1903-10-22

[Stage Direction]
FIRE PROTECTION OF STATIONS &c TERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.' ''
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	How many stations, freight sheds, and restaurants are there under control cf the government on the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	What precautions have been taken to protect such properties from loss by fire ?
3.	If any protection is provided for any of such buildings, what are the names of those so protected ?
4.	What losses have there been by fire, and the cause of the same, in the past two years ?
["The Minister of Marine aud Fisheries can't wait.\nAmendment negatived.\nBill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed."]
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) :
1.	Stations, 252 ; freight sheds, 76 ; restaurants, 1.
2.	The railway takes usual and reasonable precautions according to the locality and the importance of the buildings to protect them from loss by fire. Some are protected by water pipes, fire hydrants and hose, others by tanks, and others by portable fire extinguishers, and some by wells.
3.	Halifax, Wellington!,. Shubienacadie), Truro, Debert, Wentworth, Oxford Junction, Athol, Aulac, College Bridge, Moncton, Anaj gance, Norton, Lakeside, Quispamsis, Brook-1 ville, Canaan, Kent Junction, Derby Junction, Red Pine, Beliedune, Eel . River, Flat Lands, Assametquaghan, Sayabec, St. Flavin, St. Fabien, Isle Verte, St. Alexandre, St. Phillippe de Neri, Ste. Louise, St. Yalier, St. Joseph, Chaudigre Curve, De Lotbiuigre, Lavergne, St. Leonard Junction, St. Cyrille, Bagot, Pictou, New Glasgow, Scotsburn, Tatamagouclie, Pugwash Junction, Richmond. Enfield, Stewiacke, Dartmouth, East Mines, Westchester, River Phillip, Maccan, Sackville, Memramcook, Boundary Creek, I'enobsquis, Bloomfield, Nauwigewauk, Rothesay, Cold Brook, Coal Branch, Rogers-ville, Newcastle, Gloucester Junction, Jac-quet River, Dalhousie Junction, Matapedia, Causapscal, St. Moise, Rimouski, St. Simon, St. Arsfine, St. Andre, L'lslet, St. Michel, Levis, Cliaudiere Junction, Kingsburg Junction, Daveluyville, Ste. Perpetue, Drum-mondville, St. Henri, Brown's Point, Trenton, Meadowville, Maiagash, Pugwash, Bedford, Elmsdale, Alton, Waverly, Londonderry, Greenville, Salt Springs, Nappan, Dorchester, Calhouns, Salisbury, Sussex, Passekeag, Jubilee, Riverside, St. John, Adamsville, Barnaby River, Beaver Brook, Bathurst, New Mills, Campbellton, St. Alexis, Amqui, Little Mjetis, Sacre Coeur, Tirois Pistoles, Cacouna, Ste. Helene, RiviSre Ouelle, Montmagny, _ St. Charles Junction, Hadlow, St. Apollinaire, Moose Park, Aston Junction, Mitchell, St. Germain, Nicolet, West-ville, Pictou Landing, River John, Wallace, Conn's Mills, Windsor Junction, Milford, Brookfield, Belmont, Folleigh, Thomson, Spring Hill, Amherst, Upper Dorchester, Painsec Junction, Petitcodlac, Apohaqui, Hampton, Model Farm, Torryburn, Berry's Mills, Harcourt, Chatham Junction. Barti-bogue, Petite Rochei, Charlo, Moffatts, Mill-stream, Cedar Hall, St. Octave, Bic, St. Eloie, 'Riviere du Loup,' St. Paschal, Ste. Anne, St. Pierre, Harlaka Junction, St. Romuald, Laurier, Forestdale, St. Wences-las, Carmel, St. Eugene, St. Monique, Stel-larton, Scotch Hill, Denmark, Wallace-Bridge, Oxford, Oxford Junction, Glengarry, Merigomish, Antigonish. Bayfield Road, Pirate Harbour, West Bay Road, McKinnon's Harbour, Boisdale, Sydney, Indian-town, Valley, Hopewell, Barnaby's River, South River, Afton, Mulgrave, River Denys, Iona, George's River, Pointe du ChSne, Mill-

erton, Riversdale, Ferrona Junction, Marshy Hope, Pomquet, Tracadie, Point Tupper, Orangedale, Grand Narrows, North Sydney Junction, Shediac, West River, West Meri-gomish, James River, Heathertou, Harbour au Boucke, McIntyre's Lake, Alba, Shena-cadie, North Sydney, Dalhousie.
4.	1901-St. Anaclet Station, forest fires ; Dartmouth engine-house, cause unknown. 1902-Ste. Rosalie Junction telegraph office, sparks from engine ; Riviere du Loup coal shed, sparks from engine ; Rocky Lake flag station, cause unknown. 1903-Green Point flag station, over-heated stove ; Forestdaie station, forest fires ; Aston Junction station, forest fires ; Moose Park station, forest fires.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. BUREAU-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
By what amount will tbs interest on the public debt be decreased from June 30, 1903 ?	[DOT]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). The information has already been furnished to the House, and the hon. gentleman will find it in another form.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRANT-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
1.	Is the Minister of Jus-tice aware that some of the judges of the court of Ring's bench and of the Superior Court, in the province of Quebec, occupy remunerative positions, such as directors of banks, financial and industrial corporations, which business and affairs may come within and under the jurisdiction of said judges?
2.	Is the Minister of Justice aware that some of these judges are administrators, executors and trutees of estates, which are engaged in general pursuits, the affairs of said estates being liable to come under the jurisdiction of said judges ?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the government to amend the laws concerning provincial courts in the province of Quebec, so as to remedy the evils of which the public complains ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is not within our jurisdiction to do as suggested by the question.


LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS AND INCREASE OF SALARY.
Mr. GAUVREAU asked :: 1.	Did the honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries receive the following petition ?
Quebec, December 2, 1902.
To the Honourable
Raymond Prefontaine,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Honourable Sir,-We, the undersigned, keepers of the floating lighthouses at l'lle Rouge, lie Blanche and Bas de la Traverse, most humbly
request you to take into consideration the fact that we have been obliged to undergo, during the present season, heavy expenses for wages and food for the crews of the vessels under our control ; and that during a full month more than in former seasons.
We commenced, last spring, fifteen days earlier than usual, and this fall we closed fifteen days *later. When our salaries were established, they were fixed for seven months of service, and we have always been paid for that lapse of time. This year, the requirements of navigation demanded an additional month of service. We are always ready to do all in our power to be of service to navigation, both early in the spring and late in the fall. To do so it is necessary to keep a complete crew, and a greater amount of provisions, which costs a large amount.
We, therefore, beg of you to allow us an additional month of salary, pro rata, in order to indemnify us for such expenditure and for the services that we rendered. We also desire to draw your attention to the fact that early in the springtime navigation work is cold and hard; and 'in the fall it is not only cold and hard, but also dangerous. Hoping that you will take our petition into favourable consideration, we have the honur to be your very humble servants.


