seattle is higher, therefore, than that paid in British Columbia cities by the above charges, which amount to about 2 per cent on the gross value of the gold.
To meet this competition British Columbia must be in a position to offer at least as good terms as Seattle, and the provincial mineralogist makes the following suggestion, as an alternative proposal, in case the mint should not be established in British Columbia.
Of course, we know it is going to be, but still, I read it.
The government of British Columbia to be authorized to purchase, as agents for the Dominion government, all gold offered, at the same rate as that paid by the United States government; the local government establishing the necessary offices and being responsible for all losses. The gold to be handed to an agent appointed by the Dominion government, and the weight and fineness of the gold to be guaranteed by the British Columbia government.
The provincial mineralogist points out that, of course, the assay fees will not begin to pay

the expenses of an assay office, and the difference would have to be borne by the local government, who would alst>
be responsible for the gold and the correctness of the weight and assays.
The Dominion government would have to pay the expressage, interest and other charges on value during transit.
It will cost the government very little, I think, to turn that magnificent flow of yellow metal from Seattle to our own cities of Victoria and Vancouver. There is no doubt about it that if we have a mint or an assay office inj British Columbia, the miners will come down to get coin for their gold. Let 'me say that in my opinion the proper place for that mint is the city of Victoria. That city is the capital of the province, it is the headquarters of the Pacific naval station, and it is the port from which the largest part of the shipping starts for the northern country whence the gold comes. We all know the immense strides which Seattle has made during the last few years, and I can safely say that progress is due to nothing more nor less than the stream of gold which has been pouring into it from the north. The government have promised to act. Let them act at once so that not another moment will be lost in the effort towards securing for us that our own gold shall be brought to our own country.
Just one word in regard to; the necessity that exists for the government inquiring into the possibilities of Canada doing a large trade with Siberia. My colleague and I have already spoken to the Min-Inster of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) in regard to this matter, and he has promised to look into it. I trust that he will send some trustworthy and intelligent man to inquire into our trade possibilities with Siberia, as he has done in the case of the Latin American Republics. I think the minister will find that Canada has a good chance of inaugurating a profitable trade with the newly developed country of Siberia. The Americans of San Francisco and of Portland, Ore., have already entered upon that commercial field. They have sent several ship loads of goods there and they believe that they will be able to do a large trade with Siberia. If the people of San Francisco can succeed in that why cannot Canadians ou the Pacific coast succeed as well. I throw this out as a hint to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should not allow the grass to grow under his feet but that he should get a good and reliable man to look into this question.
I have spoken already this session upon the lumber duties, the) Indian reserves, the Lepers and other matters which interest the people of British Columbia, so that I need not refer to them on this occasion. The people of that province have not agitated for their rights in any undue way ; they have always addressed themselves in a pro-


Edward Gawler Prior: per manner to the government for these things which they think they should have, but patience is a virtue which may get worn out in time. They are a long-suffering people in British Columbia ; they are not professional agitators ; they have been patient under their grievances, but I must say that I think we have about got to the end of our tether in the exercise of patience. If this government will do justice to British Columbia in the manner I have indicated the government will find that they will be creating in that Pacific province a vast market for the products of eastern Canada, and they will not have a more loyal and hard-working population in all Canada, than they will have in British Columbia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have but a few words to say in answer to the speech of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior). Although the hon. gentleman stated in his exordium that British Columbia was suffering under great grievances, and although in his peroration he repeated the same statement, I think the House will be of opinion after listening to the general tenor of the hon. gentleman's remarks, that the grievances referred to are not so very serious after all. With regard to the mint, for instance, and the assay office, the hon. gentleman discovered he had no grievance whatever. As has just been intimated by the hon. Finance Minister the government propose to implement the promises which have been made upon this subject and resolutions will be introduced to that effect at a very early date. As to the ship subsidies, that is a new policy that requires some consideration before the government entertains it The chief argument of my hon. friend was that a Bill is before Congress offering such a subsidy to American shipping, but Congress has hesitated a long time before! coming to any conclusion, aud, therefore, I think, we can very well allow the matter to remain where it is for the present. The fishery question has! two sides to it. The remedy proposed by the hon. gentleman for the grievances of the canners-and I must say these grievances are of long standing-is to transfer the control of the fisheries in the Columbia river to the province of British Columbia. My hon. friend will find on reflection that such a remedy could not be thought of for a moment, because under the British North America Act the government and parliament is powerless in the matter. We cannot divest the province of any control which it has under that Act, nor can we divest the Dominion of its control over any matter assigned to it by our constitution. If my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were here, he would have some observations to show that there are two sides to this question.

The main complaint which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior) makes is one which is very much to the credit of his own province. It is that the people of British Columbia contribute largely to the revenue of the country. That we are all aware of and that we are all proud of, and if there is one portion of our population which ought to be proud of it more than another it is the people of British Columbia themselves. It must be admitted that man for man the people of British Columbia contribute more to our revenue than the people of any other portion of Canada, and it is very much to their credit. *It shows that they are an enterprising people and a wealthy people, and that they are not the long suffering people which the hon. gentleman from Victoria would make them out to be.


Edward Gawler Prior: But it is bleeding us white.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am happy to think that if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr Prior) is a fair sample of the people of British Columbia, he is not doing justice to the people of his province.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The main grievance which the people of British Columbia have to suffer-it is a grievance which we have heard a good deal of in this House for the last fifteen years-is the Mongolian immigration.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is not a new subject, but the hon. gentleman has presented) it to us in a new form to-day. I have followed the hon. gentleman's words very carefully and I have concluded from them that the Mongolian immigration is not altogether an unmixed evil. There appear to be some redeeming features in it. Did not my hon. friend tell us that there were 500 Celestials on board one of the Pacific steamers which recently arrived in British Columbia, and of these 500 Chinamen, 250 would remain in British Columbia and 250 would be distributed over the United States and Mexico. The hon. gentleman would lead us to believe, in other words, that the people of British Columbia import Chinamen and export them again. They, in fact, trade in Chinamen. Instead of importing horses and cattle and things of that kind they import Chinamen, keeping what they want for their own consumption and distributing the rest to the United States and Mexico.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There appears to be some profit in the trade. At all events if the people of British Columbia do not themselves derive any profit from that trade, it is clear that the steamers plying between British Columbia and China are deriving a good deal of profit. I am sure
the hon. gentleman wishes well to that line of steamers and that he would be the first to lament any conditions which would compel these steamers to give up their present trade altogether. The people of British Columbia would be sad if some day they were to find the harbour of Vancouver, which is now made glad and merry by this class of steamers, deserted by them. I do not know how far this celestial immigration may affect the trade of the line of steamers now plying between British Columbia and China, but, as my hon. friend knows, this is a problem which is now undergoing investigation, and the government are not prepared at this moment to offer any suggestion as to what policy we should apply to that long vexed problem. My hon. friend suggests that the capitation tax of $100 which we imposed last year on Chinamen coming into Canada is not sufficient, and he advocates Increasing it to $500 and imposing it not only upon Chinamen, but upon Japanese as well. I must repeat to my hon. friend that, whatever may be the report of the commission which is now investigating the question of Oriental immigration into British Columbia and therefore into Canada, we must insist at this moment, so that there may be no misunderstanding at a future date, on drawing a line between Chinese and Japanese, and that whatever policy of restriction we may adopt against Chinamen, whether it be right or wrong, we cannot afford, for the sake of Imperial policy, to treat the Japanese as we have been' treating the Chinese. The last time I had the honour to speak on this question, last session, I pointed out to my hon. friend and to the other hon. members from British Columbia, who were in the House at that time, that the possible complications which might arise at any moment in the Orient made it a matter of Imperial policy, in which Canadians should take part as well as British subjects in England, that it was of supreme importance that Great Britain should maintain friendly relations with the Emperor of Japan, and that for this reason we could not afford to treat the Japanese as we have been treating the Chinese, by restricting their immigration into Canada. I do not say that we should encourage Japanese immigration; but I certainly insist on this, which I am sure will be shared by my hon. friend, for the sake of the Imperial considerations which I have alluded to in previous sessions, and which apply to-day with greater force than I did at that time; because the complications which have arisen in China make the friendship of Japan a matter of supreme importance to Great Britain. Therefore, whatever may be the feelings of the people of British Columbia with regard to Japanese immigration, though it is not much more popular among them than Chinese immigration, still I would ask them, for the sake of the Imperial considerations which I have men-

tioned, to bear with the fact, and not attempt to force on the government of Canada the same Ideas with respect to the Japanese which prevail there with respect to the Chinese.
My hon. friend was more happy, if he will permit me to use this language, when he came to speak of the disposition of the poll tax which we levy on Chinamen. For several years past it has ranged in the neighbourhood of $200,000 a year, of which sum we have been in the habit of paying one-fourth to the government of British Columbia. The government realize that that proportion is not perhaps absolutely fair, and they propose before the 1st of July to revise and increase it. I am not prepared to say to what extent we should go. I am not prepared for one to say that we shall adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend and reverse the figures, keeping one-fourth of the amount and paying three-fourths to British Columbia, although his desire is that we should give the whole of it to that province. My hon. friend has made some comparisons between this money and the money we pay to the fishermen of the maritime provinces; but there is no comparison whatever between the two things. The idea at the basis of the payments made to the fishermen of the maritime provinces is that at a certain time during the existence of the Washington treaty the individual fishermen were deprived of their share in the fisheries, and we received $5,000,000 as a compensation for their loss The government of that day came to the conclusion that this money should be paid to the fishermen Individually who had suffered the loss, and it is being paid, not to the government of Quebec, or of Nova Scotia, or of New Brunswick, or of Prince Edward Island, but in individual payments to the fishermen themselves.
. My llon- friend has alluded to another subject as to which I must say, speaking for myself individually, and not' presuming to speak as the head of the government, that I feel a good deal of sympathy with him, that is to say, the Question of railway subsidies. My hon. friend has made a point,
I think, in favour of having another railway constructed from the coast to the mining centres of British Columbia in the Kootenay district. For my part, speaking individually, from the general observation, and not expressing any policy on behalf of the government, it seems to me only fair that the great and growing cities of the coast should have direct communication with the mining centres of British Columbia. At present they have a very inadequate communication by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Revelstoke and the lakes. My hon. friend has advocated the claims of the Victoria, Vancouver and Eastern Railway. I am not prepared at the present time to say that the government should subsidize this line or the other


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: line of railway. I simply take the ground that we should be guided in our policy in that respect by the consideration that we should give communication to the growing cities of the coast, Vancouver and Victoria, with the Kootenay district, the boundary district, and the other mining centres of British Columbia; and the government at the proper time, notwithstanding the advice given by my hon. friend from Toronto that we should put an end to railway subsidies, will consider that question.
1 am not prepared to express any opinion with regard to the Wellington and Cape Scott road, which is an island railway. That is a project which has some merit in it as it has been developed to me; but it does not seem to me to be of the same immediate necessity as the other roads to which I have alluded. I would say the same with regard to the Ashcroft and Cariboo district.
My hon. friend has advocated the construction of a road from Kitmat to the Yukon. With this I have absolute sympathy with my hon. friend, and he must regret the vote which he was induced to give three years ago when we introduced the policy of building a railway through Canadian territory to the waters of the Yukon. If the project which was then introduced, had been carried out, of building a railway from the Stikine river to the waters of the Yukon, which was the first link of the very railway the hon. gentleman now advocates, extending it afterwards to Kitmat Harbour and the Yukon river, the very thing my hon. friend now advocates would be to-day an accomplished fact.


Edward Gawler Prior: Does the right hon.
gentleman say that I must regret the vote I gave ? I did not vote against it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Did you vote for it ?


Edward Gawler Prior: No, I was not here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then my hon. friend, I understand, regrets the vote he did not give.


Edward Gawler Prior: No, I said before I left the House, that if I were here I would have voted for it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I had forgotten that fact, and therefore apologize to my hon. friend, but let me say that the remark I made, which must not apply to him, applies merely to those around him.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Not all.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am glad to see that there are two just on the other side. The conditions, as I have said, are no longer the same as they were. Unfortunately there is a railway now applying, running from what is American territory-but which, in my judgment, should be Canadian

territory, but which, at all events, is American territory under American control-to the waters of the Yukon. And the large trade between Seattle and the gold producing region of Canada is due largely to the establishment of that railway. But if our policy had prevailed, it is probable that the $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 a year, which now goes to Seattle, would go to British Columbia. The conditions, however, are reversed, and it is a question whether or not at present, there being a railway established and running between Skagway and the waters of the Yukon, it would be prudent to subsidize another line to the waters of the Yukon. I do not despair of having some time or other an all-Canadian route to communicate with the waters of the Yukon and Dawson City. If the scheme of my hon. friend should prove a feasible one, the government would be only too happy to give it very serious consideration, but unfortunately the action of the Senate has thrown a very serious obstacle in the way of that most laudible object.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: I have been watching for some time for some hon. members from British Columbia to come to the support of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Prior), and I would just like to say a word with reference to British Columbia myself. I would wish to impress on the ministers the fact that in the eastern part of Ontario we are doing very considerable trade with British Columbia, and perhaps the House will be surprised to learn the volume of transactions that take place between us. Let me give you one illustration. Not long ago a car-load of shingles came to our town-a town in the Ottawa Valley which boasts of being the centre of the finest pine producing country in that valley-and was laid down safely in the town of Renfrew. They were the finest shingles I ever saw, and were sold to us cheaper than we could buy them at our own factories at our own door. I had some of them put on my own buildings, and never saw the like of them in my life. You would hardly think it possible that they would send from British Columbia to Renfrew shingles of such a quality, which could compete with the product of our own mills.
Then to give an illustration of our export trade to that province, during the winter season we could send them more butter than we are able to manufacture in our creamery, and in Renfrew we have one of the largest, best equipped and finest creameries on the continent. Furthermore, we fattened large quantities of poultry with the expectation of sending them to the home market in Great Britain. But to our surprise, such a demand came from British Columbia that every fowl we could lay our hands on was shipped to that province. And at the bottom of the orders were these
words: Send us the largest and finest poultry you can get. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that although we have been dealing with British Columbia many years we never yet sent the people there a dollar's worth of goods for which we were not paid in ample time, and I cannot say that of other parts of the Dominion with which we have traded.
There is just one idea which I wish to suggest to the hon. members from that province. I notice in a paper which has just come to my hand that the project is started in Calgary of organizing an excursion of all the members of this House to the west. And if it could be arranged for us to go as far as Calgary, why should not the British Columbia representatives have it arranged that we should go as far as that province, and let us see the people out there. We are always glad to meet the representatives of that province, and the sooner we get to know the people with whom we are trading, the better it will be for all of us.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: There are just one or two observations of the right hon. the leader of the government to which I would like to take exception. He spoke of the enormous loss which, he says, Canada has sustained by reason of a certain vote of the Senate. Well, if all the tales be true, a good many of the right hon. gentleman's supporters, who voted with him, went around to the Senate afterwards for the purpose of having that very measure defeated. I might also mention that a proposition to build that same railway for one-quarter the amount required by the gentleman, to whom the government proposed to give the charter, was rejected by this government, and further the proposition of a company, which desired to build the railway without any subsidy at all, was declined by the hon. gentleman and his government.
The right hon. gentleman has entirely misunderstood the observations of my hon. friend from British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Prior). My hon. friend did not suggest that this gold had been taken to Seattle because there was no railway to the Canadian seaboard, but because there is no assay office in British Columbia, and when the right hon. gentleman suggests that this gold would have gone to British Columbia, if there had been a Canadian railway, he takes an entirely incorrect view of the facts and of the observations made by my hon. friend from Victoria.
I do not intend to deal with the general observations which the right hon. gentleman made with regard to the province of British Columbia, further than that it was not correct to state that the hon. member for Toronto said there should be no more railway subsidies. He said nothing of the kind. What he said was that in the more settled portions, where we might expect traffic which would support a railway, the

policy might be adopted here, which has been adopted in the United States, namely, that these railways should be built by companies as commercial enterprises. But he did not say that in districts where it will be impossible for a long time to come that such railways could be built, this government should not assist them. And my right hon. friend's own organ, or the organ of hon. gentlemen very close to him, came out with a leading editorial, only two or three days ago, after the speech made by the hon. member for Toronto, advocating not only the same thing but going even further.
I do not desire to enter into a general discussion beyond saying that we cannot but admire the very vigorous way in which the hon. member for Victoria has put forward the claims of his province. I am not prepared, however, to accept all the comparisons he has made between British Columbia and Nova Scotia, without further investigation. Pai'ticularly is that the case with regard to the customs duties. All my colleagues in Nova Scotia know very well that a very large part of the customs duties paid by that province are paid at Montreal instead of at Halifax, and therefore the comparison made by my hon. friend in that respect is not correct.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I am afraid that somebody has been guying the hon. gentleman with respect to the proposition made a few years ago for the construction of a railway from Dawson City to the British Canadian seaboard, through British territory. The hon. gentleman gives us to understand that he received an intimation that some of those who voted for the proposition, afterwards went and sought to have it defeated. I venture to say that the hon. gentleman has been guyed in that respect. He could not find anybody on this side of the House who supported the proposition here and who asked anybody to defeat it in the Senate. I think the observations made by the leader of the House in that regard are approved by every thinking man in the House


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-now that they have had time to reflect, free from party passion. The hon. gentleman knows well that the offer made by this government was not to pay any subsidy in cash, but to give a certain amount of what were supposed to be goldbearing lands. And he knows that these lands pictured to be of such enormous value by hon. gentlemen on that side, lie there undeveloped and unused to this day. Many hundreds of millions were to flow into the coffers of the Mackenzie & Mann from these lands which the government were placing at their disposal. These lands could Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
have been developed by hon. gentlemen opposite if they had chosen to go to work upon them. But, the lands are lying undeveloped to this day, and the country is without the all-Canadian railway which it would have had if the policy of the government had been adopted. After that policy had been submitted to the House, there was what was called the fakir proposition, submitted by a gentleman by the name of Smith, I think, who came from San Francisco-who had been exploiting the resources of the United States, and who offered to build the line for, if I remember well, one-third or one-fourth less land subsidy than that offered to Mackenzie & Mann. Nobody took that proposition seriously. There is not a man in this House who thought that the man who made it intended it to be taken seriously. As to the other proposition to which my hon. friend refers, which he says was made subsequently, to build the line without a subsidy at all. I, as one member of the government, never heard of it. I did hear of a proposition to build to an American port. But, the kernel of the proposition submitted to the government was the construction of an all-Canadian railway ending in a British port.


William Findlay Maclean: The Stikine was not an all-Canadian route.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, it was.


William Findlay Maclean: It involved landing at an American port.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) says that the Stikine proposition was not to build an all-Canadian railway.


William Findlay Maclean: Decidedly ; I say that.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The hon. gentleman must surely have forgotten the facts.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I remember the hon. gentleman's leader saying that we would have to negotiate with the Americans.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Why, the very gist of the proposition was to construct through British territory-not one part of the line impinged upon American territory, and a part of the proposition was to continue to a port in British Columbia.


James Clancy: How was the hon. gentleman going to reach that railway through British territory ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. By going up the Stikine river.


