1902-05-10

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 1G7) respecting the Royal Marine Insurance Company.-Mr. Marcil (Bonaven-ture).

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I have been appealed to by members on both sides of the House to have the order for private Bills called up now. I therefore move that the House do forthwith proceed with the Orders of the Day for private Bills.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I think it is very desirable that these Bills be given an opportunity of being passed, and possibly it might be expedient to take first the Bills which stand for a second reading, upon which there is not likely to be any controversy. There are twenty-six private Bills on the Order paper, of which eight stand for a second reading ; and if these are allowed to pass their second reading, they can go at once to Committee.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: There is a Bill on the Order paper in which I am interested, and to which I gave notice that I would move some amendments when the motion was made to refer the Bill to the Committee of the Whole House ; and if private Bills are taken up now, it will of course be on the understanding that I .am allowed to move these amendments now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection personally, but it may be that these amendments are material ; and as the object of this motion is to enable parties who may have adverse interests to any of these Bills to receive notice of them, I think it would be more prudent to allow any Bill to which amendments are to be moved to stand over until Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Montreal Subway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
On section 20, subsection b,
Mr. HENDERSON.: When this Bill was up for discussion before, I took occasion to refer to the fact that the words ' for actual construction ' were not read by the Chairman, and in that way I was led to the misapprehension that these words had not been included in the amendment. I desire i to say that I did not intend to cast any

reflection upon the examiner of private Bills or to hold him responsible for the omission.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This is the first time they appeared.


David Henderson: In the Railway Committee it was understood that those words should be inserted, and when you read the clause and the words did not appear, that was the cause of my remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 21,
Mr. SPEAKER.: Notice of motion has been given by my hon. friend Mr. Geoffrion to provide that the two subways shall be constructed simultaneously ; and therefore I move that the following words be added to subsection a :
And both the said subways for railway and highway purposes shall be laid out and constructed simultaneously.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House In Committee on Bill (No. 85) respecting the South Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Robert Laird Borden: Is this the same Bill we had up last year ? It seems to be practically of the same nature.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: It is the same Bill, except that the last part of it to which objection was taken last year, has been dropped. It gives an extension of time to construct the line of railway.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.



THE GASPE AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU moved that the House go again into Committee on Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the Gaspe and Western Railway Company.
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was agreed that this Bill should go over until Monday. I have given notice of several amendments which 1 wish to move. That was the understanding.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: No, there was no such understanding.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Certainly, the premier was here and consented, and I appeal to the House.


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: It goes over till Monday if there is any objection.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Let it stand.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I know nothing about any such arrangement.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection that the Bill should be taken up this morning if the promoters and all the parties concerned are agreed.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The objection comes from me. I have amendments of which I gave notice for Monday.,


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Let us take them now.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: This is an important matter, and these notices are given for Monday.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrnin) insists we cannot go on.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The amendments could be discussed now, they are not of great importance.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There are certain parties who wish to take part in the discussion of these amendments, and who are not here this morning because the notices are given for Monday. That was the understanding when we came to an agreement to take these Bills up this morning.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stand.
Progress reported.



YUKON PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 65) to incorporate the Yukon Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Mr. FLINT.: This amendment, as I understand it, prevents this company from building to the boundary line. That matter was fully discussed in the Railway Committee, and it was decided that this company should have this power. I will therefore move that the Bill be referred back to the Railway Committee for further consideration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This amendment does not refer to building to the international boundary line, but to the boundary line of British Columbia. The Senate amendment is that the company shall not build within five miles of the boundary line of British Columbia.


Thomas Barnard Flint: In that case I misunderstood the amendment.


Mr. McCREARY.: I consented to have the line go to the boundary of British Columbia, but the Senate amendment is that it shall not go within five miles of the boundary of British Columbia. I have not consented to that so far, but I suppose I will have to do

so to-day, as I do not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the Bill passing.
Amendments read the second time, and agreed to.


Mr. SPROULE.: I wish to point out that we are getting into d very loose way of passing these Senate amendments. Some one should explain what they are in each case, so that we may know what is going on.



DOMINION ASSOCIATION OP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS.

Mr.  N. A.@: BELCOURT (Ottawa) moved second reading of Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I understand that this Bill has already been inscribed on the orders of the Private Bills Committee, under the impression that it is to reach them to-day, which rather indicates that it is to be railroaded through the House. I have no special knowledge of the Bill, but I have received a telegram from the president and the secretary of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nova Scotia, which reads as follows :
Institute Chartered Accountants here ohject to Dominion Bill. Our interests require its rejection.
S. S. SCOTT, President.
W. E. LEVERMAN, Secretary.
Of course, I offer no objection to the Bill going to the committee, but it should be with the usual understanding that opportunity shall be afforded in the committee for all parties interested to be heard.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: In corroboration of what the hon. the Minister of Finance says, I have received a telegram from Toronto, which reads as follows :
Eighty chartered accountants oppose Accountant's Bill. Name and other features objectionable. Kindly vote against it and get others.



A. T. KERNAHAN.

[Stage Direction]
So that from both ends of the Dominion opposition is being manifested to this Bill.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: This Bill has been before parliament ever since the opening of the session, and it has been discussed probably as much as any other private bill before parliament. In the Senate both those in favour of the Bill and those opposed to it were represented, and active canvassing has been going on ; and the sending of these telegrams at this time, in view of the fact that the Bill has been discussed openly and fully, Is to my mind simply unfair. I have no objection to find with the manner in which they have been brought before the House ; hut I am sure that if my hon. friends will reconsider the circumstances, they will not think of objecting to the Bill being considered by the Mr. McCreary.
Private Bills Committee. Any person or persons who want to toe heard before the committee will have an opportunity of being represented by counsel when the committee meets at three o'clock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My bon. friend rather misses the point of my observation. I do not object to the Bill going to tlie committee, but I say that if it does go, it should go under the same conditions and limitations as any other Bill-that the committee should afford an opportunity to all parties interested to toe heard.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I am in charge of this Bill, and I wish to say that I do not think there is any attempt to railroad it through. This Bill has been before parliament since the opening of the session, it has been thrashed out in the other House, and if it is to be passed this session, it must be dealt with by the Private Bills Committee to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see any objection to the Bill going to the committee, provided there is an opportunity for all parties to be heard.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: They are ail here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is speaking without warrant, because I know that parties from Toronto who intended to be here are not here.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, a resolution has been placed in my hands by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Halifax, which I propose to read to the House, this being the first opportunity I have had of protesting against this Bill. The resolution is as follows :
Whereas it has been brought to the notice of tills institute that W. H. Cross, Henry Barber and others have applied at Ottawa for an Act incorporating them an Institute of Chartered Accountants,
And whereas, it is the opinion of this Council that, in view of work being done by existing provincial associations, that the time has not arrived for the creation of a corporate body by Dominion legislation to interfere with and against the wishes of existing bodies, therefore,
Resolved : That the Council of the Institute of Nova Scotia declare itself opposed to the passage of the said bill at the present time, on the following grounds :
First : Because it is an interference with the l'iuies and rights of the existing provincial charters.
Second : Because ex sting chartered bodies are opposed to it until such time as they and the promoters of the proposed legislation can agree upon suitable legislation in the interests of the profession as a whole.
Third : Because the promoters did not consult or seek the co-operation of our Institute, which should have been done if the promoters were acting in the interests of the general profession.
We therefore respectfully recommend that the proposed legislation be deferred until such time as the existing bodies can determine upon suitable legislation for all Canada.
That is the resolution which has been passed at a meeting of the Institute of Char-

tered Accountants of Nova Scotia, and 1 propose to bring the matter up in the Private Bills Committee when the Bill comes before it.


Mr. G. O. ALCORN (Prince Edward).: I desire to say that I also am in receipt of requests to oppose this Bill. As it has been stated that all parties interested have had an opportunity to be heard, I beg to say that that is a mistake, and this morning I telegraphed to Toronto for counsel to come down. They cannot possibly be here until Monday, and therefore I think it would be unfair to press this Bill before the committee today. The very fact that the Bill has been before the Senate for such a length of time is excellent reason why it should not now be railroaded through the Commons without careful consideration.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe there was an understanding that any Bills which were opposed should stand over until Monday. I do not want to obstruct this Bill, but if it receives its second reading to-day I wish it to be on the understanding that the committee shall let it stand until Monday. If the parties interested in it do not then appear or send any one to represent them, that is another question. Otherwise I think we have a right to object to this motion. I understand that the Private Bills Committee is now sitting upstairs waiting to receive the Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I understand that the House has already passed a resolution to the effect that the posting of private Bills after their second rending shall be dispensed *until. That I understand is a general motion applicable to all private Bills, and tnis Bill, if it is now read the second time, will follow this rule. The committee is not sitting now. but is to sit this afternoon at three o'clock, and I think the Bill ought to go to the committee to be dealt with this afternoon with other Bills.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it not the understanding that Bills which are opposed should not be taken up to-day ?
Mr. B'ELCOURT. I do not thank there was any understanding as to what Bills should be taken up to-day. The committee only adjourned ten minutes ago. and they are to meet again at three o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I obiect to the Bill going to the committee this afternoon. There is no possibility of forcing it through now and sending it to that committee at once. The hon. leader of the Opposition expressly declared that when a Bill was opposed it must be held over.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is claimed that it was agreed yesterday that if a Bill was objected to to-day, it might stand over until Monday. If that be the case, all we have to do is to object to the Bill, but if the House will agree to pass the
Bill now and not have it go before the* Private Bills Committee until Monday, I think that would meet the views of all concerned.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: I think it should be kept in mind that this Bill has already been thoroughly discussed in the committee of the Senate. Every opportunity was there given to parties interested to be heard. These parties were present and amendments were made to meet their wishes, and they expressed themselves perfectly satisfied and undertook to withdraw any opposition. Now it seems to me as if this action taken so hurriedly is intended to destroy any chance of the Bill passing. It cannot be argued that the Bill has not been thoroughly discussed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would like to suggest to the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill that in view of the position now being taken, lie should agree to its being here referred to the Private Bills Committee, and considered by that committee on Monday. No one can say that he has not had due notice of this Bill. We have been flooded with resolutions passed weeks ago by the association in Halifax, and with literature during the past two months from other sources opposed to the Bill, so that it cannot lie said that at least advantage is taken of any person in the Dominion regarding this legislation, but if objections are made to our dealing with the measure now, 1 think it would only be fair to refer it to tlie committee on Monday, and no good can come of pressing it through at present.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am very loath to accept that suggestion because I feel that the result will be the killing of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The display of temper in tlie House this morning leads me to believe that it is the intention of certain hon. members to kill the Bill. I submit to the sense of justice of the House whether any good reason has been given why this Bill should not be considered in committee this afternoon. If, when the Bill is called in committee, some of the interested parties are not present, and it be claimed that they have been taken by surprise, that is a matter for the committee to deal with. If the committee finds that some parties should lie present who are not here, the committee could let the Bill stand over until Monday. but to refuse to consider the measure now, for no reason except that some people are opposed to it, is not fair. That is a matter for the committee to decide, and which this House is not in a position to decide. If 'it be not considered in committee this afternoon at three o'clock it is going to be defeated. But let it be defeated on its merits and not on mere obstruction.


Mr.  W. F.@: McCREAItY (Selkirk). Some two or three weeks ago I received a letter from Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, the solicitor for the Chartered Association of Accountants of Manitoba, asking me to oppose the Bill. I always supposed, with a large number of other hon. members, that I would have an opportunity to oppose it in the committee, but so far I have not seen it in any Private Bills committee. The association of Manitoba have employed a solicitor to oppose the Bill. He was here yesterday and went home on the understanding that it could not possibly come before the House to-day, and before it goes through the parties opposed to it should be given a hearing. There are also some members of this House not now in their seats who intend opposing this Bill, but did not expect that we would get to it today.


The PRIME MINISTER (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have been appealed to by parties in favour of and against this Bill. I think, in view of the position in which it stands to-day that the Bill might be allowed to go to the committee for this reason. Eminent counsel have been brought from Montreal and Toronto in support of and against it, and if the Bill be not allowed to go to the committee today these counsel will have to remain over at great inconvenience. If it should go to the committee to-day it can be discussed there, and there will then be ample opportunity for discussing it again before the House, and if it be found that parties should have been heard who had not the opportunity of being present, the rules of the House are ample to prevent the Bill going through without full consideration being given everybody interested to be heard. The parties who want to be heard must be heard or otherwise the Bill could not pass, and under the circumstances it seems to me that we should allow the second reading to take place and refer the Bill to the Private Bills committee.	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may say that I telegraphed to the parties interested that the Bill would not be before the committee until Monday. Of course I did this ou my own responsibility, but 1 thought it was a fair view to take of the case, as the Bill had not passed its second reading. If the committee would take up the Bill this afternoon on the understanding that the promoters of the Bill will give i:s the assurance that they will riot attempt to take the final judgment of the committee, but allow the measure to stand over for final consideration until Monday, I think that would remove all objections.


Mr.   I@: I told a gentleman who spoke to me that I did not think the Bill could come up in committee to-day, and it was not necessary for him to be here to-day. Further than that, when Mr. BELCOURT.
there was a motion made last night to dispense with the necessity of forty-eight hours' notice before Bills would be taken up in committee, after getting the second reading, I had a most distinct understanding which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will remember, with regard to all the Bills, that they should not be taken up until those interested had an .opportunity of being heard before the committee. My hon. friend will remember that as far as this Bill is concerned, I should object-not that I have any interest in it-from the standpoint I took last night, to it being proceeded with to-day.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Would you be satisfied to have it taken up Monday ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, perfectly satisfied, but I object to its being gone ou with to-day.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Counsel have been brought here from Toronto who are anxious to be heard, and I would be glad to have the committee hear them. The suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, seems to me a very reasonable one. We could allow the Bill to go to the committee this afternoon and counsel could be heard, but with the understanding that the committee will not close the matter, but will continue it until Monday, so that the clients of my hon. friend could be heard.


Robert Laird Borden: But the inconvenience is that there would be nobody ou the other side, and it is a little difficult to answer counsel if there is nobody


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As having charge of the Bill, I will undertake not to have it put through until Monday, but I would very much like to have it considered to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: But is it not a little inconvenient to have counsel addressing the committee with nobody on the other side ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Could they not do all the better if they were unopposed ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think counsel are pretty well aware of the arguments pro aud eon on this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I object to this if it is regarded as carrying out the understanding upon which the motion of my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) passed last night. I do not consider that the parties would be in exactly the same position if they are not here when counsel are addressing the committee in favour of the Bill. If counsel are here in the absence of one side the parties are not in the position in which they should be placed. I would not have permitted the motion to pass last night without further discussion, if I had

not distinctly under-stood that the people interested would have an opportunity of coining before the committee. Under the arrangements proposed, the Bill would be heard partly in the absence of those interested in opposing it. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries seems to think that is all right, but his colleague (Hon. Mr. Sifton) sitting alongside of him, will tell him that if anything of that kind were proposed in a court of law, it would be laughed at. This inquiry before the committee is really a judicial inquiry, and, as in other judicial inquiries, you must have the parties before you.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hou. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) thinks that the understanding was that the matter should not be taken up until Monday, then, let the Bill stand until Monday.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that would be better.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I think that this measure is opposed by some members on very strong grounds. If you refer to clause 2 of the Bill, you will find what its object is :
2.	The objects and powers of the association shall-be to promote by all lawful means the practice of accountancy, and for the said purposes :
(a)	To hold such examinations as may be found expedient ;
(b)	To grant certificates of efficiency to its
members ;	.
(c)	To establish classes of membership ;
(d)	To determine the rights, privileges, terms and conditions of said classes.
As I understand it, this Bill is of an educational character, and as such, it is not within the purview of the powers of parliament, as the subject if education is relegated to provincial authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill.read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Private Bills, to be considered on Monday.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the _ Canada Central Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 125) to amend the Acts relating to the Ottawa Northern and Western Railway.-Mr. Champagne.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 148) respecting the Montreal Bridge Company.-Mr. Maclaren (Huntingdon).
Bill (No. 158) to incorporate the Union Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Ingram. *
Bill (No. 144) to incorporate the Metropolitan Bank.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 163) for the relief of Samuel Nelson Chipman-Mr. Flint-on division.
Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the Securities Bank of Canada.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Royal Marine Insurance Company.-Mr. Marcil (Bona-venture).

