1903-08-10

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 242) to amend the Mounted Police Act, 1S94. He said : At present the North-west Mounted Police Act contains a disposition to the effect that the force shall not be charged with any duty under or in connection with any municipal Bill. There is no objection to that disposition as concerns the North-west Territories, because there the municipal authorities enforce their own by-laws. But in the Yukon Territory the mounted police enforce all laws and ordinances, including the by-laws of Dawson, and doubt has been raised as to their legal authority to do so. The amendment is merely to authorize them to enforce the municipal by-laws.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a first time.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCarthy for the third reading of Bill (No. 04) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the amendment of Mr. Fowler thereto.
Sir. G. W. FOWLER (King's, N.B.).: When the hour for Private Bills expired on Wednesday last, I was pointing out the advisability of extending the proposed branch line of the Grand Trunk Pacific to St. John by way of the St. John river valley rather than by the proposed route by Oliipman. The advantages which I stated existed in 261
favour of the former route were that it would be much shorter than the proposed route by way of Chipman, very much shorter to the nearest Atlantic port, and at the same time the grades would be very much easier than could possibly be obtained for the route by way of Chipman. I pointed out that the Chipman route would carry the road to the interior part of the province of New Brunswick, that part which forms the watershed of the rivers Tobique and Mira-michi, and that that part of the country is very rugged and mountainous, and abounds in lakes, which would necessitate very wide detours, thereby largely increasing the mileage. It is beyond question the fact that the road, if carried by way of Chipman, would be at least 50 or 60 miles longer than by the St. John river valley route. Going from Edmundston the road would be shortened by not following the western sweep of the St. John river from that point to Fredericton, but striking off and making a straight line direct from Edmundston to Fredericton, and then following the valley of the river down to the city of St. John. This would give not only a much shorter line than the proposed line, but very much easier grades, which is the most important consideration perhaps in selecting a line for the transcontinental railway. The grades upon the other route proposed would be very difficult indeed, and much greater than they are at the present time upon the line of the Intercolonial. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to dwell any longer on these points at this stage. If we may judge from appearances, it is evidently the intention of the government to force this route by the way of Chipman. It is said to be by way of Chipman, but, as a matter of fact, following the route outlined by the Prime Minister, the main line will run some 30 miles from Chipman, which, of course, will place St. John at a still greater disadvantage than if the route went direct to Chipman. But the interests of St. John do not appear to be much considered by this government, nor do I think the interests of the country generally appear to be very much considered, because in considering the interests of St. John the government would be at the same time considering the best interests of the country with respect to this transcontinental railway. I therefore move this amendment :
That the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that a branch line be built from the proposed main 'trunk tine of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk tine orosseis the Nashwaak river, and thence extending, by way of Fredericton and the valley of the Sit. John river, to St. John city.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy (North Simcoe). Lest there might be some request for an explanation. I simply desire to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) moved the same



motion in Committee of the Whole House. Tt was debated for at least two hours, and at the conclusion of the debate it was voted down. X have not heard anything fall from the lips of the hon. gentleman In addition to what was said during the discussion in the committee, and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary that this should be discussed at this stage.


Mr. HEYD.: Could the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), say what is the the mileage from Edmundston to St. John by his route ?


George William Fowler: The mileage would be about 200 miles from Edmundston to St. John, whereas, by the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway it is 233 miles. This route would be shorter by at least 33 miles, as compared with the Canadian Pacific ltailway, because, instead of following the bends of the river, we would strike across country direct to St. John.


Mr. C. E. KAULBACH (Lunenburg).: What would be the difference between the direct line I suggested' the other evening from Riviere du Loup to Newcastle, and thence to Moncton and the road that the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) now advises by way of St. John ?


George William Fowler: I have not measured the distance which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbaeli) suggests from Riviere du Loup, and I could not say what the difference would be.
Mr. IvAL'LBACH. The hon. gentleman knows quite well that Moncton is the dividing point between Halifax and St. John, that when the road reaches Moncton they then have the option of proceeding to Halifax or to St. John. To divert this road so as to parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway I think would be very absurd indeed. It would make a detour in the line of the road that would certainly not be advisable in the interest of St. John. I only want to have my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler), understand that an arrangement was made that Moncton was to be the point, and that any divergence from that would be an error on the part of any one advocating the route which he suggests.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George William Fowler: I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) asked a question. I wish to state that in so far as any arrangement he speaks of is concerned in regard to Moncton being agreed upon, I had no part in any such agreement, nor was I invited to any conference that the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) may have taken part in, nor was any Conservative member from the province of New Brunswick invited to such conference. I am not at all proposing to parallel the Cana-Mr. McCarthy.
dian Pacific Railway as the hon. member from Lunenburg says, but I propose this route as an amendment to a very much worse scheme proposed by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson).


Mr. XT. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: In the amendment of the hon. member for Iving's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) he proposes :
That a branch line be built from the proposed main trunk 'lime of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk line crosses the Naishwaak river, and thence extending by way of Fredericton and the valley of the St. John river, to St. John city.
Will he tell us what is the estimated distance between the point at which he would branch off the main line and the city of St. John ?


George William Fowler: It is about 75 miles according to what the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) says, ft have made the amendment read from the Nashwaak river or from the point near which the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway crosses the Nashwaak river.


Hance James Logan: I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that one of the objections that has been raised against the construction of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway through New Brunswick Is that it will parallel the Intercolonial Railway. According to the proposition as contained in the Bill, the line will be built to Chipuian, thence to connect with another line which will give it communication with Norton, thus giving the run from there to St. John to tlie government railway. Now, the hon. gentleman is certainly not very consistent when he desires to cut out this traffic from the Intercolonial Railway. At the present time we are proposing to give the traffic to St. John to the Intercolonial Railway, but according to the amendment of the bon. gentleman we will take that away from the Intercolonial Railway and we will parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway down the west side of the St. John river.


George William Fowler: For only a matter of 30 miles.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Chairman, I gave notice of an amendment that I wish to have made to this Bill, which will be found at page 769 of the Votes and Proceedings. I explained the amendment at the time I gave notice of it, and I think it is an amendment that will commend itself to the favourable consideration of the government. It is an amendment to tills effect :
That the said Bill be recommitted ho add the following after section 12, as .amended in Committee of the Whole :	'The branch line from
the main line of the Quebec section to Montreal shall be begun as .soon as the company have entered upon the operation of said line, and shall

be completed to Montreal as soon as the main line is completed on the said Quebec section.
The object is to secure communication with the city of Montreal while the main line is being built and to mate that construction obligatory upon the company, and not leave it optional as in section 12 as adopted in Committee of the Whole.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: This section was considered in Committee of the Whole and disposed of by the committee not adopting the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), but I would like to point out what seems to be an inconsistency in the matter, namely, that this branch line has to be begun and completed simultaneously iwith the Quebec line which is not to be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company until it is completed, ' so that you could not have the Montreal branch line begun at the time the company commenced the operation of the Quebec line, because it would be already completed. I do not think the hon. gentleman's motion is consistent. I would submit to the House, with all respect to the hon. gentleman, that it is not right to pick out one of these branch lines and make a motion of this kind when we have a number of similar branch lines provided for in the Bill. It is to be presumed that the powers of the company will be exercised consistently with the operation of the road on business principles under a business management, and I have not heard of a similar clause being inserted in the charter of any company which has hitherto asked for incorporation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond PrSfontaine).: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Montreal, I have no hesitation in saying that I propose to take a firm stand upon this question, and a stand against the amendment of the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). As has been stated by the hon. gentleman who promotes the Bill (Mr. McCarthy), it is not right for us in the district of Montreal to insist upon some things, which, if they were granted, would certainly have the effect of inducing other districts to ask for the same things. You would have probably ten or twelve amendments of a similar nature with reference to branch lines to various points, and if adopted then, might have the effect of rendering the whole scheme impracticable. The business men of Montreal do not at all fear that this railway will not connect with their city. I have had communication with these gentlemen recently, and those whom I have met consider the Bill to be perfectly satisfactory. In view of the facts as they exist, there is no danger at all that Montreal will be neglected. You have the Montreal and Western Railway, for instance, which is built as far as Labelie at the present time, and which will be completed for 24 miles further on the 1st of October. Sub-261$
sidies htive been asked for another 35 miles so as to carry that railway as far as La Lievre. It is rather uncertain, of course, at what point the Montreal and Western can reach the iiew_ line, but from all the information I can gather and from the knowledge of the country which I have, there would not be more than 50 miles to build from La Lievre to connect with the government line operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, as proposed. There will of course be no danger whatever that Montreal will not have connection with the new railway. But even suppose that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not feel it in their interest to extend their railway so as to tap the new line, there is no doubt whatever that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would see its way perfectly clear, in its own interest, to connect with Montreal, and perhaps by a better route than that now existing via the Montreal and Western. Therefore, the Montreal district will have the benefit it is entitled to from this vast territory which is being opened up. As a representative of the city of Montreal, I have no hesitation in taking this stand on this question, and I am sure in advance that tlie business men of Montreal will support my view.
Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived on division.


Mr.   E.@: HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) I beg to move the following amendment, of which I have given notice:-
That Bill No. 64 to incorporate the Grant! Trunk Pacific Railway Company be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that Itibey have power to amend the same by inserting the following :-' The company may acquire and operate the railway from Sackville, on the line of .the Intercolonial Railway, to 'Cape Tormenitine, in New Brunswick ; and in the event 'of acquiring said railway, shall construct a pier at Carlton Point, in Prince Edward Island, place suitable steamships on the route, and maintain efficient communication, summer and winter, between Prince Edward Island and 'the mainland.'
I move this amendment for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain a measure of justice for the people of Prince Edward Island, who have laboured so long and so patiently and so uncomplainingly under the difficulties they have suffered for the last thirty years. Thirty years ago Prince Edward Island entered the union and it was guaranteed by the government of Canada that there would be established and maintained efficient steam communication for the conveyance of mails and passengers, summer and winter, between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Little or nothing has been done by the government of Canada in that regard, and I believe that the present is a very opportune time for a movement to be made towards a partial fulfilment at least of the terms of union. I think it opportune,

Sir, because we find that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are obtaining a charter for the purpose of operating a railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, a distance of 1,800 miles, which will cost the people of Canada some $75,000,000 or $100,000,000. And while the people of Prince Edward Island will be called upon to contribute their share of that large expenditure, it is only right that they should in some way participate in the benefits accruing from that expenditure of money. There is no proposition now before parliament to meet any of the claims of Prince Edward Island. In that province we are unable to develop its resources because of the non-fulfilment of the terms of union. We have resources which may be developed to a very large extent; and while everything appears to he going to the west, while this expenditure of money is for the alleged purpose of developing the west and carrying the products of the west to the markets of the world, nothing is being done to assist the people of Prince Edward Island to carry their products to these markets in the winter season when they are shut off from communication with the rest of the world. I therefore claim that while the government of Canada is about to expend this vast sum of money for the purpose of affording transportation facilities to the people of western Canada, the least that can be expected is that the government will connect the province of Prince Edward Island with this system of railways which they are now about inaugurating. While I had the honour of bringing this motion before parlia-men the other evening, I was told by the Minister of Finance that this was a charter for a private company, and that the government were not interested. I say that the government are interested. They are building this railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, and when the railway is built the trains are to be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The trains running over that system will pass Sackville, some 38 miles east of Moncton, on the way to Halifax. It is not intended that these trains should stop at Moncton; it is not a seaport, it is not an outlet for the products of the country, and so the trains will have to pass Sackville, summer and winter, on their way to Halifax. Now, Sackville is within 40 miles of Cape Tormentine, and from Cape Tormentine to Prince Edward Island it is eight or nine miles, so that in passing Sackville the trains of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be passing within some 50 miles of the shores of Prince Edward Island. All that the people of that province ask for, and all that is required, is the construction of a pier at Carlton Point on the Prince Edward Island side. There is now a good pier at Cape Tormentine and a harbour sufficient to accommodate shipping, summer and winter. All that is necessary, therefore,


Mr. HACKETT.: is to construct this pier at Carlton Point, place suitable steamships on the route, and bring Prince Edward Island in direct communication with the railway system of Canada. This is quite a simple matter. When there are millions of money to be expended in other parts of the country, we should certainly have a small expenditure to afford to the people of Prince Edward Island that accommodation which they so much require. The government of Canada entered into a solemn compact with us to maintain this connection. They have not fulfilled those conditions, but to-day they are conferring a vast franchise and great privileges on a railway corporation, and expending a large amount of money in the interest of that corporation, so that it may become a question in the future as to whether the government of Canada, elected by the people of Canada, shall govern this country, or whether the country shall be governed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I think it is an act of prudence on the part of a representative of Prince Edward Island to see that this company, as well as the government, are bound, in order that we may have one or the other to fall back upon. A petition containing thousands of names, was sent from Prince Edward Island to the government of Canada, asking for the construction of this pier at Carlton Point, buttno attention has been paid to it. I asked the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries a few days ago if he intended to construct another steamship to maintain that communication which was guaranteed to us at the time of the union, and his answer was no, that they were not going to do anything of that kind. Therefore, I regard the present as the opportune moment to bind this company to do something to connect the province of Prince Edward Island with this great railway system, which is supposed to bind together the whole of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and to allow the people of the province to benefit to some extent from this large expenditure of public money. I trust, Mr. Speaker. that the amendment which I have moved [DOT]will be accepted by the promoter of this Rill and by this hon. House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from West Prince has quoted me as having said that the government had nothing to do with this matter. I am sure he did not intend to convey an erroneous impression, but he did so. What I said on a previous occasion was that there was no provision in this Bill for the expenditure of a penny of public money, and therefore that we were not in a position to discuss in connection with it the question of government aid. It is not a government railway Bill ; it is a private charter. My hon. friend desires that there shall be a railway built to connect Sackville witli Cape Tormentine, and that this company shall

establish a line of steamers to cross to Prince Edward Island and shall build some extensive piers ; and he says this is what the peoiJle of Prince Edward Island want. Within the last two weeks the people of Prince Edward Island sent a deputation to Ottawa to say that they wanted nothing of the kind. The deputation came before the committee, and all they asked was to be let alone, and to have the question of common. cation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland left between Prince Edward Island and the government, and they protested against any private corporation coming between the two. My hon. friend is mistaken, what the people of Prince Edward Island asked and what he asked was, let us alone.
3. If so, is there any connection between these two facts ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The sums paid to the Montreal 'Herald' Printing Company for advertising, printing, and lithographing since the beginning of the year 1895-90 have been as follows :
Printing
Advertising.' and
Lithographing.
' 1895-96	$	6 251896- 97	
994 -88	$ 604 791897-	98	
1,946	37	2,349	701898-	99	
2,800	58	12,208	421899-	1900	
2,766	90	22,358	611900-	01	
2,697	53	49,068	791901-	02	2,490	57	. 13,341	39


Mr.  J. J.@: HUGHES (King's, P. E. I.) Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to support anything brought forward by the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) that would be for the real benefit of Prince Edward Island. There are many things that that province requires as well as the other provinces of Canada ; but to establish a ferry between the capes is, in the opinion of a great many people of Prince Edward Island, myself among the number, entirely impracticable ; and therefore I should have to vote against this amendment if it were put to a vote. Generally speaking, the hon. gentleman advocates what is reasonable and fair for the province he represents, and if I thought he were doing so now, I would heartily support him ; but the amendment he now proposes I must vote against.


Edward Hackett: Mr. Speaker, will you kindly allow me an explanation in reply to the hon. Minister of Finance and to the last hon. gentleman who spoke. With regard to tlie delegation which came from Trince Edward Island, I supported it against granting to a private company a monopoly of the waters between Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse, and we had the Bill amended to meet the views of the people of Prince Edward Island.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was no proposition for a monopoly.
Amendment of air. Hackett negatived, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
$13,703 08	$99,931 70
Total	$113,634 78
2. and 3. We have no information.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARKER-by Mr. Clarke)-asked :
1.	When did Sir William Van Horne decline to act on the transportation commission appointed by the Governor in Council on May 19, 19^03 ?
2.	Had Sir William Van Horne been informed, previous to the time when he declined to act on such commission, that the government intended to enter into the arrangements set forth in the Bill intituled : ' An Act respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway,' and in -the schedule attached to said Bill, or into any aran.gemen.ts for -s-ucih or similar purposes ; and did -he, after .receiving such information, decline to act upon the commission ?
3.	Did the government ascertain Sir William Van Horne's views with regard to t-he government's -pro-posed or contemplated arrangements; and did the government thereupon intimate to him -that i-t was desirable that he should not act upon the said commission ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid La urier) :: 1.	The last letter received from Sir William Van Horne on this -subject, wherein
he declined to act on the Transportation Commission, is dated, Montreal, the 20th of July Inst.
2.	No.
3.	No.



LEASE OF GRAZING LANDS.


Mr. ROSAMOND asked :: 1.	Is it true that the Montreal 'Herald' Printing Company has received $113,000 from the government since 1896 ?
2.	Is i-t true that the -Montreal ' Herald ' is being offered to subscribers through Canada for a sum -barely sufficient to pay postage ?
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette)-by Mr. Ingram -asked ;
1.	Has the government granted a grazing lease of any lands in the North-west Territories to Mr. George McDonnell or his wife ?
2.	If so, -how much, on wha-t terms, and what is the length of -the lease ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton):: 1.	No.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Maclean-asked :
1.	Have ithe electoral lists for the province of Nova Scotia been printed by the Printing Bureau since they were revised in the current year ?
2.	If not printed, have the changes necessary to correct these lists to date been set up in type ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	No, with the exception of Guysborougli.
2.	The changes necessary to correct the lists have been made in a majority of the Nova Scotia lists, hut they have not been printed off yet.


Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	By whom was Hypolite Moreau, junior, of St. Jiohn d'Iberville, recommended as collector of the Ohamhly canal at St. John d'lbervilJe, and what is his salary ?
2.	Is this Hypolite Moreau, the medical officer of the port of St. John ?
3.	How much has the said Dr. Moreau received for his services as medical officer of the port of St. John for the year ending the 30th day of June last ?
4.	Has Hypolite Moreau, junior, given security to the government, and of what nature 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R, PrSfontaine) :: 2.	Dr. H. Moreau is employed by the collector of customs when the services of a doctor is required for sick seamen at St. John d'Iberville.
3. Dr. Moreau during the year ending 30th June, 1903, treated 125 sick seamen and was paid $412.50 for his services.
Questions one and four are not in my department and will have to stand.


Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	What was t'he contract price for the erection of the armoury at Sussex ?
2.	Who was the cllerk of works and overseer of the construction of said armoury ?
3.	What special qualification had said overseer for the position to which he was appointed?
4.	Was he a practical carpenter or mason ; or if a mechanic at all, to what trade or calling does he belong ?
5.	At what rate per day were his services rewarded ?
6.	When did his services as overseer begin, and when did they end ?
7.	When was work commenced on the erection of the armoury by the contractors for the building, and when was the contract completed ?
8.	Was the overseer retained by the government after the completion of the building ; and if so, for what purpose ?
9.	If employed, what sailary did he receive for his services, and how long did his employment last ?
.10. How much has been paid altogether to said clerk of works or overseer, as such over-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
seer from the time of his first employment to date ?
11.	Has any claim been made by the contractors for extras ; and if so, with what result ?
12.	Was the heating contract let by tender, or how ?
13.	If tenders were asked for, who were the tenderers, and what were the .several amounts of their respective tenders ?
14.	Has there been any difficulty experienced with the heating apparatus in the armoury since its installation ; and if so, what and how caused, and what person, if any, was at fault ?
15.	If there has been such difficulty, what has been the financial loss occasioned thereby, and who has paid for same ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: 
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go/ into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :

Hesolved, that it is expedient to enact as follows :-
Advancers may be made time to time, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, to the Minister of Railways and Canals, to enable him to punchase necessary materials and stores for the construction, renewal, maintenance, and operation of the Canadian government railways, and for file establishment and conduct of railway stores ; provided that the sums so advanced shall not exceed annually, for the Intercolonial Railway the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars, and for the Prince Edward Island Railway the sum of one hundred thousand dollars.
He said :	His Excellency the Governor
General having been acquainted with the resolution recommends! it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That, commencing with Wednesday next, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet on that day, and on each subsequent sitting day, at eleven (11) o'clock in the morning. That in addition to the usual intermission at six (6) o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day from one (1) to three (3) o'clock p.m.; and that government orders shall have precedence at all such sittings, members having still the right to ask questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman what steps will be taken to secure the meetings of the standing committees, which still have work to do-the Committee on Public Accounts and the Railway Committee ? We are very anxious to hasten the business of the	session, and	perhaps	the right	hon.
gentleman will indicate to us the general course of business to he pursued under this motion. Will we go on with the Grand Trunk Pacific contract until that matter is disposed of and then take up the Redistribution Bill ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The course of business will not he at all affected by	the House	meeting	in the morning,	but I am	happy	to inform	myhon. friend that when we take up the	government	policy	to-morrow	we
propose to go on with its discussion until that important subject is exhausted. After that I am not prepared to say what course will be adopted to dispose of the final business! to be brought up by the government. As regards the committees, there is only the Railway Committee which has any important business. I did not know that it was intended to have the Public Accounts Committee sit again. It has had every opportunity to sit during the past four months. But there is one important matter before tlie Railway Committee which will have to he disposed of, and the only thing that can
he done is to give it power to meet during the sittings of the House.