James Clancy: And passing through the American customs ?


William Findlay Maclean: Passing through by grace of the United States.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, it was not by any grace of the United States. We had treaty rights for the navigation of the Stikine river.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The same as the Americans have on the St. Lawrence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And, in the exercise of these treaty rights, we would reach the point where the proposed railway would cross the Stikine river. And at no place from its leaving Dawson till it reached a port on the Pacific Ocean, did that railway impinge on American territory. It was an all-Canadian line. As to the other proposition the hon. gentleman refers to, there was a proposition to build a line to an American port on the Lynn canal without a subsidy. I dare say that was what he referred to, but I do not know the particulars of it. But, there never was a proposition to build without a subsidy such a road as was proposed by this government.
My hon. friend made a few remarks with reference to the fisheries. In reply I would say a word. My hon. friend thought he was in duty bound to present here the views of a large number of those whom he represents. I watched carefully to see whether he presented those views to endorse them, but I did not gather that he desired to endorse them-he desired that they should be put on record as the views of a certain portion of the constituency he represents. He intimated that something more should be done with regard to the building of hatcheries in British Columbia, and, to show, that he had good grounds for his demands, he pointed to the action of the authorities in the adjoining state of Washington. But, I need not tell the hon. gentleman that the state of Washington, by the improvident and reckless manner in which they allowed the fisheries to be carried on, almost destroyed the salmon fisheries in their beautiful river, the Columbia, and that they are now trying to restock the river which was destroyed by the reckless fishing and the entire absence of regulation. They require, therefore, a very large number of hatcheries, and I believe that it will be many years before these hatcheries will be able, if they ever do, to bring the fisheries to the point at which they were before this wasteful and indiscriminate fishing brought it to its present condition. So far as the hatcheries in British Columbia are concerned, there is not the same necessity for them. The fish propagate themselves naturally in the Fraser river, which is their natural spawning ground ; and, up to the present
time, there is no indication of a falling off in the fishery. However, I can assure my hon. friend that the matter has not escaped our attention. We are now building a hatchery at Sicamous, and we will build one on the Skeena river, and if necessary, one at the River's Inlet. We recognize fully that we must not be niggardly in the treatment of this important industry of fishing in British Columbia. We have not been idle in the matter, but have been doing what is necessary, and we are prepared to act generously for the maintenance of the industry. The hon. gentleman referred to the protection of the fisheries in the Straits of Hecate. So far as we have territorial fisheries in these waters, I do not think the hon. gentleman can use too strong language in urging the proper and efficient protection of them. But, I think there is a misunderstanding in the minds of some of our British Columbia fellow-citizens as to where our rights begin and end. I am not going to define them or to use language which may be used hereafter to the prejudice of our claims ; but, I think very extensive claims are made. My hon. friend and I have talked the matter over, and I have pointed out that many of our friends in British Columbia imagine that we have extensive rights of fisheries which, I am somewhat afraid, may be held to belong to the nations generally, and not to the nation near whose shores the fisheries are. Now, with respect to the important question of the trap nets for the capture of salmon in British Columbia waters, I think the hon. gentleman acted wisely in not giving his approval to the proposal that these trap nets should be licensed. We have in the salmon fisheries of British Columbia a most valuable industry. I think I am correct in saying that its receipts last year were in the neighbourhood of five or six millions of dollars, all told. It is desirable that an industry that brings in such a large amount of money yearly to the people of the province should be properly preserved, not only for the present time, but for all time. The hon. gentleman speaks of the Americans catching our fish on their way through their waters. But, when you come to look at the facts, you find that the fish he speaks of as being caught by the Americans in trap nets, which they authorize from their shores, are fish coming in from the sea into American waters, and are caught on their way from the sea in American waters up to the Fraser river to spawn. Now, since they spawn on the Fraser river, they may be called ours, but they are free-swimming fish going up to spawn.


Edward Gawler Prior: But, they were spawned in the Fraser river, for salmon go back to their own river to spawn.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But, while they are free-swimming fish, passing through American

territory, we have no ground of complaint as to their catching them.


Robert Laird Borden: Could the hon. gentleman tell me whether there have been negotiations with the United States government with a view to preserving these fish, which are likely to be exterminated altogether by the use of this device ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I may say to my hon. friend that the negotiations on this subject formed part of the negotiations of the Joint High Commission, and they had reached a very advanced stage, and had it not been for the Alaska boundary trouble which intervened and prevented a settlement, they would have been satisfactory to both parties, because we had practically agreed upon terms which I think would satisfy both parties, international regulations which would have prevented the improper destruction of the fish. Now, let us see exactly what is desired and what is the kind of fishing that is complained of. These fish are caught in traps, very destructive, it is true. The fish go in schools through the American waters, where they are caught in these traps. From the nature of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman, one would suppose that they catch nearly all the fish taken in British Columbia waters. Such is not the fact. The hon. gentleman referred to the fact that the species of fish which is most productive, and most valuable, and brings the most'' money, is the sockeye. The hon. gentleman remarked that the Americans caught in these trap nets last year 497,000 cases of fish. Very well ; but he did not tell us what we caught by the use of our methods of fishing. I quote from the report of the fishing inspector of that province, dated January, 1900 :
In British Columbia the pack of salmon was 765,519 cases, 36,074,912 pounds, showing a satisfactory increase over that of the previous year. The total quantity of the salmon packed, 664,355 cases, were sockeyes.
So the hon. gentleman sees that in the whole province of British Columbia were packed 664,000 cases, sockeyes, all told. Now, on the Fraser river alone, I think, the pack was about 530,000 cases, as against 497,000 which the Americans packed.


Edward Gawler Prior: Were those 530,000 cases on the Fraser sockeyes altogether ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. The hon. gentleman knows that of the American pack, 245,000 cases were humpbacks. Now, the humpback is a coarse kind of fish, not of the pink, delicate colour of the sockeye, and cannot be sold in England at all,, and finds its market in the United States. All through the western United States the humpback is sold in large quantities, but we have not got access to those markets, because we


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: are met with prohibitive duties. But there is a very large undeveloped market in Japan, in China, and eastern countries, and our fishermen in British Columbia are exploiting that market now, and I have no doubt will exploit it successfully. But, keeping to this point, when we speak of salmon, we speak of the sockeye, because that is the only fish that can find a market in Great Britain. It is a fish of a very delicate flavour, and of a delicate pink complexion, and it alone will be bought by the English people. I want to point out to the hon. gentleman that there is no evidence of any failure at all on the part of our fishermen in the catch of this species of fish. It may be, and is very annoying to see their neighbours catching fish in the manner in which they do by their trap nets, while our men are prohibited from using them. But let us look at the facts. There are two or three channels leading from the San Juan de Fuca Strait, into the mouth of the Fraser river, and the fish pass through those channels, which are broad channels, and are kept free from obstructions. Our aim is to get as many fish as we can up the Fraser river. They remain for some weeks at the mouth of the river before they go up to spawn, and there they are caught by gill nets. If we allow obstructions in the shape of trap nets to be placed in the channels leading up to the British waters from the San Juan de Fuca Straits, I fear the result would be very destructive to our salmon-fishing industry. My experts advised strongly against it for years. The hon. gentleman knows that in a matter of this kind every minister must be more or less guided by the opinion of his experts, especially when these opinions coinicde with what appears to be common sense. It is undesirable to allow trap nets when the fish appear in Canadian waters. If you did so, the effect might be the destruction of the entire industry, turning the fish altogether away from the Fraser river. As it is now, we are able not only to compete with the Americans, but to hold our own fairly well, as the figures I have given the hon. gentleman show that we have held our own fairly well, athough trap nets are not allowed in our waters while they are allowed in the waters of the state of Washington. My own judgment, after talking the matter over at great length with the canners who pressed for the liberty to fish with trap nets, was against permitting their use. That judgment was based, I frankly say, to a large extent upon the advice I received from expert officers, and I think, considering that we are doing as well as we are, and that the catch continues to be as good as the figures I have quoted show, we can very well, for some years, at any rate, go along the lines we have consistently followed for years back, preserving that great industry from destruction by not allowing any destructive engine to be used in catching the sockeye. The

United States fishermen have one mode of catching fish, which is by this trap net, and we have another mode. The hon. gentleman knows that when the fish have reached the mouth of the Fraser river, and before proceeding up the river, they stay there and disport themselves around in a circle of fifteen or twenty miles, for weeks and weeks. This is the time during which our people catch these fish in gill nets, which they are there permitted to use. The Americans cannot catch them there, they are in our own waters, they do not remain in American waters for any length of time. They can only be caught by trap nets in American waters, and in no other way, because they are simpiy passing through as swiftly as they can, and if they do not catch them by trap nets they do not catch them at all. Therefore, there is ground, perhaps, for the Americans persisting in the use of trap nets, while there would be no such justification for our using them, inasmuch as we can catch them by a less destructive method, and catch them in quantities which show we can more than fairly hold our own. I know myself that a very large number of those who are best able to advise, even in British Columbia, advise that we should go very slow as regards the introduction of these trap nets. X am satisfied that my hon. friend, not being able to give any strong opinion of his own, and having placed before the House the views of a portion of his constituents, will be satisfied with the explanations which X have given.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. minister of Marine and Fisheries must have a very expansive imagination. It is very evident that the proposition in regard to a railway to the. Yukon made by this government some three years ago, was an improvident one, and was an extravagant one. That was made clear to this House. But the thing made most clear to this House and the country was that their proposition was not for an all-Canadian route, but a route that was dependent entirely on the United States, on these very people that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has just said have a boundary in Alaska between us and them. The Joint High Commission failed to settle the boundary question, as the hon. gentleman says, and it is an open question to-day. This government cannot settle it, and the Americans intend to use their position on the boundary question in order to stop this railway of ours. We could not have built that railway, we could not have got into that country, we could not have taken freight off our own ships and put it on a railway, except by grace of the United States.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nonsense.


William Findlay Maclean: Every one knows that the one thing made clear was that it was not a Canadian route, that we were going
to be dependent on the Americans to get into that country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does the hon. gentleman contend that there is any contention as to where Glenora is ? There is no dispute as to the boundary there.


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman is very clear in contending that the proposition laid before the House was an all-Candian proposition, but it was dependent upon the United States. That has been made perfectly clear. It is on the records. I can find speeches of the right hon. gentleman admitting that we had to get a favour from the United States in order to carry out the problem. We all know that there was to be an arrangement at Fort Wrangel, the lighting of ships at Fort Wran-gel and arranging with the United States customs officials there.


Samuel Hughes: A great deal of other nonsense was talked too.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and some of it was very effective.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It killed the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: And it proved that the people of Canada have a most valuable protection in the Senate. By the action of the Canadian Senate in protecting the rights of the people in regard to that proposal and in protecting the rights of the people in connection with the redistribution measure they have justified themselves for three generations to come.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And they have transferred the trade of the Yukon to Skagwny.


Samuel Hughes: And turned it over to the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: No, they have not. If hon. gentlemen think that the trade of Canada is being turned away there is a means of keeping it. Instead of the hon. minister despairing at the situation because he did not carry out that little) tram road, it is still open to him to build a railway and it is not for him to despair because an improvident scheme happened to be defeated three years ago by the Canadian Senate. There is a way of getting into that country and of securing the trade that is done there ; let hon. gentlemen come forward now with a proposition and' it will receive fair consideration from this House. But, it must be a proposition that will commend itself to the judgment of the people. This proposition to which I have referred did not commend itself to the people because it was improvident.
Another thing that has come up in this debate, and I am glad that the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Hon. Mr. Prior) brought it up, is in connection with the ship-building

industry in this country. I believe that a broad liberal policy ought to be adopted by parliament and by the government for the establishment of the industry of ship-building. Whether it be wooden ships on the Pacific, or steel ships on the Atlantic, such a policy, I believe, will commend itself to the people of Canada. Our trade is now about to expand to an enormous degree. I believe our trade with the Pacific, in a very short time, will be as large as our trade with the Atlantic, and if this is the case we cannot too soon begin to consider how we can encourage the building of ships on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast as well. I hope the day will shortly come when we will follow the example of the United States which has passed a subsidy Bill in favour of American-built ships. I hope we will do something of the same kind in order to establish that industry in Canada. If we have the iron industry developed in this country steel ship-building is its natural complement. We want to have both.
In regard to Chinese immigration we have heard a great deal about it. I have only this to say in regard to men who come from British Columbia and denounce the immigration of Chinese, that I find they have two opinions. They have a private opinion and when they come east they tell us : We cannot get along without the Chinese in British Columbia. I met a prominent newspaper man from there not long ago who has been writing in his newspaper about the curse of Chinese immigration. I asked him to tell me about that question, and he told me the public facts of it, but, he said : I do not know how I could get along in my house without Chinese servants. People from British Columbia say that there is a great deal of work which can only be done by Chinamen. They must have a straight story when they come here, and if Chinese immigration is a curse and an evil, as I believe it is, some way must be found to wipe it out, but, the people of British Columbia who talk against Chinese immigration must be prepared to forego the use of Chinese, not only in their own homes, but in connection with their works.
In connection with the establishment of the mint, I am glad to hear that another movement in the line of the national policy is to be made, namely, the establishment of a mint in this country. I happen to have in my hand a letter which I got only yesterday from a prominent firm in the; city of Toronto who said that they had considerable shipments of gold sent to them from the west and that they had trouble in realizing the full value of it. They had to pay express charges and exchange on the money coming back, but they would not have that to pay if we had a mint in this country. There is also a statement in that letter bearing out what the hon. member for Victoria says, namely, that by reason of Can-Mr. MACLEAN.
ada not having a mint, a large amount of gold and of trade goes to American cities that should be coming to Canada and which, if we had a mint, would come to Canada, and not because we have not got the Yukon railway.


James Clancy: I only propose to detain the House for a minute or two, and I shall not allude to the excellent speech of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Prior). It seems to me to be somewhat regrettable that the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should have chosen this as an opportunity to seek to justify the transaction on the part of the government in connection with the Yukon railway and to find fault with the action of the Senate of Canada in having defeated that measure. I think that the Prime Minister did not adopt that usual course of fairness that belongs to him. The right hon. gentleman, in somewhat vague terms, and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), in bolder terms, declared that this was a OBritish-Canadian railway.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: ' Hear, hear.


James Clancy: Now, the memory of the House and of the country is not so short that they will forget what constituted this British-Canadian railway. When I say 'railway,' I must apologize for having used a false term, because it was to be a tramway, 150 miles long, having no important point to start from and none to conclude at. In what manner was the balance of the route at the end of the tramway to be traversed ? It was to go through a series of rivers and lakes to reach Dawson City that are frozen up for six months in the year, while the part that is not frozen is not navigable for want of water. Yet, this is called a British-Canadian railway. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, before he sat down, declared that it was the intention of this government to build that railway from a Canadian port finally, and yet it was described as being a British-Canadian! railway. When he was asked if it would be an entirely Canadian route he said : Well, we have treaty rights. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that treaty rights are worth very little, that they are only valuable so long as the parties to the treaty are prepared to observe these rights. When the road referred to by the leader of the opposition, was brought to the attention of the House, it was pointed out that it would be met with the same difficulties, that it would depend on treaty rights that the road would be built from Skagway we would have to go through American territory, as it is claimed by the United States, but not admitted by Canada. But, hon. gentlemen forget that we are not paying one dollar out of the public purse for the building of that railway, but that the persons who built it did

so out of their own money, they took their own risk and the Dominion of Canada was in no sense involved. I think the hon. gentlemen ought to let sleeping dogs lie. In consideration of the building of this trifling tramway to provide communication with that country hon. gentlemen proposed that the whole country should he blanketed by rights given to the parties undertaking to build that railway. It is not an answer to say that these mineral lands have not been developed. If they have not been developed and if there are minerals in them Canada will still have the value of them in the future. I think hon. gentlemen will not go so far in connection with this matter as to declare in broad terms that a little tramway built into that country was to be a British-Canadian railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It is surely unnecessary at this time of the day to revive the question of the Stikine and Yukon Railway.


James Clancy: Is that intended for the right hon. the Prime Minister ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By no means. The right hon. the Prime Minister was led to refer to it because he was justified in believing that the existing conditions of which the hon. member for Victoria complained, were largely due to the fact that the policy which this government presented three years ago had not been approved by parliament; approval being withheld because of the determined opposition of gentlemen opposite. Why does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) persist in referring to that proposed railway as a trivial tramway, when he knows that the railway running between Skagway and Bennett and extending beyond to the River Yukon, is a narrow gauge railway of precisely the same character and description as the railway which we proposed to build ? If you speak of one in contemptuous terms you must speak in the same terms of the present railway which is doing an enormous business from the port of Skagway; a business which largely ought to be done through Canadian territory. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) knows that the object of the government was to provide at the earliest possible moment a means for the transport of mot only ordinary freight, but of supplies for our military and police forces before the close of the fall of that year. The hon. gentleman knows that the government determined upon its policy of selecting that route; first, because it was a part of an all-Canadian line; next, because it was capable of being extended, as was contemplated, to Kitmat or some desirable seaport point, although we could not complete the whole undertaking during that year. We selected the Stikine river route which runs almost entirely through our own territory. A few miles
from its mouth it runs through what the Americans claim to be their territory, but they have not even set up a claim to the river further inland, and from Telegraph Creek or Glenora where our railway would have started, the territory was ours without any dispute. In order to avail of the quickest and speediest way of getting into that country, we had to utilize the Stikine river.


Mr. MONK.: Is it not a fact that at that time the limited States authorities had a custom-house at Fort Wrangle ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No doubt they had, and why ? Because the Stikine river passer for a short distance through territory which they claim to be theirs, and at Fort Wrangle situated on the mouth of the river there is a custom port. But that would not militate in the slightest degree against our free and uninterrupted use of that channel as a means of getting to our own territory, when hon. gentlemen say that we would be prevented from passing Fort Wrangle, and going up the Stikine river it is equivalent to saying that the United States government without any reason in the world would take up an attitude of hostility and precipitate war between the Imperial government and themselves. They could not violate that treaty without confronting a declaration of war. The Imperial government could not countenance such a thing.