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 162) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900.
Robert Laird Borden: Were not some suggested amendments to be dealt with V


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COM. MERCE.: Yes, I was looking over the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). Though I shall endeavour to induce the railway companies to comply with the suggestions as to the posting of prices of grain at railway stations, I have come to the conclusion that it would imperil the whole progress of the Bill if we put in any more amendments at tills moment. I am anxious to get the measure to the Senate and have it considered there. They have had full notice of the amendments I proposed, but not of those proposed yesterday. However, I have made note of them and will endeavour to meet the views of the hon. gentleman later on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill r ad the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 81) to Incorporate the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Dynient.
Bill (No. 131) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment
Bill (No. 143) respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway	Company.-Mr. Sutherland (Essex).
Bill (No. 87) respecting the Quebec Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
House again in committee on Bill (No. 134) respecting the representation of the Yukon Territory in the House of Commons.-The Minister of the Interior.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I move to add as subsection (a) to section 29 the following, which will not interfere with the numbering of the other sections of the Bill :
In the compilation of such list the enumerator may only enter therein the names of such person or persons as shall, by statutory declaration filed with him, be declared by such person or persons, or some agent having personal knowledge of the facts declared therein, be entitled to vote under the provisions of this Act.
Section, as amended, agreed to.



On section 30,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I move that the word ' eight,' the second word in the third line, be changed to [DOT]fifteen,' in accordance with the understanding arrived at yesterday.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is all right.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 31,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR moved :: That the word ' two ' in the second line ot section 31 be -struck out and that the word ' seven ' be inserted in lieu thereof.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has the hon. minister considered who should have custody of these lists after they are revised by the enumerator ? The ho-n. minister objects to the amendment which I was proposing to make providing for an appeal to the Chief Justice.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under section 33 it is provided that the lists shall be sent to the deputy returning officers.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.
BILL	WITHDRAWN.
Bill (No. 139) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.-The Minister of Justice.



REMISSION OF PENALTIES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 151) respecting the Remission of Penalties (the Minister of Justice), read the second time and House went into Committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick), to explain the object of this Bill if he has not done so already. I have had some communication concerning it in regard to actions against companies for exhorbitant tolls.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: We are making an exception as to that.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: That after the wcn-d ' of ' in the second line the words 1 sections 298 to 305 of ' be inserted.
He said:	This will exempt the case in
question.


Robert Laird Borden: This does not include extortionate tolls ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Extortionate tolls would come under section 290.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 155) to amend the Railway Act, (the Minister of Railways and Canals), read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr. Chairman,
I explained when I introduced the Bill that this is a very small trifling amendment to . the Act and is intended to make clear what,
I think, anybody would have thought to have been the meaning and intention of parliament in the enactment of the clause originally, had it not been for a decision which has been reached lately in one of our provincial courts. To briefly explain to the committee what the difficulty is, I may say that a spur line was thrown out from a railway in order to reach a ballast pit. The ballast pit was at one side of a stretch of water and the spur line struck the water at a point opposite the ballast pit. The court decided that the company could not exercise the powers contained in the Act because the sipur line did not actually touch the ballast pit itself. The point is to enable the line to be constructed and the necessary powers to be exercised in its construction under the circumstances which I have stated.


John Graham Haggart: Do you give them the power to expropriate under this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are making clear that they have the power to expropriate to a point which would not actually touch the ballast pit which is in connection with it.


Robert Laird Borden: I see in one of the sections : ' All the provisions of this Act, except such as relate to the filing of plans, shall apply.' Why should you not file a plan, and give notice to the proprietor ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: So we. do usually.


Robert Laird Borden: What is me meaning of this language then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did noit notice that part of the section. I had not given any instructions with regard to that, but I presume it has been inserted by the law branch of the department with some idea in view that it was desirable. I would not strike out that clause at present, but I would ask to have it stand until I make inquiry.


John Graham Haggart: You give them the power to expropriate the user of the land for only a short period, but the Railway Act only gives the power of absolute expropriation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I remember that some years ago we tried to get power from parliament to expropriate a less interest in the land than

the ordinary power, and there was such a strong feeling against it that I did not feel like proposing it generally again.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have taken occasion to look at the original Act, and the sections are identical in all respects, except in making a provision that they may lay down their tracks and expropriate under the Railway Act to the water's edge, so as to be in connection with the ballast pit from which it is proposed to take ballast for the purposes of construction. It is limited to that in this section, but it is not limited in the original Act.


Mr. SCOTT.: If hon. gentlemen will turn to the Votes and Proceedings of the 5th of May, they will find that I have given notice of an amendment to this Bill ?


John Graham Haggart: What is the amendment ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The amendment is as follows :
1.	Every railway company owning or operating a railway in the North-west Territories shall, on or before the thirty-first day of July in each year, provide a fire guard on each side of the line of railway upon any uncultivated or unoccupied land not covered each side by timber adjoining such railway, consisting of ploughed land at least eight feet in width which shall at all times thereafter during the year be kept free from grass and other inflammable matter.
2.	The fire guard shall be distant at least three hundred feet from the centre line of the railway, and the company shrill cause the grass to be burned off between it and such centre line not later than the first day of August in each year.
3.	The company shall, when causing such grass to be burned, have present sufficient persons and appliances to prevent the fire from spreading.
2.	Any company neglecting or failing to comply with any of the provisions of the foregoing section, and the officers and directors thereof, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty of $1,000 for each day of such neglect.
3.	For the purpose of complying with the provisions of section 1 hereof the company may enter upon any land not owned by it, and no claim for damages shall be maintained against the company for any act done in compliance with the provisions of the said section 1.
4.	This Act shall be read and construed as if it formed part of The Railway Act, chapter 23 of the statutes of 1888.
As is very clearly and plainly set out in that amendment, it is intended to compel railway companies operating lines in the North-west Territories to construct such fire guards as will prevent the spread of fires and the starting of what are known as prairie fires. To show the necessity for such action by parliament, I may state that within the last year there have been a number of very serious fires started from railway 144}
engines in the ranching country. Last fall one fire was started from the Calgary and Edmonton line, some distance north from Calgary, which burned what are known as the Nose creek and Beaver dam ranges That fire destroyed some 10,000 tons of hay and burned the houses and holdings of two settlers. East of Calgary last fall there were two very bad fires which burned over a large portion of the range country. East of Medicine Hat, too, there was a serious fire started from the railway which burned over the larger portion of the Cypress Hills country, and destroyed a very large quantity of hay which was put up for winter feed by the ranchers. South of the Bow river, south of Calgary, the most serious fires of the year occurred. Besides destroying the grass on a large area of the range, and burning a quantity of hay, it destroyed no less than 500 head of stock. We have spent a considerable time this session in discussing the want of cattle guards which seems to be a grievance in Ontario ; but 1 would venture to say that one single prairie fire in the range country will do as much damage as is done in four or five years through the lack of cattle guards. Within the past month there has been a series of serious fires started from the railway line, and I will take the liberty of reading a portion of a letter which came to me a few days ago from Medicine Hat, and which will give some information on this subject. It is dated April 13th, and the writer says : Since the 5th instant this country has been nearly ruined by prairie fires. On Saturday, the 5th instaut, a train leaving Medicine Hat set fire to the country on the west side of the river, and completely burnt over all the country north of the railway to the Red Deer river. The Canada Land and Ranch Company's farm at Stair, eight miles from Medicine Hat, is completely burnt over, not an acre left, and three fine Clyde mares are lying dead in their pasture burnt, and their fine herd of Galloway cattle are scattered all over the burnt country. On Tuesday a fire started on the railway somewhere near Dunmore, east of Medicine Hat, and has burnt the whole country clear to Swift Cur * rent. The Drowning Ford Ranch Company lost 300 tons of hay, and Charles Strong, rancher, of Walsh, lost all his hay, buildings, wagons and machinery, hay press, &c., and the loss to the stock industry will he very severe. The hay grounds are all hurnt over and will be no good for a couple of years. There have also been great fires in Alberta.
I may say to the committee that this matter was discussed in this House ten or eleven years ago. My late predecessor from Western Assiniboia brought the subject up in 1890 by way of resolution, very nearly in the terms of the amendment which I propose to-day. The resolution was discussed at length, and the government of that day accepted the spirit of it. The next year the same gentleman brought in a Bill in almost the identical terms of the present amendment. The principle of the measure was endorsed, and the Bill was read a second time; but I understand that at that

time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which was then the only railway company affected, agreed with the government that they recognized the need of action, and agreed that they would take action, and from that time to this the railway company have been doing considerable and expending considerable money in the way of fire-guarding their line. But the truth that they have not been attending to the matter completely is shown in the fact that this large number of serious fires have occurred and are occurring yearly. I may tell the committee, too, that if the railway company were subject to the control of the North-west assembly, there would be no need of action by this parliament. Every person in the North-west who is subject to the control of the assembly is liable to severe penalties for doing anything which may cause injury to the public by prairie fires. I may read the section of the prairie fire ordinance of the North-west assembly :
No person shall directly or indirectly, personally or by any servant, agent, or employee lilndle on any land a fire for the purpose of guarding property, burning stubble or brush or clearing land unless the land on which the fire is started is at the time It is started, completely surrounded by a fire guard not less than t\\ enty feet In width consisting of land covered with snow or water or so worn, graded, ploughed, burned over or covered with water as to be free of inflammable matter, and any person kindling a fire for such purpose shall during the whole oeriod of Its continuance cause it to be guarded by three adult persons provided with proper appliances for extinguishing prairie fire.
I think it is only right that a railway corporation should be subject to tbe same law in respect to this matter as are private individuals in that country. I think it is not right to allow a railway company or any corporation or any individual to carry an engine which results in destruction to property without having proper provision made to guard against the destruction. I beg, therefore, to move the adoption of this amendment.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think the committee can hardly exaggerate the importance of the matter which my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mi-. Scott) has brought to our attention. It is a subject which has eugaged my attention at different times and in different ways, and I can, without any qualification, corroborate the statements he has made as to the very great damage which arises from these fires and as to the grievous consequences which follow, in some cases, to individuals who are wholly unable to bear the losses which they are called upon to bear. I have not followed the legal decisions on this subject within tbe last two or three years, but when last my attention was drawn to the details of the matter, my recollection is that, as the law stood, the railway company was not liable for a loss


Thomas Walter Scott: by fire caused to an individual unless the person claiming damages could show that the railway company had been guilty of negligence. If the railway company could show that it had used the latest and best appliances known to science for the purpose of preventing the spread of fire, the best kind of spark arrester known, then it was held that the railway company was not guilty of negligence, and the person whose property was destroyed had no redress. I myself have known grievous cases in which fires caused by passing railway trains have burned wheat stacks, hay stacks, barns and houses of men who had absolutely nothing in tbe world besides what had been destroyed, and who could obtain no redress. If it were necessary to decide tbe point. I would not hesitate to say that if the state of knowledge in regard to the management of locomotives is such at tbe present time that it is not possible to prevent an occasional fire, wbicli results in the destruction of a large amount of private property, the House could well decide that the railway company could better afford to bear tbe loss, or a considerable portion of it, than the individual who has no means of protecting himself, who has not been guilty of any contributory negligence, but who, conducting his farming operations legally and properly on his own property, has liis property wiped out and destroyed.
My hon. friend has not however made any proposition which would tend to change the liability of a railway company in respect of tbe loss or destruction of property by fire, but has made a proposition which seems eminently reasonable and proper. It is that tbe railway companies, in that district of country, which is peculiarly liable to prairie fires, which run in such a way that once they get started they are almost inextinguishable. should take the necessary precautions for the purpose of preventing, as far as human foresight can do so. the spreading of these fires. When my hon. friend first spoke to me, in the early part of the session, about the proposition he now makes, I ventured the opinion that in all probability the cost would be enormous and almost prohibitory. But my hon. friend has made inquiries on that point, and he now informs me that the calculation which has been made, as the result of negotiations with the North-west Territorial government, results in the conclusion that the total expenditure by the Canadian Pacific Railway would be something in the neighbourhood of .$20,000. So far as I am personally concerned, I have not the least hesitation in saying that if over several hundred miles of railway running through such a country, by an expenditure of $20,000. life and property can be protected from danger of fire, it is the duty of the committee to impose on that company the obligation of providing that protection. But I think that my hon. friend will require to include the whole prairie country in his amendment, both Manitoba and the North-

west Territories. I think also that some of the latter portion of the amendment might well be left out, because it is probably covered by the general provisions of the Railway Act. Probably my hon. friend the Minister of Railways can speak on that point. But in so far as the general principle is concerned. I am entirely in favour of the amendment, though I am not ns a rule disposed to place any undue restrictions or obligations on any transportation company, which could have no practical result, simply for the furtherance of an idea. Having lived in that country since the Canadian Pacific Railway was incorporated, and before the first mile was constructed, I know that it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question which my hon. friend has brought to our attention. It has reference to a real and substantial grievance which this House ought to remedy.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) I do not think the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Assiniboia goes far enough. By the clause which he wishes to embody in this Bill, the promoter deals only with the interests of the west, whereas the Bill under discussion concerns the country at large.
In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company vs. Roy, the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council has decided that a railway company which, in running its railway, complies with all the requirements of its charter, is not liable for damages ensuing from fire arising from the sparks emitted from any locomotive engine, in the normal use of its line. That you should use your own property so as not to injure your neighbour's property, is a principle of Roman law embodied in the legislation of every civilized country.
A company has the right to the normal use of its property, but it cannot go beyond that. When a company, in rufining its railway, sets fire to the neighbouring property, it goes beyond the lawful and normal [DOT] use of its property, and it trespasses upon foreign ground. The Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council did not hold that it was not fair and just that a railway company should not be liable for damages resulting from the use of its line ; on the contrary, the law lords held that it was common law, but they decided that a railway company was above common law, under the power conferred upon it by its federal charter. When the question was threshed out on the floor of the Quebec legislature, M. Duffy drew attention to that fact and spoke ns follows :
It is admitted that it is unjust that Roy should have had his property damaged by the railway company, even when that company was without fault. What is the remedy ?
The remedy does not consist in abolishing, all appeals to the Privy Council and of doing away with that learned body so far as this province is concerned. The privilege consists in calling
upon the Dominion parliament not to pass legislation where it has the jurisdiction which will permit such an injustice. A simple amendment to the Railway Act, providing that railways would be liable for damage caused in the manner mentioned in this case would- of course do away with the evil.
There is no doubt that a railway company cannot trespass upon private property. If in the course of its operations, a railway company sets fire to a property of a farmer, upon whom shall the loss fall ? It must fall either upon the railway company or the farmer who Is the victim. But it stands to reason that the railway company lias no right to the use of a property that does not belong to it. I beg therefore to move the following amendment:
Whenever damage is caused to crops, lands, fences, plantations, or' buildings, and their contents, by flres started by a railway locomotive, the company making use of such locomotive, shall, notwithstanding any provision in any general or special Act of the parliament of Canada, be responsible for such damage, and may be sued for the recovery of the amount of such damage in. any court of ordinary jurisdiction.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What the hon. gentleman proposes to do is to engraft an entirely new principle, so far as the larger portion of the Dominion of Canada is concerned, upon the liabilities of railway companies. He asks that parliament should uilirin, irrespective of Whether or not a railway company is guilty of negligence, and although the company may have conformed in every particular with the requirements of the law, although it may have adopted the most recent up to date method for the protection of property along its tracks, that if damage should ensue to property through the necessary and ordinary use of the railway, the railway company shall be liable to make good to the person suffering such damage, any amount necessary for such purpose. That possibly may be a wise provision to adopt as part of the general law of the land, but 1 think my hon. friend would hardly expect that in the dying hours of the session, when we can scarcely give the subject the attention and consideration it demands, we should subscribe to the adoption of a new principle and an entire change in the doctrines and principles of common law, as they now regulate the question of negligence. 1 would not like at this moment to say that the committee ought' to adopt this amendment, and I think perhaps the effect would be to complicate and injuriously affect whatever element there may 'be of merit in the amendment which the hon. member for West Assiniboia is asking ns to consider. The question which arises under the amendment of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia is one which must largely depend upon existing circumstances and upon the possibility of an adequate and sufficient remedy lying in the hands of the railway company.