Mr. CLANCY.: Are we to understand that no further provision is to be made for sittings of the Public Accounts Committee ? That committee has been waiting some weeks for the appeara'nce of a witness, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will see the necessity of endeavouring to give that committee an opportunity to close its business.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If a witness has been summoned and is going to appear, some provision will have to he made to meet a contingency of that sort.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is one matter under investigation before the Public Accounts Committee which has not been closed. And it will be absolutely necessary for that committee to meet at least two or three times. Perhaps there may be other matters under investigation ; but the investigation of this subject has certainly not terminated, so that we must have sittings of that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: I desire to move that this Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend it by adding the following as subsection 4 of section 263 :
The maximum passenger tariff shalll not exceed two cents a mile.
In this Bill there is a provision dealing with the maximum passenger tariff, but I propose that the Bill he made still more definitive in this respect so as to fix that tariff at two cents per mile. In Canada, in the older provinces, we have had railways for the last fifty years, and the passenger rate has been the same from the day railways were established until to-day. No effort has been made to reduce the passenger rates, although as I pointed out to the House before, all other forms of railway charges have been reduced time after time. Freight rates have been 'cut in two several times. And it has always been found that the effect of reducing the freight rates is to increase the business of the railway. Substantially my argument is that what applies to freight charges would apply also to the passenger charges, and if the passenger charges were reduced the railway would benefit and the public also would be advantaged. I have been in receipt of a great many letters on this subject; it is surprising the expression of public opinion which this proposal has evoked. As a matter of fact, many of the railways of Canada are charging people four cents a mile. I do not speak of the

new portions of the country; but there are old settled parts of Quebec in which a common charge for railway passenger travel is four cents a mile. I wish to give a few instances of such charges before X sit down. Here is a letter from Guelph
Re Railway Flares.
The rate should he reduced to a common level for eyery one. As it is now it is three cents per mile, but about two and a half cents if a return ticket is bought. Why should this be ?* Why not have a .level rate the" same as New York Central Railway, or same price either for single or return ? They have also 1.000 mile tickets and commercial tickets. The plan has worked well on the New York Central Railway and should be tried here. The public are imposed upon by having so many special rates. Would it not be well to have a flat lowest rate adopted for all, even if you cannot get two cents, a two and a quarter or two and a half flat rate would be better than it is now.
Now, here is a letter from Ottawa :-


Mr. HE  YD@: We can take these for granted.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) evidently does not want to hear tiie facts.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: We can take such letters for granted; no doubt you got many of them.


William Findlay Maclean: This letter is dated Ottawa, July 10th
I read with a good deal of satisfaction your efforts at securing a maximum rate of two cents for the public on our railways and I would call your attention to the fact that your statement that the Grand Trunk now charging us three cents a mile is not a statement broad enough to cover the facts. Between Montreal and Toronto, or Montreal and St. Johns, P.Q , and many other points the rate is three and a quarter cents. Ftor a fraction of a mile between each station they add a full mile, and besides they are /privileged to take from one cent to four cents on. every ticket they sell. So, if the distance is 111-100 miles, they charge for /twelve miles, thirty-six cents and add four cents to make forty cents, making a clear gain over their honest due of seven cents. When their trains cross the river at Detroit, and they take a passenger for one mile they are obliged to give three cents change ouit of ia five cent piece. God speed your efforts for equity to the public. Whom shall we look to if not our representatives to compel these public franchise holders to deal with us on honest business principles ?
I was mulch interested in reading the report of the .debate upon your motion calling for a two cent rate on Canadian railways. I think the arguments adduced by you in favour of lower passenger rates are powerful ones, and I hope your ideas may in the end prevail. To me it seems strange that the people of Canada, who have given very large subsidies to railway promoters, should in the end And themselves obliged to pay a higher rate for the privilege of riding upon the Grand Trunk in Canada than upon the same line in Michigan.
Let me suggest to you that if you fail in your efforts to get passed a law calling for a two cent rate, you should then bring in a re-Mr. MACLEAN.
solution saying that no railway shall charge more than three cents a mile. Some may exclaim at once that there is no need for such a law. since none of the railways charge a higher rate in the older provinces, at least. Such is not the case however. According to the Canadian Pacific Railway time table it is fifty-two miles from Ottawa to Prescott, and a ticket from here to Prescott costs $2.10 which is over four cents a mile.	.
So that from the very capital of this country to the St. Lawrence river the charge is four cents a mile and that charge has evidently been approved by the government and by the Minister of Railways and Canals :-
I have travelled considerably on the Grand Trunk and its branch lines and never paid more than three cents a mile ; but the Canadian Pacific Railway, that railway which, having received enormous subsidies from the people of Canada should show its gratitude by giving moderate rates holds me up for four cents a mile every time I use its Ottawa and Prescott line. And every time this occurs, I wonder what our representatives in the House of Commons are doing that they allow such extortion in a line running into the capital of this country. It is only charitable to suppose they are not aware of this. As a Liberal in politics I write to thank you for your effort on behalf of those whose desire /to travel is greater than their purse; on behalf of those, who, paying their way wherever they go, do not object to reasonable rates, but do object to the extortionate rates that the Canadian Pacific Railway is at present imposing on some of its branch lineis. I wish you success and thank you for your interest on behalf of the travelling public.
I have here a letter from Cobourg, one of the oldest towns in Ontario :-
The distance from Cobourg to Toronto per Grand Trunk Railway is 5!) '60 miles, and the fare is $2.35, or at the rate of 3'38 cents per mile. There is no reason for any such charge. The people of Cobourg are pleased with the stand you have taken.
Here is another letter from Oshawa, from an old Idberai-I believe he is a Liberal, Mr. Thomas Conant -
I want to spur .you on in your efforts for the two cent rate. We can afford to disagree on some other .matters, but in this I am with you, and I would urge your continued and persistent efforts. No let up.
And here is a letter from a government official :-
I notice that you have been speaking of passenger mileage rates on railways. Recently I had occasion to-day to buy a ticket on the Gatineau Railway from Ottawa to Gracefield and return. T.be distance is 59'1 miles each way. 118-2 In all. The return ticket cost, $3.90 being a fraction over three and a-third cent3 per mile. This is only another sample of what the public have to pay.
Those are only a few of the letters that I have received from all over the country. The fact is these railways are charging the people of Ontario from three to [DOT] four cents per mile, even the older provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and, I believe, also in

some qf the lower provinces. And some of the greatest of these railways which have received enormous subsidies of public money and have been given great franchises, are carrying people in the United States for two cents per mile. The Grand Trunk has a la rge system through the state of Michigan and is carrying people on its lines there for two cents per mile. The Canada Southern, now the Michigan Central, which crosses the western peninsula of Ontario is carrying people through the state of Michigan at the rate of two cents per mile while charging Canadians three cents per mile. The Canadian Pacific and its Wabash connection is doing the very same thing. And the Grand Trunk is also doing it in the state of Michigan. Now, here are four great trunk lines crossing the province of Ontario, all of them having lines in the United States, and they are charging on their Canadian lines three cents a mile, while, on their American lines in the state of New lock and the state of Michigan, they are carrying people regularly at two cents per mile. And there is something worse than that. Those American railroads are selling tickets across Canada, making connection at their eastern end and their western end, and they are carrying Americans through Canada for two cents a mile, and the Canadian who sits alongside of them in the car has to pay three cents a mile. Now, that has been going on for years, and apparently there is no cure for it but a parliamentary agitation and the adoption of a maximum passenger rate. I say now that if the Grand Trunk Railway carries people in the state of Michigan for two cents a mile, as they are doing every day on the New York Central or, as it is called, the Michigan Central, in Canada, if it is carrying people for two cents a mile in the States, they ought to be obliged to do the same in Canada. The Grand Trunk are doing it and the Canadian Pacific Railway are doing it. Not only that, but they are doing even worse), they are selling tickets all over the States for people to go to and from New York and Chicago, taking them across Canada, for two cents, and making Canadians who sit alongside of them in the same car pay three cents a mile. Yet these same roads have had subsidies, and are enjoying exemptions in the way of taxation that none of the railroads in the United States have. Every railroad in the United States pays large taxes for every mile of its line, and they pay other taxes through charges that our roads do not have to pay ; and yet, with all these subsidies, and with all these exemptions, they discriminate against our own people.
Now, let me point out something else. They have a two-cent rate, as I have said, in the United States in many places, and they have got it in every case by agitation followed by legislation, and in some cases by decisions of the courts, and in other cases
by competition. But the great lever that brought down the rates was specific agitation to that end. In the state of Michigan, where they have now a two-cent rate, the railways opposed it, having organized a powerful lobby in the capital of the state ; they stated it would injure the roads, but the legislature passed the law, and the railroads are carrying people and making money out of it at two cents a mile. Let me for a moment show you what they are doing in Michigan in this direction. The other day when I was discussing this question, the kon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) asked me what information I had upon which to base my statements. I made some general statements, which I said I gathered from various authorities on the subject, and he asked me for more information. Well, in order to supply him with that information, I may say that the management of the newspaper with which I am connected sent one of our young men into the United States to make an investigation, and some interesting letters from him have been published recently in that paper. Let me call attention to what he said about the Michigan railways :
Thie Grand Trunk's main line through .Michi -gan to Chicago is, in round numbers, 300 miles long. There is not a mile of this road that passengers pay to exceed two cents for travelling over. The moment this line enters Ontario the rate arbitrarily shifts to three cents and the rate is never reduced to two cents throughout the Canadian territory, but when the company passes again into the States to the east, once more the two-cent tariff becomes effective.
The Michigan Central operates a main line in Ontario 229 miles long. Three cents par mile is the regulation local rate ; that is, if a farmer desires to travel ten miles or twenty miles or a hundred miles, the rate is on the basis of three cents. The Michigan Central passes into Michigan ait Detroit and operates a main line toward Chicago with a mileage of 291 in Michigan. Here the regulation rate is two cents, and the same farmer making the same distance in this state as in Ontario gets the service for one-third less than in the Dominion. When the Michigan Central's train gets through Ontario and crosses into the States again at Niagara Falls, the maximum rate is again applied, and the service is on a two-cent basis.
On the Wabash road it is the same, on the Canadian Pacific Railway it is the same in Michigan, on the Michigan Central it is the same. He also points out how the reduction of rates in Michigan was accomplished; it was only done by agitation in the legislature, and here is an item bearing on that point. :
It lias been a recurring subject for legislation and debate. Each political party has made this question the slogan of its campaign. The present chief executive. Governor Bliss, came into power much through his known hostility to corporation domination. For more than fifteen years the main lines of the chief railroads operating in Michigan have been forced to conform to the maximum rate of two cents per mile for regular passenger rates.

Now, here is the Michigan law. Both parties, irrespective of politics, decided that tlie charges in that state for passenger traffic were too large, and that a reduction ought to be made in the passenger traffic rates, as well as in freight rates. After agitation in the community and in the papers, the legislature passed this law :
For a distance not exceeding five miles, three cents per mile ; tor all other distances, for all companies, the gross earnings of whose passenger trains, as reported to the Commissioner of Railroads, for the year 1888, equalled or exceeded the sum of three thousand dollars for each mile of road operated by said company, two cents per mile, and for all companies, the earnings of whose passenger trains reported as aforesaid, were over two thousand dollars and less than three thousand dollars per mile operated by said company, two and one-half cents per mile, and for all companies whose earnings are less than two thousand dollars per mile, three cents per mile.
That law applies to every railroad in the state, with the exception of one or two in the northern portion, where the earnings do not come up to $3,000 per mile per annum.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: If that Michigan law was applied to the railways in Canada, how many would come under its operation ?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I will tell him of one.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: And that is all '!


William Findlay Maclean: I will give him a case, it shows the great effect of the law of competition to obtain the rights of the people. The Michigan Central, by its returns to parliament here, shows that it earns over $3,000 a mile, and it therefore comes within the Michigan law. If we stated by an Act of parliament here to-day that any railroad earning $3,000 a mile for passenger traffic in a year was to give a two-cent a mile rate, irrespective of the fact whether the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific Railway earned that much, they would all have to come to it. They would each give the two-cent passenger rate. In New York the New York Central was forced to do it over their road. Now, I cannot accept the figures in the parliamentary returns for Canada, and I have not seen the latest ones in those returns. The Canada Southern, according to its mileage and passenger earnings, earns $3,607 a mile in the year ; the Grand Trunk earns $2,073 ; the Canadian Pacific Railway, $1,261. I worked this out from the figures. Of course, the hon. gentleman can argue that because they do not come up to the Michigan earnings they should not be interfered with.
My answer to that is this : It has been proved in the United States that the earning capacity of a road does not go down because the passenger rate goes down, but that on the contrary, the experience in every case is that a reduction of the passenger rates stimulates travel and increases Mr. MACLEAN.
the earnings of the railway company. That is the point I wish to make, and I think if I have established that, the case is proven. If I have to go to a populous state for the proof of it, if I have to go to New York state and quote the results of the operation of the leading railway in the United States it may he said that this is an unfair comparison because New York is a populous state. Certainly, I answer, it is a populous state, but it is also populous in railway mileage, if I may so express it. There are thousands and thousands of miles of railway in the state of New York alone, and there is a great amount of railway competition in that state. But, I have for my contention the authority of the New York Central, of its passenger agent, and of its policy. Its policy above everything else goes to prove that when you reduce the passenger rate you stimulate travel and increase the earnings of the company. Some people will ask :	If that is the case why
do they not reduce the rate of their motion? I do not know why. Such action on their part is never voluntarily taken. You have always to wake up people to the demands of the public in order to get a reduction in anything. They have always argued that it would be against their interests to reduce the rates, but experience has invariably shown that when you reduce the cost of an article you increase the consumption of it, and everybody gets the benefit of it.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Free trade.


William Findlay Maclean: My respected friend from Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) bears me out in that, no matter what we may call it. AVe have only to go to the Post Office Department for another proof of it. In the Post Office Department every time the rate of postage has been reduced the public have derived the benefit of the service and the post office earnings have increased. Another splendid instance is the case of the telegraph service in Great Britain. There was a time when you only got ten words for a shilling. They cut the rate in two and doubled the wordage ; that is, they made the rate sixpence and gave you twenty words at that rate with the result that it has proved a profitable business both for the people and for the post office service. There have been some deficits, hut it should be remembered that the number of offices has been very much extended.


William Ross: The deficits have been caused by newspaper rates.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, they were caused) by the newspaper rates. But, there is another instance of the effect of the reduction in rates, and the reduction in these telegraph charges was brought about by legislation. Of course, in England the government control the telegraph service, but they found it advantageous to the people and advantageous to the revenue of tlie post

office to reduce the rate. Let me give a little information upon this subject. In the state of Illinois they practically have a two-cent rate. They have made it compulsory for the railway companies there to sell a thousand mile ticket for $20, so that in that state they have a two-cent a mile service. In the state of New York they have a two-cent a mile service, and it was obtained by the adoption of one little act dealing with the New York Central, but by reason of that Act and by reason of competition, other railways in New York state were compelled to adopt the two-cent rate and the people have the benefit of it. A man can go from New York to Boston at two cents a mile. There are no return tickets. A ticket is made to read ' good both ways ' and if you wish a return ticket you buy two of these tickets. They 'do not encourage people to buy return tickets by giving a cut on the return. People do not want that; they want a low level rate, so that they may return by whatever route they wish. A man going from Toronto to Montreal at the present time might wish to go by way of the Grand Trunk Railway and come back by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in order to transact his business, but as a result of the system now prevailing upon our railways he must return by the same road as that upon which he travels to Montreal if lie desires to get the benefit of the reduction that is made on a return ticket. He does not want to return by the same road, he wants to return by another road, but if he wishes to do that he is obliged to pay so much per mile more. On the contrary, in the state of New York you can go by any line you wish and you can return by any other line simply by buying tickets at the rate of two cents a mile. In the state of Illinois practically the same condition exists when you buy a. thousand-mile ticket. These thousand-mile tickets are good over any road, and surely, if they have conveniences like that for the travelling public over there, we should have the same here. Another great advantage that the railways of Canada have, which is an unfair advantage arid one in regard to which great hardship exists and against which many complaints are made, and that is the advantage resulting from the law against the sale of railway tickets. The railway companies have an immense lever in that respect and they are using it to the disadvantage of the people in a great many cases. There is no such law in the United States. I do not believe in ticket scalping, and I would not like to see it justified, but if you have purchased one of these high priced tickets in Canada and you wish to go by another route, it is very hard to get your money back, and if you try to sell your ticket you are liable to be sent to jail. There is no such law in the United States that I know anything of. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always opposed paternal
government, and yet we are pampering our railways in a way that is not thought of in the United States. In the United States they tax railway companies, they give them no subsidies, they prescribe a maximum rate and they oblige them to give a level rate for passenger travel. These things have been obtained as the result of agitation and legislation. Let me read a statement in explanation of the system in New York state:
The state law