James Clancy: Would the minister say that the Americans could not harass us with regulations that would make it worthless.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say unquestionably no. There are other points where they have to pass Canadian custom-houses, and there are points where we have to pass American custom ports, and there is no difficulty in the world.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At Skagway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, at Skagway, as my right lion, friend suggests. At Skagway it is done to-day. Have we any trouble at Skagway ? Is there any difficulty in getting our shipments through that point ? None whatever. The United States government have afforded us every facility. They have treated us as they would he bound to treat us at all times when we are in friendly relations with them, as I hope we ever shall be. They have treated us fairly as ithey would expect to be treated fairly by us. The most serious obstacle that could arise at Skagway would be that our ships in jmssing would have to report, or that we would have to report a transfer from larger to smaller craft. All they would do would he possibly to put an officer on our vessels to see that we would not land goods on their territory and thus escape the

payment of duties on goods which are subject to duty. But the moment we went beyond the admitted boundaries between the two countries they would no longer have control and they would no longer have one of their officers in charge. There would be no obstacle whatever, but even if we should have had to face some obstacles, which I believe we would not, would it not be worth while to try it for the purpose of securing an immediate means of getting into our own country over our own territory and by a railway of our own. Was it not all the more reason why we should try the experiment, seeing that this was only going to be a temporary arrangement, and seeing that the proposition that the government laid before parliament involved an early extension of this line of railway from Glenora to Kitmat or any other port we should select which would unquestionably be in our own territory. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) knows perfectly well that last session or the session before, his ex-leader (Sir Charles Tupper) declared in parliament that it was a matter of extreme regret that that line of railway had not been constructed, and he attributed the serious disaster to one of the companies with which he was associated, to the fact that that railway was not in existence. Why is it that hon. gentlemen opposite will persist to endeavour to create an erroneous impression in regard to this ? Why is it that they persist in creating the impression that we would not have had an adequate and complete line of railway over our own territory exclusively, and entirely, if we had been permitted to carry out the policy which we laid before parliament then ?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Intercolonial Railway-Strengthening bridges,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are asking parliament to give us a further sum this year of $100,000 for strengthening bridges on the Intercolonial Railway. On a former occasion I explained that this vote was being asked for in order that we might have our bridges made of sufficient strength and capacity to carry the heavy locomotives and the heavy trains which must pass over them. We are proposing to expend in this way $100,000 this year. I could give hon. gentlemen who are interested in it a statement of the particular bridges we have in view this year, if it is desired.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be desirable for us to know what the bridges are, and whether they are to be rebuilt or merely strengthened.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps my hon. friend did not follow my explanation of this matter last session. The bridges on the Intercolonial Mr. BLAIR.
are almost entirely of a uniform span. There may be two different classifications of spans, but there are not a great variety of them. This is a very fortunate circumstance, because it enables us to double the strength of a bridge at one point by taking a span from a bridge at another point and placing two spans together. This necessitates the placing of a new span at the point from which a span has been removed. These bridges are in a thoroughly good condition in every respect; they are the bridges which were put on the line at the time of its original construction, and would last for probably a century more; but we have adopted the present policy because the bridges require to be made heavier and stronger. These changes are to take place at Middle River, Nash's Creek, Sayabec, Grant's Brook, Nigado New Mills, McKinnon's Brook, Grand Bie, Grenville, Eel River, Mill Creek, Gilmour's Creek, Little Metis River, Louison Brook, and Clark's Brook.


James Clancy: Is that the class of work for which this vote is taken ? There is no exception to that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No exception whatever. All these are being constructed exactly in that way.
To increase accommodation at LSvis, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a balance required to complete the works which we have undertaken there. We have determined upon increasing the number of tracks and putting up a station.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to the hon. gentleman, with respect to all these items, that I do not want to cause any undue delay, but I want some item to stand on which a discussion of all of them may be had. The reason for that is that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who desires to speak on certain items, is confined to his house to-day, and the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who also had some observations to make, is ill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As there is a general vote to come, I shall be prepared to agree to a general debate taking place under that on any of the items which we may pass, if it is desired.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be that I would fall in with that suggestion ; but I would like one of these items to stand, with the understanding that a general discussion might take place upon it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will see that we would not be making any progress, because we have not had a vote yet.


Robert Laird Borden: When -will that Item appear before the House ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can make it suit the hon. gentleman's convenience. I do not think it will be within a day, however.


Robert Laird Borden: If it comes within a sufficiently early day, so that we may discuss all the Intercolonial matters upon it, I suppose that will be sufficiently convenient.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am anxious to get down to it as soon as I can. We will not reach it very soon, and if it is desired that this item should stand, I have no objection.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this amount for increased accommodation at Levis, in addition to the $110,000 voted last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the hon. gentleman tell us the extent of ground expropriated and the amount expended for purchases of land?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will find all the information in ' Hansard.' I gave the particulars in reply to a question put to me. I have not got the information here now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is any part of this $40,000 to go in payment of those purchases of land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No doubt. We have not paid for all that land, and a portion of this, together with a portion of the vote of last year as we may require to have re-voted in the supplementaries, must necessarily go to the payment of the land.


Robert Laird Borden: How is the price ascertained ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We made every effort to secure the land at the lowest possible figure. The prices we obtained the first land at, were not sufficiently low to satisfy us that they were reasonable. Then higher prices were asked, which we refused to entertain, and I have practically decided to expropriate and have the value determined in a judicial way.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman give us a statement of the amount of land required and the prices agreed on, and also a statement of further land which has been acquired and which the hon. gentleman proposes to deal with in the Exchequer Court ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was asked a question upon these points some three or four weeks ago, and my answer will be found in ' Hansard.' I have nothing further to add to the information I then gave.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: So far as I can remember, there was no reference to the land which the hon. gentleman now proposes to expropriate, but only to past purchases.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think there was a reference to that in the answer I gave.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would call the attention of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to page 330 of ' Hansard.' I thing he will find there all the information he desires, but if there is any deficiency I will furnish the information if I can.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe that the plans for the new station at L6vis, have been completed. Is the minister in a position to state what the cost of the new 'station will be, and whether tenders have been asked for it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, we called for tenders on plans that had been prepared by the architect of the department. The lowest tender was about $40,000, if I recollect truly. We thought the cost was higher than there was real need for, and we have not closed with any of the tenderers yet, and are having plans modified. We expect to be able to reduce the cost.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. minister expropriated some land for this building. Will he please give us the particulars ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman will find all the information at page 330 of 'Hansard.' I have no further information at hand at the moment.


Mr. MORIN.: When does the hon. gentleman propose to build the new station at L6vis-this year ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Oh, yes, certainly.


John Graham Haggart: I see here in ' Hansard,' the quantities of land which have been expropriated.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. There were some lands taken without expropriation.


John Graham Haggart: Are they also given here ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
*CANALS. Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Who were the parties employed by the minister in this expropriation ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. In the expropriation, we have

not got further than the filing of the plans which are ordinarily filed by the engineer. We have had some legal services performed in connection with these lands, but I do not recall the name of the lawyer who has been acting for us.


Robert Laird Borden: What my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) wished, perhaps, was to find how the prices were fixed for the properties. Some of the values seem rather high to one who is not familiar with the circumstances. We find that the heirs of D. D. Young received 80 cents per square foot; the heirs of Wm. Rhodes, 45 cents per square foot; the heirs of D. D. Young, 42 cents per square foot; the estate of 'Chapleau, or Murphy, for 8,908 square, feet of beach and made ground, $1.75 per square foot.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, that was filled in ground.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not more valuable for that reason.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman went to buy it, he would find out. It costs a good deal to fill it in.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be a justification, if the hon. gentleman wants to pay the cost of construction instead of paying what the ground is worth. But the mere fact of filling in does not make the ground more valuable. I have had some matters of that kind in the Exchequer Court and have had the plea put forward that because a great deal of money had been spent in filling in a piece of ground adjoining the sea, therefore the government should pay the cost of construction. But the fact is obvious that the land is no more valuable for that reason. The question is simply what it is worth as a piece of ground. The hon. minister will observe that for 50,000 square feet, which is a little more than an acre of wharf and beach, he is paying apparently, $21,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is a great deal less than was paid by my predecessor for land there.


Robert Laird Borden: We might assume that my hon. friend's predecessor paid three times what the land was worth, and my hon. friend is paying only twice what it is worth. I do not understand that that would justify the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But what my predecessor paid is some evidence of the value.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be when we have the facts. For a piece 8,908 square feet-say a lot with a frontage of 89 feet by 100 in depth-my hon. friend is paying $14,000.


Mr. BLAIR.: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To whom was that paid ?


Robert Laird Borden: It says, to the estate of Chapleau or Murphy, whatever that may mean.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One Murphy was part owner of the lot, I believe, and Chapleau was one of the trustees.


Robert Laird Borden: I see that this was paid by virtue of an order in council of the 15th of October, 1900. That certainly seems a very high price, and I would like some information as to how the government arrived at this value.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There can be no doubt, from the information in possession of the department that the prices at which we secured these lots from the heirs of Rhodes and the heirs of Young were very low. The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that there is no difference between what should be paid for filled ground and for ground that is not filled, indicates that he is not acquainted with the situation there. The ground which is open to be flooded and is flooded at every rise of the tide, one would say off-hand, would not be so valuable as land which is filled in and ready for the erection of buildings immediately and upon which some buildings may have been standing at the time. The land was obtained after there had been a careful examination by our engineer, Mr. Mackenzie, upon whose advice we acted in the matter. The small piece of ground he refers to, was, I think, a triangular piece taken off another larger tract, and which we require to enable us to make a curve of our track and get on to the piece where we are going to build, and where we have built our crib-work, and on which we intend to lay the tracks and place the station. This small triangular piece of ground off the larger piece would to some extent impair the value of the ground remaining, and we would expect to have to pay the price which was asked. We have exercised the utmost care and vigilance in respect to the prices. Where there could be any doubt at all raised, we have preferred to submit the whole matter to judicial consideration and determination, although the experience of the late government and our own experience have not been encouraging in that regard. We have not found that the courts are ready to place a low valuation upon property; in fact I think we have had to pay as much, and in many cases more, than we would have had to pay by making a bargain ourselves. That has been the uniform experience of the past. These prices we have had to pay are prices that we were safe in paying, and which we knew we could not get reduced.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was there any valuation made by an expert valuator ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had a valuation made by an expert valuator, and it was higher than that we could have procured it for.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman state what the valuation was on this particular lot ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not speaking of any particular lot, I am speaking of the lots as a whole. I do not know that the valuation which we have got would include every one of those lots that are mentioned here, but there are a number of them that it would cover. We may have added one or two since then to the quantity we found it necessary to take in the first instance. I know the first valuation covered the Young, Rose and Goulet properties, and I think one of the Shore lots.


Robert Laird Borden: I find I was rather moderate in making the estimate. If the department is buying this laud at $1.75 per square foot, the price of this lot of 8,908 square feet, amounts to $15,689. I should think the hon. gentleman would be able to tell us whether the value was fixed upon any such basis as we have referred to. Surely the records of the department will show whether that particular piece of land was valued by an expert or any other person before the government agreed to pay $15,689.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did not buy without a valuation.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman say on whose valuation the price was paid ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Our engineer, Mr. Mackenzie, went over every one of these lots, and we did not pay a price which we were not satisfied was a fair price to pay. I am quite sure $1.75 for this lot is a reasonable price. We have endeavoured to get a block of land from Mr. Coture, to name only one of those persons, but he asks a higher price than we have paid for this Chapleau lot, which was $1.75. We have had a demand from Mr'. Coture for $2.60 a foot, and he will not sell for a cent less. We have endeavoured to get a more favourable offer, but without avail. We have taken expropriation proceedings. I do not want to make any statement here in a public way, but I am not sanguine that we can succeed before the courts in getting the land at any less price than that which this party demands.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is an amount here in the public accounts for 1900, paid to 130
Edouard Coture, of $31,145.80. Would that be on account of the purchase price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, that is not the land I am speaking of now, it is another piece of land on the south side of the line.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then that amount paid for land and damages, which is entered on page W-31, $66,774.40, had nothing to do with the estimate for next year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is already paid, I fancy.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The amount now called for is for another piece of property ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman, in saying that, I suppose, has no intention of asking me to commit myself to a statement of the amount required to pay for the property. A part of this appropriation we are asking for at the present session will go to pay for the lands which we have expropriated.


John Graham Haggart: What are the items towards which the minister intends to apply this $40,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is the balance which we require in addition to the appropriation of last year, all of which has not been expended, and a portion of which, I apprehend, will be included in the supplementary estimates of the current year. The whole cost we have estimated will amount to $150,000. That $150,000 is made up for cost of cribwork, the filling in of a portion of the land for a station, for the covered platform, for the cribwork under contract, and for the tracks.


John Graham Haggart: That is, you want $150,000 besides the $110,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, the $110,000 is the appi-opria-tion of last year, and I am asking $40,000 in addition, which will make $150,000 in all. No doubt a portion of the supplementaries for the present year will be made up of the balance which we judge will be unexpended of the appropriation of the last year, which is really the current year.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: May I ask the hon. minister if this 8,900 square feet of land that he has bought is paid for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I understood the hon. minister to say a moment ago that it was filled land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not know of any land
that has been filled in there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the hon. gentleman is in error, because I know of land that has been filled there. I know of land on which there is a building. This Couture land has a building upon it, and it has been used as a place for watering and inclosing cattle. It has been rented for some $300 or $400 a year. It must be filled under these circumstances. It cannot be land over which the tide flows.
Mr.	MORIN. When	the hon. minister
spoke about that land being filled, I understood him to mean that it had been filled within the last six months or a year.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILaj.S	AND
CANALS. No, the land has been filled for years probably.


Mr MORIN.: Yes, I know all about that land. It was filled fifty years ago.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Very likely.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. minister tell the committee whom he engaged for the purpose of negotiating for the settlement of the price of this land ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. 1 do not recollect the name of the gentleman whom we consulted. It is two and a half or three years since he has been doing anything for the department. He was deputed to make a valuation of the land and report to us. He did that. When the report came I examined it myself with my officers and with the engineers. We came to the conclusion that the valuation was too high and we rejected his report. We have not had that gentleman in our employ since.


John Graham Haggart: Any one else ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had no other person employed for the purpose since. We have had our engineer there over and over again, but we have had no other person outside in the employ of the department for that purpose. My hon. colleague (Hon. Mr. Dobell) has interested himself a good deal in this matter. I am sorry he is not here tonight. He has interested himself a good deal in the question and has given us the benefit of his judgment in regard to the value of this land. I think I am safe in saying, speaking from recollection now, that council, after hearing the hon. gentleman's view aud after acquainting itself with the information we had to furnish, arrived at the conclusion to pay $1.75 for the 8,000 feet referred to as the Chapleau property. I think it was upon the strength of his view with others that we came to that conclusion.


John Graham Haggart: Are all the solicitors that were employed mentioned in the report of the Auditor General ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) mention the names ?


John Graham Haggart: Messrs. Bedard and Lemieux.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I think Mr. Lemieux was employed.


John Graham Haggart: Was Mr. Pugsley employed ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No.


John Graham Haggart: In any way whatever ?	[DOT]
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No.


John Graham Haggart: He received no sum of money ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Not in the	slightest degree as
far as we are concerned.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman said that the price compared favourably with the cost of expropriations made by his predecessors.


The MINISTER OF RAH...: AND
CANALS. Yes; it was a little less.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. gentleman please mention any expropriations that were made by me in which a larger price was paid ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot say just what property was expropriated, but I think land, taken in I.evis for the purpose of the Intercolonial Railway, was valued by the Exchequer Court and that it was valued at a price in excess of any price that we have paid here. The name of the lawyer was Mr. Lemieux.


John Graham Haggart: I am not aware that any expropriation was made in my time for the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway at L6vis.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know that there was. I did not say so.


John Graham Haggart: I understood the hon. minister to say that his predecessor had paid a higher price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When I speak of my predecessor, I mean the late government. I do not mean to say that the hon. gentleman was the individual minister. I was then enforcing the argument which I have just now repeated, that the expropriation proceedings before the Exchequer Court have not resulted to the advantage of the department and have not made us feel that this is the most desirable way, in the interests

of the exchequer at all events, to have these values fixed.


John Graham Haggart: Were there any expropriations at Levis made by the Exchequer Court as at present constituted ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 have understood that the lands that were taken for the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway from Levis all the way through on the St. Charles branch were dealt with by the Exchequer Court. We know with what alarming results they were so dealt with.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, the Exchequer Court was appointed long since then with Mr. Burbidge as judge. There may have been the power of exchequer in the Supreme Court, and that court may have dealt with these lands, but I do not think the expropriations were made by Judge Burbidge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My deputy tells me they were.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 am informed that almost the whole ground that was taken In connection with the St. Charles branch was dealt with by the court.


John Graham Haggart: You said by the Exchequer Court. If I remember rightly, the Exchequer Court is a creation since these apppropriations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am speaking of my own experience. Of course it must necessarily be of the Exchequer Court because there is no other tribunal that I could speak of in reference to these matters since I came into the department. I unhesitatingly say that my experience of the Exchequer Court has not been satisfactory. It is too liberal in its allowances.


John Graham Haggart: Could the hon. gentleman give me the total quantity of land expropriated ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could add up the quantity stated on page 330 of ' Hansard.'


John Graham Haggart: It seems to me that there are about a couple of acres that you are paying $110,000 for.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not paying any more than we can help.


John Graham Haggart: Do you know whether Mr. Pugsley was acting for any of the owners of the property in the sale to the government ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only property that I know 1304
that Mr. Pugsley had any connection with at all is the property that has not been closed for, the property which we had determined to expropriate because we would not agree to pay the price asked for it. Mr. Pugsley and some other legal gentlemen have been communicating with the department and urging the payment of the amount which they claim should be paid for this land, but we have not taken this land. We have declined to pay the lowest price that w'e could get them to agree to and the probabilities are that there will be expropriation proceedings.


John Graham Haggart: Do you know the land which Mr. Pugsley is acting for, aud what price is it that they demand from the government for it ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. $2.10 a foot is what they are asking.


John Graham Haggart: Is it the Couture property ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.
To dredge and blast rock at Halifax, $20,000.
Mr.	BORDEN (Halifax). Is that for
work at Richmond ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes. There are some 3,000 cubic yards to remove at the deep water terminus.


Robert Laird Borden: The deep water terminus is nearly half a mile below the station. I have no doubt that further accommodation is required, but, as I have pointed out before, it seems to me the best way to get the facilities and room there would be by the expropriation or acquisition of property at Upper Water street.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Water street property would be for local purposes, but this is in connection with the sea-going business. We have to dredge there to accommodate the shipping. and getting property at Water street would have no relation to that.


Robert Laird Borden: I can understand that.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total cost of this work to be ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 


John Graham Haggart: Has it been let by contract and tender ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There have been $3,200 spent up to the present time.


John Graham Haggart: Who were the contractors, and was if let by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Beazley Bros. & Company are the contractors, and probably the leader of the opposition knows the firm. [DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: I do know them. I think they are very good men.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Their price was $9.75 a yard, which was settled upon after public tender.


John Graham Haggart: Were they the lowest tenderers ?
The MINISTER' OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What depth of water will you have at the deep water terminus.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My recollection is that this was applied for by the board of trade. After they made the application it was found that there would have to be this additional blasting done.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is the case. I was anxious to ascertain the depth of water after the work was completed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot state precisely, but I imagine we would get 28 feet of water at low tide. '


Robert Laird Borden: I trust that when this blasting is accomplished the Minister of Railways and Canals will not be quite so forgetful of the existence of Halifax as a port in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, as he seemed to be last autumn when he was discussing certain matters with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will not forget Halifax, I can assure you.
Mr, BORDEN (Halifax). My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) was so forgetful of Halifax at that time, that it seemed entirely to have escaped his mind for the moment. That may happen only occasionally, but at all events when he addressed the communication to Mr. Shaughnessy he seemed to have forgotten that Halifax had certain facilities for the purpose of doing export business that would come over the Intercolonial Railway. I trust that when the Minister of Railways gets the port of Halifax into thorough working order he will not permit the Intercolonial Railway terminus at Halifax, and the port of Halifax itself, to so completely -escape from his mind as he seems to have done on that occasion.
The MINISTER' OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I shall endeavour not to forget it.