and a remedy which would not necessarily entail extraordinary and unreasonable cost to the company. I am not going to say that a railway company should not, even at great expense, be required to protect properties in the district it traverses, but I do think it would have been better if we had been able to hear, before coming to a conclusion, the other parties who are interested, for instance, the railway companies, who might wish to have something to say on the subject. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has moved this amendment and the hon. minister who has supported it, that a very strong case possibly can be made out, but is it wise, though the grievance is a serious one, though enormous damage has resulted to the people by reason of sufficient safeguards not having been provided heretofore, for us, in this form and at this moment, to say that this is the only and proper way in which the needed protection shall be provided.
Personally, I would gladly respond to any appeal which might be made by the hon. gentleman for legislative action in the matter. But I would not like to commit myself to this method,, unless I had an opportunity to inform myself upon the subject, and should conclude that this was the best mode by which the remedy could be provided. I should imagine that, possibly, the meaning of this first clause would be that not only would the company have to Plough the land on either side of the track, but they might be obliged to continue ploughing it-two or three different ploughing might be required. The company might be obliged to keep constantly ploughing on either side of the track from the last of July for the rest of the season. Is that a necessary thing to do ? And, if so, can it reasonably be done ? I would go as far as any hon. gentleman in pressing upon the railway company the duty of providing a sufficient safeguard. The existing condition is a very serious one, no doubt, one for which a remedy should be found. But is this the only remedy, and are we providing for it in a proper way ?
I feel some uncertainty about the matter myself, and therefore would not like very ardently to accept the motion. But I would not oppose it without hearing the opinions of others. There is a section which provides a penalty of $1,000 for each day of neglect of this ploughing. That would mean, I presume, that this penalty would be enforcible against the railway company for neglect at any point over its entire line. If that is a correct Interpretation, still, if the first clause is one which meets with favour from the committee, I would not feel that the penalty was unduly severe. The third section provides :
For the purpose of complying with the provisions of cect on 1 hereof the company may enter upon any land not owned by it, and no claim, for damages shall be maintained against Hon. Mr. BLATR.
the company for any act done in compliance with the provisions of the said section 1.
Perhaps it is not necessary to regard that as a very serious question, though I mention it to call the attention of the committee to it. I confess to feeling a good deal of difficulty with regard to the proposed amendment. I would like to see something done. My hon. frieud (Mr. Scott) has not had-it is no fault of liis- the opportunity of having the matter presented and considered earlier. The fact that my hon. friend had given notice of this amendment was not brought to my attention until just before my motion for second reading 6f tbe Bill was made.. Therefore, I have not had-and perhaps other gentlemen are in the same position-the opportunity to consider the matter and reach a satisfactory conclusion in my own mind. But. if the sense of the committee it not averse to the proposition, I would not offer any objection.	_.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The fact that the hon. gentleman proposed the second amendment, the purpose of which is to deal with the points to which I adverted when I was on my feet a few moments ago, viz. : the liability of the company, shows that this is a question which has given rise to serious difficultv and serious consideration long before the present time, and not only so, but that the different methods of meeting the difficulty have been very carefully considered. Now, I submit that in so far as the method of meeting the difficulty with respect to the prairie country to which my bon. friend from West Assi-niboia's motion refers, is concerned, no simpler or less expensive method could possibly be devised than that suggested. We are simply acting on the maxim that prevention is better than cure-that preventing a fire is better than paying damages for tlie results of fire. And, if we are in a position to estimate the expense approximately, as my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is satisfied we are, . I do not think that the committee will regard $20,000 or even $50,000 as an excessive amount to call upon a railway company to expend in order to protect a vast territory of that kind against the destruction which comes yearly by the starting of prairie fires. In this proposal, then, we have it appears to me. a simple, practicable, and not oppressivley expensive, method of meeting the difficulty. I would urge upon the committee that the usual indisposition to deal with such matters at a late period of the session should not influence us in this ease. My hon. friend from West Assiniboia has been diligent enough in getting this matter before the House, and the fact that lie has not succeeded In bringing it before tbe House at an earlier time is due to no fault of his, but to circumstances over which be lias liad no control. But if

the matter were considered for six months, ( though the committee might have greater knowledge of the details, yet I doubt if it would be in a better position to deal with the matter than at the present time. As my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) has stated, this is a subject which has been discussed between the railway company and the North-west government, and the fact that it is practicable to carry out this plan, and that it is, to all intents and purposes effective, is practically admitted by all parties concerned. All that is necessary is for this parliament to place upon the railway company the obligation, which, I think, every lion, member here will admit should be placed upon them, of taking reasonable precautions to protect the public from the loss which has hitherto been suffered. Let the railway companies understand that parliament has placed this obligation upon them, and we shall have no more difficulty about prairie fires starting from locomotives. The railway companies would do what they have done in other cases, they would take the necessary steps to comply with the conditions, and parliament might feel that at least it had prevented very serious losses such as have taken place during the past years. To my own knowledge railway companies themselves have very fully appreciated the difficulties of this question, and, as long ago as seven or eight years,
I remember, the Canadian Pacific Railway made prolonged efforts to provide an inexpensive and effective means of clearing the fire-guard along its track. A complicated piece of machinery for that purpose was devised, but I believe it did not turn out successful in operation. As to the necessity of ploughing the fire-guards a second time, X think I can state to the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) that such a difficulty would not arise. If in the case of the virgin prairie, land is ploughed once between the 1st and the 31st of July, seed will not germinate in such a way as to make it necessary to plough that land again-there will be nothing inflammable there except what is blown upon it. If the provisions of the amendment are carried out, the fire-guard might be ploughed anywhere between the 1st of July and the 31st of July; then, the ground between the fire-guard and the track being cleared, it will form an effective fire-guard for the rest of that season. So that difficulty as a matter of actual practice will not apply. The same thing might be said of a fire-guard being applied where the land had been cultivated before. Seeds will not germinate in such a way as to place any inflammable matter upon the ground which is ploughed after the 1st of July of any season. So we may, I think, feel satisfied that the amendment is an effective one, that it will accomplish the purpose for which it is designed, that it is not unreasonably oppressive, and that it
is actually necessary for the purpose of removing a substantial grievance.


John Graham Haggart: In my opinion the the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Johu's (Mr. Demers) will have the effect of changing the law altogether as it at present exists in Canada and in Great Britain. The law, I think, was very properly laid down by the Minister of the Interior when he said that a railroad company receiving a charter or a right to run through a country, when it exercises due precaution in running and is not guilty of negligence, is not liable to these incidental damages. The hon. member for St. John's would make the companies liable for the incidence, even the damage resulted after the use of the utmost diligence on the part of the company, and the utmost precaution in running the road. That is contrary to the principle of the law of this country, it is contrary to the law laid down in Great Britain ; and it is contrary, if I understand properly the decision of the Privy Council of England the other day, to the code in Quebec. Notwithstanding the decision of the courts in Quebec on the matter, the Privy Council in England found that their interpretation of the code was wrong, and that the law was similar to what it is in our section of the country. It would be an entire reversal of the law as at present applied to railroads both in this country, in Great Britain and in the United States. However, I do not suppose there is any chance of it becoming law at this session, as I am glad to hear from the remarks of the Minister of the Interior that it was not his intention to press the amendment in reference to fire guards at the present session.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend must have misunderstood me. What I said was that I would press the committee to adopt it.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman advocated it, and complimented his hon. friend on the introduction of the amendment, but the inference I drew from the remarks of the Minister of the Interior was that on account of the late period of the session it could not be fully discussed and considered at the present time. However, I state my objection to the section. I think the railroad companies in the North-west already try to protect, not only their own property by running ploughed tracks along their line, but also the property of the farmers in the neighbourhood. I do not know whether they are compelled to do it, or whether the territories have power to Compel them to do it ; I do not know whether it is in accordance with the North-west Act. But the question I want to present to this House is whether we have power to legislate in this direction ? Is it an incidence to railroad travelling or railroad chartering ?
* 4591


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think so.
Hon. Mr. HAGGAR l'. I have a (liltevent opinion. We may make anything an incidence that we like in reference to railroads, we may say that they shall not run a railway unless they do so and so. But surely we have no power to pass a clause like this for the purpose of making them comply with all the provisions of section 1, which reads :
The company roav enter upon any land not owned by it, and no claim for damages shall be maintained against the company for any act done ir. compliance with the provisions of said section.
What is the object of the hon. gentleman in Introducing his amendment ? It is to protect the farms in the neighbourhood of the railways from damage done by fire. It is not an incidence to the running of the road that they should exercise due precaution ; it is not within our power to give them the right to enter on private property and take possession of it for the purpose of doing or preventing a damage by fire to farms in the neighbourhood.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAlS AND CANALS. Would we not require them to keep their track in a certain condition ?


John Graham Haggart: We could require them to keep their track in a good condition, we could require them to exercise due precaution against fire ; but we could not give them power to enter upon private property and take possession of it, without compensation, for the purpose of preventing fire spreading to neighbouring farms.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The question of compensation is a question for parliament. It is within our discretion. We can authorize the railway companies to do anything we consider necessary for the due protection of the public, either in regard to travelling upon the railway or in regard to traffic. Anything in the judgment of this parliament that is necessary for the protection of the public we can enact, and we can place that obligation upon the railway company.


John Graham Haggart: This is not for me protection of the public, this is not for the protection of traffic. It is not an incidence to the exercise by a railway corporation of its rights and powers. This is for the protection of farmers in the neighbourhood of a railway from damage done, though not through the negligence of the company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We require the railway company to do a particular thing, and when they do not do it, then they become negligent, and being negligent, they are liable for damages when that negligence is established.


John Graham Haggart: You may put any obligation on a railway company that you like. Y'ou may define what is an incidence to it, and what is negligence ; but can you give them power to exercise the right of going on to the property of a private individual without compensation, and doing what you wish them to do ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it is necessary for the purpose of the Act.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all. The clause reads :
For the purpose of complying with the provisions of section 1, hereinafter, the company nay enter upon any land not owned by it, and no claim for damages shall be maintained against the company for any act done in compliance with the provisions of said section.
You may say that the company may be negligent in doing anything, you may make any condition that you like in giving them their charter ; but you caunot interfere with provincial rights, you cannot say they shall enter upon any man's property for the purpose of doing something which is not an incidence to railroad traffic. But there ig another objection still more serious which I wish to mention. The railway companies ought to have a right to state their case, either before parliament or a committee of parliament. 'Who is to determine whether the protection is proper, or whether a certain act is necessary to afford protection? Therefore I think the hou. gentleman who introduced this section will perform his duty to his constituents if he lets the amendment stand as a notice, and let the railway companies be beard in reference to these amendments. Amendments like this affect large amounts of capital which have been invested in this country. The parties should be heard before a committee of the House. It is unfair to the railway companies to enact legislation of this kind without their being heard before some authority appointed by this House for the purpose.


Mr. OLIVER.: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any desire on the part of the hon. member (Mr. Scott) to be unfair to the railway companies, or to take the House unawares in any way. I understand that the hon. member has made every effort to get his Bill before the House, and that he did make every effort to get his Bill before the House at an earlier date in the session. Owing to circumstances he was not able to do so, and it is now for the House to say whether it considers it has received suifi-eient information on the subject to warrant it in coming to a conclusion or postponing that conclusion to some future occasion.
I would like to say, however, iu reply to the contention set up by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart), that parliament is here for the purpose of discussing and deciding these questions oil


John Graham Haggart: its own responsibility, and it is not absolutely necessary to tbe decision of the question that the private parties to the case shall be heard by parliament. Parliament is responsible for the decision, parliament can arrive at the decision by any means Its sees fit, and it is not compelled to wait for such evidence as would be given before a court of law before reaching its conclusion.
In regard to the general question, there seems to be a very grave misapprehension on the part of lion, members as to what is attempted to be done. It is essentially not a question of protecting the farmers or farming property. It is an absolutely and entirely different question from the question brought forward by the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). It is a question rather of protecting public property than of protecting private property. The country owns the laud, the country owns the grass, the country derives a benefit from the use of that grass by reason of it being pastured by cattle and turned into valuable beef. It is in regard to tbe range country rather than in regard -to the farming country that these amendments are suggested, and in regard to which the question chiefly arises. We have a condition of affairs that Is absolutely different from that prevailing in any other part of the Dominion, and hon. members may be forgiven for not accurately understanding that position. It is because tbe condition is so radically different there from the condition elsewhere in the Dominion that we are asking for such radically different legislation. It is a different case, and therefore, we are asking for different legislation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the western states [DOT]they have very much the same conditions as we have on this side. Is the hon. gentleman aware of what means they take to check the spread of fires on the ranges ?