Of New York-
-does not compel a two cent rate on all lines here, but business sagacity on the part of the Central has resulted in this reduction. The other lines at competing points are forced to the same basis. Therefore, while wise business policy dictated originally this maximum rate in the Central management, other lines charging this rate in New York have come to the basis as a matter of competition. But in adll cases it has proven a stimulus to business.
This company has been the pioneer in the two-cent rate campaign. It operates 78 passenger trains every 24 hours between New York city and Buffalo, covering four tracks.
The query is frequently made in railway circles why, if the Vanderbilt lines in New York state and Michigan And two cents so profitable and so stimulating in developing travelling, the officers should not enforce the same two cent maxinuin rate in Canadian territory. The company admits that its traffic on the passenger trains in Canada is very heavy. Then what is the secret of the higher rate there ? There is active competition-four through-lines from Buffalo to Detroit through Canada. The reply is : the arbitrary agreement to keep up the rate to three cents in Canada.
In other words the New York Central, which is connected with the Michigan Central, would give the people a two-cent a mile rate over the Ontario peninsula were it not that they fear the antagonism of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. They are willing to give it to-day. It is their policy to give a two-cent a mile rate over every road that they control, and they would like to give it over their road in Canada, and they are willing to give it, as far as I can gather, were it not for the fact that they fear that they would! incur the traffic hostility of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. American railway men speaking of this anomalous position in Canada say this :
Here is the reason as outlined by progressive railroad men in America ; Canada has not insisted upon her passenger tariff being reduced since the era of railroad travel was introduced. The rate is the same to-day as half a century ago, when the Dominion possessed but the scantiest railroad mileage. Yet the expense of operation has decreased enormously and there is every economic reason why rates should have been readjusted every decade in Qanada.
You cannot tell these officials that two-cent fares don't pay ; that you can't enlist capital to promote railroad construction with a two-cent maximum rate. They know better, and so does all New York state know better. One pro-

minent New York Central man is credited with the assertion that his company contemplates establishing a two-cent maximum rate from ocean to ocean.
I saw evidence of it in one of tiie Ottawa papers last week. It was said that the New York Central, with its connections are forcing the two-cent rate through the southwestern country, and that the great dream, or rather the great aim of the Vanderbilts to-day is to make a two-cent maximum rate across the continent. They say, and all their officers say, that the two-cent rate stimulates travel and makes it profitable to the company. Another official said in the state :
The whole history of railroad progress shows clearly that rates seldom come down except when courts and legislatures order it.
That is the argument I have been making. I have never heard of a railway company in this country reducing rates unless it has been ordered to do so by the legislatures or the courts, except a few years ago when there was a war on between the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, but just as soon as the war was over up went the rates. I have not many extracts to read, and I do not wish to weary the House, but there are a few expressions of opinion which may be useful as bearing on the discussion. A member of the New York State Railroad Commission, discussing the Canadian conditions, remarked :
An easy method of relief for Canada, without absolutely declaring for a two-cent maximum passenger tariff, would be the adoption of a general law that would provide that the through rates on all lines in the Dominion shall be the sum of the locals. In other words, the passenger fare in that part of Ontario between the Falls and Detroit, as applied between stations, could not exceed the amount charged for a through ticket over those lines. Invariably the through rate, where such a law is not enforced, is less than the local fares between stations. Most states of the republic have siuch a law. From the Falls to Detroit the through rate is on a two-cent per mile basis. Competition forces this concession. Yet the fare by local rate between those two points is one-third more. There are few points in Canada that are not affected by the competition in the States on this through basis. The Canadians could secure the benefit of this competition at least, if they could not force a two-cent maximum pasenger rate.
Mr. George Daniels, General Passenger Agent of the New York Central Railway expresses his opinion as follows :
Mr. George Daniels, general passenger agent of the New York Central, is authority for the emphatic statement that the two-cent maximum passenger rate his line enforced for twenty years has stimulated traffic enormously. Further, Mr. Daniels is one of the progressive passenger men of the country who assert unequivocally that the passenger business of a railroad company is a source of revenue, and proportionately exceeds the freight revenue	
During the last ten days ' The World ' correspondent has talked with state officials in the Mr. MACLEAN.
capitals of Ilinois, Michigan and New York, and without an exception they have declared that the only way to secure reduced passenger rates is to enact laws to that effect ; that the railroad companies uniformly unite to combat this legislature and plead the loss of revenue it would mean to them. One well-known New York state official declared that it was not the wisdom of New York Central officials that caused them to adopt the two-cent maximum rate, but the refusal of the legislature twenty years ago to permit the consolidation of the several systems, except on a two-cent passenger tariff basis. But the experiment proved profitable, and did stimulate business amazingly. No one seeks to deny this proposition.
Then be goes on to give the figures to prove the statement. I shall conclude in the matter of evidence by reading a short extract from a statement made the other day by Mr. J. D. Youmans, the senior member of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. This is a body that was created by congress some years ago to regulate interstate commerce and to deal with the rates on United States railroads. Mr. Yonmans is a man of the widest experience in connection with railroads and he unequivocally made this statement the other day :
The lower the rate the more people travel. Low maximum passenger fares stimulate business enormously. These are hut two propositions not to be disputed	The trunk lines
of the east, of course, have the two-cent fare generally in effect by the purchase of mileage books, and the great suburban traffic is handled at even a cheaper rate by the commuter's ticket, but the rural communities are not favoured to this extent. I consider it almost an axiom that the lower the rate the heavier the travel. Therefore, the two-cent maximum passenger rate may be considered clearly as largely improving traffic, but it is a nice question as to whether the increased business will offset the loss of revenue incident to the two-cent maximum rate. It has been said that the New York Central, which has the two-cent rate generally, holds that the increased business does offset this loss of revenue. I do not know as to the correctness of this	
I understand, of course, that on through business across the continent the Canadian railroads are in accord with the lines in the States, but this would not apply to local business originating in Canada.
Twio-cent maximum rates follow more as the result of legislation than competition, though competition sometimes forces this rate into effect. As a result of the lower rate of passenger travel the business in the States has been enormously stimulated of late years. Lower rates stimulates travel. That is certain.
There is any amount of evidence that could be given on this point. It has been published by commissions, and the details of it are to be found in the debates in all the state legislatures where this question has come up. It has not been gainsaid, it is clear beyond peradventure, that the adoption of a two-cent maximum passenger rate has stimulated business, has increased the earnings of the company, and has been for the general benefit of the community. In

Canada for fifty years we have not had one single reduction; we are going on in the same old rut, and unless parliament acts we will be going on in the same way for fifty years to come. There is no means of providing a remedy except by inserting a clause in this Bill making the maximum passenger rate two cents a mile. In order to place the question before the House I propose to move a series of amendments. In the first place I will declare on the broad principle of a two-cent passenger rate. There has been something done in Canada to get a maximum rate of three cents a mile. First of all, let me say that the people's railway in Canada is the most friendly to the people in the matter of transportation. I have here the passenger tariff of the Intercolonial Railway which is to be found in the Orders in Council page 1017, and for 400 miles of its road the Intercolonial Railway is giving a two-cent a mile rate. It starts at three cents, but it grades down and the result is that the government road is carrying the people of Canada for two cents a mile over 400 miles of its extent.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is by Order in Council. t


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, that is the tariff as approved. The people of Manitoba were unable to help themselves until two or three years ago they made an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway dealing witli the whole question of railway charges and here is one clause in that agreement, chapter 39, Ed. VII., clause 10, which settled the whole business :
Commencing when this agreement takes effect the company shall reduce its passenger rates in Manitoba to not exceeding three cents per passenger per mile.
That little clause in the agreement with the Canada Northern Railway set the pace, and the Canadian Pacific Railway came down from four cents a mile and made their rate three cents a mile. In the province of Ontario, and in the province of Quebec, the people are paying in many places almost four cents per mile f<rr their travel. It is time we should put an end to that. Some of the members' of the west, for what reason I do not know, stated in this House that they did not want cheap travel in the west and that they were glad to pay four cents a mile. Well, if that be the view of the west it is not the view of the east, and the provision made in Manitoba would seem to indicate that it is not the view in the west either. However, if the people of the west want to pay more money I am quite willing to have the two-cent a mile rate apply only to east of Port Arthur. I do not want to exclude the west, and therefore the first amendment I propose to make is :
That Bill No. 21 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the insertion of the following clause in section 263 :-
' The maximum passenger tariff shall not exceed two cents a mile.'


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have said a few words on this question, but the hon. member for East York has exhausted the subject, and I do not think he has left a word to be said that would not be a repetition of something that he has said. But if what he does say is true, the railway companies ought to extend their thanks to him for bringing the motion before the House, because, according to his argument, they would be benefited by adopting the lower rate. I think that is plainly shown every day by the fact that when there are excursion rates many more people travel. The Canadian people have friends living in various parts of the Dominion, whom they_are anxious to visit ; and if the rate were lower, they would visit them more often than they do. A lower rate would facilitate business. People want to do business in different parts of the Dominion, but the rate being so high prevents them from going. The hon. member for East York referred to the passenger rate war, which I remember very well, between the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, when they cut the rates in two, and more than in two. The consequence was that the travel became so enormous that the railways could hardly carry the people, and they made a great deal more money. As it is, the trains run on schedule time, and they start whether they have passengers or not, the trainmen have to be there, and they could just as well carry double the number they usually do, and in doing that they would make more money than they do now. Their excursion rates are sometimes as low as a cent a mile, and yet they make more money at these rates than they do at the ordinary rates. The government. I think, would be justified, for the benefit of the railway companies themselves, in inserting a clause in the Bill providing that in the older and more settled portions of the Dominion, at any rate, they shall carry all passengers for two cents a mile. In Great Britain every train is compelled to have a third-class carriage, on which the fare is a penny a mile, and the people of England nearly all travel third class. There are very few second-class travellers. There are some first-class passengers, noblemen ; but I have heard of a great many of them who travel third-class. I think we would be wise to do in this country as they have done in Great Britain-compel the railway companies to carry people at two cents a mile.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity our two friends who have just spoken are not on the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway boards. Their experience in railway matters has been so extensive that they would be quite an acquisition to the management. Our friend from East York has apparently

paid a great deal of attention to this question. He has devoted a great deal of space in his newspaper to elucidating it, and lie has more information to-day than he had a week ago, when he received so much that I thought lie would abandon the project and would not speak of it again in this House. He was not aware then that the Michigan law, if applied to Canada, would bring only one railway under its operation. It is easy to talk of a two-cent rate and to read letters from people who would like to travel for nothing. I presume that if more people had known that their names would be immortalized in ' Hansard,' he would have got more names, and that if he would advocate a oue-eent rate instead of a two-cent, be would have twice as many letters while, if he would advocate that every man who travels on a railway should be paid two centsi a mile for travelling on it, he would have more letters still. There is a happy medium in this matter. Railways are not organized for philanthropic purposes, but for the purpose of making money for the people who put their money into them, and I take for granted that Mr. Shauglinessy and Mr. Hays know best whether a two-cent rate would be more profitable than a tliree-eent rate. If they do not know that, I would advise them to come to our two friends here in order to be properly informed how to run a railway system. Our friend from East York made us acquainted with the Michigan law, although he did not know, at the time he printed it, how it was going to operate. He has quoted it correctly to-day. He saysl that law demands a two-cent rate. There is not a law of that kind in Michigan. They have a law there providing that when a railway company earns $3,000 a mile on its passenger trains, the rate shall be two cents a mile, that when it earns between $2,000 and $3,000 a mile, the rate shall be two and one-half cents, aud when it earns less than; $2,000 a mile the rate shall be three cents. Now, the condition of that three-cent rate applies, to every railroad in Canada to-day, except one. Would it be fair to apply the Michigan law to eighty different railways in Canada when only one comes within the condition of the law ? I have selected two or three of our best railways in Canada to see how the Michigan law would work if introduced into Canada. The Canada Atlantic, with a mileage of 458 miles, earns $316,000, or at the rate of $700 a mile. It would require to earn just four times as much to come under the operation of the Michigan law. The Canadian Pacific, with its 7,321 miles, earns $9,000,000, or $1,300 per mile, which is two and one-half times as little as it should earn in orler to come under the Michigan law. The government railways, with 1,301 miles, earn $1,770,000, or $1,250 a mile, two and a half times as little as they should earn in order to come under the Michigan law. The Grand Trunk, with 3,142 miles, Mr. HEYD.
earns $6,500,000, or $2,100 a mile ; the Canadian Northern, with 1,248 miles, earns $262,000, or $210 a mile ; and the Canadian Southern, with 382 miles, earns $1,377,000, or $3,600 a mile. This is the only railway, out of the eighty railways which we find mentioned in the Blue-book, that earns enough to come under the operation of the Michigan law. Now, what is the status of the Canadian Southern Railway ? It has a capital of $28,000,000, and its surplus, after paying its running expenses, is $519,000. The dividend on the $28,000,000 of capital is 2 per cent, and the price of the stock to-'day is 62 cents on the dollar. If my hon. friends held that stock, would they think that the earning power of the road justifiel a reduction of the passenger rate from three cents to two cents per mile ? I do not think they would. Even if we were all willing to adopt the Michigan system in this country, it would be of no earthly use, because it would only apply to this one railway, whose stock is selling at 62 cents on the dollar, and which only earns 2 per cent on its capital. It is very easy to place yourself at the head of certain popular movements, and. by considerable waste of gas and fuss and printefs' ink, to create the impression that you are working in the interest of the great mass of the community; but some persons may be suspicious enough to suppose that the real object is to alvance the man who places himself at the head of these popular movements. And up to the present, the doubts which people entertain of the sincerity of the hon. gentleman cause them to look askance at these various popular movements simply because he puts himself at their head.


William Findlay Maclean: I will follow yon. if you will lead, and let you have the glory.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I am not seeking notoriety. Besides it would not be in the interests of the country to apply the rule which the hon. gentleman advocates, because the conditions are different here from what they are in the thickly populated centres of the adjoining republic. If"the Grand Trunk Railway charges two cents per mile in Michigan, it is not because it is compelled to do so by the Michigan law. It does not come under that law because its earnings in passing through that state only reach about $1,600 per mile; and if it charges a two-cent per mile rate, it does so because it is in competition with the Michigan Central and oilier railways, which come under the operation of the Michigan law, and charge a two-cent rate. In self-defence, the Grand Trunk Railway are compelled to do the same thing. But to compel Canadian railways- to charge a two-cent rate instead of three, would simply beggar them. Before applying a rule of that kind, you should ascertain what effect it is going to have; and you will find that a rate which might be applied from New York to Buffalo would

not suit this country at all. There are 80 railways in Canada, comprising 18,730 miles of railway lines. The entire passenger earnings of these roads last year amounted to $22,600,000 or $1,200 a mile.


Mr.   BELT@: Passenger earnings ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes, the Michigan law only deals with passengers. The entire earnings were $22,600,000, or $1,200 per mile, or two and a half times too little to justify the imposition in this country of the Michigan law. In order that we might be in a position to apply such a law, it would be necessary for the Canada Atlantic Railway to earn $1,300,000, instead of $310,000. It would be necessary for the Canadian Pacific Railway to earn $20,000,000 instead of $9,231,000. The government railways would have to earn $4,000,000 instead of $1,770,000; the Grand Trunk Railway, $9,000,000 instead of $6,515,000, and the Canadian Northern Railway, $2,500,000 instead of $262,000. Or all the railways in Canada, which now earn $18,000,000, would have to earn $55,000,000. When that time comes, I shall men be prepared to support a resolution such as the hon. gentleman has now introduced, and I have not the slightest doubt that every other lion, member will do likewise.


Mr. CLARKE.: Are there any railways in the state of Michigan which charge two cents ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: They are not compelled to charge less than three cents unless their earnings are over $3,000 per mile.
Mr. CLARKEl Are there any which charge three cents?	.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I do not know. There are railways in New York state which charge more than three cents per mile, but they only charge two cents in Michigan and where they are forced to do so by competition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the law in New York state ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I cannot say. I have only learned what the law in Michigan is from my hon. friend's newspaper, and then I sought to ascertain how the Michigan law, which he wants us to adopt, would work out in Canada. It could not possibly work here. The only railway to which we could apply it would be the Canada Southern, whose stock is quoted at 62 cents in the dollar, and which pays a dividend of two per cent.


Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville.) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the amendment introduced by the hon. member for East York has given rise to a discussion which is worthy of attention. It cannot be gainsaid that railway companies, in certain parts of the country have, at present, rates which are excessive, almost prohibitory.
Thus, to limit myself to the constituency which I have the honour to represent here, the Grand Trunk Railway charge 50 cents for a twelve mile run from Stottsville to St. Johns. The fare from St. Johns to Montreal, a distance of twenty-seven miles, is one dollar. Fifty years ago, when the road was started, the fare from St. Johns to La-prairie and from Laprairie to Montreal and return, was only one dollar. To-day, the Grand Trunk own the Victoria Bridge, which, as we know, was built by means of the subsidies of the various governments, and yet the people in St. Johns are compelled to pay $1.50 for what used to cost $1. That is evidently an abuse on the part of the railway companies; and I congratulate the hon. member for East York on having brought the matter before the House. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that in the state of Michigan the earnings of the railway companies are taken into account. If the hon. member had introduced a resolution based on the Michigan law, I should have considered it my duty to support it. But I trust the Railway Commission will be instructed to inquire into that grievance and to remedy it.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.) We can all sympathize with the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) and supported by my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson). If we could travel upon the railways as we travel upon the King's highway, without paying toll to any body we should be glad to dispense even with this amendment. But, unfortunately, my hon. friend from East York will admit, and in this also I suppose he would be supported by my hon. friend from West Elgin, that if the public travels upon the railways they must pay some tolls to the company for the service they receive. The only point is, as has been stated by my hon. friend from East York himself, that we should pay a reasonable toll. We all agree upon that. But the difficulty arises as to what is a reasonable toll. My hon. friend wants to make a cast-iron rule for all cases that the rates shall not exceed two cents per mile. But, I desire to observe that it is not possible under the present circumstances to fix one rate, as he proposes to do by this amendment. There must be elasticity ; the rate cannot be the same in all sections of the country. Railway traffic, like all traffic depends for its profits upon the conditions in the locality in which it is carried on. There are some localities where a rate of two cents per mile would he very high ; there are some localities where a rate of three cents per mile would be very low. We must take account of the circumstances ; and the only way in which this can be done is that proposed in this very Bill. Instead of making a cast-iron rule from which the railways cannot deviate we leave it altogether to the commission

which is established by this Bill. X would call the attention of my bon. friend from East York, and also of my hon. friend from West Elgin, to section 257 of the Bill, which says :
The board may disallow any tariff or any portion thereof which it considers to be unjust or unreasonable, or contrary to any of the provisions of this Act, and may require the company, within a prescribed time, to substitute a tariff satisfactory to the board, in lieu thereof, or may prescribe other tolls in lieu of the tolls so disallowed, and may designate the date at which any tariff shall come into force.
There is the remedy for the evil suggested by my hon. friend. For instance, if the gentleman who wrote to my hon. friend to complain of the rate from Ottawa to Prescott, instead of seeking to force upon the community an arbitrary rate of not more than two cents per mile, will apply to the board, the board will hear his complaint, will investigate the matter, and will say whether or not the rate shall be decreased. My hon. friend has said truly that competition brings traffic, and he has said truly that generally a decrease in tolls will ensure a larger profit. That is true generally, and it is true absolutely in the densely populated portions of the country. But my hon. friend knows that there are some parts of the country in which the population is so sparse that it would be impossible to carry out that rule. Now, I know for a fact that the population between Prescott and the city of Ottawa over what is now the Canadian Pacific road is very thin, and I am not prepared to say that a rate of two cents would be sufficient to give a profit to that railway carrying on this service. That would be a question to be investigated by the board. On the other hand, my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) has told us of a rate of four cents a mile through one of the most densely populated sections of the province of Quebec, between Montreal and St. Johns. This rate of four cents per mile, I must say, seems to me extravagant, and. if it is found to be so, it will be reduced. The board would investigate such complaints, and in one case they might say the complaint is well founded and in the other it is not. That is substantial reason why parliament must come to the conclusion that such cases as have been referred to must be left to the board, which is empowered to deal with all such questions.
Amendment negatived.


William Findlay Maclean: X desire to present another amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean), has exhausted his right to speak on this motion.


William Findlay Maclean: That is, on the amendment just lost.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: On the third reading of the Bill. When the motion for the third Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
reading is made, the hon. member has a right to speak. He spoke by moving his amendment, but if he were to speak again, he would be speaking twice on the same question.


William Findlay Maclean: And, do you, Mr. Speaker, rule that I may not move another amendment ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When the hon. member has moved an amendment to the third reading, he has exhausted his right to speak on the motion for third reading.


Mr. T. S. SPROTJLE (East Grey).: I would be disposed to move that the rate be 2t cents per mile, if that was confined to Ontario. It seems to me that the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) was not very fair in his remarks. He was not justified in trying to heap ridicule upon the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) for making an effort to secure for the people of Canada the same rights as are enjoyed by the people in adjoining states of the American union under practically similar circumstances. It comes with very bad grace from one sent here to look after the interests of the helpless to abuse those who endeavour to do this, while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) himself does not try to do it. If the hon. gentleman were a solicitor for or an advocate for railway companies, I could understand him. But certainly this is not the duty he is sent here to discharge. The hon. gentleman "said that because the Canadian railways did not earn as much as the railways in the United States, therefore, their rates should not be reduced to two cents per mile. But he seemed to forget one very important feature in connection with this matter, which is that, whereas the railways of the United States have received no state aid whatever, but were built with private capital, and therefore, must earn a reasonable dividend upon that capital, the roads in Canada, with which they are compared and which the hon. gentleman says should show as large earnings as the railways in the United States, were built very largely out of public money. So, if the earnings of the Canadian railways are not as large as those of the United States with which they are compared, that fact of itself is no argument in favour of a high rate here as compared with the low rate in the United States. I would like to ask the hon. member for South Brant a question. The state la-w in Michigan provides that railways whose earnings reach a certain figure shall not charge more than two cents per mile. Will the hon. gentleman say that only those railways whose earnings have reached this figure have made the reductions ? I am credibly informed that this is not the case, but that several other railways have made the reduction, notwithstanding that their earnings are not such as to compel them to do so. And I am informed also, that instead of that reduction

reducing their earning power, it has had the contrary effect, so that these railways have been benefited by the change. It does seem to me a clear case of hardship that the rates in Ontario should be higher than in Michigan on the same railways. Take the case of a man living in Chicago and travelling to Detroit. He travels over the Wabash system, 300 miles and pays $6. He enters Canada and travels over the same line 220 miles, paying two cents per mile or $4.40. But a Canadian gets on at Detroit travels on the same seat with the American for this 220 miles in Canadian territory, and pays $0.60.
Now, the Canadian pays $6.60 for travelling 220 miles, while the American pays 60 cents less for travelling 300 miles, both travelling over the same road. The differ-, ence should be in favour of the Canadian, because that railway through Canada was subsidized by the state, whereas the same road through Michigan was not subsidized by the state. There would be no great injustice done to the railway company if we compelled them to give Canadians the same advantages that the party who lives in Michigan enjoys when he travels over that railway. While I do not think it would be fair to apply what the member for East York calls the flat rate of two cents a mile all over the country, I do think it would be no great injustice to the railways, especially those that run through the more thickly settled parts of Ontario, if we compelled them to charge no more than two cents a mile, or two and a half cents a mile. Therefore, I move that the Bill be referred back to the committee to insert a clause that the maximum passenger rate should not exceed two and a half cents a mile east of a meridian drawn from Port Arthur.