John Graham Haggart: Increased accommodation, St. John, N.B., $100,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In addition to; the engine-house we have, we propose to erect a twenty-four stall new engine-house. Under our arrangement we provide accommodation at St. John for the Intercolonial Railway locomotives as well as for the Canadian Pacific Railway locomotives, and we will require the twenty-four stalls for the larger engines. The building was estimated to cost $100,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why does not the minister state the purpose of this building in the item ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is certainly for increased accommodation. The expression in the estimate is not an invention of mine.


John Graham Haggart: This would be a proper time for the minister to make an explanation in reference to what negotiations he has had with the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to the trade of St. John.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not select just this moment for that purpose.


John Graham Haggart: I would like the hon. minister to lay on the Table the whole of the correspondence with the Canadian Pacific Railway in reference to making St. John a winter port, and a statement of the whole expenditure since he has been in power on the accommodation at St. John.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If there is any correspondence which has not already been brought down, I will bring it at once.
HOn. Mr. HAGGART. The sum of $100,000 seems an enormous sum for an engine house.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a large engine house, and it includes the land.
. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. What is the estimated cost of the engine house and of the land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This amount includes a turntable and a workshop in connection with the engine house, at a total cost of $80,000. It is estimated that the land to be acquired in connection with it will cost $20,000, making the neat $100,000. That is the form in which the figures have been given to me.


John Graham Haggart: Where is that particular lot of land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a short distance up the line of the Intercolonial, about a mile from the

station. It is outside of the city, though the city limits may possibly include it.


Mr. OSLER.: How many acres ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are six acres.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is over 83,000 an acre. There must be a boom on in St. John.


John Graham Haggart: Let me draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that the Canadian Foundry Company in Toronto bought thirty acres of land, partly in the city of Toronto and partly outside of it, for $20,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The land has not been purchased yet. This is the estimate which has been given to me by the officers of the department, and it may be that the whole of this sum will not be required. If it is not, it will not be expended.


Edmund Boyd Osler: To my knowledge, land inside of the municipality of Montreal, in the east, very well situated, practically within the business part of the city, is being offered for about $1,500 an acre. In Toronto it is offered at less than that. In Buffalo, to my knowledge, a large block of land belonging to the Erie Railway, in the middle of the busy railway part of the town, was offered a few days ago at $1,500 an acre, and the parties *who owned the mortgage on it refused to redeem it at that price. In Toronto, the Canada Foundry Company bought land at less than $1,200 an acre. If in St. John you are paying nearly $3,500 an acre for land, there must be something wrong.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I want some verification of the statement that you can buy land in the 'heart of the city of Buffalo for $1,500 an acre.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I did not say in the heart of the city of Buffalo. I said in the railway part of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think you could buy it in the railway part of any town in Canada at that price.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You can not get it in Ottawa for anything like that.
Mr* OSLER. Ottawa is the seat of government, and I do not wonder that land is dear.


Mr. GANONG.: Will the minister state for what purpose that land is used at present ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know the particular piece of land which is proposed to be taken. The engineer has been over the ground, and he is a very careful man, as every one knows, and has made his estimate on the
best information he could gather. Certainly we are not going to pay any more for the land than we are absolutely obliged to pay. If we cannot get it on terms which we think satisfactory, we shall have to expropriate.


Mr. WILMOT.: Who owns the land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot say.


Gilbert White Ganong: All the land within a mile of the city of St. John is used for farming purposes, except what is devoted to some manufacturing businesses, which I presume the minister would not think of attempting to buy. The land along the line of the Intercolonial within several miles of the city of St. John, is used for grass land or market gardening. This would seem to be a high price to pay for that class of land.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not bought the land. It has not been engaged.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If you put an appropriation in your estimates of such an amount of money for six acres, it means that you hold it open to somebody to get that price for 'the land.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it at all.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. If you cannot get land on the outskirts of St. John City for less money, and put up a round-house, you should not put up your round-house at all until you get the land cheaper.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not said that we are asking $20,000 for the land alone, we are asking increased accommodation, and are asking $100,000 to cover the cost, and have given the details. The land will not be had at any higher price than we are obliged to pay. The engineer has made his estimate, and it may be that he has made a liberal estimate as to what he thinks will be the cost. It may be that his estimate is in excess of what will be required. We are not asking simply for a round-house, but we have to lay down a considerable quantity of tracks in connection with the buildings, so that we may have the necessary car accommodation and the required yard room. The city of St. John is very singularly situated in one respect. The main point of the city is built on hills, and the land on the level below the height of ground is narrow and of necessity more expensive than it would be in a city built upon a long stretch of level ground. The ground on which this yard is to be placed is very circumscribed.


John Graham Haggart: Has the hon. gentleman the plan of the engineer of the

ground where he intends to locate the round-house ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The plans are not prepared yet.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the hon. gentleman said that he had a recommendation from his engineer who carefully went into the question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, as to the necessity of having a round-house and tracks and a yard, but the plans will not be prepared until the appropriation passes.


John Graham Haggart: Surely you had the plans before asking for the appropriation. That is the customary way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The engineer says that is not the custom at all.


John Graham Haggart: Well, it is time'it was. The idea of asking $100,000 for the purpose of building a round-house on the recommendation of the engineer that the round-house will cost $80,000 and the land $20,000 ! The hon. minister stated some time ago that this round-house was to be located about a mile from the city, outside St. John. Surely he has an estimate from his engineer. The engineer could not have arrived at the figure of $80,000 for the round-house and $20,000 for the land without furnishing the minister with a detailed account showing how these amounts were made up. If the minister has not that detailed account, he has no business coming here and asking for an estimate. Then the minister asks $20,000, and says the land is to be expropriated, and only a fair price paid for it. We have had money voted for the purpose of expropriating land at Point L6vis, and we have not expropriated the whole of the land required. The land required is in the neighbourhood of five acres and $100,000 is the cost.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman say that that is beyond the valuation there ? I challenge him to prove that one dollar has been paid more than the reasonable value of the land.


John Graham Haggart: If $20,000 is not an excessive value for an acre of land, or $100,000 for five acres around the station at Point LSvis. I do not know what is. The idea of a lot of land 89 feet by 100 feet with nothing on it, costing $8,900 ! I say it is an exorbitant price.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman knows nothing about it. Not one farthing has been paid in excess of the value. Let anybody go to L6vis and inquire. We have been about three years quarrelling with the


John Graham Haggart: people there in order to get the value down to the point to which we have got it. I challenge my hon. friend to make an investigation at any moment. Let him call his committee and bring witnesses, and I defy him to prove that one dollar was paid in excess of the value of the land at LSvis down to the present moment. If there should be an expropriation, of course, witnesses will be called, and they will put on a higher value. The hon. gentleman knows nothing about the subject when he states the price is excessive.


John Graham Haggart: I know the value of the land as well as the hon. minister. Here is a lot of land 89 feet by 100 feet, without a building on it, situated near the station at Point L6vis, for which the hon. gentleman pays $8,950, and he is asking a vote for the purpose of paying for land, should it be required in the same neighbourhood, $2.60 per foot, when they only paid a dollar for this other land.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not asked for $2.60 per foot.


John Graham Haggart: What the hon. gentleman does say is that Mr. Couture is asking for a lot of property in the same neighbourhood $2.60 per foot, and he thinks the amount is excessive, and proposes to refer the matter to the Exchequer Court.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Pugsley of St. John is one of the parties interested as solicitor or something else with reference to this particular land. The probability is it will never go to the Exchequer Court. However, if the hon. gentleman does refer the matter to the Exchequer Court, the judgment of that court will be fixed by the evidence produced on behalf of the government as to the value of the land, and it is often found a convenient way for a minister, who wants a justification for the amount he is paying, to let the case go to the Exchequer Court on an ex parte statement by the parties offering the land to the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member has been a responsible minister of the Crown, and I ask him if it is possible to carry cto the government if ministers are liable to have insinuations cast at them such as the hon. member has just thrown ? I could make allowance if the hon. gentleman were an ignoramus who had never been charged with the responsibility of a department, but to take the stand that no matter what the minister may do. whether he settles for the land without going to the Exchequer Court and proceeds by expropriation, or goes to the Exchequer Court, somebody's name may be dragged in who has something to do

with it as a friend of the government, and the whole thing is a job, no matter how the minister may proceed, is unworthy of the hon. gentleman. If the minister goes to the Exchequer Court, then he is to be charged with producing witnesses who will exaggerate the value of the land, and if he does not then he is consenting to an exorbitant price. So that whatever he does the transaction is a discreditable one. Yet the hon. gentleman who takes this course is one who at one time held the responsible position of a minister of the Crown. I say it is discreditable.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I quite realize that people who have land to sell to a railway company try all they can to get an exorbitant price. If the company is forced into such a position that they must get a small piece of land, even if they pay two or three times its value-and I am speaking from an experience of twenty years in expropriating lands in the west in connection with railways-once the railway company finds that it is being held up and is asked $2,000 or $3,000 an acre for land that is only worth $100 an acre, the managers of the company, if they do their duty, should say at once: We will have nothing more to do with it. The Grand Trunk Railway put their yard four or five miles out of Toronto because they could not get land within the city at a fair price. The Canadian Pacific Railway built their yard at the junction a little outside Toronto because they could not get land at a fair price inside, and they did this with very little detriment to the operation of the road, if not to its benefit. If you make estimate anything like $20,000 an acre, quite possibly the men who own the land will ask that much, and in such case it is the duty of the government to say : We will not build our station if you are going to hold us up to that price, because there is no land there worth that. Quebec, as we know, has not had a land boom for a great many years. We have one of the ministers of "the Crown, I believe, who has conscientious scruples about the price proposed to be paid for the Plains of Abraham, a very valuable property adjoining the city of Quebec. I think he is right. And this government, managing its public railway, has no right to ask this House for any sum such as $20,000 an acre for the extension of their yard in Point Levis. Stop it, and do not build the road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The facts are not as the gentleman (Mr. Osier) states them. I do not understand that we are paying or proposing to pay $20,000 an acre. But whatever we have paid, we have paid because we could not get the property by any means for less. It is not fair, it is not reasonable to say that the situation at Levis is the same as the situation anywhere else. Any hon. gentlemen who have gone through Levis on the Intercolonial Railway know that there is a very narrow strip between the precipice on one side and the water on the other. And, in order to widen our right of way and afford us the additional room we require we must take the land which is available. The Couture property, which has been referred to, is exceedingly valuable to this man, and the same is true of the other property we have taken. We must get through there ; we cannot do as the hon. gentleman suggests and say to the people : If you do not give us this land at a price that we think is reasonable we will not take it. We must get our road through there to meet the necessities of the traffic. If this were a spur we were throwing out or some new undertaking that did not absolutely involve the running of the railway, we could take that position-and I would be the first to take it, as I have done in several Instances. But at L6vis we must have the ground and we must agree with the people, or if we cannot agree with them if they ask an exorbitant price, our only course is to refer the matter to the court. That is what we have agreed to do.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has the business in Quebec so increased, notwithstanding that you have taken the terminus to Montreal ? Has the local business so increased that you must have this land at once ? Has not Levis been relieved by taking the terminus to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The business at LSvis has increased. There is only a single track through Ldvis, with a fence on either side and every train, even with our immensely increased trade, must go through that congested district. It has been a reproach to the road and a delay to business. The inconvenience is increasing every day, and at any cost it can be tolerated no longer. If we cannot keep down the price to be paid for these lands by proceedings through the Exchequer Court there is no way by which we can do it. Unfortunately, we have not always succeeded in doing that in the past -I do not know that we have ever succeeded.


Robert Laird Borden: I might point out that the rate at which some of this land is being bought would not give $20,000 an acre but $75,000 an acre.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We bought it by the foot and we paid a reasonable price.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not discussing that, I am discussing the price per acre. Another lot the hon. gentleman bought at 80 cents a square foot, which would be $25,000 an acre. If you take the average you will find that this land will cost more than $25,000 an acre.


John Graham Haggart: Can the hon. gentleman tell the total amount that will have been expended on the Intercolonial Railway in St. John including these improvements ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The total expenditure on capital account in St. John, from the beginning of the road up to the Slst December last, was $2,168,000.


John Graham Haggart: Can the hon. gen-telman give the total expenditure on capital account at Levis ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I have not got that.


Gilbert White Ganong: I do not think there is a gentleman in this House who objects to any expenditure in St. John or its vicinity which would have the tendency to develop that port or increase the trade of Canada. But since this government came in, this government of business men, there have beeu some examples of the most lavish expenditures, I believe, ever known in this country, and I believe the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has not been exempt from that accusation. His record began before he came to this House by leaving his province in debt some $3,000,000. The first contract which was let under him in St. John gives some little idea of the hon. gentleman's method in connection with such work. He called for tenders and received three at least which we have had brought to the notice of this House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What work was that ?


Gilbert White Ganong: St. John harbour. One tender was from Mr. Mayes for $219,990 ; one from Mr. Heney foil $298,193, and one from Mr. Connolly for $328,173. And Mr. Connolly, the highest tenderer, obtained the contract. It is true that Mr. Mayes asked the privilege of bringing a dredge into this country free of duty. If any hon. gentleman in this House had had these three contracts submitted to him and had had the power, he would have allowed that dredge to come in free of duty. It would not have been the first instance when the country had the benefit of freedom from duty, for the Minister of Railways, during the past few years, has brought in hundreds of thousands in value of cars, engines, and other equipment for the Intercolonial Railway into the country free of duty. Had he allowed this and accepted Mr. Mayes' tender $10S.1S3 would have been saved to this country. Mr. Mayes was not in a position to be so friendly and convenient as Mr. Connolly could be. However, Mr. Mayes did receive a sub-contract, I believe, for just such portions of the work as he wanted. But it is evident that if the minister had been a business man, as he should have been, he might have saved the country $108,000. Then, I had occasion to call the attention of


Robert Laird Borden: the minister a few weeks ago to another little business transaction of his. He stated on the floor that the contract with Mr. Connolly would be lessened by $34,000 from the fact that he had Mr. Heney's and Mr. Mayes' deposit cheques amounting to $34,000. But, strange to say, the deposit cheques never turned up, though two years and a half have elapsed since they came in, until inquiry was put on the paper, and we found that they were pigeon-holed, I believe, with a loss to the country of $3,400 in interest. That is the sort of business methods followed by the hon. gentleman at the head of the department. An inquiry was made with regard to the shipment of grain by the hon. meipber for Lennox (Mr. Wilson). This elicited the information that 507,576 bushels had been exported from the city of St. John. Inquiry was made of the minister as to whether the grain was not carried to St. John at a loss, but he failed to get a reply. If the minister is running a railway on business principles, he knows to a dollar how much loss he made on that grain. I would like to ask the minister over what road that grain came to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let the hon. gentleman go on, and I will answer him when he has finished.


Gilbert White Ganong: I understand a portion came over the Parry Sound and the Canada Atlantic Railway. I understand he has some arrangement with these roads, and it is reported that the hon. gentleman purposes extending the Intercolonial Railway system to Parry Sound. Will the hon. gentleman tell me if the Intercolonal Railway has an oflice in the city of Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will make a note of it, and answer the hon. gentleman by-and-by, when he gets through.


Gilbert White Ganong: I regret to see that he shows the same culpable ignorance on this matter as on many others. But I understand that the Canada Atlantic Railway are doing the business of the Intercolonial Railway for the city of Ottawa. Now, at the eastern terminus, or termini, of the Intercolonal Railway, we have two cities, Halifax and St. John, at least we think so down in New Brunswick. But when I take up the time table of the hon. gentleman's agency in Ottawa, I find there is only one terminus, the city of Halifax. St. John is not given on the outer side of this time table at all, and I find on turning to the inside of the table there is no such place as St. John on the map. I will send this oyer to the minister, and let him find his city of St. John, if he can, on that map. Not only is it not on this time table, but you can walk down to the Russell House and see an enlarged map of this route, and you will still fail to find on it that there is any

such city in Canada as St. John, notwithstanding that the hon. gentleman is presumed to represent that city in this House. The city of St. John has spent thousands of dollars this year in arranging, through toursts' associations, to advertise the city, and here is the Minister of Railways and Canals, the representative of that city, who Will not even name the city on his map. There are several other things I might mention, showing the business management of the hon. gentleman. One of them was that beautiful contract for steel rails, and we had some suggestion made also in regard to the Kingston locomotive works, two things that were almost coincident with the election. So the hon. gentleman had all the advantages possible at the country's expense to assist his friends in the last Dominion election ; and it may be that even this contract in St. John might savour somewhat of that character, as it was made just about 'the time, I believe, of a local election in New Brunswick. There seems, at least, to be rather an odd coincidence in this case, and I believe that word ' coincidence ' will be remembered by the Minister of Railways and Canals very well, for he used it frequently in some of his arguments in New Brunswick, in a manner in which I do not think he will ever use it again. Now, if the Minister of Railways and Canals is expending this money in St. John in a reasonable way, I assure him that every member from New Brunswick will be glad to support him.. But we believe in New Brunswick that although he represents the city of St. John, he should be just as careful of the money of the people in that city as anywhere else. Judging from the way he has expended part of that money in St. John, it is necessary to scrutinize carefully the items he brings before us.
To provide additional sidings along the line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These sidings will be required at various points.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the minister was going to give an answer to my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong).


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not answer the little bilious attack of the hon. member for Charlotte, because I thought he had been sufficiently answered by the leader of the opposition. To the complaint that Halifax had been entirely overlooked in favour of St. John, we had the answer of the hon. gentleman that it was St. John that had been overlooked in favour of Halifax. Now. as I said, this item is intended to cover additional sidings. I will give the hon. gentleman a list of the sidings if he requires, though it is somewhat lengthy. These have become necdk-sary by reason of the additional length of the trains. The sidings as originally constructed were not intended to accommodate the trains of the length that now prevails, nor to accommodate the additional business that has now grown up on the Intercolonial Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have some further information. I would like to have the list, and I would like to have it before this item passes. Since the hon. gentleman has referred to some observations which I made a moment or two ago, and which he thinks are a sufficient answer to the hon. member for Charlotte, I may say to the hon. gentleman that I do not think his neglect of either St. John or Halifax is an answer to a complaint on behalf of either city. The hon. gentleman seems to think that Halifax and St. John are necessarily in antagonism to each other, and that if he can point out to my hon. friend from Charlotte that on some other occasion he has neglected Halifax in some way, and that is a complete answer to the charge that he is apparently neglecting St. John now. Surely, the hon. gentleman is forgetting the logical training of his early youth, when he attempts to make au answer of that kind to my hon. friend. The complaint which I made was this ; last autumn, the hon. gentleman was discussing with the Canadian Pacific Railway an offer which they had made to him to send over the Intercolonial Railway the whole of the traffic that had formerly gone over the Canadian Pacific Railway short line to St. John, so that, with his elevator and facilities at St. John, he could deal with it, and he gave the answer that he was not able to deal with the traffic at St. John, but he absolutely ignored Halifax. I have his letter before me, if the hon. gentleman should see fit to deny it. I have the letter in which that statement I make to the committee is fully substantiated. I do not think it is an answer to my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) to say that I made a complaint. I complain of that conduct still, and it is no answer to the hon. gentleman from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) that the hon. minister was guilty of neglect on that occasion. What is it that the hon. member for Charlotte is complaining of? It is that upon the time table in which the hon. gentleman is making close connection, you do not find the location of the harbour of St. John marked.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: St. John is on this map.