Frank Oliver: I have not the faintest idea, but there is another piece of information which I will give to the hon. gentleman, and it is that in the range country of the western states the grass is not as rank, it is not as good as it is in the Northwest, and therefore it is not as subject to the spread of prairie fires. The grass, being longer in our country, when i't becomes dry, the fire is much more easily and much more certainly spreads upon it.
The grass, as I say, belongs to tbe country. The country derives benefit from that grass, either directly toy rental, or indirectly by the production of wealth in the growth of beef, and it is with the view of protecting the public interest, or the national interest, in that property, raither than protecting the private interest of the individual, that this
amendment is proposed. Because, in the vast areas of country which have been burned over year after year by fires started by Canadian Pacific Railway locomotives, a very small proportion of (the country lias become private property, while a very large proportion of it is producing actual wealth fo.r the country. The greater part of the area affected is not private property, it is public property, and parliament lias a perfect right to direct that any action shall be taken lii regard to that property that parliament desires. But, of course, a large part of the range country is also private property. It is owned, and in some cases, it is fenced. But there is no distinction in appearance, or in use, there is not even a boundary set up in many cases between what is private property and what is public property, and I can assure tlie committee that the fire does not recognize any difference between private and jniblic property, between land that is owned and land that is not owned. If a fire starts on private property it spreads to the public domain, and if it starts on the public domain it overwhelms private property. It is a case in which the private and the public interest is the same. They are identical, the one has to toe protected with' the other, and the one cannot be protected without the other. There is no use requiring a railway company to go on public property and plough fire-guards and not require them to go on private property and plough fireguards.
As to the constitutional question, or the question of law that has been raised, I will say nothing, but I will ask the committee if it seems good to nllow this vast interest that exists in our country, that Is increasing in value from year to year, to be jeopardized because of a constitutional point, because of some question in law, because of a ruling made by a judge on a question that does not appertain in any shape or manner to the condition of affairs which exists in these territories at the present time. What I ask the committee to do is to take into consideration the fact that the conditions are as they are. that they are absolutely and entirely different from any conditions existing in any of the eastern provinces, that it is the public interest that requires protection, that it cannot be protected separately from the private interest, that common cause lias to be made against the common enemy, that is fire, that the local legislature has no authority in the matter, that .this Dominion parliament is the only authority, and that, as far as our judgment goes-I speak of the western members-we have not been able to suggest any better remedy for meeting wliat is a tremendous and a growing evil than the suggestion made by the hon. member for West Assiutboia (Mr. Scott).


Thomas Walter Scott: It would probably lie well for ime to give the committee the fullest information I can as to how this provision

would work out in practice if it is enacted. The only company, which, to-day, would he affected, is the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: And the Canadian Northern.


Thomas Walter Scott: The Canadian Northern has only a few miles of road in the territories, and the class of country in which they are at present is such that they would not require to observe this provision. I will give the committee the total mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway which would be affected. On the main line guarding would be necessary between Qu'Appelle and Morley, 558 miles. There would be a mileage of 100 miles on the Soo branch, 1G0 miles on the Prince Albert branch, 165 miles on the Calgary and Edmonton branch and 211 miles on the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, making a total mileage of 1,254 miles. That mileage, of course, has to be doubled for guarding is necessary on both sides of the line, so that it makes practically 2,500 miles.


John Graham Haggart: Do they not do something in that direction now ?


Thomas Walter Scott: They do a very considerable amount.


John Graham Haggart: Are the railway company complying as far as possible with the territorial law in this particular ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The territorial legislature are not competent to control the company in this matter. If the legislature were competent to do so I can assure my hon. friend that no action would need to be suggested in this parliament. I have the figures which have been prepared by I believe the most competent authority in the North-west Territories, the most competent person in Canada, with respect to this matter and he calculates that the cost of the first construction of such a guard would be about $10 per mile, amounting to $25,000 over the whole system. That would be in the first year, and he also calculates that the cost of maintenance in subsequent years would be $5 a mile for the back setting or re-breaking of the ploughed guard and about $3 a mile for the burning between the ploughed guard and the railway track. I may say to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals that the ploughed guard is not the chief thing, the burning between the guards and the track is the chief thing, and if that is done completely once a year it will be entirely sufficient. The total cost of maintenance therefore would be about .$8 per mile, or as the Minister of the Interior has already said, a total of $20,000 per year. The hon. gentleman (Mr. I-Iaggart) has suggested that the company is already doing considerable in this direction, and that being the case we will not by this amendment be imposing a burden of $20,000 a year upon this company. I have no doubt that the company is already expending


Thomas Walter Scott: possibly $10,000 or $12,000 a year, so that this amendment would not impose a very great additional burden upon them. The fact that the company is not completely fire-guarding its system is proven by the very many and very serious fires which have occurred last fall and this spring.
Now, as to the feasibility of the particular plan which is suggested, I may say that the Public Works Department of the Northwest government and the railway company have been negotiating with respect to this matter for two or three years, and the plan which they have decided on as being the best is exactly this plan which I have now proposed. The North-west government deemed the matter so very important in the public interest that, although they did not believe the government should be saddled with any portion of the cost, yet they went the length of suggesting that they would bear a portion of the cost if the railway company would undertake to complete the fire-guarding of their system. The company and the government are entirely agreed that this plan which is here suggested is the best plan, is a good plan, but they did not arrive at an agreement as to the terms. I understand that the government went the length of suggesting that they would be willing to bear half of the whole cost of first construction and maintenance, but so far as I have been informed the railway company did not see fit to agree to even that proposition.
Respecting the sub-clause which would give the company power to go upon other people's property without compensation, I may say that in practice 1 do not think any difficulty will be found. When the railway company were willing to agree with the North-west government to carry out this particular plan, they did not think evidently that there would be any serious difficulty encountered in that respect. In the portion of the country which is a farming country this fire-guard is not necessary, and it is only in the ranching country where people live far apart that it will have to be constructed. The people living in such a section are not likely to object to the company going upon their property, but as it would seem unreasonable to make a law compelling the company to do certain things and not relieve them from liability for damage for so doing, we have inserted this clause in the amendment. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the proposition w'hich we make with respect to prairie fires in the North-west is entirely on all fours with the proposition which was agreed to by a majority of the members of this House and by the government on the cattle-guard question. It was decided in that case that it would be better to find out what is the best cattle-guard and then to compel the railway companies to use that cattle-guard subject to a penalty for neglecting the use of it. I claim that I am suggesting

to-day what is the best fire-guard, and I ask parliament to compel the railway companies to use that fire-guard subject to a penalty for failing to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a very important question, and although I think it would be fair that the railway company should have an opportunity of presenting their view, yet that cannot be done during this session at least. I have some knowledge of the injury that has been done not only in the Northwest but in Ontario because of fires started by railway engines, and I confess that I would be inclined to go the length of saying that the railway company should not only be obliged to take precautions to prevent tires starting, but that they should be held responsible as well for damages done in this connection. In my own locality I have seen a fanner burned out three or four times ova- by reason of fire starting from railway engines, and yet he was unable to get a dollar of compensation. That is not justice. If a farmer lights a fire to clean his land after the 1st of June, and damage results from that fire, the law provides that he shall be responsible. Why should you impose such liability upon a private individual and exempt a great railway corporation. That is something that I cannot understand. If the information which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) gives us is correct, then the adoption of this amendment would not impose any very great expense upon the railway companies. He tells us that they would have to plough a section of the country sixteen feet wide and 1,272 miles long. That would be in all 3,544 acres, and assuming that it would cost 81.50 an acre-it would only have to be ploughed once in a season, although perhaps there might be localities where it would be necessary to plow more than once-but if done once in the season it would give fairly good protection and it would cost the railway company only $5,316. It happens very frequently that one farmer sustains a loss from these railway fires more than three times that amount, not considering the thousands of acres of pasture which are burned and the consequent heavy loss to cattle owners whose feed for their cattle has been destroyed.
Comparatively speaking it would be a very small expense to a rich corporation ; but when you take into account the loss sustained by individuals and their helplessness under the circumstances, our sympathy should go to the individual rather than to the rich corporation. For this reason I would be inclined to support the amendment. I am not sufficiently versed in law to be able to say whether there is anything in the constitutional point raised by the hon. member for South Lanark ; but assuming that we have the authority to legislate, the question is. should we put that obligation upon the railway companies ? In my judgment we should. We give these corporations great powers and privileges. We give them franchises out of which they are able to earn immense amounts of money from the people. We give them rights which they exercise over the people, very often to the detriment and loss of private individuals. In almost every instance in which the interests of individuals are concerned, these suffer instead of the railway. In consideration of these things, I do not think it is too much to put upon the railways the obligation to bear the consequences of the damage they do. While I admit that the railway companies ought to be heard. I do not admit that we are not justified in passing this amendment, because I think we are. I, for one, would be inclined to go further, and say that we should, hold them responsible for all the damage done by their locomotives, not only in Manitoba, but in every other part of the country. In carrying on ordinary business, if we do damage to another, we must pay for that damage ; and I do not see why a railway company should not be compelled to do that which a private individual must do.
Mr. BELCOi ilT. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman who has preceded me as to the importance of this question. I regret that I am not in a position to speak to the House very intelligently upon it. because I did not see or hear of the amendment until it was read this afternoon ; but I may say that I have for some time made up my mind on this question. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman who lias just sat down that the legislation aimed at in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) is right, and expedient for this parliament to enact. Until the Privy Council decided recently the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway vs. Roy. I had thought that the provision of section 288 of the Railway Act (1888) had consecrated the principle embodied in this amendment ; but the Privy Council has declared the principle to be non-existent in Canada. With the permission of the House I will read section 288 :
No inspection had under this Act, r.nd nothing in this Act contained, and nothing done or ordered or omitted to be done or ordered, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, shall relieve, or he construed to relieve, any company, of or from any liability or resnonsibility resting upon it by law, either towirds Her Majesty cr towards any person, or the wife or husband, parent or child, executor or administrator, tutor or curator, heir or personal representative of any person, for anything done or omitted to be done by such company, or for any wrongful act, neglect or default, misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance, of such company or in any manner or way to lessen such liability or responsibility, or in any way to weaken or diminish the liability or responsibility of any such company, under the laws in force In the province in which such liability or responsibility arises.

I liad always been under the impression that tins section preserved and sanctioned tlie principle that corporations or individuals who exercise an occupation or carry on a trade or occupation which is of a dangerous or obnoxious character, when that is done for gain or profit, do so at their own risk, and if in doing so they cause damage to any person, whatever precautions they take, they are liable for that damage. I have always thought that section 288 consecrated that principle ; but it is evident that I was wrong If the recent decision of the Privy Council is the true interpretation of the law. I would not venture to say, whatever my opinion is, that the decision of the Privy Council is wrong. But, I think. I may say that it has been guided more by the principles of English law than by the principle I have mentioned is recognized by the French law, and runs all through French jurisprudence. It may be that it has not received full sanction in regard to the railways of France ; but that is explained by the" fact that the railways of France are mostly owned and managed by the state, and that the state has thought it well to protect itself from damages arising from fire on the ground that it does not operate the railways for profit or gain. Therefore the principle which permeates the whole of French legislation, has not received in France with regard to railways the sanction 'that it has received with regard to other subjects. I think the amendment of my hon. friend all the more expedient because of the interpretation which section 288 has been given by the Privy Council. It seems to me the amendment is not only expedient, but right and just. What are the facts ? A company is created by parliament for the purpose of carrying on the business of a public carrier. It is given certain powers which it can exercise, but if in the exercise of those powers it causes any damage to the people along its line, it seems to me the company ought to pay that damage. It is well enough to say that this parliament is supreme, and that it can enact any law. Of course it can; it can pass an unjust or iniquitous law. I am not discussing what this parliament can do ; I am discussing what it ought to do in a case of this sort. It is said that the course of legislation in England has been different from what is proposed here. I do not say that it has ; but assuming that it has, it does not follow that we must go on for ever bound by legislation which perpetrates an injustice. When this country was new and the means of communication were difficult, it was probably just that every facility should be given to railway companies to carry on their business ; but that time is past, and we have to-day railways passing through very thickly populated sections of the country, among hundreds of thousands of people whose property is daily and hourly subject to fire. The principle for which I contend has been sanctioned in the matter of expro-Mr. BELCOURT.
priation. It is true, this parliament has given power to railway companies to expropriate property from individuals for the purposes of the railway ; but parliament has imposed restrictions and a procedure under which th:ft must be done, and has also taken care to provide that in giving compensation to the people whose property is expropriated, the railway company must take certain matters into account.
It seems to me that this proposed legislation is eminently proper and just. Here is a railway company, which operates a dangerous undertaking for its own profit and advantage. Why should the people who live along the line of that railway be subject, not only to the noise, smoke and vibration and other inconvenience arising from it, but also to damages caused by fire. The principle for which I contend has been admitted in almost every other case where a dangerous or obnoxious trade or business is carried on. Our courts have frequently decided that persons operating a saw mill in a city should pay damages caused by the vibration of its machinery or by the smoke emanating from it. In a recent case in the city of Montreal, a livery stable keeper was condemned to pay the damages caused his neighbour's property by the bad smell emanating from his stable. The principle is not a new one, and I see no reason why railway companies should not be subjected to it as well as every other kind of business. The argument that the time has come for a change in our legislation in this regard is not a new one. In the imperial parliament in 1900, a Bill was introduced which is substantially to the same effect as the proposed amendment. That Bill provided as follows :
Where damages caused to crops, hedges, or plantations by Are arising from sparks emitted from any locomotive engine on railways, the railway company owning such engine shall, notwithstanding their statutory powers and rights to the contrary, or the provisiois of any special or general Act relating thereto, he liable to pay to the person whose crops, hedges, or plantations have been so damaged, the amount of such damage to he recovered iu any court of competent jurisdiction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is botli law and justice.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That Bill did not pass, but there was a majority of practically four to one in its favour, the vote on second reading, I am toldf standing 330 for and 84 against.
Similar legislation exists also in many states of the American Union. It seems to me that the time has come when we should compel railway companies to pay the damages they cause. The argument that these companies are operating pro bono publico is altogether exploded. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and the other railway companies are not carrying on their business for the benefit of tlie public, but for the dollars and

cents they can make ont of it, and I cannot see why a poor farmer, whose lands are often cut in two by these railway lines, should, besides having to run the danger of crossing the railway track in the operations of his farm, be also subjected, besides many other inconveniences and annoyances, to loss by fire caused by the sparks from locomotives. I do not delude myself into the belief that the House will adopt this resolution to-day when parliament is on the eve of prorogation, for I am afraid that a number of hon. members are not quite so zealous in the matter as are my hon. friend from St. .Tean d'Iberville (Air. Demers) and myself, and many others, but I believe that those who are in fovour of this proposed legislation should put themselves on record and thus create a public opinion that will eventually bring about its adoption.
The PRIAIB All MISTER. Personally 1 am in sympathy with both amendments, especially that introduced by my hon. friend from St. Jean d'Iberville (Mr. Demers). If that amendment were adopted, we would have legislation on our statute books, which would not only be law but also equity. I cannot conceive of any reasonable argument against such a law. A company is authorized to carry on a certain enteiprise, and at present, if it makes use of the latest inventions for protection against damage, it is n<5t responsible. That may be law, but it is not equity. If in the course of its operations, a railway company sets fire to a poor man's crop, as often happens, the company pleads that as it has taken all the precautions possible, it is not responsible for any loss. The company pleads that the loss occurred through no fault of its own. That may be, but neither was it the fault of the poor man whose property was destroyed. A loss has to be borne; upon whom shall it fall. It must fall either upon the railway company or the settler, who is the victim, and under the circumstances certainly equity demands that the victim should not suffer the damage, but the party who caused it, even though that party be free of blame. For my part I am in favour of the amendment of my hon. friend from St. Jean d'Iberville, and I am also much in sympathy with that of my hon. friend from West Ass'niboia, although the latter amendment is not free from doubt. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the argument of the hon. member for Lanark (Air. Haggart). I do not know that we have the power at this moment, though we might have had it when granting the charter, to provide that a company shall be authorized to go on private property and there put up any construction it may deem necessary. I would ask both my hon. friends not to press their amendments, not because I am not in favour of them, but because I think it would be wiser to follow the usual method of dealing with such matters. Aly hon. friend
from Alberta (Air. Oliver) has said that parliament should deal with these questions as it pleases. That is no doubt true, but parliament has thought fit to adopt certain rules, and it is always better to follow these rules, even when we nave made up our minds that there is no other side to the question. But there are two sides to every question, and It is only right that we should give the railway companies an opportunity of presenting their views before enacting any legislation of the kind proposed. The rule hitherto followed is that legislation of this kind should be referred to the Railway Committee, where opportunity is given to all parties to bring witnesses and have the whole question properly threshed out. I would suggest that that rule be followed in this case, and I would say to my hon. friends from West Assiniboia and St. Jean D'Iberville, that the government pledges itself to give them an opportunity early next session to have this matter referred to the Railway Committee in order tbirt it may be discussed there in all its phases, and proper legislation drafted. With this assurance, I hope that my hon. friends will agree to follow the course I have suggested.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one thing I would like to say, and that is that while this evil may be greater in the Northwest than in other parts of Canada, it is by no means confined to that particulhr part of the country. In the eastern provinces we have had many cases in which property has been destroyed by fire from locomotive engines, and the parties interested have been unable to recover because they could not show negligence on the part of the railway company. In other words, a railway company is not liable so long as it is shown that it has employed the latest and most improved methods known to science for the purpose of preventing fire being communicated to the adjoining property. When this question comes to be discussed next year, as the right hon. gentleman says it will be, there is one subject which the government should consider in that connection, and that is the liability of the Crown by reason of its operation of the Intercolonial Railway. There is no special reason why the Intercolonial Railway should not be subject to the same rules as other railways in that regard. It runs through a large portion of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and at present I do not see what remedy there is, in case of damage, even if negligence were established. I know that there is a statute which says that the Crown is liable for negligence committed by any of its servants on public works, but whether or not that would apply to the case of the user by the Crown of a locomotive not	in conformity
with the latest	improvements, is a
question I have not looked into.