William Findlay Maclean: I have listened to the answers that have been made to my arguments. I might refer to what the member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) said about me, and my desire for notoriety. I am very anxious for that notoriety, if he chooses to call it that, and I shall pursue it, irrespective of what his view may be. It is a pretty hard thing to fight the battles of the people in this country against some of the powers arrayed against you. There is no glory in it, it costs a good deal of money, and it is a very hard thing to fight youii way| through the mazes of parliament. You have to fight by yourself, you have no party behind you, you have no caucus behind you, you have to meet the derision of both sides, and sometimes an arrangement between both parties to side-track any progressive movement of that kind. I have fought for this reform for a good many years, and it is making headway. Take the question of government ownership. There was hardly a man beside myself to stand up for it, and I was said to be seeking notoriety. But the other day we saw the 262
Prime Minister of this country stand up and make a proposition for a transcontinental railroad that implied so he said government ownership. So the movement is going forward, the idea is progressing, even against the wishes of a majority of the House, and I shall live to see it win out. I shall live to see this two-cent maximum passenger rate the law of the land, and when that time comes, if it does give me some notoriety, I do not care, because it is and idea that is worth fighting for. The people are all thinking about it, I could quote letters by the thousand about it. I have seen many letters written to the newspapers about it. This thing was worked out in the states, where it has been accomplished by agitation in the legislature. It was not worked out by a railroad commission, it was worked out by legislation wherever it has been accomplished. The legislature of the state of New York did it by a little amendment to a small Bill of the New York Central, 30 or 40 years ago, and all the other legislatures have come to it. The people of Manitoba have got it by a law of their legislature; in England they have got it, because they have got what is called the penny-a-mile rate, which is a parliamentary rate. They have it all over Europe. They have a one-cent a mile rate for passenger travel, and even less than that for labourers. In all these cases it has been obtained by an Act of the legislature, and not by an act of a commission. My right hon. friend is evading his responsibility, he is juggling with the question,, and he has made no argument here at all. He says we have got a Bill before us, and there is a provision for regulating these charges, the commission will undertake to deal with it. I say they will never deal with it until they have parliamentary instructions to do so. We have given a large amount of consideration to this Bill. I compliment the premier and his government on this Bill, a great deal of consideration has been given to the commission and its duties. But, after all, it is only minor matters that are left to their discretion. For instance, we have, defined what a railroad train shall be, and how it shall be equipped, with what sort of brakes. I say the time has come when we ought to define what the maximum passenger rate ought to be. It is easy to say that there are a lot of little railroads, as the member for Brant said, that cannot pay the axle grease by their passenger traffic. But their main revenue is from freight rates, and is it not fair to the people who travel In this country that if passenger rates have to come down, freight rates should go up a little? An adjustment could be effected in that way and the road would not lose a dollar.
If railroads running into thinly populated portions of the country are free to charge four cents, those sections will continue to be thinly populated. The Cana-



dian Pacific Railway want to get people into the North-west, and are carrying them from portions of the United States for one cent a mile into that country-so I am told ; and they are charging them four cents a mile to get out. It is a good way to get them in, and it is a good way to keep them in. But they will never get population in that country until they are able to promise them not only a good country for raising wheat, but a good country to travel in, where they can go for two cents a mile. Then we hear a good deal about the Grand Trunk, and the member for Brant tells us it is a great, big corporation that spreads all over the country, and only earns a little over $2,000 a mile. The great bulk of its earnings come from the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, and they are charging the people of those two populous provinces three and four cents a mile, and they say they have not got traffic. Why, sir, the traffic between the Detroit river and Montreal never was so great as it is to-day. They have not trains enough, thev hare not engines, they have not cars enough to handle the passenger traffic. Every train is overcrowded and belated by reason of the large traffic. Every night when you go from Montreal to Toronto you ask for a first-class ticket, and you pay three cents a mile at least, although every tram between Montreal and Toronto, two and three trains a dav, are loaded with people paying three cents a mile for that run. The com-panv could carry them for two cents a mile and still make money out of it. Yet we are told that parliament should not interfere, that parliament should not make a maximum rate. I say again that there is a parliamentary way of getting reduced passenger fares. You could say to a railway company: If you give a cheap through-rate you must give a cheap local rate. I think I have proved my whole case. If you adopt the Michigan law it will settle the whole question. I would be quite willing to have the Michigan law applied to all roads that earn $3,000 a mile on passenger traffic, because, if the Michigan Central had to give a two-cent rate by reason of earning $3,000 a mile the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway would give it next day. Yet. we are told by the right lion, leader of the government that we must not interfere with railway traffic because he has established a commission to do that. This reduction will never be attained except on the floor of parliament through the passing of an Act to that effect. What I would have liked to have heard the right hon. Prime Minister say is : This question is one that the people are talking about. We will instruct the commission to make a report upon it, to present the facts and then we will bring in a law. You can have a sliding scale applied to this question, either a geographical scale or a sliding scale based upon the earnings just as thjy have in Michi-Mr. MACLEAN.
gan, and the remedy can be accomplished in that way. But, we will not get that if we leave it to the commission. We could easily pass a law to-day on the lines of the Michigan law providing that any road that gives a two-cent a mile through-rate shall also give a two-cent a mile local rate. It need not be a very big Act of parliament. It could be put in three lines as they have it in Manitoba. Yet, the right hon. gentleman is going to give a hundred millions of dollars of the people's money to a railway corporation without imposing one condition upon that company. He came to parliament some years ago with the Crow's Nest Railway proposition and he said : I introduce a new doctrine into the legislation of Canada. I am the apostle of a new gospel and it is that when you give a railway company a great subvention you get some corresponding concession from it for the people. That is a good doctrine, but before you give the Grand Trunk Railway a single dollar for buildiug a transcontinental railway you should say to Mr. Hays : One of the conditions of this concession is that you shall carry people in Ontario and Quebec for two cents a mile. If he did he would get it immediately. The Grand Trunk Railway Company having adopted that rate the Canadian Pacific Railway would be obliged to adopt it and the reduction would be brought about in that way. You could get it in a hundred ways, by diplomacy, by the exercise of political sagacity and by being ready to take advantage of every opportunity that comes. But when you say, merely; we are going to refer it to the railway commission you are not dealing with the question in a way which will bring about the remedy that we desire. If a man travels from Prescott and they charge him four cents a mile will he go to the commission and say that they have overcharged him and will the commission fix it for him ? They will never do it, but a little political strategy in dealing with these companies when they are asking for great concessions would bring about this reduction in rates. You will get it in the way in which the Conservative government in Manitoba got it. The railway company came for concessions, they got their bonds guaranteed but the legislature of Manitoba said :	We
are dealing with you and we expect some return for the concessions that we are making and you must reduce the charges that you are imposing upon the public. The right hon. gentleman says that they are building railways, but you are not solving the transportation question by building railways. You are not solving the transportation question until you compel the railways to treat the great mass of the people reasonably in the matter of rates. Giving public money and public land away to the railways, running railways through inhospitable and unknown portions of the country is not solving the transportation problem, but you are solving it when you demand fair con-

sideration for the people and when you impose upon the railway companies the condition that they shall charge so and so. You give the Grand Trunk Railway Company $75,000,000, yea, $100,000,000 of the people's money and the same government that gives it to them allows them to charge, in the populous provinces of Ontario and Quebec, in some places, four cents per mile and in other places three cents per mile and yet does not impose a single condition upon the company. That is not a railway policy, that is not what the public expect and the public does not expect that any one who is stating his case, or at least is trying to state his case fairly in this House, will be subjected to the criticism or to the opposition that I have met here to-day. There is something else expected from this House. We are the guardians of the public interest, we are sent here to protect the rights of the people and we are not here to unload that responsibility upon a commission. Hon. gentlemen will find that the public expect that of them and they expect in some way that we in this House shall apply ourselves to the transportation problem and they do not expect that we shall give away more money without getting more concessions from the railway companies than we have. There is no other way to meet the situation than by dealing with these companies on a business basis and insisting upon concessions at a time that the agreement is made with them. It would only need three lines in a note from the premier sent to Mr. Hays to the effect that complaints have been made in parliament and that complaints have been made in the press about passenger rates in Ontario, that the people have been complaining especially that you carry people in Michigan for two cents a mile and carry them in Ontario for three cents a mile. How do you justify that ? If he did so, the coon would have to come down. It does not need an Act of parliament; it simply needs an intimation from the leader of the dominant party in this country that if a reduction does not come then parliament will have to intervene in order to bring it about. Simply to dismiss this question by saying that it should be settled by a railway commission is not treating it as I think it ought to be treated by this House. The reduction should be brought about by a clause in the Railway Bill defining what the maximum passenger rate is. You can give it a sliding effect, either a geographical sliding effect or you can base it upon the earning capacity per mile of the road, or you can get it by agreement witli the railways. In some way it can be done, the people expect that it shall be done and in order to test the question I am quite willing that the House shall vote upon my amendment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) say that the Roblin government secured a two cent a mile rate in Manitoba 7 262i


William Findlay Maclean: No, three cents a mile.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Does the hon. gentleman say that that rate applies to the Canadian Pacific Railway 7


William Findlay Maclean: No, but by simply applying it to the Canadian Northern Railway the Canadian Pacific Railway adopts it and that is the object of that kind of legislation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why did the Canadian Pacific Railway adopt it 7


William Findlay Maclean: They are carrying people at three cents a mile in Manitoba. My hon. friend said that it was four cents a mile all over the North-west.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Competition, as was stated a moment ago.


William Findlay Maclean: Competition based upon the agreement between the government and the railway company. That has been the effect in New York and Michigan. The law in Michigan is based upon an earning capacity of $3,000 per mile, but by reason of the competition they have a two cent per mile rkte.
Hon. Wm. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I have listened with considerable attention to the two speeches that have been made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and I find in a great many instances that he is a greater reformer than the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). The hon. member for South Brant speaks about undertaking to teach Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy how to run a railway. We have nothing to do with anything of that kind, but what we have to do is to see that something is done in the interests of the people of Canada and that is to apply if possible the reform of cheaper rates to the railways of Canada. The hon. gentleman commenced, I think, by making a very fine free trade speech because he gave us the assurance that whenever rates are reduced there is an increase in the consumption and that is an increase in the consumption and that in this case there will be an increase in the traffic. When the subject of the government railway will come before the House I hope to be able to prove, that in the case of the government railways of Europe where a reduction in traffic rates has been made, the amount collected in six months was more than was collected during twelve months when the rates were high.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear. Was that reduction made by Act of parliament ?


William Ross: I will get the particulars when the proper time comes. Now, we must not look upon the day of small things in the question of reforms. It took Wilberforce almost thirty-five years before he was able to secure the emancipation of the slaves, and people laughed at him in derision when he first brought that subject up in the parliament of

Great Britain. The greatest reforms begin with the smallest agitation, and while I disagree with my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) as to the manner in which he seeks to bring about this reduction of rates, I think that public opinion will be able to operate on the government to such an extent that they will eventually call the attention of the commission to this reform. I think it would be very desirable that the government, in anticipation to the Bill that will be introduced some day, should have their eye on cheap passenger rates on this railway when it is constructed. While the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) may be called an agitator, and while it may be said that he is speaking and writing for notoriety, yet he is speaking in the interest of the public, and the public will take note of what he is saying. Anything that tends to increase the benefits to and the comforts of the people of Canada is bound to receive attention from the people of Canada. This is not at all a small question, but I do think that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has not taken the proper way of bringing about the reform he
desires.	
House divided on	the amendment 1
Maclean) :	
YEAS :	
Messieurs	
Avery,	Kidd,
Bell,	Lavell,
Bennett,	Maclean,
Birkett, [DOT]	McGowan,
Blain,	Monk,
Cargill,	Morin,
Christie,	Oliver,
Clare,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clarke,	Roche (Marquette),
Demers (St. John),	Rosamond,
Earle,	Sherritt,
Gourley,	Sproule,
Hackett,	Taylor,
Halliday,	Tolton,
Hughes (Victoria),	Turgeon,
Kaulbach,	Vrooman,
Kendall,	Wilson.-34
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Angers,	Loy,
Beith,	Macdonald,
Borden (Sir Frederick),	McCarthy,
Calvert,	McCool,
Copp,	McCreary,
Desjardins,	MeEwen,
Douglass,	McGugan,
Erb,	McLennan,
Ethier,	Marcil (Bonaventur
Fielding,	Matheson,
Fisher,	Mayrand,
Fitzpatrick,	Mignault,
Fortier,	Morrison,
Fraser,	Paterson,
Gibson,	PrSfontaine,
Harwood,	Puttee,
Heyd,	Riley,
Holmes,	Ross (Ontario),
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Ross (Victoria, N.S.
Lang,	Russell,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tucker,
LeBlanc,	Wade.-45.
Lewis,


William Ross: PAIRS :
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Thompson (Haldlmand),	Ingram,
Hyman,	Giimour,
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
McColl,	Ward,
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Gauvreau,	Ganong",
MacKinnon,	Roddick,
Smith (Vancouver),	Hale,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Broder,	
Mclsaac,	Carscallen,
Bazinet,	Pope,
Martineau,	Lancaster,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Guthrie,	Porter,
Sutherland (Oxford),	Haggart,
Girard,	Leonard,
Tobin,	Ball,
Scott,	Boyd,
Davis,	Bruce,
Malouin,	LaRiviere,
Stewart,	Kendry,
Parmelee,	Wilmot,
Brown.	Henderson,
Amendment negatived, main motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time, and passed.


RAILWAY DEBTS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 155) respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway debts.-The Prime Minister.
On section 4,
Frederick Debartzch Monk: This Act is merely to apply to the future, I suppose ; it is not to apply to any proceedings already begun ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. I move to amend this section by inserting after the word ' renewal ' the words ' and completion,' and to insert the words ' of the ' between the words ' and ' and ' institution,' so that the clause will read :
The remuneration of the receiver shall be fixed by the said court, as also shall the expenses lawfully incurred by him as receiver, including the expenses of working, operation, maintenance, renewal and completion, and of the institution and defense of actions aforesaid, be a debt of the company.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 5-when company is insolvent,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES moved :: 
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: That is expected by the section. The hon. member must bear in mind that this is not my Bill, but a Bill introduced by a private member. I do not know the effect of this amendment at present.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As I understand the section, a railway in the possession of trustees is excepted from the section as printed, but the amendment brings it back, and changes completely what is previously decreed in the section itself.


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: Section 5 of the Winding Up Act defines acts of insolvency ; and paragraph (g) of that Act says that the transfer by a company of, its assets to trustees is an act of insolvency ; but here we provide that this transfer, if done by virtue of section 94 of the Railway Act, will not be interpreted as an act of insolvency ; and under the amendment suggested that will not prevent the company from coming under the terms of this Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not before me paragraph (g), to which my hon. friend refers ; but this section says that that paragraph shall not apply to cases where possession of any railway has been taken by trustees for bondholders ; and yet by the amendment it is said that such transfer shall not exclude the railway from the provisions of the present Act.


Louis Philippe Demers: Paragraph (g) of section 5 of the Winding Up Act says that the company is deemed insolvent if it has made any general conveyance or assignment of its property, and so forth. What we mean by this section is that the assignment will not be an Act of insolvency by itself ; but by the amendment we provide that that will not prevent the company being subject to the provisions of this Act if it is otherwise insolvent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it not be better to State that in the section ? Because, as the section reads, with the amendment, I think it would appear that the assignment under paragraph (g) would take the company out of the operation, of this Act, while further on the amendment seems to contradict this.


Mr. WADE.: The provision of this section seems to be very simple. The effect of it is that all the provisions in section 5 of the Winding Up Act defining insolvency on the part of a company shall prevail except paragraph (g) and it shall be insolvent and subject to the provisions of this Act; but the conveyance of its property under paragraph (g) would not itself be an Act of insolvency.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are there any companies in the hands of trustees to which this law would apply ?
. Mr. FRASER. If the section is a good section, it is indifferent to us whether or
not there is a certain railway which is taken charge of by trustees of bondholders. There is nothing in the section which would hasten that if it were passed. That is to say, if this Act were in existence, it would not help them to take possession of it. They would do it as easily without this Act as with it.
Mi-. MONK. It may be a very good section in itself, but it may not be wise to apply it to some company which is at present being administered by trustees for the benefit of bondholders. I do not know whether there is any such company. I have heard of the Atlautic and Lake Superior Railway or a portion of it being administered for the benefit of some bondholders in England. I believe there/ is a receiver acting on behalf of the bondholders and administering the railway for their benefit. It is only fair to ask if these bondholders, whose property is being administered under the existing law for their own benefit, will suddenly find themselves brought under the operation of this law.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I know of two railways now in the hands of bondholders, but there is a very considerable difference between bondholders and receivers. The Temiscouata railway has been taken possession of by the bondholders because of the default on the part of the company to pay interest on the bonds. The Lake St. John railway is also in the hands of the bondholders and administered by trustees. Neither of these railways will be affected by this legislation unless they come under the operations of its provisions with respect to the Winding Up Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are provincial railways.


Hhe MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the Lake St. John is, but I am not quite sure. It is entirely within the limits of the province, and it crosses the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But whether it has been declared a Dominion railway I cannot say.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the Atlantic and Lake Superior ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know. That also is in the hands of trustees of the bondholders. That, however, is altogether different from its being in the hands of receivers. The trustees are not receivers. A railway may be managed by the trustees of the bondholders in such a way as to escape the application of this Act.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not had time to examine very carefully the amendment, but would like to call the attention of the committee to this section 5, which is being amended. In this section it is stated that a

railway company is insolvent in certain cases, but section 5 of the Winding Up Act is not to apply to cases where possession of any railway or any section thereof has been taken by trustees for the bondholders under the provisions of section 94 of the Railway Act. There must 'be some error there, because section 94 of the Railway Act does not seem to have any bearing upon this subject. It is more than probable that certain proceedings have been taken under chapter 44 of 62-3 Victoria, passed in 1899. That statute must have been intended to apply to some special cases where it was deemed necessary to protect the holder of mortgage bonds or debentures ; and by that statute the jurisdiction is given to the Exchequer Court to order the sale of a railway and the placing of it in the hands of a receiver upon the demands of the bondholders. The effect of the measure now before the committee is to repeal the provisions of that Act respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court with regard to the rights of the bondholders. What I would like to call the attention of the government to is that if the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is accepted and the statute of 1899 repealed, as it is by the following section, any steps taken by the bondholders for the protection of their rights under that statute will cease, and any railway company ordered by the Exchequer Court to be put under the sequestration of a receiver may, at the instance of any chirographic creditor, be put into insolvency and the conservatory orders made by the Exchequer Court to protect the bondholders and the other creditors may be interfered with. It seems to me that we have to be very, careful about adopting thjis amendment, particularly as my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers), who prepared this Bill, inserted in it a special proviso, which says that the provisions of this section shall not apply to those cases where bondholders, under the direction of the Exchequer Court, have obtained possession of a railway which had made default in the payment of interest on the bonds.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Section 94 of the Railway Act is the section with regard to mortgage liens, enabling a company to secure its bonds and debentures by a mortgage lien on the assets and revenues of the company present and future. This section reads :
A railway is insolvent within the meaning of this Act, in aill cases which constitute insolvency under sections five and six of the Winding Up Act, except that paragraph (g) of section five of that Act shall not apply to cases where possession of any railway or section thereof has been taken by trustees for bondholders under the provisions of section 94 of the Railway Act.