Robert Laird Borden: I am only discussing what was put forward by the hon. member for Charlotte. I have not examined the map, I do not know whether his statement is correct or not. I say, that, although I come from the city of Halifax, I am prepared to back up the hon. member for Charlotte in any reasonable complaint he may make on behalf of the city of St. John, just as I would be prepared to back

up any complaint on behalf of the city of Halifax, and I do not think the hon. minister is treating the committee with proper respect, when he will not make answer to certain questions which the hon. member for Charlotte asks, and then has the item passed while we are expecting the information, afterwards standing up and making certain remarks which were not exactly framed in that courteous tone which we would expect from a minister of the Crown in passing his estimates.


Mr. BRITTON.: I do not think there are very many hon. members of the House who would object to the answer that the hon. minister gave that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), had sufficiently answered the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong), when we consider the spirit in which the hon. member for Charlotte made his attack. I am not going to say much about it except that I have the time table in my hand which he referred to. I can hardly see how fairly a point can be made out of this time table which is produced. It is a Canada Atlantic time table, and it professes to be a condensed time table. On the map, St. John is marked as distinctly as Halifax is marked, one of the termini of this railway. St. John is marked there and the line of the railway is heavily marked.


Gilbert White Ganong: Spell St. John.


Byron Moffatt Britton: S-t. J-o-h-n. An ordinary man would understand that to be St. John, N.B. The time of leaving is on the table, the time of arriving is on the table, and I do not see what more the hon. gentleman could require than that. But the time table of the Intercolonial Railway, which is the government road, and which is the road which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has charge of, has all the particulars that any hon. gentleman could require in reference to St. John. It does look as if an hon. gentleman was pretty hard up Immaterial with which to make an attack when he uses such arguments as the hon. member for Charlotte uses.


Gilbert White Ganong: My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Britton) has to support the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals anyway. It does not make any difference. The hon. minister, when down in the small province of New Brunswick, could clap his hat on and run away if the opposition brought anything up, but here, he has to face the music although he frequently turns his back. This idea of venting spleen and bile is not a new expression. He used it in four different meetings in Charlotte, when he came down to help elect me, because, in every division, except one, in which he spoke I got increased majorities. I hope he will come back again. We will give him a warm reception. In regard to


Robert Laird Borden: this map, Portland, apparently the winter-port of the Intercolonial Railway, is shown in good shape, but St. John is not on the map. I asked the hon. minister on purpose to find out why it was not there. He declined, of course, to reply. He is getting back to his old New Brunswick tactics again. The minister is easily ruffled. This evening he got up to lecture the committee just as he used to do and with as little effect as in New Brunswick. When he gets up in this House it would be more becoming his position to treat hon. members with respect and to give answers in reply to questions. It is his business to do so and lie had better attend to it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The sidings that are to be lengthened are the following :	St. Leonard
Junction, Cliaudiere Junction, ChaudiSre, St. Charles Junction, Rimouski, St. Octave, Salmon Lake, Flatlands, Beresford, Chatham Junction, Monastery, Gordon Summit, Belmont, Chabot, Debert, Westchester, Thompson. There are sixteen sidings and they are to be lengthened to 1,800 feet. Nash's Creek, Harbour au Bouehe, Afton, South River, James River, Barney's River, Avondale, Piedmont, West Merigomish, Vvoodburn, Hopewell Valley, Athol, Nap-pan, Memramcook, Salisbury, Petitcodiac, Anagance, Penobsquis, Apohaqui, Norton, Bloomfield, Nauwigewauk, Quispamsis, Rothesay, Cold Brook, Little Metis. Twenty-seven sidings, 1,000 feet long. St. Nicholas, Amqui, Causapscal, Metapedia, Newcastle, Canaan, Berry's Mills, River Philip, Pollet River, Riviere du Loup, Ste. Flavie, Camp-bellton, New Glasgow, Stellarton, Windsor [DOT]Junction, Elmsdale, Milford, Oxford Junction, Maccan. These are new and will be 4,000 feet long.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: I suppose the figures given by the hon. minister referred to the length of the sidings when completed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I have given the additions which are to be made. Some of them are entirely new sidings and some of them are additions. The distance has been stated, whether it is an entirely new siding or whether an addition.


Adam Carr Bell: Gordon Summit, for instance, was mentioned. Would that 1,500 feet be 1,500 feet additional ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, there will be 1,800 feet with the new siding.


Adam Carr Bell: I would like to ask the hon. minister another question. Is any portion of this sum intended to be used for the purchase of land or altogether for construction ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is altogether for the sidings, there Is no land in this.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has any plan or principle at all as to the charging of these things to capital account ? If the Intercolonial Railway had been an ordinary private corporation this capital account would have been closed long ago. In thd period of boom times, all these items the minister is now charging to capital would have been charged to revenue. Is the minister going for all time to adopt the principle of charging every new siding to capital account ? There is absolutely no end to the capital account you may roll up, because you have the credit of the government behind you to borrow all you want. There is no means of knowing how the Intercolonial Railway is paying if all these things are charged to capital account. Half of this estimate in an ordinary railway company would be charged to running expenses. Out of this three million odd dollars In the first column, at least a million and a half would be charged to revenue in an ordinary railway company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, without any question. In the case of an absolutely new railway for perhaps ten years after it is completed you would add to capital account the rolling stock, increased siding and these things, but in the case of a railway completed for twenty-five years like the Intercolonial Railway, so far as these sidings and extensions to stations are concerned, its capital account is closed. The criticism would be so adverse to any private company that it could not exist if it were to charge these things to capital.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is quite in error in stating that on railways which have been in operation for twenty-five or thirty years additional sidings are charged to revenue and not to capital. The Star newspaper contains a report of the meeting of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in London yesterday, and there is a statement that a very large sum was spent by the Grand Trunk Railway for additional sidings, and charged to capital account. If you are going to adopt a correct system it is just as necessary to charge additional new sidings to capital as if they were built in the first instance. It is not a repair ; it is an addition. The time comes in the life of a railway as it has come in the life of the Intercolonial Railway, when it is necessary that an entire change should be made as to the weight of its locomotives, as to the size of its cars, as to the weight of its rails, as to the length of its sidings, as to the size of its engine houses, and as to a number of other things. There is a doubling up all
over the whole line, and it has to be done within a very limited time. If you are going to lay down a thousand miles or 500, or 100 miles of new sidings-not repairing or replacing the old-why should you not charge that to capital just the same as the first sidings constructed. If you are going to re-rail your line from one end to the other, of necessity you must charge the difference to capital. If you are going to increase the capacity of your road all over, why should you not charge it to capital. We hope to complete these sidings within a few years, and it would be a physical impossibility to do it out of earnings no matter what margin you might have.


Mr. INGRAM.: Suppose you take the old rails from the main line and put them on the sidings, how do you make your charge?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: So far as these rails are used they are charged to capital according to the value of the rail as you have credited your stores account with them. You do not charge any more than that. It is utterly impossible for you to charge such a complete transformation of your railway from end to end to earnings.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I presume that the- minister is making use of the old 67-pound rails on the sidings when he replaces them by the 80-pound rails, and as there is no cost for right-of-way, the cost of ties and the labour is the only charge. That does not amount to a great deal, and it should be charged to revenue. I presume that is what the minister is doing.


Adam Carr Bell: I did not hear any mention of Pictou in the list of stations read out by the minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are going to have something in the supplementary estimates for Pictou.


Adam Carr Bell: There is a great deal necessary to be done at that point.


John Graham Haggart: Are you laying the old rails on the sidings?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no doubt that is the way the sidings will be built. The old rails go into stores account. The value of that rail has been charged against the cost of the new rail, and capital is only charged with the difference.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is not the question. I think the minister is trying to evade the question. I assume that the minister puts the old rails which he takes from the main line on the sidings ?


The MINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Therefore, these rails cost him the stores account only, $14 or $15 a ton.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is all we will charge.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You are laying the sidings with the old rails ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
To provide increased facilities along the line,


John Graham Haggart: I would ask the minister to specify the particular items which this vote is for.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Drummondville (crossing gates and freight shed) estimated cost $575. Levis (derrick), $1,000; Chaudiere (large coal shed), $4,000. St. Charles (freight shed). $500. St. Phillip de Neri, $500. Old Lake Road, $500. Cacouna (covered platform), $600. Camp-bellton (land acquired), $5,000. Metapedia (new station). $4,000. Chatham Junction (freight shed), $1,200. Moncton, offices which we are building for the conductors and express office, $2,400. Humphrey's Mills, station building, $3,600. Riverside station, $2,500. Oxford Junction and Windsor Junction and Truro, three new freight sheds each. $1,200. Union station, $1,000. Pomquet. Piedmont, West Merigomish, and South River, new passenger platform, $240 each. North Sydney, freight shed and baggage room, $2,000. Electric semaphores along the line, $8,400 ; semaphores, $5,051.


John Graham Haggart: Are all these new buildings ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not put in anything as far as I know, and as far as my instructions go for repairs.


Adam Carr Bell: The minister does not mean to say that these platforms at West Merigomish and Piedmount and other places on the eastern extension are new work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are new work or extensions.


Adam Carr Bell: There are platforms at all these towns.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But they require to be extended. We have to double the length of the platforms all over the line.


Adam Carr Bell: The platforms seem to be ample for small way stations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They cannot be. The whole estimates are based upon entirely new work -not repairs, but extensions. The hon. gentleman must have seen that we have been enlarging and extending platforms at very many places.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister is charging all these little expenditures to capital account. A man might as well charge the mending of his old boots to capital account. Surely the mending of a platform is not to be charged to capital account.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If we only had a limited amount of that kind of thing to do, it woulu not be worth while to consider the question of charging it to capital. But where this work aggregates a very large sum-


Edmund Boyd Osler: Why does the minister not charge his coal bill to capital account ? It is a big amount. There is no more reason for charging to capital account the putting in of a new semaphore than there is his coal bill. I do not object to the Intercolonial carrying goods free, if that is for the benefit of the country ; but let us know what it costs. Do not let us charge the repairing of platforms, the putting in of new semaphores and new lamps, * and every other miserable thing that enters into the mending of a road, to capital account, and lump them in an item of $50,000 to provide increased facilities along the line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman's statement will go to ' Hansard,' and possibly somebody may read it ; and if they do, they will read that the hon. member for West Toronto, a person of some authority, stated in the House that a vote was being asked on capital account to mend platfbrms and to repair lamps and semaphores. Why does the hon. gentleman make such a statement as that ? The hon. gentleman will acknowledge that there is no such appropriation asked for. Why is he putting it in that way if he wants to be fair ? Let him put it as it is, and I will take the responsibility of it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Well, I will put it as it is. The hon. minister says that $240 is for extending platforms. Now, I will be bound to state that in nine cases out of ten that money is for repairing platforms. It is just as wrong to charge to capital account $240 for extending a platform as it is for repairing a platform, and the minister may thump his desk as much as he likes-I do not think he is going to get any benefit from it. I say that these small items should be charged to the running expenses of the railway. This country should know how the Intercolonial is being loaded up year after year with an enormous capital, which earns no interest for the country, and which is more or less covered up. The ex-Minister of Railways made the statement to this House the other day that in the past few years the capital account of the Intercolonial had increased by $17,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: That includes the purchase of the Drummond County Railway

and the capitalization of the purchase from the Grand Trunk.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I absolutely dissent from the accuracy of that statement.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If I remember rightly, the minister did not contradict it at the time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do contradict it.


John Graham Haggart: I will give every item of the $17,000,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: And this capital account is still being added to. I think the country has a right to know how these items are charged to capital account.
To extend ear shop at Moncton, $25,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The car shop at Moncton is too small to carry on the work of repairing the cars, and it is proposed to add 200 feet in length.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have the plans for that modification been made ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not seen them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no estimate of the engineer in charge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, there is. This is the engineer's estimate of what it will cost to extend the building.
To provide master car builders' couplers tor locomotives, $3,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you charge that to capital account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because it has always been done.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is no excuse for this government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And because it is a proper thing to do. We are equipping the locomotives with something entirely new, and it is a device which we are obliged to adopt.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it a new invention ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, but it is one which has been adopted in consequence of action by the Master Car Builders' Association, and we are compelled to put it on our locomotives in order to comply with the regulations which that association has adopted.


John Graham Haggart: The minister said it was always charged to capital account. This is the first year that the item has been voted.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Oh, no, it has been voted before.


John Graham Haggart: No, not last year, nor the year before, nor the year before that.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. This may be the first year in which it has appeared as a separate item, but this equipment has been put on locomotives before, and it has been voted and paid for out of capital account.


John Graham Haggart: The inference drawn from that is that under my management of the Intercolonial Railway this particular item was charged to capital account.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I did not say that at all, because I do not think the regulation was in force when the hon. gentleman was in the department.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I find this in the last report of the Railway Department, and I would ask the minister if these things have been charged to capital account:
A new platform was laid in the train shed, 470 feet long and 9 feet wide. The passenger platform in station, 125 feet by 12 feet was also renewed. Necessary repairs were made to the coal shed and trestle, roundhouse and freight shed on ballast wharf. A new hardwood floor was laid down in the restaurant, and repairs made to the floor of the baggage room. Heavy repairs were made to the loading platform in St. John yard. The wooden flooring under the old closets and urinals in the station building having become rotten and offensive by reason of leakage, it became necessary to remove it. The old flooring was torn up and replaced with a flooring of old rails overlaid with concrete, on top of which "was placed a tile flooring. This has made a first-class substantial job. The old plumbing and woodwork of closets was removed, and new self-flushing closets and urinals provided, also new wooden sjtalls, &c., for the closets. Two partitions were taken down, and some other small repairs made. The whole work presents a first-class appearance.
Is this charged to capital account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it is.


Andrew B. Ingram: If you charge up to capital account the construction of an engine house, what distinction do you draw between that and constructing a new plat, form ? Both are equally new work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The new platform is included in the maintenance and not charged to capital.
To provide air brakes for freight cars, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The number of freight cars now fitted is 2,322.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the cost per car of providing air brakes ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About $70.


William Findlay Maclean: What progress has been made in the direction of fitting air brakes to all the freight cars throughout Canada ? I have pointed out on several occasions that much loss of life is due to the absence of the air brake, and there is a movement in the States to compel all the railways to adopt it.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Early in the session I asked this question, and the hon. gentleman was not able to give the figures. I have since received several letters from railway men, who tell me that the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway were very much in advance of the government road in this respect, and also in the adoption of the standard coupling. I hope the government will see that our road is equipped with the air brakes and coupling equally as well as the other roads.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we are allowed until the 1st of August next year to equip all our freight cars with these air brakes.


James Joseph Hughes: Allowed by whom ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By the association of railway people who have succeeded in obtaining enactments in most of the states of the union, refusing to admit cars that are not fitted with air brakes. We are allowed until the 1st of August in next year to comply with that law, and we are fitting our cars with the brakes as rapidly as possible. Last year we fitted 450, and in a couple of years we hope to be fully up to the mark.


James Joseph Hughes: Also with the coupling ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Will this	finish
the work ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I am afraid not.


John Graham Haggart: ' I suppose the new cars have this equipment ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: On the 25th of February last, out of 7,687 cars, 2,645 were fitted with the air brakes, leaving 5,044 yet to be fitted. If you have only a year, you will have to fit a great many in that time.


John Graham Haggart: I wish to draw attention to some of the items which were charged to capital account last year. There is an item of 13,200 feet of portable snow fencing erected at various points of the line. There is another item of four hose


Frederick Debartzch Monk: reels, made and stationed at various points around the railway property at Moncton station, for fire protection purposes. Also a fence eight feet high put up on three sides of the grain elevator, and at Waverley a well, together with pump and fittings, provided for the accommodation of the station master.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These were for the purpose of equipping the elevators and stations.


John Graham Haggart: At Shediac, a baggage room 16x27 feet was erected and charged to capital account. At Green Point a shelter was put up for the accommodation of passengers, and charged to capital account At Hadlow a new ash pit was provided. At Laurier, Aston Junction and Kingsburg Junction, dwelling houses were provided for the accommodation of the station master. At Georges River, a small kitchen built at the rear of the station for the accommodation of the station master. All these are charged to capital account.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.
To equip passenger cars with vestibules, $10,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the cost of this change in each car ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About $1,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this done in the railway's shops ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
To exchange draw-bars of freight cars, $15,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What has been done this year on this account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we have only charged for about 500 cars. We expect to do the balance before expiration of the vote for 1900-1901.


John Graham Haggart: Does the road make these draw bars ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am informed that we get them made.


James Clancy: What do they cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About $25 a car.
Mr. CLAinOY. Are they in the hands of a combine or manufactured under a patent ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAY AND CANALS.: I do not know.


James Clancy: I would not profess to pass a judgment on this question, but I believe an ordinary draw-bar, which must

have about as much iron as the others would not cost more than half that much money.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I confess I am without information on the subject of draw-bars, but I should imagine that the department at Moncton have secured them at a reasonable price.


James Clancy: From whom were they purchased ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know, but if the hon. gentleman desires it, 1 will get him the information.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose this is the draw-bar that they call the Detroit ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Exchange draw-bar, they are called.


John Graham Haggart: I can tell the hon. minister that they are furnished to the Intercolonial Railway for $15 under arrangements which he has made. This is a patent draw-bar.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I suppose the hon. gentleman means that if we were getting only one draw-bar it would be $15.


John Graham Haggart: No, I mean that the whole attachment of draw-bars cost $15.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, they cost $25, but if you were getting a single draw-bar perhaps you would pay $15.


James Clancy: It costs less if you get one ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, $15 for one, but $25 a pair.


Andrew B. Ingram: No doubt these are the automatic car couplers, the standard master mechanics' car couplers. I do not think they would cost anything like that money.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The information furnished to me is that the draw-bars will cost $25. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) pretend to say that it will cost very much less than that ?
Mr.	INGRAM.	Yes, I pretend to say
that.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I will inquire into that and shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman the results of my inquiry.
Mr.	CLANCY.	What disposition	does
the hon. gentleman make with regard to the draw-bars that have been taken off, that is as to accounting for them-do they go into store account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think they go into scrap.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ought to charge this to the earnings of the road. He is simply keeping these cars in repair

that is all it means.
To provide new machinery for locomotive and car shops, $5,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this ordinary machinery used in the car shops ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Generally it means large implements. We have to have heavier outfit to handle the heavier machines.