When the government come to deal with this question in the North-west, I think they will perhaps he obliged to deal with it on different lines from those on which it should be dealt with in the other provinces. I suppose that a provision of the character suggested by the hon. member for West Assiniboia would not be of very much use in the older provinces. Therefore, I think that when the question presents itself to the government next year it will probably present itself in the somewhat broader aspect than that in which it is presented in the amendments of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia-more in the light of the amendment introduced by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville. It is a pretty large question. Railway companies have been exempt from liability in the past by reason of the fact that they operate their railways under laws which empower them to do so, and which, for the most part, provide that their lines shall be located in certain places. This was the cause of exemption in the first place, the reason why they were exempt from being treated as a public nuisance. They were authorized by statute, or by ordinance having the force of law, to operate their lines in particular places. But that does not apply to all corporations carrying on business. A great deal depends on the terms of the particular statutes. It is a great question in this [DOT]country, particularly in view of the fact that great industrial enterprises are being advanced at the present time. You must consider not only ithe liabilities of railway companies carrying on enterprises of that character, but you must* consider the liability that should attach to other corporations, such as the great manufacturing concerns. It is a subject that is by no means free from difficulty and will involve a great deal of debate. The question with which we are more immediately concerned is the liability of the railway companies. As far as they are concerned, ithere seemsi a great deal of force in what has been urged from both sides that persons who, through no fault of tlieir own, have property destroyed through the causes we have been discussing, should have some remedy pointed out to them, or, at all events, (those exposed to such danger should have, possibly some better safeguard employed than is at present provided. But I entirely agree with what has been said by the right hon. leader of the House as to the unwisdom of dealing with ithis question without giving the railway companies an opportunity to put the other side of the question. It may be that there is no other side to the question-the Minister of the Interior says that there is not. That is all very well, but the railway companies should be heard from, and, after hearing we can judge better whether there is another side to the question or not. It is true that in questions of this kind this parliament is paramount. I believe that parliament lias power to pass this legisla-


Robert Laird Borden: tion. But parliament should not, without hearing the other side, always exercise the power it possesses. Otherwise a local legislature, having jurisdiction over property and civil rights, could pass one man's property over to any other without giving the man whose property was being sacrificed the opportunity of saying a word in his own defence. That might be the result of the argument presented by my hou. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) if carried out to its legitimate conclusion. I think it is quite right to postpone this legislation to another session, and, when it conies up again it should foe discussed from all standpoints, and after hearing nil parties interested.


Thomas Walter Scott: So far as concerns the amendment that I proposed, I desire to say that it is with very extreme regret I feel impelled by the remarks which have been made by the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to ask permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, (Mr. Scott), withdrawn.


Louis Philippe Demers: I also beg leave to withdraw the amendment I offered.
Amendment, (Mr. Demers), withdrawn.
Bill reported.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved the third reading of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the Bill is read the third time, I would ask the hou. gentleman (Mr. Blair) what is the explanation of the words to which I called attention this morning. Is the effect of the section this-that the person whose land is taken for this temporary purpose shall have notice of what land is taken, and will he have compensation, and will he have the usual remedy ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He is entitled to compensation, and he will have the usual remedy provided in the original statute.
Motion agreed to; Bill read the third time, and passed.



CITY OF OTTAWA.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164) to amend the Act of 1S09 respecting the city of Ottawa (the Minister of Finance) was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. CHARLTON.: Do the commissioners receive a salary ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the compensation is entirely honorary.


Robert Laird Borden: How many of these commissioners are appointed by the government, and how many by the city ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As the law stands now there are four commis-

sioners, of whom three are appointed by the Governor in Council during pleasure, and one is appointed from time to time by the corporation of the city of Ottawa. This proposal is to add four, all of whom will be appointed by the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: That is to say, seven will be appointed by the Governor in Council and one by the city.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it found desirable to have an even number of commissioners rather than an odd number ? Or would there be any objection to having another representative for the city ? You are doubling the number, but you are altering the proportion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may say when the matter was first broached I had contemplated a larger measure which would include an additional representative for the city of Ottawa, but owing to the late period of the session I concluded it was better not to do that at present. I do not think the city has any reason to complain or are complaining. Whatever is done is done entirely for the city of Ottawa. If this were a case of a joint expenditure, part of which was to be spent in Ottawa and a part somewhere else, it would be important to have the city proportionately represented. But as the whole expenditure is in Ottawa and for the benefit of Ottawa, I think the ordinary rules of proportion are not necessary to be maintained. I do not think there is any difficulty on the part of the city, and I hope next year we will be able to enlarge the scope of the Bill and give the city further representation.


Robert Laird Borden: If the city acquiesces I have not a word to say. But it occurred to me that the proportion fixed last year must have been based on some principle, and that if you doubled the number of commissioners it would be only fair to do it in the same proportion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would not be justified in saying the city has acquiesced, because there has been no formal correspondence on the subject. But I have found no objection on the part of the city, and do not anticipate any.


John Charlton: I suppose the money is furnished entirely by the government ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The city does not contribute directly. But there was an understanding between the city and the government as respects the sum of $15,000 per annum which the government were paying into the ci,ty funds for certain purposes, and it was agreed that that sum, Instead of being paid into the city funds, should be diverted into the fund of tnis
commission, and in that sense it may be said they are contributing. But the whole of the money is paid by the Dominion government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the chairman have the same rights on this commission as lie had on the old ? He had two votes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There will be no change in that respect, we have not touched that point at all, I anticipate that with the large number of the commission there will be no difficulty of that nature.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What proportion is made in the original Bill for changing the commissioners ? Do they hold office during pleasure ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The commissioners appointed by the Governor in Council hold office during pleasure, but the commissioner of the city of Ottawa is appointed by the corporation for a term not exceeding three years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I expected to be able to verify a statement I made the other night because I have reason to believe it is correct, but the party from whom I expected to get information is not in the city, and therefore I could not see him so as to be able to verify the statement I made, otherwise I would probably do so on this occasion. I think this arrangement will help to tide over the difficulty the commission has experienced in the past. It can be readily seen that were there only four commissioners, one of whom was chairman, and another of the commissioners did not wish to act, or could not act, only two commissioners were really left to do the work. Now, the chairman had two votes, or in case of a tie the chairman had one additional vote and he could give it to either one side or the other, he had a double voting power. At different times it was found the commission was unworkable as constituted under the old law. Ry the enlargement of the number it may be that difficulty will be largely avoided. But it seems to me that unless that commission do their work more creditably in the future than they have been doing it in the past we ought to take an early opportunity of exercising more supervision over them than we have done up to the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: I have heard the suggestion from some source that it would be better to have an odd number of commissioners for reasons which have been mentioned. Possibly the difficulty of a tie may be removed by the increased number, owing to the improbability that all will attend. I do not know about that. But I have heard that suggestion made and I bring it to the attention of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the point may be worthy of consideration

another year. I quite anticipate that another session we will have still further legislation on this subject, but at present I have no reason to doubt that the matter will be improved to some extent by the larger number of the commission. In saying that I do not wish to be understood as assenting to all the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said regarding the work of the commission. I think he has been misinformed-of course he received his information In good faith. My information is that the work of the commission on the whole has been very well done indeed. These gentlemen have given a great deal of time and have rendered very valuable service to the city.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE COASTING TRADE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 165) respecting the coasting trade of Canada.-The Minister of Justice.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This is a re-enactment of the law as it is now, except that the second paragraph contains a definition of the words ' coasting trade.'
On section 2,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I desire to move an amendment to this clause, adding the following words after the word * ship ' in the second paragraph :
Provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any foreign-built British ship that has been registered a3 a British ship prior to the 1st day of December, 1902.


John Charlton: I want to ask the hon. minister who has charge of this Bill in regard to the provisions imposing restrictions upon British-built vessels engaging in the coasting trade whether any corresponding restrictions exist in the British navigation laws in regard to Canadian-built vessels.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


John Charlton: Why should we introduce this discrimination against ships of British register engaging in the Canadian coasting business when we have for our own tonnage the free use of the British coasting trade in all parts of the Britsli Empire ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This Bill is applicable not to a British-built ship but to a foreign-built ship registered in England.


John Charlton: A British-built vessel is not excluded by it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


John Charlton: Then, in regard to subsection 2 or section 2, I desire to ask Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
the hon. minister whether that does not make a change in the.rate of duty hitherto imposed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The rate of duty heretofore imposed was 10 per cent ad valorem on the hull of the vessel, and 25 per cent ad valorem on the hull, rigging, machinery, boiler, furniture and appurtenances of the ship.


John Charlton: Having in view the desirability of encouraging the increase of the Canadian marine, I should question very much whether an increase of duty from 10 to 25 per cent on foreign-built vessels that sought admission to Canadian register is a course to be pursued which is likely to be in the interests of the country. It strikes me that 10 per cent on the hull of a vessel for duty is high enough.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The first section contains a definition of the coasting laws, and it is not very important. It is in respect to section 2 that there is a departure. That requires that a foreign-built British ship, to engage in the coasting trade of Canada, shall be obliged to take out a license for which 25 per cent ad valorem of the vessel will be charged.


John Graham Haggart: This will not have an ex post facto effect will it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, not in regard to any vessel in Canada.


John Graham Haggart: I understand you have an action now going on in the court in which the contention of your department is that a vessel bought in the United States which had got British register and came over here bad no right to engage in the coasting business ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was not quite the question. The question was whether or not a vessel which went to the United States and came in here under the operation of the British Consul's certificate at Chicago was entered to engage in the. coasting trade. It was held in the lower court and in the Exchequer Court that our contention was wrong, but fortunately there is such a thing as a Supreme Court in this country, and we succeeded a few days ago in getting a judgment reversing the judgment of the Exchequer Court


John Charlton: The judgment is that foreign-built vessels taking out a consul's certificate for the purpose of being admitted to Canadian register cannot obtain that register without paying.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. That is the law which we have now without this amendment.


John Graham Haggart: The judgment of the Exchequer Court is reversed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The judg-i ment of the Exchequer Court is reversed.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask tlie liou. minister whether there is any imperial sanction required in regard to these proposed changes ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is provided that this Bill shall not come into force until such time as it receives the imperial sanction. The ninth paragraph says :
This Act shall not come into force until His Majesty's pleasure thereon has been signified.
That is in connection with the Merchants' Shipping Act of 1894, section 736.


Robert Laird Borden: Is His Majesty's pleasure signified through an imperial Act, or would it mean His Majesty's pleasure signified through a Canadian Act of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Merchants' Shipping Act of 1894 provides that:
The legislature of a British possession, may, by any Act or ordinance, regulate the coasting trade of that British possession, subject in every case to the following conditions :
(a) The Act or ordinance shall contain a suspending clause providing that the Act or ordinance shall not come into operation until Her Majesty's pleasure thereon has been publicly signified in the British possession in which it has been passed.
It Is to 'meet the provision of the imperial Act that we have inserted section 9 of this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: The question which occurred to me was whether the language used here might mean His Majesty's pleasure signified on the advice of the government of Canada. It is a very proper provision, but I want to be sure that we are expressing it in the way that the hon. minister intended.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are adopting the terms of the British Act. I would suggest that we might put the Bill through this stage, and I will consider the matter further before the third reading.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would suggest that it might be made to read that it shall be signified in the manner provided by the imperial statute.


Robert Laird Borden: We want to make it plain that it is His Majesty's pleasure as indicated by the imperial government, and not the pleasure of His Majesty's representative.


John Graham Haggart: If I understand the hon. Minister of Justice properly the clause empowers provincial or other governments to impose conditions as to registration ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the legislature of a British possession may, by any Act or ordinance, regulate the coasting trade of that British possession, subject to the condition of the Bill being reserved for 145
Ore signification of His Majesty's pleasure. That is the English Act. That would not apply to a province. That would only apply to a legislature that has power to deal with maritime matters. The provinces would not have any right to deal witli this matter at all-only the Dominion,


John Graham Haggart: Only the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Only the Dominion. When the imperial Act speaks of the legislature of a British province it means a legislature having authority to deal with matters of this sort.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3,


John Charlton: In regard to section 3 provision is made for the confiscation of cargoes the same as if goods were smuggled in the case of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade contrary to the provisions of this Act. The section reads:
S. No goods or passengers shall be carried by water, from one port of Canada to another, except in British ships ; and if any goods or pas-engers are so carried, as aforesaid, contrary to this Act, the master of the ship or vessel so carrying them shall incur a penalty of four hundred dollars ; and any goods so carried shall be forfeited, as smuggled ; and such ship oi vessel may be detained by the collector of customs, at any port or place to which such goods or passengers are brought, until such penalty is paid, or security for the payment thereof given to his satisfaction, and until such goods are delivered up to him, to be dealt with as goods forfeited under the provisions of the Customs Act.
I would like to inquire of the hon. minister as to what the limitation would be as to what would be considered to be the cargo of a vessel. A large part of the commerce of the lakes is carried by means of vessels that are towed by steam barges, and there is also a great deal of commerce in the form of the towing of rafts. I would like to know whether a raft or vessel in tow would be liable to the provisions of this Act and the property confiscated ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I really could not answer off-hand an inquiry of that sort.