Mr. FRASER.: That is, relating to mortgages?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes. Section 94, subsec- ' tion 2, of the Railway Act says :
By the said deed the company may grant to the holders of such bonds, debentures, or other securities, or the trustees named, in such deed, all and every the powers, rights and remedies granted by this Act in respect of the said bonds, debentures, or other securities, and all other powers, rights and remedies not inconsistent with this Act, or may restrict the said holders in the exercise of any power, privilege or remedy granted by this Act, as the case may be.
Now, if bon. gentlemen will look back to section 84 and sections in that context, they will find that there are powers of bondholders-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is my hon. friend (Mr. Wade) quoting from the revised statutes ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am quoting from the Consolidated Railway Act, the Act of 1888. This is the section referred to in the Bill, and it is the law as it stands to-day. We do not know that the Railway Act which left this House this afternoon will ever become law, and we could not legislate on tlie basis of that. This simply refers to the powers which may be given to bondholders under trust deed to secure bonds and debentures under the Railway Act of 1888. Tlie company has the power to create a trust with which to secure the debentures, and they have a right under that deed to give power to the bondholders to take possession of the road; and the whole machinery is complete within the Act for the bondholders taking possession in that way. and operating the road. It is provided that subsection (g) shall not apply to cases of that kind. Subsection (g) in the Winding Up Act gives the following as one of the proofs of insolvency on the part of a company :
If it has made any general conveyance or assignment of its property for the benefit of its creditors, or if, being unable to meet Us liabilities in full, it makes any sale or conveyance of the whole or ,tlhe main part of its stock in trade or assets, without the consent of its creditors, or without satisfying their claims.
The effect of this- section is that it virtually declares that a deed of trust given to secure the debentures or bonds is not a conveyance within the meaning of subsection fg); and the only thing we have to consider is what effect the words proposed have upon that section, because without the amendment, that is not an act of insolvency. A company may be insolvent, for other reasons mentioned in the subsections from (a) to (h) Inclusive. There Is no exception with regard to the others, but with regard to subsection (g), it says in effect that the giving over or taking possession of the property by the bondholders under the provisions of a trust-deed does not come within the class or conditions named in the subsection. Then it goes on :

Ana except further that the delay to secure or compound allowed in the case mentioned in section six of the Winding Up Act shall be fifteen days instead of sixty.
Ai:tl this amendment :
chequer Court as to railway debts is repealed except as respects pending proceedings.
We might add these words 'except with respect to pending proceedings ' to meet the difficulty I have suggested.
But suich transfer to trustees shall not exclude such railway from the provisions of the present Act.
That is, the mere fact of having given such a deed, the mere fact that the bondholders have taken possession of it shall not of itself bring that company within the operation of this Act. If it is insolvent for other reasons, then the provisions of the Act are applicable to it. To my mind, the adding of these words do not make any difference. The exception certainly does not go beyond what it expresses, and, if that be true, it is almost unnecessary to have these other words. I suppose they are put in to guard against any uncertainty. This Act is operative upon a company that has given a deed to secure its bonds and the bondholders have taken possession of the road under the provisions of the deed, then if there is default in these unsecured debts or if the company have failed to operate the road for the period named in- the section itself, the creditors in the first place or any member of the public in the other case, may come to the Exchequer Court and commence proceedings for a decree for the sale of the road. I suppose the court has absolute jurisdiction to do what is right, and any order to sell granted under such circumstances would have due regard to the rights of the bondholders. In a case of this sort, where the bondholders have stepped in and are operating the road for the purpose of obtaining the payment of their bonds or the Interest on their bonds, I think the court would be slow indeed to order a sale at the instance of unsecured creditors, if that sale would accomplish any possible injury to the secured creditors, the bondholders.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Under the Act of 1899, the Exchequer Court has the power to order either a foreclosure sale, where a railway Is insolvent, or it may appoint a receiver. Suppose they appoint a receiver instead of ordering the foreclosure or sale, would the judgment creditor, under this Act, or under the amendment proposed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) have the power of superseding the order of the court and making an absolute sale ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think it would. I think I can point out to my hon. friend how we can make that clear, that nothing done now should interfere with any proceedings begun in the Exchequer Court under that Act. We might add to sec-ti n G a few words so that it will read as follows :
Chapter 44 of the statutes of 1899, intituled: An Act respecting the jurisdiction of the Ex-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That proviso covers the objection which presented itself to my mind with respect to the section we have just adopted. But it is evident that the statute of 1899 was passed to provide for cases which were then presenting themselves. I suppose the wording of that amendment would cover not only proceedings actually pending, but, proceedings that had been adopted under the statute of 1899. A reseiver having been named, the other proceedings would be continued. I have prepared an amendment in these wcrds, hut probably my hon. friend's is better :
But all proceedings begun under the provisions of the said Act shall be continued and terminated as if such repeal had not been enacted.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that is better than mine, I accept that. That has been thought out. I understand that all proceedings begun under the Act of 1S99 are to be continued as if the Act had not been repealed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Just so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As I understand it, any proceedings begun under an Act should not be interfered with by subsequent legislation, because it would render our legislation absolutely unreliable to attempt to do anything of that sort. We cannot by legislation give a court jurisdiction, and, then repeal it to-morrow and render void all proceedings taken, under it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Unless there are words contradictory in the Act, saying that all proceedings under previous Acts must he stopped, otherwise they must go on.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When this Bill was up before, the leader of the opposition made some observation with respect to our taking from the provincial courts a jurisdiction which is now vested in them, and I promised to consider the matter. I have prepared and submit now an amendment for the purpose of protecting the provincial courts in rights they now have respecting their jurisdiction over railway corporations. I move that the following amendment be added as a subsection to section 1 :
Nothing herein contained shall affect the present jurisdiction of any court of a province in any such matters as aforesaid affecting railways or sections thereof wholly within the province. and the superior courts of a province now possessing such jurisdiction shall, as regards such railways and sections of railways, have concurrent jurisdiction with the Exchequer Court now possessing such jurisdiction.
My opinion was that this Act should not interfere with such jurisdiction as provincial

courts now have, but the leader of the opposition was under the impression that there might be some doubt, and in deference to his opinion, I submit this amendment. Perhaps it would make it still clearer if we were to make it read this way : * Should continue as regards such railways and sections of railways to have concurrent jurisdiction.'


Duncan Cameron Fraser: My only difficulty Is this : In passing this legislation are we not assuming that we can take away the jurisdiction of the, provincial courts ? We should not assume that we can by any act of this kind interfere with the powers of the courts within the provinces and say that we leave that which we could not take away. *


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We do not say that in the amendment.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You assume that or else you would not pass it.
The MINISTER) OF JUSTICE. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was of the opinion that in certain provinces the superior court had jurisdiction to deal with this matter. We want this jurisdiction to be continued but we do not want to add anything to it. We are creating a new jurisdiction in the Exchequer Court to deal with these matters that cannot be dealt with by the provincial courts. That is the intention of the committee as I understand it ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amendment is merely to carry out the intention of the committee.
-Section, as amended, agreed to.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The committee will remember that when we were dealing with section 3 the last time this Bill was being considered the question was raised as to whether the receiver should have the right to make any expenditure in respect to the completion of the railway. I was asked to prepare an amendment so as to make it absolutely clear that the receiver should not have the right to do anything in respect to new works except under the direction of the court. I therefore beg to move for leave to insert a section between sections 3 and 4 which will be known as section 3a, as follows :
The receiver may also, if the court so directs either upon his appointment or subsequently do all acts necessary for the completion of the construction or equipment of the railway or any section
That is to make it sure that there shall be nothing-done except under the direction of the court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Fletcher Bath Wade: There is one matter that I would like to draw the attention of the lion. Minister of Justice to, and that is the Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
question of the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court and as to the advisability of extending the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court especially in view of the last amendment which seems to put it beyond perad-venture that the provincial courts are not to have jurisdiction in regard toi a railway which is only partially in a province and which extends beyond it. Section 75 of chap. 135 defines the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court. Subsection 2 of that section reads as follows :
The Exchequer Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all oases in which demand is made or relief sought in respect of any matter which might, in England, have been the subject of a suit or action in the court of exchequer on its revenue side against the Crown.
Section 76 reads as follows :
The Exchequer Court shall also have concurrent original jurisdiction with the courts of the several provinces, in all other suits of a civil nature at common law or equity, in which the Crown, in the interest of the Dominion of Canada is plaintiff or petitioner.
Under section 70, if at all, the Exchequer Court would have the power of granting an injunction or the power of takiug any extraordinary means of that sort. The wording of the section, as will be observed, is as follows :
The Exchequer Court shall also have eon-current original jurisdiction with the courts of the several provinces, in all other suits of a civil nature at common law or equity, in which the Crown, in the interest of the Dominion of Canada, is plaintiff or petitioner.
If the provincial court has not jurisdiction over a road which runs through two provinces, then, under this section, the Exchequer Court would have no jurisdiction to grant this relief in respect to a road which runs through two provinces and its jurisdiction would be confined to that which is conferred by the provisions of this Act and that jurisdiction is confined to the matter of sale either upon the motion of a creditor, or upon the motion of a bondholder or mortgagee. It has not occurred to my mind until very recently, and I am not at all clear about it, but I would invite the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to it and also to the subsequent provisions of sections 86 and 88 in regard to the enforcement of the judgments of the Exchequer Court by execution.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Does the hon. gentleman think that the words in paragraph (a) of section 1 of this Bill ' at the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals,' mean the Crown, because if not, there is no reference in this Bill to the Crown acting ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Then my argument lias so much more force in that case. The creation of the jurisdiction which is conferred by tbis Bill as amended really is equivalent to

saying that the provincial courts have no Jurisdiction in cases where the railway is partially in one province and partially in another ; in other words, except within the boundaries of the province the provincial court has no jurisdiction.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: 
Fletcher Bath Wade: Of course it relates to cases where the Crown is a party to the suit.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Only ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes only. It says :
The Exchequer Court shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the several provinces, in ail other suits of a civil nature at common law or equity, in which the Crown, in the interests of the Dominion of Canada is plaintiff or petitioner.
The case I have in mind is one like this : suppose a company has a contract with the government to build a railway and the government is to pay a subsidy for the building of the road ; suppose the government had paid a portion of the subsidy and they wished to enforce the contract. The question in my mind is as to the Exchequer Court jurisdiction ; and if it is a road which is partly in one province and partly in another, is there any court now that has jurisdiction ? It is not desirable that we should beyond doubt clothe the Exchequer Court with jurisdiction ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It seems to me that the Crown would never want to sell the railway although they might take possession of it. I doubt if the government would ever sell a railway unless the contract was specifically made to provide that the government can sell it.


Fletcher Bath Wade: If the Crown was a creditor there would be no trouble about the Crown proceeding under this present Bill, but I submit to the attention of the Minister of Justice the case in which the Crown is not a creditor.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


JUDGES' RETIRING ALLOWANCES.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee to consider the proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, the Exchequer Court Act, and the Act respecting Judges of Provincial Courts, and to provide as follows :
1.	If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court of Canada, resigns his office, His Majesty may, by letters patent under
the Great Seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his resignation ; to commence immediately after his resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life ; provided such judge has (a) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts, or as such judge and as stipendiary magistrate of the North-west Territories, for twenty years or upwards ; or (b) attained the age of seventy years, and continued in office, as judge of one or more of the said courts for twenty-five years or upwards ; or (c) continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for thirty years or upwards.
2.	If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of a Superior Court of any of the provinces of Canada, resigns or has heretofore resigned his office as such judge, to accept the office of lieutenant governor of a province, and if he serves, or has served as lieutenant governor, and is not otherwise eligible for any retiring annuity, as such judge, His Majesty may, at any time after the expiration of the term of service of such judge as lieutenant governor, grant unto such judge an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary annexed to the judicial office which he held at the time of his resignation ; to commence im-; mediately upon the issue of such letters patent, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
3.	Every county court judge -who has attained
the age of eighty years shall be compulsorily retired ; and to any judge who is so retired, or who, having attained the age of seventy-five years, resigns his office, and who in either case has continued in office for a period of twenty-five years or upwards, His Majesty may grant an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement ; or if he he has continued in office as such judge for a less period than twenty-five years, equal to two-thirds of such salary ; provided that to any such judge who is so compulsorily retired, or who so resigns within	years after
the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions. there may be granted an annuity equal to the full salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement or resignation, irrespective of the number of years he has continued in office.
4.	If any judge of a county court, after having continued in office for a period of thirty-five years, and become afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, resigns his office, His Majesty may, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada, grant to him a pension equal to the salary of his office at the time of his retirement; the said annuity to commence immediately after his retirement, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.-The Minister of Justice.
On section 1.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I may explain that the first clause makes provision for Superior Court judges, and the judges of the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court :	that
they shall have the right to retire upon their full salary upon the occurrence of any one of the following conditions : That a judge shall be 75 years old and have 20 years

service ; or 70 years and 25 years service ; or 30 years service irrespective of age.
On section 4,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wliat difference do you make between stipendiary magistrates of the North-west Territories and other stipendiary magistrates ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I ought to say that this is a special provision made applicable to Mr. Justice Iiicbardson, who went to the North-west Territories a great many years ago at the beginning of the organization of the territories and who served for many years as stipendiary magistrate. During the time he performed the duties of stipendiary magistrate he really was a Superior Court judge. He is a very old man and it would be unfair to allow others who have not performed any greater service than he has, to retire on full pay and not give him the benefit. This is to provide for the case of Mr. Justice Richardson, of Regina.


William Ross: What does the Minister of Justice propose doing in the case of judges who are not able to act, and will never be able to act, not because of old age, but because of infirmity. There ought to be some provision for a case of that kind. I have a case in my mind now in which a young judge has been striken with illness so that he is not able to, and will never be able, to sit on the Supreme Court bench of Nova Scotia again. There should be some provision for cases of that kind.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I presume that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) refers to the case of Mr. Justice Henry, of Halifax, and that is a case of very, very great hardship.


William Ross: It is to him I refer.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Mr. Justice Henry is a very distinguished man who was appointed by Sir John Thompson a few years ago and who in recent years has been afflicted with an infirmity which makes it impossible for him to communicate his ideas or to perform his duties. It is one of those cases of hardship which I find it very hard to deal with, and I would prefer not to be asked to deal with it at the present moment in connection with this particular Bill. We all sympathize with Mr. Justice Henry, and I would prefer if my hon. friend would allow the matter to remain in abeyance for the present at all events.


William Ross: I am satisfied to leave the case in the hands of the Minister of Justice.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I also am quite satisfied that it should be left to the Minister of Justice to deal with the case, but I do not wish the matter to pass without saying a word in endorsation of the remarks made by the lion.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross). The case of Mr. Justice Henry is one of peculiar hardship. He is a comparatively young man who lias not sat more than ten years on the bench, and I do trust that the Minister of Justice will see his way clear to give the greatest measure of relief he possibly can. Permit me to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Justice the other night, when he said that he did not propose to do anything at present with regard to the salaries of judges. I urge upon him now, as I have already urged upon a former Minister of Justice, the total inadequacy of the salaries that are meeted out to our judges in the province of Nova Scotia. They have only $4,000 a year, although they perform quite as important duties as the judges in the other provinces. I am at a loss to understand how any hon. gentlemen can defend the payment of only 84,000 a year to the judges of Nova Scotia, and $5,000 a year to judges in other provinces. It is absolutely unfair, and I think we can appeal to the sense of fair play and justice of members on both sides of the House, that these salaries ought to be readjusted.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The other day my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the case of Mr. Justice Hughes, of St. Thomas, and I beg to say to my hon. friend that I hope to be able to meet his views in connection with that matter.
Resolution reported, and read the first time.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the resolutions be now read the second time and agreed to.


Jabel Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. Minister of Justice to allow the ease of Judge Hughes, of tiie county of Elgin, to stand until he had served his fiftieth year as judge of the county, and the minister promised to do so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The case of Mr. Justice Hughes was brought to my notice by the hon. member, and I expect at a later stage to make a statement on that subject; but in the meantime, I may say that I have consulted those in authority, and we consider that this application on behalf of Mr. Justice Hughes is a very reasonable one, and one which we hope to be able to meet.


Jabel Robinson: Thank you.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 243) to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, the Exchequer Court Act, and the Act respecting Judges of Provincial Courts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 217) respecting penitentiaries.-The Minister of Justice.
On section 42-visitors,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a slight change there. Under section 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 182, in addition to the persons mentioned in this section as authorized to visit the penitentiaries were the members of any local legislature. Now, the local legislature have no authority over our penitentiaries, and I thought it right to strike them out. I did not see why they should have authority to visit institutions that are under our exclusive control.
On section 45-receiving of convicts,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I thought it necessary to make the change in that respect by the addition of the words ' unless certified by the 'surgeon of the penitentiary to be suffering from any dangerously infectious or contagious disease.' During the prevalence of small-pox at one time at St. Vincent de Paul we received prisoners suffering from that disease, and were put to a great inconvenience for that reason. Now, if the prisoner comes to the penitentiary suffering from a contagious disease, we thought we ought to have the privilege of refusing to receive him until he is rid of the disease, otherwise all sorts of inconvenience to the penitentiary will result.


George William Fowler: I think it would be better to add some words to provide that in that case the prisoner shall be taken back to the place from which he came.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I see that. We had better let that section stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 4G, subsection 2-custody of convict from time of sentence,


George William Fowler: I understand that this is before he has gone to the penitentiary. I would make that the certificate of the judge and not of the clerk of the court.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is intended to allow us to remove prisoners from a penitentiary which has become congested to some other. For instance, in Stony Mountain penitentiary we have more prisoners than can properly be taken care of, and it is necessary to remove some to St. Vincent de Paul. That is now beyond our control.


George William Fowler: But suppose a man in the maritime provinces sentenced to the penitentiary and, instead of being taken to Dorchester, is taken to St. Vincent de Paul or Kingston. If the certificate is given by the judge it would be better than if given by
tlie clerk of the court. The judge is the more responsible officer.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) will notice that this refers to a copy of the sentence taken from the minutes of the court and certified by the judge or by the clerk. That is the law as it now stands. I have no doubt there is a reason why it was made as it is, though I am not able to state the reason at the moment. I would not like to make a change without knowing more about it.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I propose to ask the House now to grant concurrence in the items of the supplementary estimates of the past year which remain undisposed of, so that we may be able to complete the Supply Bill. Not only has the year closed, but the time fixed for closing the books of the year is close at hand; it is therefore very desirable that we should give preference to this business.
Railways and Canals, chargeable to capital. Galops Rapid, deepening and widening, $25,000.


Sir. REID (Grenville).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Sir. Fielding) what this $25,000 is for. As I understand, these estimates are for expenditures that have been made between the 1st July, 1902, and the 1st July, 1903.


Hon.   S@: Before the hon. minister answers that I suppose my hon. friend (Sir. Reid, Grenville) will have the same opportunity of discussing this as in Committee of the Whole?


The SIINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection. The item is to pay the Gilbert Company for work done in the Galops Rapid channel which was the subject of some discussion in the House a year ago. There appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the orders for this work. The minister stated last year that he had not authorized the doing of the work, and at the time it was held up for further consideration. However, although there was some question as to the authority for the work, and the minister stated he did not give the authority fiimself, it appears that the work was done, and the minister also appears to have come to the conclusion that inasmuch as the work was done and was likely to serve a useful purpose, the government should make provision for payment. Accordingly he placed that item in the estimates and had it submitted to the House. The theory upon which, I presume, my late colleague took that step was that a very large sum of money had been expended on the work, and that it was wise

to finish it. The work has cost, I understand, $800,000 or $900,000. It was begun as far back as 1881, under the advice ofl the late John Page, who was the chief engineer of canals at the time. It has been going on for a series of years, and recently the minister had made up his mind that it was wise to complete it. He therefore put in liis estimates this sum of $25,000 to pay this past claim of the Gilbert Company, and be also proposed in the main estimates a further appropriation with a view of finishing the work.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have raised objection to this work at different times in this House, but of course the present acting minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) does not understand the position of affairs as well as the late minister, who had been iii charge of the department. I wish to explain now the whole position of this matter. The contract was let by the government in power in 187S (not in 1881) to make this channel through the Galops rapids. It was originally let to Wm. Davis & Sons, and they assigned it to this Gilbert firm. They continued this contract for a few years under the late Mr. Page and succeeded-at least as they claimed-in making a channel 200 feet wide through these rapids. When the Hon. Mr. Haggart took charge of the Railway Department he came to the conclusion, after examination, that it would be an impossibility for steamers to use this channel even though it were widened and deepened as proposed, and so he changed the plans and built a lock adjoining the rapids which steamers could use in navigating that part of tlie St. Lawrence. That lock has been used ever since its completion, a few years ago, and it has overcome the obstruction to navigation presented by these rapids. The whole trouble with the channel is that it lias been constructed across the currrent, and even though it were the required depth, which I claim it is not, it would be impossible for large steamers to navigate that channel with safety. That statement can be verified by the fact that even though the channel were 200 feet wide and had a depth of 17 feet-which I claim it has not-no insurance company in Canada or elsewhere would insure any vessel navigating this channel. Let me give a little information as to what lead the Hon. Mr. Haggart to come to the conclusion that the construction of this channel was not a proper work. While this channel was being constructed the vessel men who used it were continually protesting against the work and advocating the construction of a new lock. I will read some of the letters of protest that were sent to the government. I have here . a letter addressed to the Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald by Mr. Henderson, manager of the Montreal Transportation Company, Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
which is one of the largest forwarders in this country. The letter is as follows :-
Montreal Transportation Company.
Kingston, October 21, 1879. Sir John A. Macdonald, K.C.B.
Dear Sir, A circumstance has ,come to my knowledge this evening which I think is my duty bo acquaint you of.
I was discussing with one of our best pilots tbe question of running the Galops Rapids with our barges and the difficulties attending same, and he mentioned that the government intended to commence work next spring and make a channel on the south side, and he remarked that it was a very expensive affair, and when made he would rather use the present channel as it now is, than' attempt to take a tow through the new one when made, and the best improvement that could be made would be to remove a certain sh'oal that runs oiut on the north side of the present channel, which could be done at one-fifth of what the new channel will cost, and if that shoal was removed it would give them a straight run down, and they could t-alce any reasonable number of barges down the Galops. This thing certainly should be looked into and we would recommend to you before undertaking ,the said improvement to call into ymur .council a given number of the principal pilots that run the river. Engineers may be all very good in their way, but we would say that the pilots know best what would help the trade, and if you can make one dollar do more real good than five, by taking their advice why not do so ? Don't let this .matter be overlooked for I would be sorry to see a repetition of the former blunders recently make in tlhe board of works.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) P. K. HENDERSON. Here is another letter from Mr. D. D. Calvin :
Kingston, Canada,
Garden Island, October 29, 1879. Department of Public Works,
Ottawa, Out.
Gentlemen,-I telegraphed the Hoard of Works on 27th in relation to the removing of the large rock in the channel of the Galops rapids (below Presico'bt) and as I have not received any answer I bake the liberty of writing. What induced me to telegraph you was when I was in Ottawa a few days ago there was a man offered me tWo hundred and fifty thousand dollars to remove the rock. I wanted to find out if he had the right to let the job. There is no work on tbe River St. Lawrence that requires attention as much as the removal of that rock and in high water it is doubtful if it can be removed at all. The water now 13 three feet lower than an ordinary draft in midsummer, besides in midsummer it would block the channel to the Injury of commerce. Excuse egotism but I think your ministry might be benefited by my presence before them for fifteen minutes to explain matters in relation to this subject.
(Sgd.) D. D. CALVIN.
I may say that the rock referred to in this letter was never removed: it is a different work altogether that was done. The following is a petition that was addressed to the hon. Commissioner of Works at Ottawa :

To the Honourable,
The Commissioner of Public Works, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-We are informed that the government contemplate deepening the Galops rapids on the southerly side of the river. Should this be done, we think it will prove to be an irretrievable mistake, as it will necessarily leave a wall on either side of the proposed channel varying from five to seven feet high, full of sharp, scraggy rocks protruding, and a wind across the river either way would drift a tow of crafts against this scraggy wall and sink them ; furthermore, the cutting of this channel would lower the water above from one to one and a half feet.
Now, there is already a channel on the north side of the river 400 feet wide and 13 feet deep, and the only obstruction in this channel is a large rock about ten feet in diameter and six or seven feet under water. To take out this rock would not disturb the depth of the channel above, and we trust that .instead of cutting a channel on the south side of the river, the government will have this large rock removed and thereby furnish a good channel which craftis can navigate with safety.
Your obedient servants,
D. D. Calvin, J. A. Breck, Capt. S. Anderson, John Donnelly, Joseph Murray, John Gaskin, Folger Bros., A. Gunn, Hugh Scott, Montreal Forwarding Co. (Limited), James Stewart, agent ; St. Lawrence & Chicago Forwarding Co.. John M'cFarlane, agent, D. Macphie, manager : Montreal Transportation Co., Hugh McLennan, president.
P.S.-We would beg to refer you to Thomas Keefer's report on this subject whilst Hamilton Merritt was chief commissioner about the year 1841 or 1842.
Here are some other letters :
Kingston, November 1, 1880.
To the Honourable,
The Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir, I have been a pilot on the River St. Lawrence ever since the year 1828, and I know what I am saying when I state that if the channel is made in the Galops rapids where your chain tug is now at work, it will certainly lower the water above. Even now the small amount of work they have done is decidedly noticeable and detrimental. To use a homely illustration, it has the same effect on a stream that the taking away of a mi'll dam would have. Now, instead of making a new channel where your men are working, if you let the chain tug take away the big rock that obstructs the present channel we could then take down ten or eleven barges Instead of four as at present, It has been stated that the chain tug cannot be placed at the rock, but I would agree to place her there myself, and could furnish a guarantee that I am able to do what I say.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.)' JOHN SUGH'RUE,
Master Steamer ' Chieftain.'
I also have been a pilot on the St. Lawrence for thirty years, and concur in the within.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) CAPT. S. ANDERSON, Master Steamer ' Hiram Calvin.' St. Catharines, June 1, 1881. To the Hon. Sir Charles Tupper,
Minister of Railways and Canals.
Dear Sir,-After a long and careful consideration of the contemplated removal of the rock
that obstructs navigation at the Galops rapids in the St. Lawrence river, I feel confident that if the work of removal be successfully accomplished, that the desired results will not be obtained, for the very reason, that in removing the obstruction out of the river, it will give the water a free course to run off that much faster, and as a natural consequence lower the river at the head of the rapids in proportion to the obstruction removed, and in place of eight or nine feet of water (as the case may be) at the entrance of the canal, as at present you will find that it will be reduced In proportion to the channel that you make for the escape of the water, I have, I believe, matured a plan which, if carried out, will give the desired depth of water on the rapids, and at the same time give you, from eighteen inches to two feet more in the head of the canal than you have at the present time-I should take pleasure in coming to Ottawa free of charge and explain to you my plan, if you think it worthy of consideration, which if adopted would I am certain produce the desired results, and at less than half the cost of removing the rock, which if successfully accomplished will not remove the evil complained of. All that I require is that if you adopt my scheme that you will give me the preference of doing the work. I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
. (Sgd.) ELI HIGGINS.
Kingston, August 15, 1884.
To _tke Minister of Public Works,
Dear Sir,-Our oldest bug captain has made a representation to me in such emphatic terms that I consider it my duty to communicate his opinion to you. What I refer to is the blasting forming a new channel in the Galops rapids. He says they are making a new channel the last six years in a place where the volume of water naturally does not run, and never can be made a successful channel to run down with a tow of barges. Some four years ago the writer addressed a letter to the same effect, a short time after the work was begun, but no notice was taken of the matter. Engineers may be all very well in their way, but we would suggest that pilots and parties who know about the river and its currents should have been consulted. This morning the matter was again pressed upon me, as the pilots say that during low water this new current is going to draw off some of the water from the natural channel and make It unnavigable for large tows. This letter is not sent in a faultfinding spirit, but with the best intentions. The new channel when finished can never be used for a tow of barges, as the current does not enter straight at the upper ends, and barges will tail down on the port side before they can be entered. Six barges now in the natural channel, but four barges cannot be taken down the new when finished. It will he a great calamity if yo-u destroy this channel.
Yours tr-uly,
(Sgd.) P. R. HENDERSON.
There is here letter after letter to the hon. minister protesting against this channel being made where it was, not only for the reason that it would be impossible for vessels to navigate it safely, but also because it was making a cut by which the waters of the St. Lawrence above would be greatly reduced in depth. I suppose that may have been one of the reasons which influenced the hon. minister in office at that

time to change the plan and put a very large lock at the head of the canal, so that vessels could enter the canal and lock through and go out again safely into the river, thus avoiding any chance of accidents in the rapids. The same thing applies to vessels coming up. However, I might say that these contractors proceeded with the work and [handed it over to the government. While the work was going on there were rumours all through that part of the country that the contractors had not carried out their contract, or, in other words, that although they were paid in full for making a channel 200 feet wide, and although they stated that there was 17 feet of water clear in this channel, it was reported that they had left it, after dredging out part of the rock, with only 10 feet of water in the channel. In fact, the whole public believed that to be true. They left it in that way because they believed that no large vessel could ever navigate it safely, and because they had obtained another contract on the Cornwall canal from the government, thus having something to do. However, shortly after 1 was elected in 1891, parties who were on this work came to me and made statements to the effect that the contractors had left it in this state. The parties who made these complaints were honourable men, two of them government employees, one being in charge of the government vessel on that work. He stated to me that he wished to give me this information, because if any vessels did attempt to run that channel, they were sure to meet with mishaps. I asked him if lie would give me the information under his own signature, which he did, and this is the statement he gave :
I,	John Stitt, of the village of Cardinal, in the county of Grenville, caretaker of Chain Tug, do hereby declare :
1.	That I was caretaker of this dredge during the last season (188S), that she was employed by Messrs. Gilbert Bros, making what is known as the Galops Channel.
2.	That I was on the dredge during the time she was working in that season, and constantly and repeatedly saw the soundings of the work done on each shcal taken.
3.	That the said dredge w'ent away from the following shoals in said channel, leaving the work in the following way, viz. :
1.	On or about July 16, 1888, she was working on North Shoal on cut No. 5, 169 feet east of O- she went away from here leaving a lump on which there was only ten feet of water. She never went back again and took it out, this is situated above what is called ' Island Shoal,' and below Adams Island and north of Caledonia Shoal.
2.	On or about October 6, 1888, she was working on Island Shoal on cut Nos. 3 and 4, 250 feet east of O. She went away from here leaving only fourteen feet of water, she never went back again and took it out.
On same shoal 200 feet east of O, on cut No. 7, she went away, leaving sixteen feet of water. On same shoal cut No. 2, she went away leaving sixteen feet and two-tenths.
On September 19, 188S, on lower bar, on cut No. 61, on three positions she went away, leav-Mr. REID (Grenville).
ing it within two feet of being grade. On or about July 9, 1888 at the head of Caledonia Shoal there was a large stone the tug Gilbert struck.
On cut No. 8, Island Shoal 35 feet east of O, there is a large stone that was never taken out.
On both sides of the channel the dredge piled the rocks up so that in places there was not over four or five feet of water, these rocks were put there then, could be seen then, and cam now be seen at any time.
4.	I saw Mr. Rubidge with the steamer ' Alert,' at the Galops during the last three days and have heard he was there resounding this channel and it is currently reported here that he found the channel correct, and if the full depth of seventeen feet with nine feet of water on the mitre sill, notwithstanding these statements, if such have been made by Mr. Rubidge. I positively state the above statements are true, and a proper sounding will show them to be true.
At the time I saw said soundings taken, I made memos, in my book, which are correct. I give this information feeling an unjust claim is being forced on the government.
(Sgd)	JOHN STITT.
Cardinal, May 25th, 1891.
I, Gideon Adams, have read the statements of John Stitt, and fully corroborate them. I have no hesitation in saying there is not seventeen feet of water in all of the new channel in Galops.
I was master of Messrs. Gilbert's tugs during the whole work, and never during the whole contract did Mr. Haycock take one sounding. W. A. Logan seemed to be the man who run the whole work. After the work was done and finally passed, I have struck on the sides of the bank with the tug ' Gilbert,' which only draws seven feet of water, and since the new channel has been made, I have been running the tug down through the channel and repeatedly saw bottom plainly, and I know from my experience that I could not see it if there was seventeen feet of water.
I also positively state that for one season G. H. Logan, a brother of W. A. Logan, who was chief man for Gilbert Bros., and who was getting a commission in the work dredged, took all the soundings and measurements himself (or his men), and no government man in it at all, when as we were informed this work was supposed to be done by W. A. Logan, they were never resounded, so that it was on these soundings, I believe that the government paid for the work.
(Sgd)	GIDEON ADAMS.
Ill addition there is a long statement, showing tiie soundings taken and showing that they are not of the proper depth. This was after the work had been completed and taken over by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What date V


John Dowsley Reid: May 25th, 1891. As soon as these men made these declarations before me, I appealed to the lion. Mr. Haggart, then Minister of Railways and Canals, for a thorough investigation. I took tiie stand that if these statements were true and any vessels ever attempted to navigate that channel, they would meet with mishap and perhaps loss of life. Mr. Haggart then gave instruction to Sir. Rubidge to investigate the charges. Mr. Rubidge was tiie man who had been iu charge of this work with engineers under him. However,

I said nothing until I got his report. He examined the work, and after examining it he could not take time to write a report but immediately telegraphed to Ottawa. ' Have finished the examination at Galops and have found no truth in the charge.' That was July Oth, 1889. Here is his first report after having made this examination
Cornwall, 16th June, 1891.
A. I*. Bradley, Esq.,
Secretary Department of Railways and Canals.
1.	That all points indicated by Mr. Reid, M.P., where obstructions were supposed to exist, were thoroughly examined by me under the direction of and with the assistance of Messrs. Stitt, Warner and McCartha, employees of the department, and Messrs. G. Adams, formerly employed by the contractors, and F. MacDonell, a young man representing Mr. Reid.
2.	That this examination occupied three days and resulted in our failure to discover the obstructions referred to in Mr. Reid's letter of the 6th May last to the late minister.
3.	That subsequently, and for several days, I was engaged in sounding with a view to obtain some characteristic cross sections of each of the
Re Galops Rapids Improvements.
Sir,-In reply to No. 84,792, 13th May, 1891, inclosing a letter from D. J. Reid, Esq., M.P., re the contract with Messrs. E. E. Gilbert & Sons, for making the new channel at the Galops Rapids.	,
I beg to state, that from the 21st to the 23rd of May last, I was personally engaged in making preliminary tests of the new channel, with this result, that at several points bottom was struck at a depth of sixteen feet (lowest water) but that owing to the limited means at my disposal I found it impossible to ascertain, whether at the point so struck, the bottom was composed of solid rock, or of the debris from rock blasted fine-this latter I considered most probable-but in order to at once set the matter at rest, I have to suggest, that a further and more searching examination be made at an early date, to accomplish which I purpose applying to the Messrs. Gilbert to assist me, and to furnish their tug the ' Gilbert' together with her necessary appliances for controlling her in the rapids.
The estimated cost of the proposed examination is as follows, viz. :
Tug 'Gilbert,' fully equipped	 800 00
Wire cable, 1,000 feet	 150 00
Tug 'Alert,' including scows, &c..	300 00
Total	$1,250 00
The above sum of $1,250, or so much thereof as may be required, I respectfully request authority to expend, in order that I may be in a position to submit a full report to the chief engineer on the present state of the new channel.
It is proposed to commence preparations at once in order that the soundings may be completed during the present high stage of the river.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd)	TOM. S. RUBIDGE,
Supt. Engineer.
Mr. Rubidge got instructions to go ahead *with the examination and expend $1,250. He then made this report:
Cornwall, 8th August, 1891.
A. P. Bradley, Esq.,
Secretary Department Railways and Canals, Ottaw'a.
Re Galops Rapids Improvements-Test.
Sir,-Referring to official letter No. 85211 of the 17th June last, authorizing me to proceed with the work of testing the character of the bottom of the new channel, but limiting the expenditure to my estimate therefor of $1,250, I beg to report :
shoals, in order to represent the present state of the bottom of the channel and compare it with that showrs on the cross section upon which the final estimate was based.
4. The channel was further tested to a depth of sixteen feet at low water, by running the tug up and down several times on the range marks without striking.
The result of my testing operations was generally satisfactory, sufficiently so to convince me that the contractors had conducted their work in good faith, and had honestly endeavoured to fulfil the terms of their contract to form a channel 200 feet in width and seventeen feet in depth at low water, and also that the resident! engineer and his staff had faithfully performed their duty. Nevertheless, Mr. Reid expresses great dissatisfaction with the test on the ground that it was not sufficiently extended, or was too hurriedly performed to disprove his charges.
For this reason, but more particularly with a view to obtain additional data whereby the contractor's unsettled claims may be intelligently dealt -with, I respectfully ask to be authorized to make a thorough survey of the channel and its approaches embracing the banks on either side, and such other portions thereof as may appear to me to be necessary, also to ascertain the strength and direction of the various currents, and to lay down permanent anchorages for buoys, where required, and generally to perfect the ranges and other leading marks, in order to inspire confidence in its safety, and thereby bring the new channel into general use.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd)	TOM. S. RUBIDGE,
Supt. Engineer.
Now', at this time, the investigation was over, and I was complaining to Hon. Mr. Haggart that Mr. Rubidge and his staff were entirely responsible for this trouble, that they had not performed their duties satisfactorily, but had allow'ed these contractors to go away and leave the channel in this shape ; and I demanded and insisted upon a disinterested party being placed there to investigate and make a report which w'ould not only satisfy me but v'ould satisfy the public generally and set the w'hole question at rest. Accordingly, Hon. Mr. Haggart wrote to Mr. John Kennedy, the chief engineer of the Montreal Harbour Board, and asked him if he would undertake this work of investigation and thus give the public confidence in the channel. Mr. Kennedy undertook the work. I need not read the correspondence, but I will read his report.:

Montreal, January 16, 1893. Collingwood Schrieber, Esq.,
Deputy Minister and Chief Engineer of Railways and Canals.
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-The examination of the new channel of the Galops rapids of the St. Lawrence was continued after my report of 19th September last, and, excepting in some minor items, it was completed as far as proposed with the closing of navigation. The plans and calculations are now finished, and I beg to report the result :- The method of conducting the examination was described in the former report buit for convenience the description may be here repeated in brief. The elevation of the entire dredged bottom as it now is was ascertained by levels taken on cross section lines above twenty-five feet apart and at points usually twelve and a half feet apart on these lines, but at closer distances at the hanks of the channel and other necessary places. The bottom grade line of seventeen feet below the surface of normal low water (which is when there is nine feet depth on the upper sill of the. entrance lock of the Galops canal) was deducted from a profile of the water surface of the channel taken when it was very near the normal low water stage. Since the former report, and at the request of the hen. Minister of Railways and Canals an effort was made to ascertain what the bottom consists of, and whether loose or solid, by the use of such appliances as could be readily obtained and could be used with the surveying steamer. Eor this purpose two appliances were used. One of these consisted of a steel bar supported and guyed by tackle at the steamer's side in such way as to hold it against the current, and at the same time to allow its being moved in various directions by hand, so that the bottom could in some measure, be felt as with a common pole. The bar was two and a half inches in diameter, and Its lower end was provided with a stout foot projecting six inches inside to one side. The other appliance consisted of a pair of stone grips or hinged grapples, of about four tons lifting capacity. worked by suitable tackle and steam winches. While either bar or grips were being used the steamer was moored by two anchors placed one ahead and one over one bow, with Cables carried to steam winches in such way that the boat could be held still or slowly moved about at pleasure.
The chief Items of general examination work are the following :-
Upper bar was cross-sectioned. A profile of the water surface was taken when there was nine feet and half an inch depth on the lock sill, for determining the bottom grade line. The bottom was swept over by the horizontal bar so as to find the areas clear for navigation at depths of 14 15, 16 and 17 feet at low water. The character of the bottom was tried at a great many points both by bar and grips.
The space between Upper Bar and the North and Caledonia shoals was tested for navigation by sweeping it over with the horizontal bar at a depth of seventeen feet at low water.
North and Caledonia shoals were both cross-sectioned, and the termination of the excavation at the sides of the .channel was determined. A profile of the water surface was taken when the water was at 8'95 to 9T5 feet on the lower sill for determining the bottom grade line. The areas clear for navigation on Caledonia shoal were found by sweeping at depths of 14, 15, 16 and 17 feet at low water.