Andrew B. Ingram: I take it this item is to provide for machinery and for locomotives and car shops. That is where you manufacture your locomotives, I suppose ?
THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. And repairs.
To equip ten passenger cars with Pintsch gas apparatus, $8,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What royalty is paid on these patents ? How is that bought ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I do not know of any royalty being paid. This apparatus can only be got from one quarter.


John Graham Haggart: Does this take the place of the electrical apparatus ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. It is for lighting the cars instead of by electricity.


John Graham Haggart: Is this put in to take the place of the storage batteries ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	ANDCANALS. No, all	the	passenger cars we
have lately put on the line have been lighted by that Pintsch gas. We have not used the electrical system or the storage system on these new cars. I do not know that we have substituted it for any of the electric batteries.
To provide large turntables, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This should read to provide a large turntable. It is at Mulgrave.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose there is rock excavation when it costs $5,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course, the foundation is a very important part of it. I may mention that this appropriation is for the year to come. There was an appropriation last year of $11,000 for turntables. This $5,000 is to make the foundation walls as well as for a new turntable at Mulgrave.


James Joseph Hughes: Could not the minister build a Y for about half that money ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at Mulgrave. Any one who is acquainted with Mulgrave knows that we have all we can do to get down there. It is a very awkward situation, the only way you can get there is to back up.


Robert Laird Borden: A petition has been forwarded to me with respect to the position of affairs at the Strait of Canso. I do not know whether it bears on this or not; I will read it to the hon. gentleman. It seems to have been signed toy a number of residents at Guysborough, Straight of Canso :
Humbly showeth, that whereas you, the hon. Minister of Railways, have publicly announced that there will be a large sum of money expended at the Strait of Canso for the purpose of providing better wharf and dock accommodation for the new ferry steamer, which is soon to ply on the Strait of Canso to meet the requirements of the enormous increase in freight and passenger traffic to and from Cape Breton ; and, whereas, the present wharf terminus of the government railway at Mulgrave is unfortunately located in a very cramped place under the hill with the inconvenience of a back switch for the approach to and from the main line of railway, and with very limited space for the extension of further railway facilities, and with no room to make further wharf and dock room free or secure from the regular current and ice which proves so troublesome in the ferry dock now in winter.
Does the bon. gentleman recognize it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-(reading) :
Your petitioners therefore ask that you extend the main line only a few hundred yards further south to Pirate Harbour, a cove which, from its location, forms a natural terminus and direct approach to the main line of the government railway. Pirate Cove has a good depth of water, is free from sunken rocks and shoals on all sides, and also affords an excellent site for wharfs and docks sheltered from the regular current of running ice through the strait in winter, and further, has almost unlimited space for the further extension of terminal facilities which seem to he so much required in the near future.
I have not any opinion about the subject-matter of the petitioin, but as it is dealing with a turntable, I thought I would read it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There lias been quite an agitation down there regarding the point where we make our crossing, not only at Pirate Harbour, which is further out to sea, but the same controversy has arisen both north and south of the present point of crossing. Both on the island and on the main line, we have had many pressing invitations to select our terminus at various points. After having studied the situation fully and had our officers examine it, we have been forced to the conclusion that there was nothing to 'be gained by making any change in the


Samuel Hughes: crossing point, either on the island of Cape Bireton or on the mainland, and we have about decided to remain where we are. There are some advantages, perhaps, at Pirate Harbour, but on the whole we have been led to the conclusion that we had better stay where we are.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: Have sea captains given their opinion about this matter?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we have been favoured with the opinions of almost everybody in that locality.


Angus McLennan: Several letters from sea captains that I have received point out one difficulty, that is, that a large steamer 280 feet long going across from Mulgrave to Point Tupper, with a current running four or five miles an hour, and sometimes ice running with it, forcing it broadside, would have great difficulty to make so sharp a point as Point Tupper for the terminus. Even the present comparatively small ferry boat has to be driven full steam in order to make that dock on the Point Tupper side of the Strait of Canso, thus subjecting both boat and wharf to damage, which they often sustain in this way. If there is a difficulty in docking a small steamer, there will necessarily be a much greater difficulty in docking this large steamer that it is proposed to put on that ferry. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. minister that it might be prudent to experiment upon docking the new boat at Point Tupper before any great expenditure is made upon it as a permanent dock. I have five or six letters in my possession from sea captains who have navigated the Straits of Canso from boyhood to the present day. Men who have been in charge of almost all the steamers that ply around the Strait of Canso, and they are a unit in the opinion that it would be most difficult to dock a large boat at such a place as Point Tupper. I have already said that if the present small boat which plies on the ferry is not run at full speed to' avoid the ice and fight the current that is tending to bring her down stream she will fail to make her dock at that very narrow point and she will then be very likely to go on the ledge of rock on either side of the point. They, therefore, unanimously have answered several questions put to them by the town council of Hawkesbury as to whether the point called Grant's Point at the northern entrance of Hawkesbury harbour would uot toe a safer point at which to dock a large steamer. Their answers are unanimous that Grant's Point would be the safer of the two at which to dock a large steamer. Many railway men are also of the opinion that the government would lose no money upon all the works they have now established at Point Tupper. The round-house and all the paraphernalia for the Cape Breton terminus established there would not be lost money

In view of the fact that cars for repairs can he driven in there as a sort of yard just as they now are, while the dock would be in a safe, roomy place at the entrance of Hawkesbury harbour, one of the finest harbours in eastern Nova Scotia outside of Sydney and Halifax. As proof of its safety 1 may say that vessels frequenting the Straits of Canso in storms always make for that harbour. The government steamers always make for that harbour when they are on the coast of Cape Breton or of eastern Nova Scotia. When there is so much unanimity amongst men who are thoroughly versed in the navigation of the Strait of Canso. who are thoroughly posted on the currents and movements of the ice, where there is such unanimity as to the choice of Grant's Point as a point of landing for the ferry steamers, particularly as large a steamer as the proposed one, I think the hon. minister should hesitate a little and experiment upon the docking of that new boat on the Cape Breton side before a permanent dock is established. There is a vast sum of money about to be voted by parliament to establish a terminus on the Cape Breton side of the Strait of Canso. It happens that Port Hawkesbury is on the Inverness side of the line of demarcation between Richmond and Inverness, but that does not make any difference for me as to the point I suggest. If there is a safe point, even to the south of Point Tupper, it would not matter to me. If these sea captains had chosen such a point I would not have one word to say, but I consider it my duty, as representing a portion of the people of the Island of Cape Breton, which has a good deal to do with the road, to lay before the committee, and particularly before the Department of Railways and Canals, the opinions of all these sea-faring men, who are perfectly conversant with the navigation of the Strait of Canso.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite prepared to admit that my hon. friend (Mr. McLennan) has no interest in presenting this view as he does, other than what he thinks would be in the public interest and for the advantage of the service. Therefore, what he has said, I am quite prepared to believe he is well convinced, is correct, but, at the same time ,T am bound to think there is not the entire unanimity among sea-faring men that my hon. friend apprehends.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, that when the value of the land was being fixed in the Exchequer Court by expropriation proceedings, there was a remarkable unanimity of opinion among a very large number of people around there that Point Tupper was the only possible place.


Mr. MATHESON.: Mr. Chairman. I wish to say a few words on this question. We 131
have heard a good deal from my hon. and worthy friend from Inverness (Mr. McLennan). He has, however, only given the opinion of Port Hawkesbury. but it is well known that Port Hawkesbury has been for a number of years urging for railway accommodation. I think every person who knows the Strait of Canso will admit that the place at which to establish the dock, is not where it is narrow, but that it would be wise to go down where there is more room. The ice in the Strait of Canso must spread to make room for the steamer to pass through. The hon. gentleman says there is no place south of Tupper Point available.


Angus McLennan: I did not say that.


Joseph Matheson: I think you did ; however, I am in the judgment of the committee. If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly he said there was a ledge of rock on each side of Tupper Point. However, we have not so many railway facilities in the county of Richmond that we can afford to lose what we have. It must be conceded by all that we have better harbours south of Point Tupper than can be found north of it. That is patent to all. It is true that there are lots of people from Port Hawkesbury who would try to get the steamer to go to that point, but, as I said before, to get clear of the ice, you must go to the south. I am well acquainted with the Strait of Canso. I have crossed the Strait of Canso many times since I was a little boy. I know every part of it. My life has been endangered several times and I have always known where to go to seek refuge, and to seek refuge I had to go south.


Angus McLennan: You had better keep clear of Point Tupper.


Joseph Matheson: Point Tupper is bad enough.
To provide new superstructure for six spans Miramichi bridge, $72,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. minister give us some explanation about this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Miramichi, in company with all the other bridges along the line, has to be strengthened. We are happily situated here because we can turn these bridges to very good account and we propose to put them up on the Hillsboro' line in crossing at Charlottetown. We propose to make a division as between the Intercolonial Railway on the one hand and the Prince-Edward Island Railway on the other upon this basis. We estimate the cost of six new heavy spans of 200 feet each at $132,000. We value the old spans which we take out iat $60,000 and we put these old spans on the Hillsboro' bridge in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. HACKETT.: How old are these
spans ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The spans are just as good as ever they were, only they are not considered strong enough for our purpose on the Intercolonial Railway, whereas they will be abundantly strong for the trains running on the Prince Edward Island road.


Edward Hackett: Will this bridge be wide enough to allow the Hillsboro' bridge to have a carriage drive on each side of the railway track ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose to make it wide enough.


Edward Hackett: You will have to add to the old bridge to make it wide enough.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will probably have to put on sides or something of that kind, but it is intended to make it amply wide for all purposes.


Edward Hackett: Do you intend to have a carriage way on each side of the railway track in the Hillsboro' bridge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have forgotten how the plans have been designed, but I think the track will run in the middle of the bridge and a carriage way on each side. It is nearly a year since I saw those plans, and I would not be absolutely certain as regards the arrangement.


Edward Hackett: The minister is asking the Prince Edward Island government to pay about $10,000 a year for the building of this bridge. I presume that when he builds a bridge there he will build a good one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, we will build a good one.


Edward Hackett: And not take an old, second-hand bridge from Miramichi over to Prince Edward Island and use it there ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, no.


Edward Hackett: And then patch it up. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. There will be no patching up about it. We will give you as good a bridge as you would have if you got it wholly new out of the shop.


Edward Hackett: I hope you will, but it does not look much like it. That old bridge must be twenty years old.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Probably it is, and it will be good for a hundred years more.


Edward Hackett: And you charge the people of Prince Edward Island the full price of a new bridge.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Oh, no.


Edward Hackett: You make them pay $10,000 a year out of their subsidy, and you ask them in addition to maintain the carriage way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are making a very nice arrangement for you.


Edward Hackett: I think you are driving a very hard bargain so far as the people of Prince Edward Island are concerned.


John Graham Haggart: Who has the contract for building the bridge, and was it let by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes, Mr. M. J. Haney.


John Graham Haggart: I do not refer to the bridge in Prince Edward Island, but to the spans over the Miramichi.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not done anything with that yet.


John Graham Haggart: Why did not the minister adopt the same principle in reference to steel rails as he did in the case of this bridge, and only ask for the difference between the actual cost of the steel rails and the value of the rails he took up from the road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what I am doing.


John Graham Haggart: You have not done that in reference to the steel rails.


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


John Graham Haggart: The minister has asked for $920,000 for steel rails for last year and this year, and if he only asked for the difference between the cost of the new rails and the value of the old, that would do for nearly two-thirds of the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the use of the hon. gentleman saying that. We discussed this matter of steel rails for three days, and the hon. gentleman now makes the same statement that he started out with the first or second day of the discussion. That has been all threshed out. I appeal to the hon. gentleman's sense of fair play not to revive the discussion.


John Graham Haggart: I am not reviving the discussion. The minister must know that he took a vote for the full price of the rails purchased.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not, Sir.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister tell me that he intends to buy over $600,000 worth of steel rails this year ?


Edward Hackett: 


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I stated to the hon. gentleman that I proposed to buy 25,000 tons of rails, and from the market price of $32.60 I have deducted $15, and I have only asked now for $500,000, and I have to ask for $160,000 more, in order to make up that sum. If the hon. gentleman after three days debate does not understand any better, what is the use of talking.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the minister deducted that as he says, he is asking a good deal more than a million dollars for his rails this year.


John Graham Haggart: Never mind, we will get all that again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would facilitate the passing of these items very much if we had the detailed plans and estimates before us.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have given the estimate. We know what these things will cost.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not mean the final conclusion of the engineer, but the grounds of his estimate.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister let the Miramiehi bridge by tender ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly. I am quite safe in saying that not a bridge has ever been constructed by this department that has not been done by tender, for either the superstructure or the other part.


Andrew B. Ingram: We want some explanation of this item.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Included in this sum is an appropriation to cover the cost of twenty new locomotives which we are obtaining from the Canadian Locomotive Company of Kingston. The cost of these locomotives is $19,000 each, or $380,000 in all.


Samuel Hughes: What is the weight of those locomotives ?
The	MINISTER	OP	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Between eighty-two and ninety tons. They are being made upon the general specification which has been adopted by the department, and what are called consolidations-ten-wheeled.


John Graham Haggart: You have the contracts	there, I suppose ?
The	MINISTER	OP	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I have, and all the papers.


John Graham Haggart: You might leave them on the Table of the House. Just state the time the contract was made and the conditions. We do not want the details of the engines.
The	MINISTER	OP	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I think the time the contract 131i
was made has been already stated to the House. The correspondence will show that on the 16th of October, we passed the first order in council on the subject, authorizing the construction of fourteen locomotives. This was subsequently supplemented by an amending order making the number twenty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the date of the amending order ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The 28th of November. The minister recommended that the order in council of the 16th of October authorizing the purchase of fourteen locomotives from the Canadian Locomotive Works at Kingston be modified by increasing the number to twenty, and fixing the price at $19,000 each, delivered at Alontreal; the contract to be entered into with William Harty. The minister observed that under contracts recently entered into with American companies, the price was $14,425, and the customs duty added brought the total cost up to $19,555, or $555 more than the price proposed to be paid to the company.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure that the 16th of October is the date of the order in council ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite sure.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, I will draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that on the 18th of February, 1901, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper drew the minister's attention to a certain document which had been circulated in the city of Kingston during the last election. At that time the acting Minister of Railways was in the city of Woodstock, and the Hon. Air. Harty in the city of Montreal. I find that these telegrams passed :
Montreal, November 5,	1900.-Hon. James
Sutherland, Woodstock, Ont.-Arrived here this morning, Windsor Hotel, will be here all day. Please answer my letter of Saturday by wire if possible. (Sgd.) William Harty.
Hon. Wm. Harty, Windsor Hotel, Montreal.- Have received no letter from you. (Sgd.) James Sutherland.
Hon. James Sutherland, Woodstock, Ont.-I mailed you a letter from Kingston Saturday night. You will likely receive It this afternoon. Wire answer to it if possible. (Sgd.) Wm. Harty.
Hon. William Harty, Windsor Hotel, Montreal. -Your offer to build twenty locomotive engines for the Intercolonial Railway accepted. Order in council already passed to this effect. (Sgd.) James Sutherland, acting Minister of Railways and Canals.
Montreal, November 5,	1900.-Hon. James
Sutherland, Woodstock, Ont.-Thanks for order. (Sgd.) William Harty.
These telegrams would indicate that nothing had been done previous to the 5th of November.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes, the order in council for the fourteen locomotives had passed on the 16th of October.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I find that on February 25th, 1901, the following question and answer were given in this House:


John Graham Haggart: How many locomotives have been purchased by the Department of Railways and Canals or the government from January 1, 1897, up to the present time, for the Intercolonial Railway?
Of the total number of locomotives so purchased, how many have been purchesd in Canada and how many in the United States, and from what corporations or persons have such locomotives been purchased, and how many from each, and what is the amount or price paid or payable to each such corporation or person for such locomotives?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There have been no locomotives purchased by the department since the date mentioned, the 1st of January, 1897, though a number of locomotives and cars have been made as the result of tenders being asked for and of contracts entered into, and delivery has taken place. I am having a statement of them prepared which I can furnish if desired, but there have been none purchased in the ordinary sense.
I cannot quite make this out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I presume the question was asked as distinguishing an ordinary transaction of purchase from the. obtaining of offers and the making of a contract for the manufacture and subsequent supply of locomotives at rates to be fixed. Mr. Sutherland's telegram, which was dated on the 5th of November, was evidently written under the impression that the order in council was for twenty locomotives. I said that on the 28th of November, the order in council had been passed, increasing the number to twenty. This is an error. The report from the minister went to council on that date, but the order in council did not actually pass until the 12th of December.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister has already stated that this correspondence is substantially correct; and what I cannot understand is, if it is substantially correct, how an order could be issued on the 16tli of October, when the offer was only made on the 3rd of November. On November 3rd, a letter was written to the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) by Mr. Harty, stating that he expected to be in possession of the locomotive works in Kingston on the following Monday, and offering to build twenty locomotive engines for the Intercolonial Railway. This was written by a gentleman who did not then own the locomotive works and who apparently up to that tane had no control over them.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. We had the proposition long before that. They began to talk to us about their being able to get these works long before that. I find here a letter from Mr. Bucknell, dated as early as the 16th of August. He was acting for Mr. Harty, and at his request wrote stating that he is prepared to receive specifications for the locomotives, and on the 11th of August the specifications were sent to the Canadian Locomotive and Engine Company. The next document I have is the order in council of the 16th of October, authorizing fourteen locomotives to be contracted for with that company. I am quite sure that Mr. Harty must have made considerable progress with his purchase of the then Kingston Locomotive Works, or we would not have passed that order in council. We had his offer to build the locomotives and his assurance that he would have the works shortly within his control, and they did get into his control. All the transfers were probably completed before Mr. Harty wrote the telegram referred to.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, the language used in this letter of the 3rd of November is rather unfortunate. Mr. Harty says :
I expect to be in possession of the locomotive works in this city on Monday next, and now beg to offer you as follows:


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That confirms my impression. Very likely the transfers were executed, and Mr. Harty was going to get possession in a day or two.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I fail to understand the point the hon. gentleman is trying to make. The Kingston Locomotive Works had been applying to the department for an order for some time. They had, I understand, got into difficulties and had not been able to make a contract with the department, although considerable correspondence had taken place. Afterwards the works went into liquidation, I think, and a receiver was appointed. An application was then made by Mr. Harty to the government to give the building of the locomotives to the Canadian institution in Kingston, of which he was about to obtain possession. The application was looked upon favourably, and I think the department intimated that it would be willing to give the preference to a Canadian institution which would tum out as good engines as could be had at other places and at the same figures. But there was considerable correspondence months before the date the hon. gentleman referred to, and we thought that if reputable men with some capital were able to conclude an arrangement with the estate for the purchase of the works, a contract could be made with them. The minister in charge of the department asked for power by order in council, or at any rate consulted the government, and was authorized, under the conditions I have mentioned, to give a preference to this institution, if it were able to turn


Andrew B. Ingram: out the locomotives satisfactorily. Then some delay took place, as often happens in matters of this kind. I do not know that we had any occasion to know anything about the negotiations going on between the different parties. I am not sure who was associated with Mr. Harty or whether there were different parties trying to make arrangements to continue this work, but it was the wish of the government that the order should be given to a Canadiaii institution if possible. The communication was sent to me, as acting minister, addressed to Ottawa, when I was not here, and then I received the telegram. I remember that this agreement had been come to, and I am pretty sure the order in council was passed months before.
an option on the works. And while that option was in the hands of the other party, negotiations were being carried on by the government for the purchase of twenty locomotives. I do not know how the price was fixed, but I know that in all these things the price should be fixed by the ordinary rules of fair competition and tender openly called for. But, instead of that, a private arrangement is made with a party who owned no locomotive works and who could not even get an option on them at the time. And while this is the state of affairs a contract is made, as much as a contract could be made by an order in council, giving an order for twenty locomotives. After Mr. Harty gets the order, he completes the purchase.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was passed on the 16th of October, but there was an understanding before that.