John Charlton: It is very important to have that matter defined.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) I deem it my duty to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to the difference existing between our legislation respecting the coasting trade and the legislation in force in the United States. Prior to 1898, we had no passenger steamboats at St. John. At that time excursions from Canada to the United States were organized by American companies, and steamboats used to call at St. John and Iberville, at Sabrevois and l'lle aux Noix and carried passengers to Bur-



lington or Platsburg, without the government having ever interfered. The American coasting laws were then similar to the Canadian laws; but in 1898, a statute was passed by the American Congress, which reads as follows
No goods or passengers shall be carried by water, from one port of the United States to another, except in American ships, ' either directly or via a foreign port,' or for any part of the voyage.
About 1900, the people of St. John organized a transportation company, the Richelieu Navigation Company, which undertook to carry passengers and excursionists from the United States to Canada and from Canada to the United States, as had been done so far by American vessels. But the United States government soon interfered, and in the course of the last season a steamboat of the company, the 'Majestic' was seized by the American authorities. The American government Claimed the sum of twenty thousand dollars, because the navigation laws in the United States are much more drastic than ours are, the penalty being $20 for each passenger, whereas, under our legislation, the penalty amounts only to $400 in all. As the 'Majestic' was not worth $20,000. the American authorities felt inclined to enter into negotiations, and owing to the good offices of Mr. Myers, of Rouse's Point, the company succeeded in making an arrangement through which it got out of trouble by paying a fine of $200. I think it desirable that our legislation should be amended in the direction of the American law.


John Graham Haggart: Has the Minister of Justice considered whether you have, the right to say that one kind of British ship shall enjoy an exclusive privilege and another shall not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a very serious question and it was canvassed and discussed before this Bill was submitted. We launched the Bill on the assumption that we were dealing with this matter constitutionally.


Robert Laird Borden: There is also another consideration about it, which is, that apparently even if a foreign-built ship desired to engage in the coasting trade for only a limited period, nevertheless it would have to pay the full amount of duties.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is really a tax on foreign ships coming in.


Robert Laird Borden: It is really the imposition of a duty on foreign-built ships brought into Canada for the purpose of doing a coasting trade, even if they should he employed in that trade for only a very limited period.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We impose a tax if they come in as foreign-built ships, but if they go out and get a British


Louis Philippe Demers: register and come back again they defeat the provisions of our customs law.
Bill reported.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved the third reading of the Bill.


John Charlton: Before the Bill is read a third time I desire to move :
That the Bill be referred back to committee with a view of making the following amendment to section 3.
That the provisions of the said clause as reguards the forfeiture of goods shall not apply to rafts or cargoes of vessels in tow of such ships or vessels engaged in coasting in contra-version of this Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Justice left the Chamber under the impression that the Bill would get its third reading, but as this is a very important amendment, I would ask that the Bill should stand over until Monday.


John Charlton: I spoke to the Minister of Justice and lie suggested the amendment. but it is a matter that he would naturally like to look into. Unless that provision is made I think serious injustice will be done by the Bill.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 159) to incorporate the Maritime Stock Breeder's Association. He said: This Bill is simply to incorporate a voluntary association which has been in existence for some time in the maritime provinces. and as it covers the three provinces, it could not be incorporated by the legislature of any one province.
Motion agreed to; Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Is there any special provision in this Bill beyond tile incorporation of these gentlemen ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it is simply to Incorporate the association. which heretofore has been purely a voluntary association, and which could not do certain things they wish to do.


John Graham Haggart: Have you a copy of the by-laws of the association ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The by-laws are in existence, and accompanied tlie Bill when it passed through the Senate. I have not a copy of them here. You can see by the Bill that they can he changed at any time.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Winnipeg immigration buildings - isolation hospital (rovote), $8,000.
The MINISTER OF rUBLIO WORKS. I may say that we have just received tenders for that building, the lowest being $10,800 in round numbers. In addition to that there will be about $1,000 expended for other purposes.
['Monday, May 12, 1002.']
Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. minister any idea of what the total expenditure is for immigration buildings throughout Canada 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say off-hand.


Mr. WILSON.: I presume that this building will be chiefly for the accommodation of immigrants from Europe 7
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC! WORKS. I suppose so.


Uriah Wilson: If there was a little more attention given to instpecting the immigrants at the frontier, we would not require so much hospital accommodation at Winnipeg. I hope the Act introduced by the Minister of the Interior will be made stronger in the Senate, because I am afraid that as it passed this House it was too weak to do much good.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course, this building was asked for by the Department of the Interior. I am only the builder.
Red Deer court house, look-up, and land office (revote), $5,700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this whole building expected to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $8,000-by contract, of course.


Robert Laird Borden: How large a town is Red Deer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About 400 population. It has three churches and nine stores. Of course this vote has been asked by the Department of Justice. The late Minister of Justice insisted very strongly on every court house in my estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This building will be used for a land office as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is a public building generally, but a court house specially.
Yorkton court house and jail, $4,400.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these all for new works 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. we have $4,000 In the main estimates, and this will finish the work.
Saskatoon immigration building, $1,200.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you want a building there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a kind of small shed. Saskatoon is in the Saskatchewan district. There are a great many immigrants, I understand, and before they settle on their farms they have to be lodged for some time. The Department of the Interior has asked for the building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this located upon a railway line 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is on the Canadian Pacific Railway line.
Williams Head quarantine station-improvements, repairs, furnishings and fittings, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that what we voted last year was to complete the improvements. There seems to be no end to the expenditure at Williams Head.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have a list of the items on which this money is to be expended. There is electric lighting plant, $5,000; new bath house, $1,000; quarters for saloon passengers, $1,000 ; reshingling, $1,000, and a number of other smaller items. The total cost of that quarantine station is between $00,000 and $70,000, exclusive of the wharf.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this more especially for immigrants 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there are a great many Japanese and Chinese coming from the Pacific ocean on the Canadian Pacific Railway boats, and they have to be attended to pretty carefully. However, I am only carrying out the instructions of the Department of Agriculture, which has charge of quarantine. I am a builder pure and simple, and do my best to build well.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems pretty elaborate for what is required. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture can explain the reasons for this large expenditure.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are constantly obliged to accommodate larger numbers of people. The vessels that come in from the Orient have to be overhauled, and whenever there is any disease found, the whole passenger list lias to be put ashore. We have to provide for first and second class and steerage passengers, so that when brought ashore they will be properly accommodated. The requirements have been greater lately in consequence ot the fear of the bubonic plague, which has come up within the last year or two.


Robert Laird Borden: Has there been any trace of bubonic plague in any of the. immigrants landing 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not so far.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this finish the expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite sure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite sure for this time. But seriously speaking, this is to complete it.


Robert Laird Borden: And next year there will be repairs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be the ordinary repairs, as there are in my hon. friend's house. The best built houses need -some little touching up.
Parliament and departmental buildings, Ottawa, elevator attendants, $9,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the past we had a item in the main estimates of $57,000 for heating and attendants and caretakers. I thought it was better not to mix things as they were. I am taking out this item of $9,000 for attendants from the heating item, with which it has no relation whatever. I am making it a special item. It does not increase the expenditure, but only divides the item.


Robert Laird Borden: What does this item mean, $9,000 for elevator attendance V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will give the list if my hon. friend wants it. In the parliamentary building there are four elevator attendants at $45 per month, $2,160. East and West blocks, three elevator attendants, $1,694.88. Langevin block, one engineer and firemen, $1,260; six elevator attendants at $45 per month, $3,240. Census building, one elevator attendant, $540. Oil, &c., $105.


Robert Laird Borden: How many elevators altogether ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Eleven.
Lighting Dominion public buildings (additional amount), $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is rendered necessary by the increased number of buildings. We have to provide the lighting of 226 buildings all over this country.
Bents-Dominion public buildings, $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this additional amount necessary ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because of the number of buildings for which we are obliged to pay rent. This just covers the expenditure. This is for all over Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total amount paid for rent ?


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: The total is $33,500.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a permanent addition made necessary especially by the increase of lighting in the Senate Chamber, together with some other items.
Port Coiborne public buildings-new heating aparatus, $950.


Mr. BLAIN.: What public building have we at Port Coiborne ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have a building which is used for both canal and post office purposes.
Winnipeg immigration building-New liot air furnaces with connections, &c., $800.


Robert Laird Borden: You had a vote a few minutes ago for the Winnipeg immigration building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 'That was for the office. This is for the immigration building. They are two different things, but together they occupy one piece of land.
Dominion immigrant buildings-repairs, furniture, &c., $500.


Robert Laird Borden: What buildings are these ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay for small repairs and furnishings for buildings all over the country.
Public works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Amagandus Pond- wharf (revote), $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have here a map of Nova Scotia which I will lay on the Table, upon which all the works for which I am asking money are marked.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is Amagandus Pond ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Cape Breton riding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is any harbour or inlet in Nova Scotia that has escaped the attention of the minister I think he should mark that on his map.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the province of Nova Scotia there are many fishermen who need these works iu connection with their calling, a very difficult trade indeed. The visit 1 paid three years ago convinced me that we could not do too much for these fishermen.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any wharf there now 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: What will this work cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have no information upon which to base an exact estimate, but the expenditure will be small.


Mr. JOHNSON (Cape Breton).: If the hon. minister will allow me I can give the committee some information as to this place. There is a stretch of coast on the Bras d'Or lakes about fifteen miles in extent, which is thickly populated all along. This wharf will be about the centre, and it is designed to accommodate people all through that district. The people are mainly farmers, but they also do a little fishing.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this for the purpose of enabling them to send their produce to market, or is it in connection with their fishing operations ?


Robert Milton Johnson: It will serve both purposes. It is a very necessary wharf for landing coal and other supplies that these people require.


John Graham Haggart: This is on Bras d'Or lake, on East bay ?


Robert Milton Johnson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: How far is it from the other new wharf you are getting built ?


Robert Milton Johnson: Twelve miles.


John Graham Haggart: How broad is East bay at that point ?


Robert Milton Johnson: About ten miles.


John Graham Haggart: There is another wharf being built right opposite on * East bay and one within four miles of the other point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The comparison the hon. gentleman made is not a fair one. He speaks of large expenditures on these large ports. But these ports are the great highways of commerce and accommodate hundreds of thousands of people. These expenditures are made on great arteries of trade where the ports must be made, and where the expenditure is necessarily very large. There is no comparison at all between such expenditures and those in these small places. I do not say we would not be justified in making small expenditures for the purpose of accommodating even a few people; but what I complain of is that we are commencing works and expenditures when we do not know what the end will be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are very few places where we have not exact information, though there may be some small places where our information may not be entirely accurate. But we have resident engineers in all the provinces. In Nova Scotia we have Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Milledge. old and able engineers. Those two gentlemen give us all the information we can gather, and it is on their information that we base our estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The number of new works on this list is exceed-

ingly small. In three or four cases out of five these items are for repairs and improvements to existing works, not new works at all. There are also very few cases in which the works are at all expensive. So we are not committing ourselves to any large outlay at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the statement made by the Minister of Public Works that the items in the supplementary estimates were usually for the commencement of new works, I concluded that the large percentage of these items were for new works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said that all new works are in the supplementary estimates, but that does not mean that the supplementary estimates may not contain many items for other than new works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I speak from our experience of last year when we endeavoured to get information as to what new works were likely to cost, and we found it very difficult to get any information. What I complain of especially is that we are committing ourselves to commencing a number of new works without any information at all of what it is likely to cost to complete them. The minister says that he is making a small expenditure here and there to accommodate a few fishermen or a few farmers. If the same principle was applied in the province of Ontario you would have four or five public works where you now have only one. But we have never considered it the proper thing to advocate the commencement of such small works for the purpose of accommodating a small number of people in different localities. We have endeavoured to make expenditures on large harbours and large ports where a great deal of trade is done and where large portions of the country are benefited. But in the maritime provinces, whether it is that yo'ur trade is not directed in large arteries or whether your bays and creeks and inlets are more numerous, you seem to have a larger number of works down there that although they do not appear to be expensive individually, still in the aggregate it amounts to considerable.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this case the expenditure, to complete the work, from the information which I have from my officers, will not be over $3,000. In 1895, even before we took office, representations were made to the department by the people there that their fire wood supply had given out,- that they were obliged to buy coal, and that they had no Wharf. We could not do the work until this day, as there were so many other demands upon us. It seems to me to be a very reasonable expenditure.


Mr. McISAAC.: I wish to remind the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that while he is condemning many of these items for repairs, he is criticising the administra-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
tion of his own friends when theyjwere in power. I venture to say that 75 per cent of the items for public works in Nova Scotia are for repairs to works commenced by the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made no reference to works of repairs, but I did make reference to cases in which new works were commenced without knowing what the total cost would be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We know in every case.


Colin Francis McIsaac: I know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) wants to qualify his utterances. He has spoken half a dozen times within the last hour and it is necessary for him to qualify what he has said. He has made a general onslaught upon all of these items. I would say to him that in my own county there are some five items for the repair of old works, and there is not one item for a new work, and that the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for these old works, as they were initiated during their administration. Every item in the estimates for the county of Antigonish has been put in on the recommendation of the resident engineer, Mr. Milledge. The hon. gentleman is condemning his own friends while he is condemning these expenditures and trying to make capital out of the effort to create the impression in the country that this government are spending money recklessly in the province of Nova Scotia, for the convenience, as he says, of a few fishermen in the remote parts of the province. If he pursues that line of policy in regal'd to Nova Scotia, as he has for several years, he simply provokes us to call to mind the fact that if there is anything wrong in it at all it is in most cases in repairing woi'ks undertaken by the hon. gentleman's own friends while they were in power. I do not condemn any of these expenditures, because I think they were right, but if the hon. gentleman forces us to institute a comparison between the works undertaken by the government of the present time and those undertaken in the past by his own friends, I am quite willing to make that comparison and to show that the works undertaken since the present government came into power have been more useful than those undertaken when the party of the hon. gentleman were in power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am very sorry that I have ruffled the even temper of my hon. friend (Mr. Mclsaac) in discharging my duty, but I may tell him that I will endeavour to discharge my duty in the future, notwithstanding the fact that he may get *a little out of humour.
Bailey's Brook-breakwater wharf, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new work, the cost of which will

be about $5,000. Tenders will be called for the work. It is in Pictou county.
Bear river-Removal of obstructions and renewals and repairs to dropping piers, $1,700.


Robert Laird Borden: What piers are these ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a pier that is sometimes known as the mooring pier. It is a pier at the entrance to the river, and ships have to moor to it before they can get up the river.
Big pond-wharf (revote, $2,500), $3,100.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister, when we reach an item for new work, let us know, and also say how much the work will cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is one of the new works. The total cost of the work is estimated to be $3,100.
Cape Cove-restoration of breakwater, $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is Cape Cove ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Digby county.
CliarlesviMe-breakwater, $2,700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A new work.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is this place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Shelburne and Queen's.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Near the boundary of Yarmouth county.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $2,700 is the whole cost of the work.
Cheveric-breakwater extension (revote), |3,-
000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is an old work.
Church Point-repairs to breakwater, $1,800.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An old work.
Comeaus Hill breakwater-repairs, &c., $600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An old work.
Cribbon's Point-repairs to wharf, &c., $1,350.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is Cribbon's Point ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Antigonish.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Drum Head breakwater, $5,000.


Adam Carr Bell: What county is that in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete. The total cost is $7,000.