John Dowsley Reid: Island shoal. The examination work was detailed in the report of the 19th September last, but for convenience is here repeated in brief. The shoal was cross-sectioned and the sides of the excavation determined. The areas clear for navigation were found by testing to depths of 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 feet at low water. The conditions for taking a profile of the low water surface on Island shoal were more favourable after the date of the September report than those which prevailed before, and a new profile was therefore made. This gives a grade line averaging about two inches higher than that deduced from the former profile, and alio nearer by that much to Mr. Rubidge's grade line. In order to secure exactness in figures this new grade has been adopted and.the excavation in Island shoal has been re-computed to agree with it, as hereafter noted.
The space between Island Shoal and Lower Bar was tested for navigable depth by sweeping it over with the horizontal bar at seventeen feet depth at low water. Lower Bar was cross-sectioned between the normal side lines of the channel. The side limits of the excavation outside the normal lines were not in all cases determined because the strength and irregularity of the current, as also the conditions of the banks made it impossible to do so without more time and more outlay for special appliances than appeared justifiable. A profile of the water surface was taken, when the depth on the lock sill was 9-1 to 9-15 feet- for determining the bottom grade.
The areas clear for navigation were found by sweeping with the horizontal bar to depths of 10J and 12 feet at low water.
Lower bar extension was cross-sectioned throughout. A profile of the water surface for determining the bottom grade line was taken when the depth on the sill was 9T to 9T5 feet.
The areas clear for navigation at various depths were ascertained by sweeping with the horizontal bar at depths of 121, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 feet at low water.
Quantities of Excavation.-In giving the quantities of excavation which follow there are conditions which require to be explained and noted.
1.	The quantity of excavation performed is to be understood as being that which is measured by the difference between the original bottom as it was before excavation was commenced and the bottom as It is now found. There are no exact data for computing it otherwise, nor in any condition previous to the present.
2.	It is to he particularly noted that the line of present bottom shown in the accompanying cross sections and from which the excavation is calculated, is its average height as ascertained by taking levels at the points indicated and drawing straight lines from point to point. This is a sufficiently correct factor for the computation of the quantity of excavations, but it must not be taken as having any relation to the navigable depth of water. The tests by the sweeping bar show that in large areas of the channel where the average depth is fully down to grade or even much below it, there are high grade points which make the depth available for navigation, or for any other present use to be very much less. These high points are in most cases more isolated rocks or stone snags, which count for nothing in cubic yards of excavation, because they only balance correspondingly deep holes, but they enormously affect the navigable depth of the channel. This suggests the desirability of some estimate of the contents or dimensions of these points alone, so

as to deal more intelligently with the problem of their removal down to grade, but this was not included in the scope of the examination, nor would it he practicable with accuracy or at any reasonable cost. Their location and the depth of water upon them has been found, and the areas of navigation which they affect are shown upon the plans accompanying this report, but more detailed measurement was not attempted. It is therefore to be understood that the quantities hereafter given are calculated from the average level of the bottom.
3.	For computing the quantities of excavation the original bottom has been taken from plans furnished by Mr. T. S. Rubidge, superintending engineer of the St. Lawrence canals. These plans consist of cross sections showing all parts of the bottom which were above the grade line adopted by him, and of a plan of the soundings taken on the preliminary survey of the channel. These preliminary soundings have been used only to determine the original bottom level of certain limited areas which .were below grade line and not shown upon the sections but upon which it was found excavation had been done. For all other parts, that is for all parts above Mr. Ru-bidge's grade line, the original bottom has been taken from the cross section. In the case of. the island shoal preliminary soundings are now available which were not so in September last. These have slightly altered the quantities on that shoal and have contributed to the need for recomputation.
4.	On lower bar the quantities outside the normal side lines of the channel, have not been computed because the banks were not fully defined as above noted. On lower bar extension no computation of the quantity below grade can be made, because of insufficient information as to the original bottom level, and this item was therefore omitted. The quantity outside of the normal side lines is also omitted because It cannot be satisfactorily defined and measured.
5.	The grade line now used in defining the excavations is the new one ascertained as already described. It differs somewhat from Mr. Rubidge's, mainly no doubt because it was taken from the low water surface as now found in the channel, while his was taken before the channel was excavated. The quantities of excavation performed in the parts of the channel named as computed from the data described and divided under the required headings are as follows :
These, it will be noted, comprise the excavation of the entire channel except that below grade and outside the normal side lines in the extension of lower bar and that outside the normal side lines of lower bar.
Navigable Depths.-The sweeping of the channel with horizontal bar in order to find the areas clear for navigation at different depths at low water of nine feet on the sill, gives the following main results, viz. :
Upper bar is clear to fourteen feet deep at low water but is not clear for fiftten feet.
North Shoal, in common with Dower Bar, has the shallowest water in the channel and is at one point clear to only ten and a half feet.
Caledonia Shoal is clear to fourteen feet but is not clear to fifteen feet.
Island Shoal is clear to twelve feet with exception of a short piece at the south bank.
Lower Bar is clear to only ten and a half feet.
Lower Bar extension is not clear to fourteen feet but is all clear to thirteen feet except at one small place which is clear only to twelve feet. The spaces between the several bars and shoals are all clear to seventeen feet.
Now, the minister will see by that report that on every shoal where these men were working they went away and left it with, you might say, only ten feet and a half of navigable water.
The areas which are clear at different depths in each of the bars are shown on the accompanying plans. The lines inclosing these areas it must be noted are not ordinary contour or shoal lines ; they are merely the boundaries of areas in each of which there are points having less water upon them' than the depth which the line signifies.
I may say that immediately on Mr. Kennedy's finding these spots-which were well known to Mr. Rubidge and the engineers, but on which they reported to have seventeen feet of water-they started a report in order to cover up their tracks, that these were spots on which loose rock had swept in this channel. Now here is what Mr. Kennedy states :
Character of Bottom.-The examination of the composition of the bottom with the steel bar and grips was not undertaken till November. The time which then remained to be devoted to such examination was necessarily brief and it was spent in trying the character of Upper Bar and Island Shoal as furnishing the best examples of two opposite conditions. The first was chosen because being at the head of the channel and well clear of any dumping ground it is a place where the bottom may be supposed to be least changed. The second was chosen because it is that into which loose stuff is most likely to have been carried and deposited by the cross current of the Gut. On the upper bar sixty-six places were examined by the steel bar. On probing as with an ordinary sounding pole the bottom almost invariably gave evidence of being rocky and firm ; nothing soft could be felt and very seldom anything at all loose. At some places the rock felt fairly smooth and level, at others jagged with small points and invariably on- feeling over any considerable space high points of rock were found which might be either projections of the solid or large detached pieces. On putting the bar upon the bottom and turning it round so that the projecting foot when revolving might drop into interstices and move anything movable, it was very seldom that any such thing could be found. The foot often dropped into well defined crevices at a particular point of each revolution, sometimes being freed, under strain and catching at the next revolution but often being held entirely fast until freed by. being lifted.
The bar used in this way had much displacing power because the foot was only six inches long, and there was a cross bar above water of two and a half feet long by which the strength of two or three men could be put upon it. The indications obtained were almost always that the bottom was of rock too firm to be disturbed, but whether of solid bed rock or of very heavy detached pieces could not be distinguished. Masses of rock of every size and shape were met with.
Some were undoubtedly projections of solid
rock, some had steep___or perpendicular sides
and others allowed of the foot of the bar being hooked under them. Of these latter some could be lifted up a foot or so before the hold was lost but in the majority of cases the bar hooked under something which could not be lifted but



from which the hold slipped on steam power being applied.
In a few instances the foot held fast and the rock could not be started with such lifting strains as could safely be used probably up to three tons. The indications of the bar are by no means clear or satisfying. As a whole, however, they lead to the belief that upper bar is of rock with practically no small loose stuff upon it, but having masses, some of solid and some of detached rock which project above the general surface and are the measure of the difference between the average bottom level found by sounding and the clear navigable depth found by sweeping with the horizontal bar.
The grips as already described have four feet breadth of opening and have gripping power sufficient to hold fast on a stone with parallel sides if of ordinary roughness. They were first used with two fingers on one arm and only on* on the other, so as to give easy penetration into interstices of rock, and they were afterwards fitted with two fingers on one arm and three on the other so as to more easily scatch small stones. They were rigged so that they could be placed where desired in spite of current, and either held rigidly upright or allowed to suit themselves to the bottom, and so they could be opened at pleasure or closed with force while held hard on the bottom.
They were tried in these different conditions in some twenty-three different places on upper bar, and nothing whatever could be picked up. Generally they scratched over the bottom and got no hold. In a few instances they- caught an imperfect hold and let go before much lifting strain was exerted. In two instances they got a better grip and held till the lifting strain reached three or more tons and then lost hold. It does not follow from this that there is nothing on the bottom which could not be grasped and lifted by a pair of four foot grips, but it shows that loose pieces of rock within their compass are so few that in about one hundred trials they got hold of none. Time did not permit of the grips being used elsewhere than on upper bar. On island shoal the bottom was examined with the steel bar and the indications were that its character is substantially the same as that of the upper bar, except that it is rougher and that in the spaces and holes between the masses of rock small loose stones are frequently felt. The composition of the bottom was not particularly examined in other parts of the channel, and the behaviour of the sounding rods and sweeping bar and the appearance of the cross sections indicate that it is all rough and rocky. Careful observations were made of the velocities and directions of the currents in different parts of the channel when the river -was at about low water stage in 1891, and the results are shown on an accompanying chart.
Yous respectfully,
(Sgd.) JOHN KENNEDY, C.E.
I may say to the hon. minister that there is a report from a straight, honourable, disinterested man, after these men in charge have had an opportunity of examining the channel and making two reports, which are entirely opposed to what Mr. Kennedy has reported. However, after this had been investigated in this way an arrangement was made, as I understand, with the Gilberts that they were to clear out this channel and see that it was 17 feet in depth, and


John Dowsley Reid: the government were to pay them so much per day for doing this work, but the Gilberts were not to be paid for taking out any rock they could find that was solid. So far as I can learn, they were paid for every day they were there, and they never gave the government to understand that there was any solid rock found. I protested against the work on this channel being proceeded with when I came to this House, I protested against these men being allowed to leave the channel in that condition, and I protested against the arrangement made by them that they were to take out what they would only admit was loose rock. I never can believe that the department made an arrangement under which they were to pay them by the day, and pay them such an enormous amount. The people there could not believe that any government would pay $425 a day for a dredge, a tug and a couple of scows. Statements have been made that it required special plant to do this work. The plant that these parties had consisted of a good tug and good scows, but the whole important part of that plant was a dredge, and that dredge is simply an ordinary small dredge. It is an old dredge. The whole plant to-day is not worth $15,000, and why the government would think of paying $425 a day for it is something I cannot understand. Of course, I believe that it has been pressed upon the government that there was this great danger, and that the Gilberts had a very expensive plant. If the hon. minister will take a look at that plant, I am sure he would not put it at any ordinary work. It has been there since a year ago last fall, and while every other dredge is busy the Gilberts cannot get any work for it that would pay the company, because the dredge, as I am informed, is not fit to do any work. Let us see what the government pay other parties for dredging plant. I find that in 1902, according to the Auditor General's Report, the government paid Mr. Me-Auliffe for dredging work at Trenton, done by a small dredge similar to that of the Gilberts, a tug and scows, $8 an hour, or $80 a day for ten hours, or $96 a day for twelve hours. W. E. Phin, for dredging at Toronto harbour, from June 3 to October 23, received $8 an hour, making $80 a day of ten hours, or $96 a day for twelve hours.
I understand that 12 hours was supposed to constitute a day for the Gilbert Dredging Company. The Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company received for the services of the dredge ' Lockerbie,' from November 10 to December 2, 14 days, $100, and for 6 days $50. They also received for the use of the tug ' Vic ' $9 a day for 20 days. Bowman & Company, of Port Elgin, received for the services of the dredge ' Hackett ' $8 an hour, or $80 a day of ten hours. The Owen Sound Dredging Company received for the services of dredge ' No. 9 ' and plant, from May 13 to August 27. $8 an hour, or $80 a day of ten hours. The Owen Sound

Dredging Company received for the services of dredge ' No. 9 ' and plant at Midland har-born- $10 an hour. The Marlton Dredging Company received for services of the dredge ' Arnoldi ' and plant in Goderich harbour $8 an hour. Now, I come to the government dredges. First there is the dredge 'St. Lawrence,' which the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) stated the other night in this House cost new $15,364.
The average cost per day for running that dredge was $76.82, and yet I should say that she was twice as large as the Gilbert dredge Here is the dredge 1 New Brunswick ' a dredge similar in size to the Gilbert dredge and she cost $7,368, and the average cost for running her per day is $36.84. The dredge ' Challenge ' cost $8,903, and the average cost per day for running that dredge is $44 50 The dredge ' Nipissing ' cost $10,307 and the average cost per day for running her is $51. The dredge ' Ontario ' cost $7,338, and the average cost per day for running her is $36.69. The dredge ' Sir Richard ' cost $6,044, and the cost per day for running her was $30. I see here an account: paid A. D. Cameron for, dredge ' Nithsdale,' tug and scows, 206 days at $40 per day. I see here an account of the Canadian Construction Company at Farren's Point, right on the St. Lawrence for a better dredging outfit than the Gilbert Company have :	Use of
dredge, 642 hours at $12 an hour ; scows 409 hours at $2 per hour ; tug, 420 hours at $6 per hour, making $20 an hour for the whole dredging outfit. I see in the Auditor General's Report an account from M. A. Cleveland, who is working within half a mile of Gilbert, and who would be ashamed to admit that his dredge is not twice as good as Gilbert's ; he gets $10 an hour for his dredge, $2 an hour for his tug, and fifty cents an hour for his scow, or $150 a day for his whole plant. I have met many of these contractors and I have asked them if they made any money at these prices, and they said of course they did and any one of them would be delighted to take this contract in the Galops at these prices. Here is an account from Larkin & Sangster who are working at Iroquois three or four miles from the Gilberts ; they charge $7 an hour for their dredge, 75 cents an hour for their scow, and $6 an hour for their tug., William Davis & Sons who are working half a mile from the Gilbert people charge for their dredge and crew $7.50 an hour, dump scow, 50 cents an hour, and tug and crew, $4 an hour. Here is the government again, and the dredge ' Prince Edward ' she cost $16,357 ; she is a very large dredge and it costs $81.88 a day to run her. The dredge ' New Dominion ' cost $42,078, and it costs $60.39 a day to run her. Everybody knows that it is supposed to cost more to run a government dredge than a private dredge. The dredge ' George MacKenzie ' cost $10,049.83, and it takes $50.24 a day to run her The dredge ' Canada ' cost $15.S63 and it takes
263*
$79.31 a day to run her. I find in the Auditor General's Account for 1902, that T. F. Moore is paid an account for services of the dredge F. F. M., tug and scows, 504 hours at $8 an hour. I mention these instances to prove to the minister that these private dredges simply cost $100 a day for the whole dredging outfit, and that the highest cost per day of the government dredges runs from $35 to $75. In view of these figures the minister will see that $425 a day is an outrageous price to pay the Gilberts, and I may say that the people of that locality are complaining bitterly of this enormous extravagance. I find from the Auditor General's Report that the Gilberts got their draw, back of ten per cent paid them last year, and as I understood, that settled up the whole claim in full. Last year the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) admitted to me'that the whole work was completed ; and if these contractors went on after the 1st of July last year, they would do so at their own risk ; that they should not have gone on without instructions from the department, and therefore if they did so, they are not entitled to this $25,000. I appeal to the minister and to the government in the interest of the country that this expenditure should not be continued. I have made this appeal in vain to the late Minister of Railways and Canals. The work is not necessary, and I am satisfied that if the deputy minister and chief engineer of Railways and Canals were put on his honour, he would not disagree with me. I believe that he would say that under the present conditions the vessels coming down the north channel through the Cleveland works and using the present lock going up ; this work on the Gilbert contract is not necessary at all and will never be used. Why these contractors should be continued as a leech on the government at such an enormous cost to the country, is something that I cannot understand. It is time it should be stopped.
I should like to hear from the acting minister whether the government intend to continue this extravagance. The work cannot be proceeded further this year, and the new Minister of Railways and Canals will have ample opportunity of going into the matter befoi'e the next session of parliament. I appeal to the government not to vote money for the work now so that the new minister may not be harassed by these people and their friends to proceed with the work. I believe in all sincerity that the government should drop any appropriation for the work until next session of parliament, between now and which time the new minister will have ample opportunity to look into the matter and be enabled to give his candid opinion upon it. I trust that the government, will take my suggestion on this, because I believe it would be in the best interest of the country that they should do so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already spoken, Mr. Speaker, but with your

permission, I trust I may be allowed to say a few words. I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) supposed that we are now dealing with the appropriation of the coming year which of course has not yet been reached, although 1 stated that it had been the intention of the late minister to proceed with this work during the coming year, and that an appropriation for that purpose is being asked for in the estimates. That, however, is not the particular item that is now before us. If the House at a later day should grant the sum which is in the main estimates, of course the Minister of Railways and Canals, whoever he may be, will have to consider all that has been said on the subject, and judge for himself whether or not he will deal with this work in the manner in which it has been dealt with in the past. The vote we are asking for now is entirely for the payment of past work, and although, as I have indicated, the minister had it in his mind to proceed with it, it does not neces-sarilv follow that he is bound to spend the $75,000 asked for in the main estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did you go on with the work last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not last year.	This	is	to	pay _ for	workthat was	done	in	a	previous	year,
which was the subject of discussion last-session, but for which no appropriation was taken. My hon. friend from Grenville has read a number of letters, most of them very venerable, from away back in the year 1888, which after all only prove that doctors differ. He has read letters from a number of people in the transportation business who do not think the channel is necessary. We could also produce letters from people in the transportation business who say that the channel is very necessary, and who are anxious that the government should continue it. That is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion. The hon. gentleman seems to be very much in the position of the juryman who said that he had never met with eleven such stupid jurymen in bis life, because they would not agree with him. It is the hon. gentleman's misfortune to differ with all the engineers. That work was commenced by Mr. Page, for many years the chief engineer of canals; it was continued by Mr. Trudeau, his successor, and ' by Mr. Rubidge, than whom no man understands the St. Lawrence better. He has lived almost half a century on that river, and we ought to yield very much to his judgment. The hon. gentleman has appealed to the present deputy minister and chief engineer. All I can say is that the work is continued with the hearty concurrence of the deputy minister and chief engineer on the ground that whatever may have been the opinions with regard to it in the past, after so large a sum of money has been spent on the work, it is a wise course to proceed with it and finish it. My. hon. friend


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: read the report of Mr. John Kennedy, a very estimable engineer connected with the Montreal harbour board ; but all he said was not that the work was not very useful, but that it had not been completed. I think I am justified in saying that the work was suspended for a time under the impression that it was completed, but when it was) found that it was not, further estimates were asked for, and we ask the present estimate in the light I have stated, that although there have been differences of opinion among the transportation people, and possibly among the people of the community, on the subject, it is the fact that many engineers who had the confidence of the government and who were high in their profession, recommended this work, and it has been carried on for years with the hearty concurrence of Mr. Rubidge. As to the charges, it is only fair to say, that these cover more than the mere dredge, and include a variety of other plant. I must confess that my oWn knowledge of dredging plant is not enough to enable me to say whether it is a fair sum or not; but the ministeri who made the contract considered it a fair sum, and was advised that it was fair by Mr. Rubidge. However, in view of the immense sum of money, approaching $1,000,000, spent on that work, we think it is the part of wisdom to go on and spend the small sum necessary to finish it and make it available for the transportation of the country.


John Graham Haggart: Has the plan been changed any ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, for the purpose of widening the channel from 200 to 300 feet.


John Graham Haggart: When was that plan changed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whatever work was done in recent years was done under that plan of 300 feet in width.
Mr. REII) (Grenville). I understood that last year those parties went there with their plant, without any instructions whatever from the government, and, if so, they were there at their own risk. Then, I suppose the hon. minister is aware that this whole channel, where he is spending all his money, is on the American side of the river. It does seem strange to me that, if we are to depend on making a channel there, it should be done by the American government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised that this work is not on the American side. Some of the dam is on the American side, but this work is not.