John Graham Haggart: The extraordinary position is this, that this man should have been in communication witb the government to furnish these locomotives before he had the least title to the property. The property belonged to the Bank of Montreal all the time he was negotiating with the government, and during that time another man had the option for the purchase of the property. On the 5th of November, the acting minister telegraphed his acceptance of Mr. Harty's offer to build twenty locomotives, and the next day-which was the day after the option to Mr. King had expired, he purchased the property. He was then in a position to go to the party from whom he was purchasing or to any bank in the country to get an advance of money for the purchase, having the contract from the government for twenty locomotives. And further, he does not need to furnish the capital for carrying on the work. One of the most extraordinary parts of the contract, if I understood the minister correctly, is that there are payments from time to time-progress estimates-on the work. Whoever heard of such a thing in the purchase of locomotives or cars before ? The contract was closed on the 5th of No. vember, two days before the election. On that day Mr. Harty gets word from the acting Minister of Railways, and the next day he makes a bargain, or one day after the option of Mr. King or the Bank of Montreal for the purchase of the property expired. This is the most extraordinary transaction, to use a very mild term, that I have heard of. The government negotiates with a party who, as I have stated, has not the slightest title to the property. It is true that Mr. Harty was formerly connected wi(th (the Kingston! Locomotive Works, being secretary or treasurer I believe. But the works had passed out of ' their hands into the hands of another party and that party had given to a third person


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Supposing that to be the case- I do not know that it is-what is wrong With it ?


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman knows that it Is the case, because the correspondence brought down by himself distinctly shows it.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CAAtaLS. I did not bring down any correspondence.


John Graham Haggart: It was brought down from the hon. gentleman's department.


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


John Graham Haggart: It was brought down by the acting minister in answer to a question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will read and see whether I brought it down or not.


John Graham Haggart: I say the acting minister gave this answer to a question in the House and quoted this correspondence :
Montreal, November 6, 1900-Edward J. B. Pense, Kingston, Ont.-Have just completed, at <1 p.m., purchase of locomotive works from liquidators. Have secured contract from government for twenty engines for Intercolonial Railway, and am promised twelve by Mackenzie & Mann. In endeavouring to help myself I rejoice in indirectly being able to do something for my old employees of the locomotive works. Home to-morrow noon. (Sgd.) William Harty. The option to Mr. King ended Monday. Mr. Harty bought Tuesday-no delay about that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will the hon. gentleman point out what is wrong ?


John Graham Haggart: Why, he was making an arrangement with a party who had no title to the locomotive works.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Was that wrong ?	.


John Graham Haggart: It was wrong to make a private arrangement with an individual who had not control of the necessary plant


The MINISTEK OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let me ask the hon. gentleman a question. Has not the government heen assailed all over Canada because we dared to go outside the limits of Canada to buy locomotives ? And will the hon. gentleman tell me what other locomotive manufacturers there are in Canada whom we could have asked for prices except these.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman was contracting with a person who had no title to locomotive works in this country, and making a bargain two days before an election.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Who else could we contract with ? It makes no difference about individuals, so long as the locomotives are made in Canada.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman could have contracted with somebody who had a title to locomotive works. Why had not any one of hundreds or thousands of people in Canada as good a right to an opportunity to make a contract as Mr Harty had ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But they did not come forward and propose to build locomotives.


John Graham Haggart: Whoever thought that the minister intended to buy twenty locomotives in Canada '! Why was not an opportunity given to any man'to build locomotives and so put him in a position to buy and start the locomotive works ? The minister may try to draw a herring across the trail by saying that he lias been blamed for buying locomotives in the United States. Why does he not offer any party in Canada who will build locomotives as good an opportunity as that he gave to Mr. Harty ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is that the way business is ordinarily' done ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, not to make an arrangement with one individual like Mr. Harty


An hon. MEMBER.: What is the matter with Mr. Harty ?


John Graham Haggart: I am not saying anything disparaging ,of Mr. Harty. He had a right to enter into an agreement with the government and make as good a bargain as he could. But fancy a government, two days before an election, bargaining with an individual to supply twenty locomotives and the minister solemnly getting an order in council passed authorizing him to enter into the contract. The contract, of course, was not entered into, but Mr. BLAIR.
tlie government was bound so far as the arrangements could be made. We would like to see the whole correspondence. And I suppose the hon. minister intends to lay it on the Table before he asks us to pass this item. I have not heard whether a contract was actually made and signed for the construction of these engines, but if it was, we would like to see it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) assumes altogether too much when he says that he knows all about the negotiations between the parties for the control of the Kingston Locomotive Works.


John Graham Haggart: I never said anything about that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman is pretending to say that Mr. Harty had no connection with this matter up to this day.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, he says so himself.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: From a legal standpoint perhaps he had not. But the hon. gentleman must remember that we are not acquainted with the position of affairs between the different parties to the estate, nor do I think that makes any material difference ; because during the last session of parliament when this matter was under discussion, I understood the minister to say that he had given orders to the Kingston Locomotive Works which they were unable to fill, and for that reason he was compelled to buy from manufacturers in the United States, but he would be very glad to purchase locomotives from the Kingston works if they were able to fill the orders. That statement was made publicly to the whole country and the world. The statement that negotiations were going on was public property, the knowledge that the government were prepared to give these works a preference was known to every person as well as to Mr. Harty. There was nothing secret about it, there was no special information given to Mr. Harty. I am not sure that Mr. Harty was the first man to conduct the negotiations. My recollection is that Mr. Harty had not been connected with the works for several years previous to that time. I understand that the citizens and workingmen of Kingston who were out of employment at that time, had appealed to Mr. Harty, who had been somewhat successful in the previous management, to help them to re-establish these works. But my hon. friend would give the impression to the House that Mr. Harty was in possession of some special knowledge that enabled him to have advantage in purchasing these works. I do not think that it was considered any great snap. They had been interviewing manufacturers and people that had capital throughout this country, and per-

haps across the line, trying to get them interested in these works, as I understand ; and the government policy was declared openly and above-board that whenever they were in a position to go on with the works and furnish locomotives the government were prepared to give an order. That declaration was made a year ago. I remember well that months before that, I think during the last session, Mr. Harty was here and told me that on account of ill-health he did not feel himself equal to taking hold of the management of the works, and that he was endeavouring to interest other capitalists in this matter. X have not the slightest doubt that that was correct, and that these negotiations were going on. Some delay took place. I had no idea the Bank of Montreal was interested, nor do X think it makes any difference. In my opinion the government did their duty in the matter, and I am not ashamed at all, but proud to know that the government adopted that policy of giving encouragement towards reopening these works by promising orders on equal terms. I think the government were careful to protect the country's interests when they accepted the offer to make locomotives as good as can be made in any other part of the world, and at as low a price.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have heretofore given the government credit for being rather shrewd in elections, but I am forced to admit, after hearing the argument of the hon. gentleman, that they have been a little slack in this contract at Kingston. We know about a year ago there was a good deal of discussion, and the Minister of Railways and Canals was condemned for giving contracts to some of the American manufacturers. It appears strange now, if this order was passed on the 16th of October, giving this order to the Kingston works, that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton), who was a candidate and in the midst of an election, and the Hon. Mr. Harty, who is a pretty good politician, would not have got an inkling of this order in council giving them the contract to manufacture these engines in Kingston. It seems strange, knowing the great advantage the hon. gentleman took of it after the 5th of November, because I find this was circulated in Kingston :
Locomotive works bought-Hon. Wm. Harty Kingston's friend-Has orders for 32 locomotives -20 for the government and 12 for Mackenzie & Mann-Where was the Conservative help for the city on this occasion-Read the government's contracts below, and thank Liberals for redeeming a big industry.
You see the energy they put forth in order that the workingmen of Kingston might know that the works were to be resumed by this order of the government. The order in council of the 16th of October, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister of
Railways and Canals, does look to me as being a little bit fishy. If the documents are brought down and they prove that statement, I will take back what I say.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can give the hon. gentleman the documents now.


Andrew B. Ingram: I find that the statement made by the minister to-night that the amending order in council was passed on the 28th of November


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I corrected that by saying that was the date reported from the acting minister. The order itself did not get to council until December 12th.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the statement made by the minister on the 18th of February was this :
An order in council was thereupon passed on October 16th authorizing a contract to be entered into, and later on, December 22nd, the last contract was executed between the government and the Kingston company.
For what ? For fourteen locomotives ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, for twenty.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the statement as made by Mr. Harty in Kingston that there was an arrangement entered into was not a correct statement ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He saw the telegram from the acting minister, who had the impression, I suppose, that the order was for twenty. He was in Woodstock, he was not here to refer to it, but he knew the order had passed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, if the Kingston Locomotive Works manufacture as good locomotives as were manufactured in Kingston previous to the collapse, I am sure the hon. gentleman will have no cause for complaint. I know from my own knowledge that the Kingston Locomotive Works manufactured good engines. They had been used on the Michigan Central Railroad. I watched them carefully for years, and I have inquired into the way these engines worked, and I know they gave satisfaction to the Michigan Central Company. I have been assured on every occasion that these engines are as good as the company have had in use. Now, with respect to the price. According to the contract with Mr. Harty, he says he will guarantee to manufacture these engines for $500 less than any manufacturer in the United States or Canada can supply them.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. With the duty added.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the bon. gentleman inquired what the same class of engine can he procured for from other manufacturers ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: And does he assure us that he can get engines at Kingston for $500 less than anywhere else ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the price is $19,000, which the government engaged to pay to the Kingston company, and is $555 less than the price that we were paying for precisely the same class of locomotives, with the duty added.


Andrew B. Ingram: That must be some years ago.	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not some years ago. $14,485 is the price of locomotives of the same description that we were getting made for us in the United States. At that time they were not then delivered. AVe added to that a duty of 35 per cent, which would amount to $5,070. This added to the American price would bring the engine up to $19,555 ; and we made a contract for $19,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: I say that must have been some time ago, because the hon. gentleman has stated that they have purchased no engines since the 1st of January, 1897.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had engines which were being made then under contract. I explained that, I said I would furnish the return it desired, and would bring down a list of those that had been made for us under contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think we ought to have the statements as promised on the 25th of February, so that we may be in a position to judge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can get it for the hon. gentleman ; also the order in council.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In favour of the Canadian Locomotive and Engine Works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: While on the 5th we have the telegraph of the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals accepting a tender to build twenty locomotives.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: AVliat difference does that make ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Byron Moffatt Britton: It seems to me that in the matter of the locomotive works at Kingston, it is impossible to please hon. gentlemen, because, turn whichever way we will and do whatever we may, an attempt is made to make political capital against the member for Kingston and the Liberal party in reference to them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will allow me, I would say to him that I have no objection whatever to the works being gone on with at Kingston.


Byron Moffatt Britton: You did have.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. He should not put words in my mouth that I never uttered. I want to understand the transfer. I would be very glad to see the work done at Kingston.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I will see if I cannot make the hon. gentleman understand it. When I was first elected, nearly the first work that I had to do was to attempt to see if a contract could not be got from this government for the building of locomotives at Kingston. I do not remember the exact time, and although I cannot give exact dates, l am going to give truly in substance what has taken place in reference to this matter, and I will challenge successful contradiction of anything that I shall say. But I shall not be able, because I am speaking entirely from memory, having no notes, to give the exact dates at which the occurrences to which I have referred took place. After the election of 1896, I think some time in 1897, I attended upon the government and tried to get a contract for some locomotives to be built at Kingston. I succeeded. The contract was not a large one. Unfortunately, the works at Kingston were in, to some extent, a state of decay.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They had not the capital to do it.


Byron Moffatt Britton: They were not able to do, in the course of their undertakings, what they were expected to do, and so a little dissatisfaction resulted because the locomotives were not finished in the time specified
in their contract. Hon. gentlemen opposite and not only the Conservatives in Kingston, but all over the country, were charging the government with refusing to give work to the Kingston Locomotive Works, and capital was attempted to he made against us because of this alleged refusal on the part of the government to do that. I asserted that the government were willing to prefer Canadian manufacturers, other things being equal and the price being reasonable. I stated that, in this House in 1897 or 189S, and I recollect distinctly the then hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper) saying that the government were perfectly right, in giving Canadian factories work, giving them a price and adding to the price the duty that an individual would have to pay if he brought locomotives over from the other side. That statement seemed to meet with the approval of hon. members opposite, and with the approval of the whole House. Things went from bad to worse with the Canadian Locomotive Works, or with the Canadian Locomotive and Engine Company, as the corporation was known. Let me state what Mr. Harty's connection with the matter was. Years before Mr. Harty was the managing director of that company and he managed it so successfully that he made money out of it for the shai*e-holders and for himself. He managed it so successfully that he and the other stockholders, among whom was the late Sir George Kirkpatrick, were able to sell their stock to Scotch capitalists at 150. The stock then went into the hands of people outside of Kingston, the works were being managed by these people, and from time to time at a loss. In February, 1900, the company was put into liquidation under the Joint Stock Companies Winding Up Act. The acting liquidator was Mr. Riddell, of Montreal, and another gentleman was associated with him. The Bank of Montreal had nothing to do with the company other than that they were creditors, and as such the inspector of the Bank of Montreal was made one of the inspectors in connection with the winding up. There were three inspectors and two liquidators acting in connection with the liquidation. Early in the history of the liquidation Mr. Harty made an offer for that concern and it had no more to do with politics than the ordinary purchase of an article in a store. Mr. Harty knew what could be done with that business. He knew the value of the plant and of the property there ; he knew the cost in round figures to be $300,000, and believing that it would not realize anything near its value lie offered $50,000 for the plant and property, and $10,000 for the material on hand, making a total of $60,000. The liquidators would not look at it, and his standing offer of $60,000 remained during the entire summer. It ran along until about two months before the 7th of November-the date of the elections has been dragged into this-when

the liquidators gave an option to some one at a figure above $50,000. I do not remember the name, but the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says it was Mr. King.


John Graham Haggart: I got the name from the correspondence brought down by the acting minister.
Hon. Mr. S UTHERLANI). There is no secret about it.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The option was given to some one at a price exceeding $60,000, and it was thought this gentleman was not going to exercise his option. Now, when this was a going concern 300 men were employed and it meant everything to the merchants of Kingston, and to the working people of Kingston, and no matter which party was in power, the people were anxious to have that option determined one way or the other, and some one went to New York to try to induce this person to give up his option before the expiration of the time. I do not know whether Mr. King was in New York or not, but at all events the person who had control of it was in New York at the time. He would not give up his option which had been given him long before and the date of which did not expire until Monday, the 5th November. Consequently no one could get the concern. But it was understood for weeks before that if that gentleman did not exercise his option, Mr. Harty's offer of $50,000 would be accepted. We all believed that Mr. Harty would get the concern. The elections were announced after these negotiations had begun, and all this talk about getting the control into the hands of Mr. Harty, and the Kingston-ians, took place before the elections were announced. As soon as the elections were announced the cry was raised against me that the Liberal party were instrumental in closing these works, that all the disaster that would come to Kingston by reason of these 300 men being out of employment was due to the Liberal government because they would not give contracts to Canadians. The liquidators carried the concern on under the direction of the court to the extent of manufacturing the materials on hand, but they would not enter into new contracts. At this time and before the elections the works were actually closed, and it was made a cry against me, as I have said, that the Liberal party had been instrumental in closing the works..


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman say who Mr. E. J. B. Pense is ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes. He is the proprietor of the British Whig in Kingston. He is a prominent man in Kingston and takes an interest as owner of that journal in every enterprise that is calculated to promote the welfare and prosperity of the city.


Mr. SPROULE.: Politics included.


Byron Moffatt Britton: 


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes, polities included. He is the editor of the Liberal paper, the British Whig, a paper that does credit to the city it is published in, and which is quoted very largely by newspapers all over the country, 'and, sometimes an independent streak seizes Mr. Pense and that is applauded by hon. gentlemen opposite so that they endorse his opinions to some extent at least. As I have stated, the cry was raised that the Liberal government were instrumental in closing these works and if publicity was given to the fact that Mr. Harty succeeded in buying the works, and had secured a contract for building these locomotives it was simply to meet the arguments that had been used by the other side for weeks before. That is a plain history of the transaction. As a matter of fact I do not think the announcement at so late a date did the Liberal candidate a particle of good. A counter proclamation, if you can, call it such, was 'issued, saying that Mr. Harty had not bought the concern, that the whole thing was a fake, but finally it was found that what we said all along was true, and that we had the interests of Kingston at heart. Mr. Harty for his own purpose and as a matter. of investment in a business which he knew a good deal about, got this property cheap and every one in Kingston was glad and applauded him for his enterprise. Where is the blame in that. I cannot see it. Mr. Birkett is a gentleman- the minister read the wrong name, because it was a misprint-who had been in the employ of the concern with Mr. Harty, in the old days, and he afterwards continued in the employ of the liquidators. The government were just as willing to give contracts to one party as to the others, so long as it was a Canadian industry and so long as they had the capital and ability to carry out these contracts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What capital had Mr. Harty ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Why, Mr. Harty is a wealthy man. Does any one say that he is not a wealthy man ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the basis of the financial structure built up by this contract.