Adam Carr Bell: What county is it in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Guysborough.
Glace Bay-harbour improvements, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will that cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was formerly a coal mine at Glace Bay. but after it was purchased by the new company they ceased shipping owing to lack of water. Since then quite a large town has grown around that place and they are now desirous of having wharf accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will it cost to complete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is one of these works on which we may spend much or may spend little. I suppose that for $15,000 or $20,000 we can give them fair accommodation.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of the improvement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a breakwater.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will the length of this breakwater be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will build about 250 feet of breakwater for this amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will it be let by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Grand river-To open channel, $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is that 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Richmond.


Robert Laird Borden: What is this open channel ?


Mr. MATHESON.: The present entrance is in a rocky place and it is not straight, and we want to have it opened where there is deep water outside so that the fishermen can go in and out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And for lumber trade, I understand.
Lunenburg-dredging, $5,000.


Mr. KAULBACII.: I hope the hon. minister will expend that sum this year.


Mr. FRASER.: Strike it out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no, no, no.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Porter's lake-completion of outlet, $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the position of that work at present ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is now going on. It has been going on for the last two years, and this is to complete it.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I have not been on the spot, but I have never heal'd of much being done at Porter's lake except just before an election.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was the old way.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be the new way. I think that the work was commenced by the present administration. How much is the total appropriation for it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount that will have been spent when this additional amount is expended will be $16,700.


Robert Laird Borden: How much has been expended already ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Robert Laird Borden: Was that expended by tender or otherwise ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By day labour.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was the work not done by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have had to spend only a small amount at a time. The work is being carried out very successfully.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that at one time, in the latter part of the year 1900, the condition precedent to getting any work at Porter's lake was a promise that votes would be cast for the Liberal candidate, as I was informed in many quarters. Is that what the hon. gentleman refers to, when he says that the work is being carried out very successfully ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As the hon. gentleman is here, it is evident that the work was not carried out successfully in every direction. However, I do not complain.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the circumstances, I suppose I ought not to complain either.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Then, let us have the vote.


Robert Laird Borden: When does the hon. gentleman expect the work will be completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This fall.


Robert Laird Borden: The object of the work, as I recollect, was to preserve the public highway. That was one of the incidental objects, was it not ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer explains that it was to open a channel into a kind of harbour of refuge for fishermen.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Porter's lake is a navigable water, and by opening this channel, you enable small vessels to go into the lake. It will also have the effect of preventing a flooding of the whole district. The protection of the highway will be only an incident of the work.


Robert Laird Borden: What size of vessels will the channel admit ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think boats drawing about 7 feet.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Port La-Tour-addition to breakwater, $4,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the position of that work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Tlus work was the subject of a discussion on a previous day. It is a work on which $4,000 or $5,000 has been expended thus far. This vote will extend the breakwater a considerable distance. I think the engineers estimate that it will take $15,000 or $17,000 to carry it out to its full length.
Harbours and rivers. Nova Scoria-Round Bay -beach protection, $2,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What does this beach protection mean ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a case in which a small amount was expended on a work and storms destroyed it. The engineer is now proposing a different treatment, costing a little more money. The beach being damaged and broken away, the inside water, which is a harbour for small boats, is destroyed ; and the beach has to be protected from storms.
Windsor harbour-Shear Dams training dykes, and deepening river Avon, $700.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is intended to empty the harbour of large quantities of mud which accumulate in the harbour. In the Avon river the tide runs as high as fifty feet and carries a large quantity of mud, and we have built these shear dams to carry off the mud.


Adam Carr Bell: How is it doing.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps not as well as the engineer anticipates, but I am not at all much disappointed as the engineer. I was there when the work Jwas on and never thought it would clear the harbour, but it has had a good effect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When the new Avon bridge was constructed, it is claimed that owing to the different method of construction the currents were changed, and deposits of mud were thrown towards

tile wharfs, and the engineers are trying to send these deposits out by shear dams and training dykes.


David Henderson: Before leaving the Nova Scotia estimates I would draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works ;to the fact that there is nothing for New Harbour. I am not complaining about that, but I desire to apologize to the hon. member for Guysborough. On the last occasion on which this haiibour was referred to, I made the statement that not even the hon. member knew where the harbour was. My hon. friend from Guysborough drew my attention to the fact that he actually did know where it was, and I desire to withdraw the statement I made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: New Harbour has been found and improved and is now happy.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I thank the hon. gentleman for admitting that he made the statement without knowledge and consenting to withdraw it.


Robert Laird Borden: On the particular occasion referred to when we could not find New Harbour we could not find the hon. member for Guysborough either. Messengers were vainly sent out to bring him in for the purpose of locating the harbour, and at eleven o'clock at night he was discovered and the harbour was located.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. member for Halifax was under the delusion that there was no such place, and I regret that he had not attended better to his -geography or he would not have made the mistake he did.


David Henderson: My hon. friend was in good company for there were four other members from that province besides himself who could not find the spot.
Brae breakwater, Prince Edward Islandstrengthening and repairing works, $500.


Mr. HACKETT.: What work is being done there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that we are strengthening and repairing the work. There are a few piles to be driven so as to make the work more solid and secure.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. gentleman intend extending it. It is of no great value unless extended out further.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not intend to extend it now.
Qliapel Point pier, Prince Edward Island

repairs, $1,100.


Edward Hackett: Where is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In King's county.
Lower Montague, Prince Edward Island-At.-' kins wharf, $3,200.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This was a work that formerly belonged to the provincial government. Petitions were sent in asking us to build a new wharf and the department made up their minds to acquire it.
Tignish harbour, Prince Edward Island-rebuilding northern breakwater, $1,150.


Edward Hackett: Is this for new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to build the northern part of the breakwater.


Edward Hackett: How do you propose strengthening the pier.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The old rotten timber will have to be removed and new timber put in its place.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. minister intend calling for tenders.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: iNo. decidedly not, we will do it by days work.
Public works-chargeable to Income-harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-Anderson's Hollow-improvements and repairs to wharf, $6,500.


Mr. FOWLER.: What does the hon. gentleman propose to do at this place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is applied for to make provision for repairing the present pier, the estimated cost of which is $2,500, and also putting in a groin to overcome an accumulation of sand aud gravel, estimated to cost $4,000.


George William Fowler: Will the work be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The repairs cannot be done by contract.


George William Fowler: But the extension can be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot make any pledge, if Mr. Shewen, the local engineer, tells me that it is better to do it by contract, it will be done in that way.
Campbelltown wharf (revote), $8,500.


George William Fowler: This is a revote-no money has been spent, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No money has been spent so far.
Campobello (Wilson's beach)-repairs to and part reconstruction of breakwater, $4,u00.


George William Fowler: Was any money expended on this last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. $7,400, in round figures, was spent last year. This is the work for which we asked for tenders, but, receiving none, had to proceed to do the work by days' labour.


George William Fowler: How much is it supposed to cost ?

462S


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This item will complete the work.
Cape Tormentine-creosoted timber cribwork,


Edward Hackett: Will that work be done this summer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is going on now.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. minister intend to do the dredging there that he spoke about ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the dredge is there now; if not, it will be there in a short time. I have instructed the dredge to go there as soon as the work at Digby is done, it will then go to Tormentine.	*


Edward Hackett: Is this under contract V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it cannot be done by contract, as the work is in the form of repairs.


Mr. WILMOT.: Where is the creosotiug done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is done in the United States, but in the supplementary estimates I have a vote for the establishing of a plant.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the cost of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is one of the works on which we can spend much or we can spend less. The cribwork was iirst built with native timber, not creosoted. The wood there is very bad, and it was eaten away in three or four years. In fact, the chief engineer tells me tlie work was not linished before it was eaten away.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this $10,000 cover the cost#of the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: How much will the cost be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I say, we can spend much or we can spend less. If we were to undertake to repair the whole work, it would cost in the neighbourhood of $100,000. This is a very large work and cost, if my memory serves me, in the neighbourhood of $500,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand that the timber, not having been creosoted, has been eaten by the worms V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it was eaten away by the worms before the work was completed.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: The hon. minister says he intends to have a creosotiug plant. Where will it bo located ?
!
The MINISTER Oh' PUBLIC WORKS. I cannot tell at present-somewhere in the maritime provinces.
Great Salmon river-Groin and breakwater combined, $4,300.


George William Fowler: Is that Great Salmon river on the Bay of Fundy coast ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Is this a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Is it to be built by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not yet.
Little Salmon river beach protection works, $S00.


George William Fowler: Is that Little Salmon river on the Bay of Fundy coast also ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Partridge Island-repairs to eastern pier, $1,200.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Is it proposed by the government to go on with the dredging works at the entrance to the harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have no dredge available for that large work. We might find a dredge, but tlie cost of the work with the dredges now available is so high that the government has decided to postpone the dredging of St. John harbour until the new dredge, which is now under construction, is completed.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Where is it being built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the government shipyard at Sorel.


George William Fowler: Would not the latest-built . dredge, the one turned out at Toronto, do the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would not be available as a sea-going dredge; it is for the St. Lawrence channel.
River St. John-wharf at Oromocto, $5,500.


George William Fowler: Is that a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Has the minister secured a site for the wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not a site yet, but we are preparing to buy one. The plans are ready for


George William Fowler: 



[Stage Direction]
the work, and tenders will be asked for as soon as we have a site.
Robert Duncan Wilmot: I believe it was stated some time ago that $6,500 would be appropriated for the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have $1,500 in the main estimates.
Wharfs on tidal waters on the St. John river and tributaries, $5,000.


George William Fowler: Could the hon. gentleman tell me what wharfs there are in King's county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Jenkin's wharf, Oak Point wharf, Beilyea's Cove wharf and Rothesay wharf.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: When will tenders be called for Oromooto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be no delay.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: When will a dredge suitable for St. John harbour be sent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By the opening of next season, I hope.
Ratiscan river-To continue the dredging of a channel at outlet of river, $10,000.


George William Fowler: How much has been spent on that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work, which will have amounted to $20,000. We have no dredge of our own suitable for that work, and have had to hire a dredge, for which we pay $8 an hour.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister called for any offers from different people to do this work, or does he make a contract with some individual ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not always call for tenders. We give $8 an hour in this case, provided the dredge does 600 yards a day, and when the dredge does not do that much, we deduct the difference. The dredging costs us 301 cents a yard. It is the cheapest way we can do the work. Next year I think we will be able to dispense with all these outside dredges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is this work supervised ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not only have we got local inspectors, but we have district engineers who oversee the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have been told that there are places where the overseer goes around town while the dredging is going on. Who keeps account of what work is being done ? I am credibly informed that there are many instances where there is no overseer at all. and the account is kept by the owner of the dredge himself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be surprised to get evidence of that state of affairs. As a rule, I am prepared to say that our overseers are well chosen.


George William Fowler: Is the local inspector in charge of this work a man of experience ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that this man has been with us two years and is a very able man.
Crane Island, south side, heavy repairs to wharf, $3,500.


George William Fowler: Where is Crane Island ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the St. Lawrence, below Quebec.
Cross Point-isolated landing pier (revote), $5,000.


George William Fowler: Is this contract work?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of an isolated landing pier ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An isolated pier means a block constructed which is not connected with the shore.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It stands out from the shore ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so. When we find that it will be too expensive to build from the shore we build an isolated block.
Maria-isolated block, $12,000.


Robert Laird Borden: As this is a pretty large item the hon. minister had better explain it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had $12,000 in the estimates last year. We asked for tenders and the lowest tender that came in was $24,000. Maria is one of the most important parishes on the Baie de Chaleur. There was no wharf at that place. The nearest wharf was Carleton on one side and New Carlisle on the other. It was found to be too expensive to build a wharf on the shore. Then, we made up our minds to prepare plans for an isolated block. There are regular lines of steamers navigating in those waters. It is to enable these steamers and the schooners which call there to load and unload that we are building that block. This will complete .the work, and it is being done by tender and contract.


George William Fowler: I do not quite understand what you mean by an isolated block. It means. I presume, that the wharf stands away from the shore ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so.


George William Fowler: Then how do you get to the shore-by small boats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By boat. We have several of these in the St. Lawrence.
Magdalen Island-breakwaters, additional, $14,300.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That will complete the work. The total expenditure, this Item included, will be $32,000. Plans were prepared for a more expensive work. I visited the work, myself, with the chief engineer, and we reduced the plans to a moderate sum, three years ago.
I'Ointe Fortune-wharf, $5,000.


George William Fowler: Is this a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a new work in this way, that there is an old work and we will include a new work in it.


George William Fowler: Does this complete it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Is it by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it will be a kind of repair work.
Point St. Pierre-breakwater, $5,000.


George William Fowler: Is this uew ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, by contract. We have already a, vote of $5,000.


George William Fowler: That will be $10,000 altogether ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Yes.


George William Fowler: AArill that complete it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: AVhat will be the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $14,000 is the estimate.


George William Fowler: Is the work let by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By contract.


Robert Laird Borden: AVhere is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the county of Gaspe. There are about 200 fishing schooners visiting that place. It is one of the most important points in the county of Gaspe from the fisherman's standpoint, and there is also considerable local trade. They have no railway in that part of the country.
Riviere aux Renards-pier, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By contract.


George William Fowler: I


Robert Laird Borden: Where is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Gaspe also, on the north shore.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is the continuation of an old work.


George William Fowler: How much has been expended already ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Six thousand dollars has been spent already and this will complete the work; by contract.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, as a section of the county Which 1 represent here is concerned in this vote, I think it my duty to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the harbour of Riviere du Loup, which is daily increasing in importance. The Fraser firm, of New Brunswick, have been building shanties and saw-mills on the shores of Lake Temis-eouata, and they are exporting annually to Great Britain large quantities of lumber. That lumber has to be shipped from Riviere du Louip. But unfortunately, there is no accommodation on the wharf and their ships have to load and unload toy small boats away from the shore. Of course that entails a considerable loss of time, which would be remedied if we had, at Riviere du Loup, a wharf in deep water. I know that surveys and plans have been made by the engineer, Mr. Auclair. I should be very glad if the hon. minister would kindly communicate those plans to the Chamber of Commerce of Fraserville, as also the report of Mr. Fraser, the engineer of the Public AVorks Department, with alii the plans, maps, specifications and cost of the works, in connection with the building of a wharf at Riviere du Loup.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS (Mr. Tarte).: (Translation.) My hon. friend has just called attention to conditions which are not peculiar to RiviSre du Loup, but which exist in all the places along the St. Lawrence where lumber cargoes are handled. The ships have to load and unload by means of small boats. I should feel most happy were I able to build wharfs everywhere, tout my hon. friend will easily understand that such works involve a large expenditure of money. I cannot commit myself to any such policy for the future, until I have all the desirable data and information before me.
I shall be very happy to communicate to the Chamber of Commerce of Fraserville the report of the engineer Who has made the survey referred to.
St. Francois-breakwater, wharf on the south shore of the Island of Orleans, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it will cost more than that. The work will be of great local importance, and it is necessary also in view of the dredging operations we will carry on opposite Crane Island.