John Dowsley Reid: I will tell the minister what gives me the impression that it is. The minister is, of course, aware that there is a duty on American coal coming into this country, and when this firm started

this work a number of years ago, they refused to pay any duty on the coal they used on it. They appealed to the Department of Railways and Canals, and that department, under their own signature, certified that this work was all on the American side of the river, and these parties never paid any duty on the coal they used on the work. I can prove that, if necessary. I know that, because I remember the appeal being made, and a certificate was given by an engineer of the government that this work was on the American side of the river. I think Upper Bar is on the Canadian side, but three-fourtha of this work is on the American side. As for the work being of any use to marine men, I am quite satisfied that the hon. minister cannot produce any of the best marine men who will take one of the large steamers down. It is true, a very small steamer will run down there ; but the large steamers run the old channel, which they have run for thirty or forty years.
There does not appear to be any more than nine feet of water. I understood that some little time ago the Gilbert people went around hawking a petition among the captains, asking them to sign it. This petition was for the purpose of getting this work going again for their benefit, and it can be easily supposed that some steamboat captains would sign the petition in order to help these people. I know for a fact that all the time that these parties were there they never expected that this work would be used. They aiways felt that they had a sinecure for'life. It was suggested to me several times that if I would not do anything, they could keep this work going as long as they liked. I can quite well understand that the hon. minister is not aware of the condition of affairs, but I have lived all my life within a mile of the rapids and know what I am talking about. Of course, Mr. Rubldge has been on the river a great many years, but if hon. gentlemen heard the reports of these steamboat men, they would not have the impression that Mr. Rubidgei knew it all. These men navigate the river and know exactly how the currents run. I must say that the work done in what is called the north channel is an excellent work. Nothing could be more needed. When the government undertook the work, it was very expensive, and one of the reasons given was that if the old channel were used, the steamboats would have to go through American waters. The engineers, therefore, took this very expensive route, which makes a splendid channel, to avoid going through American waters. But now that we have had all this expenditure made and got the channel into good shape, these people seem to be able to influence the government every year to continue placing a large amount in the estimates simply to keep them going. The north channel and the deepening of the old channel to
the lock which was put in when enlarging the Galops canal to Iroquois is a good piece of work and one that will always be very useful. Why the government continue giving these people money every year I cannot understand. I have been making this appeal year after year, and was in hopes that this year the government would see its way clear to put an' end to the expenditure. If they continue this expenditure, I will have to continue opposing it, and see if it is not possible to put an end to what the people in that locality consider an outrage and a scandal. I would rather see the government put an amount in the estimates to pension off this firm, because in that way the government would save from $100,000 to $200,000 per year.
I shall therefore have to move that this item of $25,000 be struck out. I do not believe that this firm ever earned it. I am satisfied that if the government should place that other amount in the estimates and allow these people to continue, the government will have in the end a scandal in their hands. I have been urging the minister from year to year to drop this work, be-, cause it is no earthly use, and if he cannot see his way clear to do so, I can only continue protesting. I move that this item be struck out.


John Graham Haggart: When was that contract changed?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Respecting the width, in 1897.


John Graham Haggart: The width extended ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, by the contract made in 1897. That contract refers to additional work, which must mean tile increasing of the width. If that is not so, I will have to try and get information later.


John Graham Haggart: The deputy minister should know that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was done under that contract in the time of the late minister. I cannot give the precise date.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think the late minister changed the width at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised he did.


John Graham Haggart: The first contract was let by Mr. Mackenzie in 1878. The total prism quantities were 200 feet and the depth then perhaps would money out about $312,000. In 1896 there was paid to Mr. Gilbert by the department and on a judgment of the Exchequer Court, $629.<W0. The contract was not extended in 1897. For the prism quantities only the amount required was $312,000 in 1S96. The amount paid by my predecessor and by myself and on the judgment of the Exchequer Court

was $329,000. These parties were paid in full, and they; had no other claim. The contract has not been extended from that day to the present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was a new contract in 1897 to continue the work.


John Graham Haggart: To clean it out and at a rate per day, which was paid before for the dredge, but the extra width was not contracted for in 1897.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Haggart) judgment ought to be better than mine.


John Graham Haggart: 
John Graham Haggart: vote of $50,000 last year, and for what ? Not, as he said, for a work which had been authorized and done, but for the purpose of paying a percentage or drawback due to the contractors, and also a small sum of $15,000 to remove such rocks as had fallen into the prism of the canal. Here is what the minister said on May 1st, 1902 :
But simply for the purpose of removing the rock which has already been disturbed and is lying loose on the surface, and is, I am told, an obstruction to navigation. I cannot say that I see any particular advantage myself in having the work continued, since the canal will afford all the navigation that is necessary.
Then the minister, justifying the expenditure of even this small amount, said :
The appropriation, I am advised by the chief engineer, is necessary-not for the purpose of continuing the work, I do not propose to ask parliament for any money beyond this, a part of which is needed to pay the drawback. There is the amount of the drawback which we have to pay out of that $50,000. . . . There is nothing in the estimates inserted with any intention to continue this expenditure or to continue this work.
I asked if any report had been received by the department or any estimates prepared for this work. I had the assurance of the minister that no account had come into the department for any work being done upon that canal or any certificate from the engineer. He gave the promise that the work would not be continued. But in spite of that, we have now a further expenditure of $25,000 asked for, and also $75,000 in the other estimates to. continue the work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The minister's statement last year with respect to continuing that work would not necessarily be at variance with this item, though it might be at variance with the item in the main estimates. The sum now under discussion is entirely for past payments. With regard to the statement that no work is being done and no certificate given, of course, that would be a grave matter. All I can say is that the engineer has reported that these people have done work to that amount, and has certified accordingly.


John Graham Haggart: All I say is that I give the statement of the Minister of Railways last year, made on the authoritv of the chief engineer, that he had no demand for any claims on the work last year. The statement was made in this House that there was no work of that kind. This item,
I understand, is for payment of work done last year, but, as I understand the minister, there is another item to come down for $75,000 for the continuance of the work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is already down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the item now under discussion for work done last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For work done the year before last. It was the

subject of discussion last year, but the work was done the year before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was here when the discussion took place. The minister had no information that the work was going on, and distinctly intimated that, so far as he knew, no contract would be given in future. And now we are given to understand that the work is likely to go on. What reason is given for this change ? In view of the case made out by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), and the facts he has presented here during the last two or three years, the continuance of this work by the government is a burning scandal, it is a disgrace to the government and to the country. When Mr. Kennedy, a disinterested and capable engineer, made the report he did, declaring that there was not the depth of water and there was not the condition of bottom that Mr. Rubidge had reported, and when, without making further inquiries or satisfying themselves of the truth or falsity of that report, the government go on with this work, we certainly have a condition things that the country would not have expected. For the government to continue it now, leaves an impression on my mind that there is something behind it that neither the country nor this House knows, as otherwise it would not be continued. Now it is said that the government engineers have reported on this from time to time. So they have, but as the minister says himself, Mr. Rubidge has practically lived on the St. Lawrence river for years :	he has been doing the
same work for the same contractors for years : and it is a fact that cannot be denied that we sometimes have engineers playing into the hands of the contractors In a way that is neither creditable to themselves nor in the interest of the country. Now, grave suspicions have been aroused that that may be the case at the present time, and I am justified in coming to that conclusion from the fact that Mr. Kennedy, an entirely disinterested party, made a contrary report. The minister himself has not said one word to discredit the professional ability of Mr. Kennedy, and his report is the very antipodes of that of Mr. Rubidge. Now in face of that fact the government is going to commence work again after telling us that last year it was closed up for the purpose of effectually wiping it off the books, and they were paying a percentage which up to that time had been held back for the due fulfilment of the work. Now we are told that the work is going on again.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing being done now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a sum in the estimates for that purpose. Then why should we go on until we know more about it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not reached it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it must have been considered by council, and the minister is responsible for what has passed in council. These estimates are before this House, and in face of the allegations made by an hon. member of this House and who is in a position to know, in face of the letters that have been read from respectable captains who have been on that river for a quarter of a century, in face of the affidavits that have( been read to this House, the government are going to go on with it, notwithstanding the burning scandal that exists. I say that if the government continue that work they will do it at their own peril, and an indignant public will rise up against them and condemn them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: With regard to what the hon. gentleman said about Mr. Kennedy, I hope there is no misunderstanding. Certainly I would not attempt to discredit Mr. Kennedy, for I have had the pleasure of knowing him for twenty years ; he is an eminent engineer, a gentleman of high standing. But I wish to point out that Mr. Kennedy did not report on the question whether the work was useful or not ; he reported that the work had not been completed, had not been done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did he not report that he found only fourteen feet of water where it was declared in this House there were seventeen feet, and where Mr. Rubidge reported there were seventeen feet ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Even if he did, that might be the best possible reason why we should proceed to get seventeen feet of water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not discredit Mr. Rubidge who had made this report, and against whose report Mr. Kennedy reported
after a careful examination that instead of seventeen feet of water there were only twelve, fourteen, fifteen feet, and in some cases not that much.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then if it discredited the report of Mr. Rubidge it also discredited the late government. If Mr. Rubidge was a discredited official, why did they keep him there and continue him doing that work ? This report was made in the time of the late government, all these documents which the hon. member for Grenville has read related to the time of the late government, the whole transaction relates to the time of the late government. The hon. gentleman should be more careful about raising suspicions in that unpleasant way, he should not hit his neighbours in that unpleasant way.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the minister that though Mr. Rubidge's report was made in 1891, Mr. Kennedy's report was made at the same time. But after these reports were made the work was absolutely stopped right there. Mr. Rubidge had been

in the service of the government for, I suppose, forty years, and I presume the government felt that the men who were underneath him were to blame. The minister asks why did they not dismiss Mr. Rubidge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not complaining.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the minister to be fair. Mr. Rubidge was the engineer in charge of canals on the river from Montreal to Trenton. He had under him several contracts ; he had two at Cornwall, one at Farran's Point, one at Mor-risburg and a couple at Cardinal. On each of these contracts he had an engineering staff, that is, an engineer and two assistants. When this matter was brought up and my charge was proved, proved to the entire satisfaction of the minister, the hon. gentleman the Finance Minister asks why they did not dismiss Mr. Rubidge. Simply because the then minister brought Mr. Rubidge before him, and Mr. Rubidge threw up his hands and said :	These men underneath
me were doing the work ; I had to depend on them, my work is from Cornwall to Belleville. But the engineers who were in charge of that work were promptly dismissed by the minister.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They did not dismiss the right person, they should have dismissed Mr. Rubidge.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Rubidge was travelling and superintending the whole of them. But the other engineers in charge of the work, the men that should take the soundings, made reports to Mr. Rubidge from time to time, on which he acted. The only trouble was where Mr. Rubidge made an examination afterwards, that is where he was to blame and liable to censure. But the other engineers were promptly dismissed, and the work was promptly stopped. Now there is one great question about this work going on. There is a general complaint that if that work is proceeded with and more cuttings done there, it is going to lower the St. Lawrence above. Now there was a judgment of the Exchequer Court for $173,000. This firm sued the government for what they claimed was below grade. The government had paid and settled up with them., in full for making seventeen feet of water, but in order to get seventeen feet they claimed that the dredge had to go a little below seventeen feet, and it was for this extra below grade that they were paid $173,000. They then assured the court and the government that there was not only seventeen feet but more than seventeen feet of water because they had to go below seventeen feet to get the required seventeen feet. Notwithstanding all that, it was found out afterwards that they had left a space of 104 feet The original contract was for 200 feet, and any person would reasonably sup-


John Dowsley Reid: pose that a vessel would go through a channel 200 feet wide when the vessel itself was only thirty-five feet wide. But I wish to state to the minister, knowing the place thoroughly as I do, living on the spot, and being around these rapids all my life-time, that it is really an impossibility, and will be, no matter what) we do, for these large vessels, to go down that channel. I meet at least every week men interested in the marine business, and there is not one of them that will admit to me that they will ever go down these rapids and take the chances, with a vessel of any size or with a load.
At the present time only small vessels are running down this channel. In fact, vessels go by way of the old channel just asl much as they do by this one. I know exactly how this thing is brought about. These people have sufficient influence to get the government to give them something to do, and in making this expenditure the government are not only giving rise to a scandal but they are injuring navigation above that point. If they put that through it will lower the level of the water in the north channel, and they will have to have Cleveland's channel, which is a very good channel, deepened. It would be a very good channel to-day if they only made it 17 feet in depth, but by making another cut through the rapids it will result in increasing the flow and giving a lower depth of water in the northern channel. If any person will go through the Cleveland channel into the canal and then through the lock, he will see that there could be nothing more suitable to navigation than that. I sincerely hope that the government will consider the matter and not go on with the work, but in the meantime, knowing that the Exchequer Court has settled up this claim in full, and after hearing the statement of the minister last year that the amount was only required to pay the drawback, I insist that these people are not entitled to this $25,000, and therefore I have no hesitation in moving that the item be struck out.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There is one question that has not been fully answered by the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) makes a statement that this money is being expended in the United States. He lives on the ground, and if that is correct I think the hon. minister should stay his hand until he is perfectly assured that no part of this money is being spent in American territory.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am so fissured. There are two or three different works going on in that neighbourhood. There is a dam being constructed in connection with the work in that vicinity, and one end of it is upon an American island, and possibly this has led to some confusion. At all events, I am advised that there is no part of this work being done in Ameri-

can territory, and that it is entirely in Canadian territory.


John Dowsley Reid: I can prove that a part of it is being done in American territory by correspondence in the department of the lion. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). This dam was only proposed to be built within the last two or three years. It never was in the original contract at all.
I know that for a fact, and I Will guarantee to prove it by the correspondence in the Department of Customs. These parties wrote to the Department of Customs and got a statement that the collector at Cardinal need not charge the contractors,duty if they procured a certificate from the Department of Railways and Canals. I make the statement on the floor of this House, and I am prepared to back it up that a portion of this work is In American waters, and that these contractors were relieved from duty on obtaining a certificate from the Department of Railways and Canals. I saw the certificate at the time. I know it was forwarded to Ottawa. I know that the customs offlcer at Cardinal had to get instructions from the Customs Department at Ottawa instructing him that it was all right for him not to collect the duty, because the certificate of the Department of Railways and Canals showed that the work was done in American waters.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think a statement that the contractor submitted that it was in American waters would necessarily prove that we are wrong. I am quite satisfied that the channel is in Canadian waters, and I am bound to act upon that information.


John Dowsley Reid: Three-quarters of the work which is being done is in American waters. It is in the form of a large circle around an island. What is called the upper bar is in Canadian waters, while the other part is in American waters, and I know that if the hon. Minister of Customs will look it up, probably about the year 1888, or back there, he will find a certificate from the Department of Railways and Canals, or from the engineers of the department, proving that the work is in American waters. This certificate was' forwarded to Ottawa and the collector got a letter back from the Department of Customs that in view of this certificate, they could not collect duty on the coal used on the dredge while doing the work.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: About what year was that ?


John Dowsley Reid: During 1888.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But this work was done in 1902.


John Dowsley Reid: 1902 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: What work does the hon. minister mean ?
The	MINISTER	OF	FINANCE.	The
work that we are taking this vote for.


John Dowsley Reid: That we are now doing in this channel ?
The	MINISTER	OF	FINANCE.	Yes,
there may be one part on the American side and one part in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: There are three-quarters of it in American waters.
The	MINISTER	OF	FINANCE.	The
question is, is this work being done in American waters.


John Dowsley Reid: It must be.	This
was done for the purpose of clearing out these rocks that had drifted into the channel, and therefore if they were doing that, certainly part of it was in American waters and part in Canadian waters. I understand from general talk around there that these contractors were supposed to have cleared all this out. But these parties have not hesitated to say that they can handle the government, and they can get a contract to widen the channel, but they do not want anything said about it, believing that they could slide itl through. I am satisfied that the government by doing this work are only going to injure the waters above. It is not necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the hon. minister give us any idea as to what the depth of the water is now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, depth of water it not what we desire now. Some blasting had been done, and rocks were left in the channel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. minister to say that there has been no work done since last year?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. minister told us that there were 17 feet of water.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid there is not 17 feet of water where these rocks are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This matter has created so much suspicion that I think the hon. minister should stop the work until he gets a reliable report upon it. The government engineers, it has been proved by Mr. Kennedy, did wrong before, and the hon. Minister of Finance seemed to think that be had a good argument in the report that it was done by friends of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and that when it was brought to the attention of the minister he stopped it because he could not rely on tlie report of the engineer, and he sent out some oflier engineers to inquire into it. This would seem to be sufficient to arouse such

suspicion in the mind of the hon. Minister of Finance as to cause him to inquire into the situation. In addition to that we have the statement made by an hon. member of this House on his responsibility as a member, by one who lives right in the locality, who has been there all his lifetime and who ought to know the facts. Then, this hon. gentleman's statement is backed up by affidavits and letters from some of the most respectable, the most responsible and the most intelligent men who have been navigating . the St. Lawrence for the last 25 years, many of whom I know personally to be men of integrity and truthfulness, and men who know what they are talking about. If the hon. minister, with all this information in his possession, insists on carryng out this work he will be doing something that will be a scandal and a disgrace to this government.
House divided on the motion (Hon. Mr. Fielding).
That resolution 296 for the deepening and widening of the Galops rapids, $25,000, be now
concurred in.	YEAS : Messieurs
Bernier,	Loy,
Bourbonnais,	McCarthy,
Brown,	McGugan,
Bureau,	Mclsaac,
Calvert,	McLennan,
Christie,	Madore,
Cowan,	Marcil (Bagot),
Desjardins,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Erb,	Morrison,
Ethier,	Mulock (Sir William),
Fielding,	Paterson,
Fisher,	Prdfontaine,
Fortier,	Puttee,
Gibson,	Riley,
Holmes,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Kendall,	Russell,
Hughes (King's,	P.E.I.), Stewart,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Turgeon.-36.
 NAYS : Messieurs	
Avery,	Gourley,
Blain,	Hackett,
Broder,	Halliday,
Clancy,	MacLaren (Perth),
Clare.	Sprouie,
Clarke,	Taylor,
Earle,	Thomson (Grey).-14.
Beith,	Birkett,
Campbell,	Bruce,
Eickerdike.	Cargill,
Wade,	Cochrane,
Galliher,	Culbert,
Grant,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Mackie,	Kendry,
McCreary,	Lancaster,
Roche (Halifax),	Maclean,
Talbot,	Monk,
Ross (Ontario),	Rosamond,
Schell.	Smith (Wentworth),
Tucker,	Tolton,
Power,	Wilson.
Matheson,	Richardson,
Macdonald,	McGowan,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
MeColl.	Ward.
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Harty.	Reid (Grenville),
Gauvreau,	Ganong,
McKinnon,	Roddick.
Smith (Vancouver),	Hale,
Davis,	Hughes (Victoria),
Parmelee.	Pope,
Bazinet.	Alcorn,
Johnston (Cape Breton)	Bennett,
McCool,	Brock.
Belcourt,	Calvin.
Costigan,	Carscallen.
Gallery,	Casgrain,
German,	Henderson,
Law,	Kemp,
McPherson,	Kidd,
Sifton,	Lennox,
Stephens,	McIntosh,
Tolmie,	Osier.
Ross (Yukon),	Seagram,
Me E wen,	Sheritt,
Wright,	Vrooman,
Wallace,	Wilmot,
Fitzpatrick,	Leonard.
Heyd.	Pringle.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['It was so stated to-day, I am informed.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These items have been collected by the proper officers of the House and are found to amount to $2,977,053.73. I beg to move :
That the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means to consider a supply to be granted to His Majesty. .


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and tlie House went into committee to consider the following resolution.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck), Cartwright (Sir Rich'd.l Dyment.
Emmerson,
Charlton,
Guthrie,
Sutherland, (Hon. J.), Fraser,
Tobin,
Scott,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Martineau.
Ingram,
Tupper,
McCormick.
Fowler,
Tisdale,
Porter,
Haggart,
Bell,
Ball,
Boyd,
Kaulbach,
Borden (Halifax), Barker,
['These items have been collected by the proper officers of the House and are found to amount to $2,977,053.73. I beg to move :\nThat the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means to consider a supply to be granted to His Majesty. .']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Resolved that towards making good a supply to be granted to His Majesty for certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 30th June, 1903, the sum of $2,977,053.73 be granted out of the consolidated revenue of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 241) for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money required to defray certain expenses of the public service for the year ending 30th June, 1903.

llotion agreed, Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
-'ll'- CLARKE. I beg to call the attention of the government to the following cablegram which appears in the Ottawa 'Free Press ' of this evening :

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Method of Calling for Tenders Might be Better.
London, Aug. 8th.-1The ' Graphic ' to-day referring to the manner in which Canada invites tenders, says that the injustice of the arrangement is so obvious that the government can hardly fail to redress the grievance.
Is the Minister of Finance aware of what tenders this cablegram refers to ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. I am not able to answer my hon. friend.


John Graham Haggart: What is the business for to-morrow V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: According to notice the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill will come up on the resolution on which the Bill is founded.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any notice that you will proceed with it de die in diem?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There has been no formal notice, but I think that is the intention of the Prime Minister.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The Prime Minister so stated this afternoon.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was so stated to-day, I am informed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 11, 1903.