Byron Moffatt Britton: No. Mr. Harty was
wealthy before, and there are hon. gentlemen in this House who know it. Mr. Harty was ready to buy out the concern entirely on his own responsibility. He did not want any of us who were willing to go in with him. He was quite convinced that money could be made out of it, but after he purchased, he formed a connection with Mr. Haney, whose name I hear in connection with large contracts, and who, I understand, is a wealthy man. Mr. Harty and Mr. Haney are running the concern, and although they have formed a joint stock company, I believe, in Toronto, so far as I know.

the stock has not been offered to any one. It is a pure business transaction. If the transaction had not taken place as it did, no doubt political capital would have been made out of it, because the allegation that the government had closed down the industry because they would not give work to a Canadian establishment, would have succeeded to a very great extent.
I state as absolutely true that there has been from the very first, ever since I have been a member of this House, an honest desire to have that Canadian industry reestablished at Kingston, and to get work for it; and every attempt that has been made and the success that has attended it, has been misrepresented by some hon. gentlemen opposite and by their press throughout the country. A most unfair attempt has been made from the beginning to make political capital out of the matter. Conservatives and Liberals alike have been desirous to obtain orders for that establishment as soon as it was able to carry them out. At the present time, at the heel of the hunt, When Mr. Harty has the work in successful operation-and if he does not do it successfully, he must answer for the consequences-and when all is going on smoothly, to attempt to open up the matter in order to make political capital out of it, is most unfair.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Most of what the hon. gentleman has said is no doubt quite true. These Kingston works were hawked about almost everywhere, and offered for $50,000. They were offered to me amongst others for that amount. Some people brought them to my notice and asked me to join. I figured over the matter. I am not anxious to take hold of any works which depend for their success on government contracts; 1 have always avoided that. To carry on these works and build sixteen or twenty locomotives entailed an expenditure of practically $380,000 in addition to the $50,000 of capital, which was a small thing to raise. At that particular time money was perhaps a little scarce, and it was hard to make a contract with a bank for sucih a large amount of money for one transaction. The one thing I blame the government for in connection with this matter is this. If they had informed other contractors before that date that they were willing to make a departure and advance 80 per cent on progress estimates, these works would never have failed, as the hon. member for Kingston says they failed, for want of capital. To take a contract to build twenty engines meant that the company liad to get a bank credit of $250,000 or $300,000. Assuming that the company made 10 per cent profit, which would be a reasonably small profit, they would deduct $38,000 from the $380,000, the total amount of the contract. So that they would only require to have a capital of $38,000 to
finance this contract. Iv.mout having the details of the contract, and being able to submit these to an expert, I do not propose to say anything as to the price of the engines. I will assume that that is all right; but as to advancing 80 per cent on progress certificates, that is an entirely new departure. I am not saying that it is a bad thing. For myself I am delighted to see the works re-established in Kingston. But that contract was made on the 5th of November, two days before the election, and it assured the success of the government candidate in Kingston. Without that contract having been made at that time, I do not think the hon. member for Kingston would now be in this House.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not agree with that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is my opinion.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Your opinion was that I was beaten already.
Mr, OSLER. It was because this contract had not come out then. Personally, however, I am glad that the works have been established, and I hope they will be successful.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is one point which I want to make perfectly clear. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier lays great stress on the point that the order in council which passed when my hon. friend was negotiating for the work was only for fourteen engines, and that I said in the telegram to Mr. Harty that the order in council was for twenty engines. I was under the impression that the number was the number mentioned in his letter. There was nothing secret about it, and no intention to do anything wrong. What I did say in the presence of the premier was that the policy of the government was to give an order for twenty engines. Evei-y-thing was done in a business way and aboveboard and there is nothing to he ashamed of. If getting the consent of the government to increase the number by six had the result of re-establishing the Kingston Locomotive Wrorks, I am only proud of what took place, and do not think that the people of Kingston or any of those employed in those works will agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. I do not dispute the telegram, because I knew that the government had consented to increase the number to twenty if the company would place themselves in a position to successfully open the works and fulfil the contract; and if the government could get a locomotive built in Canada at a less price or on as favourable terms as anywhere else, I want to know why they should not do so.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Why did you not do it years before ?
41^3


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As to the subsequent terms which the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) tries to find fault with, they simply amount to this. Long after the election, I suppose, there were negotiations with the department for the contract and certain propositions were accepted. There is no occasion to find fault with the contract as now made. Everything was done openly and above-board, and when the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) had admitted that people went to him, knowing him to be a wealthy man with plenty of capital at his disposal for investment, and asked him to join with them in taking over these works, and that he knew perfectly well the policy of the government with regard to this matter, that altogether disposes of his argument. Had any proposition been made by the hon. geu-tleman, no doubt he would have received the same consideration as that which came afterwards from those who took possession of the works. The point I wish to make perfectly clear is that there was no secret understanding between Mr. Harty and myself for political or other purposes. If these men succeeded in concluding their negotiations before the election and the Liberal party got the benefit, it was only a small measure of justice done them for the improper criticisms of my hon. friend and the government during the previous year or two, and I am glad he igot the benefit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman says that everybody knew the principle on which the government was acting. Did the hon. gentleman who had the option on this property know that the government would pay progress estimates ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Did he ask for any such contract ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he had known that there was any possibility of his obtaining such a contract, he would have closed his option long before he gave it up, and have gone on with the business.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The party who bought had no knowledge that he could make such a contract. Was it not subsequent to his entering into negotiations that he made this arrangement ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I contend that everybody did not know the policy of the government. The man who held the option did not know it or he would have entered into the contract just as well as Mr. Harty did. The hon. member for South Oxford says there is nothing to toe ashamed of, but there never was a political job yet which he was ashamed of, and I do not wonder that he was not ashamed of this, nor will the country wonder either. What is strange about the whole matter is the way these government contractors bob up now and again just in the Mr. TAYLOR.
right time to get control of this thing or the other, and then shortly afterwards get some government contract. Mr. Haney comes in.


Byron Moffatt Britton: He was not there until long after the election in connection with this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. member for Kingston to say, in answer to my question as to how Mr. Harty could finance this scheme, that Mr. Harty had Mr. Haney at his back.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes, but Mr. Haney came in later. He was not there nor was his name known in any shape or form before the election.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does the hon. gentleman know that Mr. Haney had no correspondence with Mr. Harty about it ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I dare say he knew Mr. Harty's transactions and how he intended financing, but Mr. Haney was not connected with the thing then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems passing strange that Mr. Haney should come in at the opportune time to helpi Mr. Harty to finance the scheme.


John Graham Haggart: The contract was made with Haney, Harty and Birmingham.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and made at this opportune time, and it seems to have turned out very remunerative to the parties interested. And Mr. Haney comes at the opportune time with Mr. Charleson, of telegraph fame. He seems to have received slices of government money from various sources. The hon. gentleman says that this contract was under way for nearly a year. But the same thing was stated in connection with the Glergue contract, and what ;s peculiar about these contracts is that they come to a head just at the time the elections are on. They may have been under way for six months or a year or two previous, but, they do not reach a final conclusion until the elections are on, when it is of the greatest importance that these people should enter into contracts with the government which will be of use to them in assisting their political friends. Does any one pretend that this contract did not help the hon. member for Kingston ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I say it did not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman pretend that in a dead place like Kingston, if he goes on a platform before the election, and says we have succeeded, through the influence of the government, in establishing a work that will give employment to 300 men


Byron Moffatt Britton: The reason it did not influence the election in Kingston is because the hon. gentleman's friends said it was all a fake.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But tlie hon. gentleman had a telegram saying that a contract was entered into for twenty locomotives and that in addition they had a contract for twelve more, which would mean an expenditure of about $1,200,000.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Your newspapers contended that there was not a word of truth in these statements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The people believed the hon. gentleman rather than the newspapers. Will any one pretend that to tell the people of Kingston, where there was not employment enough for labour, that a very important work was to be started, which would give employment to 200 or 400 or 500 men, would not help them ? We had an example in Owen Sound when the hon. member for North Grey was running his election. We know that the announcement of the government contract there resulted in buying up that constituency.


Mr. HORSEY.: Does the hon. gentleman say that the constituency of North Grey can be bought V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I could tell the hon. gentleman a little more about it that he thinks the outside world knows. I happen to have some affidavits in my possession which will bear out what I say, and the less the hon. gentleman says about that election the better for himself and his reputation. I have no doubt that this contract did in Kingston what the other promised contract did in North Grey. It resulted in carrying the election, and that election was carried as corruptly as if you went out with the money in your hand and bought up the election man by man. We saw the same course pursued with regard to the Olergue steel rail contract. That contract was under way nearly a year, but strange to say it only reached its culmination at that particular time, when the writs were issued for the election, and was only then given out to the world. These things do appear to disinterested people as not being business transactions carried out on the ordinary lines and on ordinary business principles. Was there a deposit asked ? Not a dollar. So that if the parties had seen fit to back out, there was nothing to hold them to their contract. Was there a deposit asked in the case of the Clergue contract ? Not a dollar, and it reached its culmination just as the elections were on.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You say that we concealed it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say it was concealed, because the outside world did not know anything about it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman can hardly reconcile those two propositions-that we kept the thing a secret, and on the other
hand, that we used it to carry the constituency. _


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was kept secret between the government and the party with whom they negotiated until the opportune time. Not one of the newspapers in Canada knew nothing about the negotiations until the writs were- issued.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, months before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What paper ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) made a speech at the Soo long before the election. It was made public in every paper, and it was discussed in newspapers and on the platform everywhere.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman cannot find a newspaper in the city of Toronto that contained that announcement.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is easy for a man to make a statement-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At first, this speech was made back in Muskoka, but now it is at the Soo. It is strange that we, who live in that country, heard nothing about it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have made the statement before, and I make it now. There were hundreds of thousands who read it, and thousands who heard the speech. There was nothing secret about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not seen anybody except the hon. gentleman himself who knew of it, though most other persons are readers of the press as well as he. This is too important a question to be kept out of the press if it had been announced at any place where the press could learn of it. Nothing was known of it until the elections came on.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And yet the hon. gentleman says that we kept it secret till the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have evidently failed to make myself understood. I said that it was kept secret until the opportune time for the government. One arrangement was made on the 5th of November, while the election was on the 7th ; while the other was made on the 9th October, the day the writs were issued. And when we look into it and see that it was all done in this unbusiness-like way, it makes the transaction look all the worse. I think the country will express its displeasure


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no occasion to be very much afraid of the country on these questions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Had these things been known, badly as the government were de-

feated in Ontario, they would have fared far worse. And no doubt more will be heard of this matter when the proper time comes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is what the hon. gentleman said before, but his promise was not realized.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. gentleman was defeated in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But Ontario Is not the whole Dominion. It is a great province, but it is not always represented by great men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think its representatives will compare favourably with those of the hon. gentleman's province.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: With me, no doubt, but not with those who sit behind us.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to reply to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) who has charged us with trying to make political capital out of the Kingston Locomotive Works. I am afraid the hon. gentleman has forgotten the records of this House. If he will look at the debate which took place on February, 1898, he will see that it was not hon. gentlemen on this side, but his own colleague who tried to make* capital out of these works. On the 1st March, 1898, there was a provincial election. The local member for Kingston made a statement while speaking in that city which was reported in the Kingston Whig, the hon. gentleman's own paper, as follows
I think the workingmen have some knowledge of the interest I have taken in them for a number of years. I have never lost sight of the desirability of aiding the workingmen. Mayor Livingstone suggested to me the manufacturing of locomotives for the Intercolonial Railway, and that we do something to get the contract for Kingston. I wrote Mr. Blair (Minister of Railways and Canals) and have just received a telegram to-day. He says he intends giving Kingston works the opportunity to build locomotives for that railway, the specifications for which will be sent at once. My desire is to give home manufacturers the first preference, and I am glad the work is coming here.


Byron Moffatt Britton: That is right.


Andrew B. Ingram: Wait a moment, the Globe of the 1st February, reporting Mr. Harty's speech, said :
Before sitting down, he read a telegram from the Hon. Mr. Blair announcing that the Kingston Locomotive Works had received an order to construct three locomotives for the Intercolonial Railway, an announcement that was greeted with great applause.
Now, we will see what the hon. minister had to say about that. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) asked a question in this House, and this is the question and the answer :
To what parties have letters or telegrams been sent announcing that such contract had been given to the Kingston Locomotive Works?
The reply of the Minister of Railways was :
No such letter or telegram has been sent as is referred to in this sub-question.
That means that the statement made by the Globe that Mr. Harty read a telegram sent from the minister was not correct, because the minister tells us that no such telegram was sent. So, instead of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton) charging the Conservatives with endeavouring to make political capital out of these works, the records show that the friends of the hon. gentleman are those who have endeavoured to make political capital In this way.


John Graham Haggart: I have had but a short time to look over the correspondence. Will the hon. member answer a few questions. First, dealing with what the hon. gentleman said about the public knowledge of the order in council of the 16th October, I notice that there is no public announcement until the very day after Mr. King's option expired. That expired on Monday the 5th November, and the announcement was made the day afterwards. I see no correspondence in which Messrs. Haney, Harty and Bermingham proposed that there should be an advance payment of 80 per cent as the work is progressing. In fact I find the order in council of November 28th in which the contract


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was the date of the report. If the hon. gentleman will turn over the page, he will see that the order was passed on the 12th December.


John Graham Haggart: There is a memorandum which recommends the giving of an order for fourteen locomotives, which may be modified by increasing the number to twenty, to the Canadian Locomotive and Engine Company, for $19,000 each, delivered on the Intercolonial at Montreal, the said locomotives to be single expansion consolidated freight engines, a contract to be entered into by Mr. Wm. Harty, who has acquired the property of the company. And it gives the type of the engine, but nothing about the progress estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was later.


John Graham Haggart: Then there was a memorandum of the 28th November, 1900, approved by His Excellency on the 12th December :
On a memorandum dated 28th November, 1900, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, recommending that the order in council dated 16th October, 1900, which authorized the purchase of fourteen locomotives for the Intercolonial Railway from the Canadian Locomotive and Engine Company of Kingston be modified by increasing the number to twenty and fixing the price at


Thomas Simpson Sproule: $19,000 each, to be paid on progress certificates up to 80 per cent of the value of material supplied and work done on conditions to be prescribed by the minister.
Then the department authorized the contract to be entered into with Mr. Win. Harty, Michael Haney and Cornelius Ber-mingham. There seems to be no correspondence at all with reference to the change, the recommendation by the minister that the contract be given to these parties instead of to Mr. Harty.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I apprehend that would all be arranged orally. The hon. gentleman will see that the report to council of the 28tb of November was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was acting for ;me in my absence, and it was likely the subject of oral discussion, because we have no written records in the department relating to the subject. The hon. member has been furnished with all we have. It would be the subject of personal interview, and of an amendment to the order at the time of its passage on the 12th of December.


John Graham Haggart: It is very inadvisable that contracts of this importance should be conducted by the department orally alone. The proper way is to have the negotiations made in writing. Further, I see there is a letter from Mr. Pottinger to the deputy minister, dated the 6th of February, 1901 :
I have your letter dated January 29th inclosing a copy of the agreement with Messrs. Wm. Harty and others for twenty freight locomotives to be built at Kingston. The specification has a new clause in it, No. 12, by which 20 per cent of the price of the locomotives is to be paid in monthly instalments.
I suppose he means 80 per cent.
We formerly paid on delivery of each machine, retaining a certain portion of the price to cover failures of the engine afterwards for a time. As we are to tpay for the locomotives before delivery, will it not be advisable to require the contractors to effect an insurance on the material at their expense, so as to protect the railway from loss? The 8th clause provides for the replacing of anything damaged or destroyed, but it is perhaps a question whether that is sufficient protection or not.
Then, here is the minister's answer, through L. K. Jones, secretary :
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 6th instant, relative to the contract recently entered into with Messrs. Wm. Harty et al., for the supply and delivery of twenty locomotives for the Intercolonial Railway, by which you suggest that, as the railway is to pay for the locomotives before delivery, it would be advisable to require the contractors to effect, at their own expense, an insurance on the material in order to protect the railway from loss. In reply, I am, by direction, to inform you that it is too late now to act on your suggestion, and that the clause No. 12, to which you refer, was inserted in the specification in this regard by the minister himself, with a full knowledge of the facts of the case,
he, no doubt, considering the 8th clause, also referred to in your said letter, quite sufficient.
Any protest from Mr. Pottinger receives the proper snub that it ought from the minister. I see also that the contract is not for twenty locomotives, it is for twenty-two.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We contracted for two afterwards, they are separate contracts.


John Graham Haggart: I see that the contract has been transferred, or allowed to be transferred, from Harty, Haney and Ber-mingham, to the Canadian Locomotive Works, by order in council. What I particularly object to is that there is no correspondence with reference to the change, and no written proposals from the parties entering into an important contract like this, and no report from the officers of his department as to the value which was placed upon them. There is nothing hut a statement that he has purchased locomotives for a certain price, and after deducting duty, they come to a price within $400 or $500 of the price that is being paid by him elsewhere. I also object to the secrecy in which the whole of this transaction was involved. The whole transaction appears to me to be of a suspicious character.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: Carried.


John Graham Haggart: No, there is over a million dollars for cars.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not want to force the hon. gentleman to remain any longer to-night. I suppose the summer will be long enough to enable us to get through the Items. I move that the committee rise and report progress. We cannot report any resolutions, for we have not passed any.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. gentleman lay on the Table to-night, or early In the morning, the correspondence in reference to the cars. I moved for the papers long ago, and they ought to have been on the Table long ago.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I don't think the hon. gentleman moved for anything.


John Graham Haggart: I will read the order if the hon. gentleman doubts it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have been anxious to furnish all that information. If the hon. gentleman will find the order I will be pleased to stand corrected. But I have not been aware to the present moment that the hon. gentleman had moved for any such papers.


John Graham Haggart: I will read it.


John Graham Haggart: How many locomotives have been purchased for the Department of Railways and Canals ? How many passenger cars? How many freight

ears? The total number of locomotives so purchased? How many have been purchased in Canada and how many in the United States? From what corporation or persons have such locomotives been purchased, and how many from each, and what is the amount of price paid or payable to each corporation or person for such locomotives? Also the total number of passenger cars and freight cars.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is a question. The hon. gentleman was told that if he wished for a return and moved for it, I would bring it down. But the hon. gentleman never moved for it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman promised to lay that information on the Table.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I said if it was desired I would bring down a return, but I did not undertake to give that information, all of it, in answer to a question.


John Graham Haggart: I put a question as to the number of locomotives purchased by the department since the date mentioned, the 1st of January, 1897, the number of locomotives and cars that had been made as a result of the tenders being asked for and the contracts entered into, and the hon. gentleman says he has a statement prepared which he can furnish.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman never moved for a return for any of these.


John Graham Haggart: I asked for them, and I should judge from the answer I got that there were none purchased.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, but a number were being made, and if the hon. gentleman desired a list of all these I would furnish it. But I would not undertake to furnish to those questions an answer which would necessarily be so voluminous.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman can end the controversy if he will undertake to lay anything he may have on the Table so that we can consider it three or four hours in advance. Will the hon. minister do that 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not want the hon. gentleman to put me in the wrong when I was not in the wrong. I will be very glad to furnish the hon. gentleman with the information, and if he asks me now to bring it down I shall have it prepared and brought down at the earliest possible moment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is an item lower down of $450,000 in connection with the Murray harbour branch and Hillsboro' bridge. If there are any documents which the hon.
Mr. HAGGART
minister thinks we would be liable to ask for in connection with this matter, possibly he might give the subject a few moment's reflection and have these documents brought down, because we will get along a great deal faster if we have these documents.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman will intimate that he wants me to bring down any papers in connection with these estimates I will do so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is the large item of $450,000 in connection with the Murray harbour branch an regard to which there may be some documents. If be had them before we attack the item, it will enable us to shorten our questions very much.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I will bring down whatever we have.
Some resolutions reported.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Wliat business will we be called upon to take up to-morrow ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Some of the Bills on the list will be taken up and then supply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Could the minister state what Bills ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The Election Bill and probably the Bill relating to shipping and several of those small Bills on the paper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And supply-what department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 1, 1901.