Mr. MORIN.: What use will the minister have for a wharf on the south side of the island ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just said that St. Francois is a very important parish and we are going to dredge at Crane Island, which is a very stormy place, and our dredges and scows will be obliged to find shelter there.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: On the north shore there has been a whanf for a great many years and you never see any kind of boat stop there, and on the south shore there is no line of steamers at all. I have passed that place time and again and there is no traffic there. Did I understand the minister to say that Crane Island was opposite that place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. At Crane Island there is no shelter, and our dredges and scows would be obliged to come here in a storm.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not find any fault with building wharfs where they are necessary, but it is not necessary here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman has not given this question his best attention. He must know that there is no line of steamers on the north side of the island, and the fact is that the wharf built there by the Conservative government was badly located and was of no use at all. There is a line of steamers visiting St. Laurent and St. Jean, and when this wharf is completed these steamers will call at St. Francois.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I cannot agree with the minister on that point, because the Richelieu and Ontario Company's steamer that leaves Quebec goes to Bay St. Paul on the north shore.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Always on the south shore. The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: He is not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is well known that a steamer never goes by the north channel.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The Richelieu boats go by the north channel.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Never.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Well, that just shows you don't know what you are talking about neither. There is a time to joke, but there is no time to say things that are not so. When I took the boat at Quebec for the Saguenay, I knew where I was going.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman went by the south channel and not by the north channel.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I said that the Richelieu Navigation boats go by the south channel, and the minister said that this was not the case. I say it is the case. I also went from Quebec to Bay St. Paul on the north channel, on a boat called ' The Brother.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, that is a small boat.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It makes no difference liow big it is or how little. I say I went on the north channel and the south channel too, and you cannot fool me on that. I am not here to brag like the Minister of Justice, who thinks that he knows better than I do things I have seen myself. Well, it is for him to say it and for me not to believe him.
St. Irenee wharf-construction of head block,


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: St. Irenee is one of those places which is developing a large summer trade indeed, and this is to accommodate that trade. -


George William Fowler: Will it be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this complete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
St. John do Chaillons-improvement of harbour, $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister explain this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a mistake. We have dredged there to the solid rock bottom, and now- that we have reached the hard material it would require a much larger sum to go on with the work. This item cannot be used this year.


Robert Laird Borden: Then why leave it in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It cannot be used this year, and I move that it be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
St. Laurent wharf-Island of Orleans. $4,000.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: St. Laurent is one of the most important parishes on the Island of Orleans, and this is to extend the work already] there.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to ali these wharfs in the maritime provinces,

as well as in Quebec and Ontario, is there any system of wharfages, or is the use of these wharfs given free to the public ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When we have completed a wharf we transfer it to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and it then becomes subject to the general law. We have nothing more to do with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the general law 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I really cannot explain it as it is not in my department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The general law, as I understand it, is simply this, that the town or municipality in which the wharf is situated passes a by-law regulating the wharfage dues, and that is ratified here. I ought to know this because I have had two or three Bills for that purpose put through the House. Where private individuals build wharfs they usually charge such wharfage (dues as they see fit, and these are sometimes rather onerous on shipping. I think there should be some kind of supervision over all these charges by the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I only referred to wharfs built by us. The owners of private wharfs generally exact what charges they like, but there is a general tariff that applies everywhere to wharfs built out of the public exchequer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the wharf at Thorn-bury. That was built out of the public exchequer aided by the municipality, but the municipality passed a by-law regulating the wharfage 'dues and this was ratified and made legal here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that the wharf at Thornbury has been constructed by the municipality and the federal government jointly. It is an exceptional case, but I speak of wharfs which are constructed altogether out of the public exchequer. When they are completed we transfer them to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is scarcely one completed entirely out of the public exchequer. At Collingwood, Meaford and Owen Sound there are wharfs constructed in the same way, the municipality giving a portion of the cost and the government the rest.


George William Fowler: Are there charges on all these wharfs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


George William Fowler: Do these charges go in to the public exchequer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Mi1. BORDEN (Halifax). What amount of wharfage charges was collected during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That I cannot say. The Department of Marine and Fisheries has charge of that part of the work.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose he is busy somewhere in the public interest.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the Minister of Finance tell us ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was between $10,000 and $11,000 received last year from all over the Dominion. They vary. Some of the wharfs yield quite a respectable sum.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they collected with regularity.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not prepared to answer that question. The Department of Marine looks after the collections.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The wharfingers get 25 per cent on what they collect and have to make the small repairs, between $10 and $15 a year.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason 1 inquire is because I have received communications now and then, stating that the people in charge of these wharfs have not remitted to the government anything on account of the wharfage dues they have received for a long time. I prefer to ask for that information in this general way rather than to take up the time of the government by moving for a special return, but we ought to have some information as to the system adopted, and find out whether or not these statements I have referred to are really founded in fact.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend will send me the names of the wharfs, I will have an inquiry made. He need not necessarily give the names of the complainants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The wharfs to which the government appoint wharfingers only represent very few of the total number. As a general thing the municipalities receive assistance from the government to build the wharfs and then get the revenue themselves, and are supposed to keep them in repair, but may put the revenue into the municipal exchequer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In my short experience, 1 have come across some cases of the kind referred to by the hon. member for Halifax, and we are making a general review of the whole situation. Twenty-five per cent is


Robert Laird Borden: allowed the wharfingers, and in some cases where the revenues are very small, they are allowed as high as 50 per cent. In others where the revenue is large, they are paid a salary. I am having the whole matter looked into and will be able to give the House full information next session.


Robert Laird Borden: Considering the enormous expenditure on these wharfs, the sum of $10,000 or $12,000 seems to be a very small amount to be received from them in the shape of revenue. Some general system should be devised for the collection of the wharfage dues. A rigid system should be applied to all wharfs alike, because otherwise one part of the country may be getting the benefit of these wharfs for nothing, while in another part the wharfage dues may be exacted regularly and systematically. This is a matter which demands the immediate attention of the lion. Minister of Marine in order that a thorough system be applied all over the country without any discrimination in favour of any particular locality.
Amherstburg, Ontario-dredging (revote), $5,-
000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this by contract or day's work ?


The MINISTER OF RUBRIC WORKS.: We will try to do it with our own dredge. There are boulders to be removed there also.
Big Bay, Ontario (North Keppel), wharf-repairs, $500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What wharf is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in North Grey. It is to replank the wharf, and this sum is applied for by the resident engineer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the one struck out in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is not the same work at all.
Burke's Falls' Magnetawan river-wharf, $4,500.


Mr. McCORMICK.: Will this be let by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Burlington channel-repairs to piers-To complete works under contracts (additional revote, $20,000), $50,000.


David Henderson: Is this intended to complete it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this will complete the work now under contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that the port of Hamilton is becoming more and more important on account of the large smelting operations there. The port is composed of a large bay, the entrance to which has been made by two long jetties. Unfortunately, they were built in wood and have to be repaired without delay. We are simply rebuilding the principal structure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In wood again ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I was afraid to ask parliament for concrete. When I started the work years ago, 1 was younger than now, and was afraid to ask parliament for the larger amount which would have been required if the work had been done with concrete. Moreover, the foundations of most of those works in Ontario have been laid in the quicksand and without the care that we take now. They have foundations only twelve feet deep. In other words, we can not dredge near the jetty without endangering it. We are obliged to make a tunnel in the middle of the stream.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this contract let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and the work is going on.
Callendar-repairs to wharf, $1,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On Lake Nipissing, at the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway.
Cobourg

rep lira to oiors and dredging, $10,-
000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work.
Collingwood-dredging, $45,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What condition is Collingwood harbour in now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I gave an explanation on the main estimates, but I do not mind stating the case again. The channel we have dredged into the harbour is now 110 feet wide and 20 feet deep. We are deepening it to 200 feet, so as to allow the large ships that are seeking that harbour to come in and out without danger.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you make the channel 200 feet wide for the whole length ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, only the entrance where there is danger of the waves throwing the boats against the sides of the dredged channel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When does the hon. minister expect this money to be used up V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We expect this to be spent during the next fiscal year. I may say that Mr. Boone, who is carrying on that work, is well equipped. It has been carried on with great success,
4G39

and the result, my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will agree, is very satisfactory. Large shipyards are being built at Collingwood, new lumbering operations, and so on. That little town is growing up pretty fast.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The work is a very important one, as the place is going to be a very, important place. Because, as the hon. minister says, new works are springing up. The largest meat curing establishment in the Dominion is there, and shipyards, saw mills, iron works and other large establishments are being provided. The place is growing very rapidly, and the work carried on by the government has been much needed. Has the hon. minister taken into consideration the application of the people of Collingwood with regard to their dry dock ? Their dry dock was built many years ago, but it is now too short and there is not enough depth of water to accommodate the large ships that use the liarhour. I understand that the government give two per cent on the cost of dry docks built, but the people of Collingwood feel that more is required. Dry docks are very costly, and they are not a very paying property. I think the government should give more assistance to provide a dry dock at Collingwood. Has the minister considered the question, and has he decided to do anything ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a law on the statute-book to the effect that when any private corporation is desirous of building a graving dock they may submit their plans to the government, and when these plans are approved they may enter into a contract with the government, and then they become entitled to a guarantee of two per cent for twenty years. Mr. Long, from Collingwood, or rather the Northern Navigation Company, applied for that subsidy, which, after I had examined the plans, I recommended my colleagues to grant. That is the present position of the question. I am confident that with the two per cent subsidy the company will be able to go on. although I am not quite sure of it. I fully recognize the great importance of it or rather the great necessity of having a grain dock on the lakes capable of accommodating the large boats navigating those waters. So far as I am concerned, and if there is a hitch in the matter, I shall be glad to do all I can to overcome it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the government would not be doing too much if they double the guarantee and made it four per cent, for it is very difficult to get men who have money to put it into such enterprise. Therefore, a great many boats are now compelled to go away for repairs, because they cannot get into the dry dock we have. With regard to the channel that has been made, I am told that it is answering the purpose very well, and the people feel extremely grateful for it. Towards the close of navigation last year they began to get in with Hon. Mr. TARTE.
large boats, loaded with grain, and I have no doubt that there will be an important trade in that line to Collingwood and also to Meaford-Meaford especially because of the important work done there, and because they have a good elevator at Meaford. They have an elevator at Collingwood also, but not quite so good as that at Meaford. In both places they have 'been able to take advantage of their harbour during the last year owing to the expenditure made-a wise expenditure, I quite believe. There will be a very important trade done there, not only during the present season tout for the future also we hope.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The sooner the people of this country realize the great benefits to be derived from the improvements and equipment of their harbour the better. Unfortunately, perhaps, there are not enough public men who give their attention to that important question. I think that every harbour on Georgian Bay should be fully equipped, and I have no doubt that when that is done there will be trade for them all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am sure there will.
Georgian hay-Pointe an Baril routs-improvement of the Devil's Elbow channel between Parry Sound and Killarney, $3,000.


George McCormick: What is the nature of the work to be done there ? Is it to be crib-work, blasting or dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Blasting and the removal of shoals. I do not think it is necessary to have any crib-work there. This is a most dangerous part, and I am carrying out the work at the request of the Navigation Company.
Goderich harbour works, $6,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the hon. minister doing there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are completing the repairs to the jetties in the inside of the harbour. Goderich is also getting a large traffic, I am glad to say. and the money spent there for repairs has been well invested.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With Dan McGillicuddy as superintendent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, he was the lowest tenderer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad that the hon. gentleman is satisfied.
Hilton, St. Joseph's island-wharf repairs, ?!,-500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that a private dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, a public dock.

Huntsville-new wharf, $3,500.


George McCormick: Does the hon. gentleman intend to do that work by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Midland harbour-wharf, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a work to accommodate the public generally. The citizens without distinction of party have applied to me and I could not resist their request. Midland is a thriving town and the corporation is going to give us the site. There is only one site on which to build the wharf now and the town has bought it and offered it to us.
Orillia-new wharf, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is where the ladies attacked the hon. gentleman with their seductive smiles and he succumbed to them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I stand ready to be captured again.


George McCormick: I would like the minister to come up to Parry Sound,*a town which he has neglected very badly. Perhaps the ladies there will be able to induce him to build a dock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the new work to be done at Orillia ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an ordinary wharf, costing $5,000 or $6,000. The work is let by contract.
Penetanguisihene-dredging, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you any dredges on Georgian Bay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Unfortunately we have no dredges there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I spoke last night with reference to a gentleman who is writing to me that he has a splendid suction dredge that he would be glad to bring out any time the Minister of Public Works required it. It is only in the case of the government having no dredges of their own available that I would recommend bringing in American dredges. Rather than have these places suffer for want of such a work, I think the minister would be quite justified in hir

 ing a dredge from any source.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that a suction dredge would not do in this place. They can only work in soft material and at Penetanguishene it is hard material.
Port Elgin-repairs to lauding pier, extension of breakwater and dredging, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: $5,000 will not go far here. What kind of work are you doing there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer is afraid that this amount 146
of money will not be sufficient to accomplish the objects both of completing the pier and doing the dredging. It will complete the pier, and we will have to draw on our general vote to carry out the dredging. It is intended to let the contract to build the pier.
South Nation river-improvements at the pitch off, $1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand this is for the purpose of preventing the flooding of the land. The question has been raised whether, if the government adopts the principle of doing this kind of work here, other places in the country will not apply for the same assistance. I think the government will have other applications.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. .: 1 grant it is a bad place in which to do this kind of work. There are one or two items that are remnants of past days. I admit that the principle is wrong. But this river is navigable, at least I was drawn into this work on the representation that it is a navigable river. But this will not appear again.
Lake St. Francis outlet-construction of guide pier end dredging (revote, $1,200), $6,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that where the St. Francis river empties into the lake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Winnipegosis-dredging channel at mouth of the Mossy river, $4,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see any item here, but I would like to ask the hon. minister what he is doing now with the St. Andrews' rapids. Is the work going on there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have an item in the main estimates, but I am sorry to say that the contractors are not going on very speedily with the work. I instructed my officers a few days ago to give notice to the Messrs. Kelly Bros, that they would have to go on with the work or the contract would be taken off their hands.
British Columbia - Anderson and Kennedy lakes-clearing outlets, $3,500.


Mr. EARLE.: How much of this is being spent at the outlet of Kennedy lake ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
We have spent, up to- 31st December last year, $5,000 in round numbers.
Mr.	EARLE.	Will	that complete the
work ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
Yes.


Thomas Earle: On	both lakes ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
Yes.



Hardy bay-wharf, $2,00i.


Thomas Earle: Is this the amount that the hon. minister said would surprise me when I would see the supplementary estimates for British Columbia ?
*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope I did not say that this would surprise the hou. gentleman.


Thomas Earle: I am surprised at the smallness of the amount, because on the west coast of Vancouver island there are no wharfs and there should be some expenditures, on that part of the coast. The steamers running on the west coast of Vancouver island have, with one or two exceptions, where there are private wharfs, to land their passengers by small boats. More money can be spent with a greater advantage to the settlers at various points on the west coast of Vancouver island.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All I can say is that this is only a beginning. My hon. friend (Mr. Earle) has been a long time in parliament. If he had applied in past days, I have no doubt lie would have received more than lias been spent there. This is the first demand for wharfs that has come to me. It is a beginning. I do not want to encourage anybody to come, but if there are legitimate requests from British Columbia they will be treated just as liberally as I always endeavour to treat legitimate demands that come to me.


Thomas Earle: Would the hon. minister consider a request coming from me as a legitimate request ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be only too glad to consider in the most friendly and favourable manner any demand that may come from my bon. friend who is an old and respected member of this House.


Thomas Earle: We will see another session. There are several places where the bon. minister can spend money to good advantage.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business on Monday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are one or two Bills yet standing on the Order paper ; we will take these and then proceed with Supply. .
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned ait 10 p.m.


Hon Mr. TARTE.: Monday, May 12, 1002.