CAPT. JOHN IRVING,
[Stage Direction]
Keeper of lie Rouge Floating Lighthouse, CAPT. REGIS LEBLANC, Keeper of lie Blanche Floating Lighthouse.
CAPT. ESDRAS LEBEL, Keeper of Bas de la Traverse Floating
Lighthouse.
2.	If in the affirmative, what answer has been given by the department ?
3.	Is it the intention of the minister to grant to the signers of the said1 petition .the allowances which they ask for and to grant them this year ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. PrSfontaine) ;
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, an answer was sent stating that their petition would receive consideration.
3.	All matters of increases will be considered after the session, and in this case the increases which I propose to give will date from 1st of July of this year.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E\ D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the attention of the government to a matter of some importance to the workingmen of the city of Montreal and throughout the country generally. I will read an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the members of the Canadian Federation of the United Shoemakers of Canada, held on the 9th of October instant, at the meeting hall of their society in Montreal :
Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the members of the Canadian Federation of United Shoemakers of Canada, held on the 9th of October instant, at the meeting hall of their society at Montreal.
The following resolution was proposed and unanimously carried :-
That the following facts be brought to the notice of the Dominion government :-
[Stage Direction]
1.	That the Canadian Federation of the United Shoemakers of Canada was founded, several years ago, for the purpose of bringing together Canadian shoemakers, with a view to improving their social conditions and ensuring fairer dealings between employers and employees in the shoemaking industry.
2.	The said association is termed national, being purely Canadian, its membership wholly made up of Canadians, who select their officers in this country and keep their funds in Canada.
3.	The said association has been endorsed by all the boot and shoe manufacturers in the district of Montreal, barring one. The said association has made rapid progress, and comprises at present over 1,700 members ; it has accomplished a great deal in the way of ensuring more equitable dealings between capital and labour, and has given satisfaction to the manufacturers and to employees in the boot and shoe industry.
4.	On the 20th of July last, the Slater Shoe Company, Limited, hoot and shoe manufacturers of Montreal, who employed largely members of the Canadian Federation, without reason or justification decided that its operatives should join the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, an international association, having its leaders and its funds in Boston, United States, and which exacts from its members a weekly contribution of twenty-five. cents, the two-thirds of which are forwarded to the board of management in the United States, while the Canadian Federation requires from its members a contribution of only ten cents per week.
5.	At the same time, the Slater Shoe Company stated that they had decided to adopt the national brand of that foreign association to be stamped on their goods, and had resolved to withdraw from the boot and shoemakers' union of the city of Montreal, who endorsed the Canadian Federation of Shoemakers.
6.	The employees of the company who belong to the Canadian Federation, numbering 500, refused to submit to these tyrannical, unjust and arbitrary terms, and were obliged to leave the employ of the Slater Company on account of this refusal.
7.	The Boot and Shoe Workers' Union aforementioned, whose membership in Montreal is limited to a few hundred, undertook, by all possible means, to supply the said company with hands to replace the members of the Canadian Federation, and tried to recruit men elsewhere.
8.	The Slater Shoe Company, finding itself unable to carry on operations without the help of other operatives to replace those who had left their employ under the circumstances above mentioned, had recourse to the importation of shoemakers from the United States.
9.	The said company despatched emissaries to the United States to recruit hands, and by advertising in various localities in that country and through the efforts and help of the foreign leaders of the international association and their agents, succeeded in bringing to Montreal to work in their factory, about forty or fifty foreign operatives imported from the United States.
10.	Such importation of alien labour is in open violation of the Federal Act 60-61 Victoria, chapter 11, as amended by I Edward VII., chapter 13.
11.	Such infringement of an Act, the object of which is to protect Canadian labour against the competition and importation of alien labour, is extremely hurtful to our workingmen. The aforementioned Act provides that the Dominion government may interfere in cases
Mr MONK.: where foreign labour is imported contrary to the provisions of the above statute and may send back to their country of origin hands thus imported, at the expense of those who employ them.
12.	The United States government are strictly enforcing a similar law in their own territory, whenever foreigners are imported to work there. Our government would not only be justifiable, but even should feel themselves in duty bound to act promptly towards the enforcement of the aforementioned statute, with a view to protecting Canadian labour, particularly in the case of a company such as the Slater Shoe Company, who, for several years past, got from the government heavy contracts for the supply of boots and shoes.
13.	The Canadian Federation is prepared to prove all the facts herein stated, if the government are willing to make an investigation into the matter. The Federation wish to protest at the same time against the report which appeared in the 1 Labour Gazette,' to the effect that the strike at the Slater Shoe Company's factory was over.
Therefore, the Canadian Federation requests that the Dominion government should interfere promptly in connection with this difficulty between the Slater Shoe Company and their former employees, members of the Canadian Federation of United Shoemakers of Canada ; that the government, in accordance with the powers conferred by the Act 60-61 Victoria, chapter 11, as amended, should oblige the Slater Shoe Company to send back to the United States the hands imported from that country who are employed in their factory, and that in the event of the company failing to do so, the Dominion government should send these operatives back at the expense of the said Slater Company. The Canadian Federation is ready to reveal the names of the workingmen so imported to persons designated for that purpose by the government to look into the circumstances and make inquiry.
In consequence, the Canadian Federation urgently appeals to the government to enforce the law and to duly protect Canadian labour ; and hopes that the government will do its duty.
That a copy of the present resolution be forwarded to the right honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada, and to Sir William Mulock, the Minister of Labour.
True copy of the minutes of the said meeting.
(Signed) T. BEAUPRE,
President.
(Signed) A. J. DIONNE,
Secretary.
My right hon. friend will see that this is a grave question in a factory which does a considerable quantity of government work. The authorities of the manufactory dismiss a large number of Canadian workingmen, and contrary to law, import from the United States, from Boston and vicinity a certain number of American workmen to replace those Canadian workmen, who, under coercion and contrary to their own interests, are obliged to quit the factory. I will not ask the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock), because I am afraid he has not proved during this session that he has taken up the case of the workingmen with any desire to protect their interests,

but I would like to ask the right hon. First Minister what is being done to put an immediate stop to this state of affairs ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Could my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) give me the date upon which the resolution was passed ?


Mr. MONK.: The 9tli October. I understand they communicated it immediately to the government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not that I am aware of. I received on Friday a delegation of this very body of the Canadian Federation of United Shoemakers of Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They brought it up with them, I suppose.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, they did not bring it up that I am aware of. They brought up a further subject but not this one. Of course, the moment the matter is brought to my attention it will be my duty to attend to it. I am not aware that the matter has been brought to my attention and this is the first intimation that I have received of it unless it came in the regular way in the correspondence and was transferred to the Department of Labour. At all events this is the first intimation I have had of the matter and I will make it my duty to give it my immediate attention.


NEWSPAPER AGENTS AND POSTMASTERS IN QUEBEC.
Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) is not in his seat it is my duty to call the attention of the government to a state of affairs that to my knowledge has never existed before. I intend to move the adjournment of the House to put myself in order, seconded by Mr. Bell. The agents of the government newspapers are going to every postmaster in the province of Quebec and insisting on getting from these public officers the names of the subscribers to ail the newspapers which have not either the privilege or the disadvantage of being government organs. I speak from personal knowledge. I speak of facts that I am in a position to establish when I say that they get from nearly every postmaster in the province of Quebec the names of subscribers to newspapers-I say it again-who have not the privilege or the disadvantage of being government organs. I would like to know whether the same privilege would be extended to all the newspapers or if the privilege which has never been exercised to my knowledge during the last twenty-five years Is to be confined to the agents of government newspapers. This is a very serious state of affairs. The postmasters do not any longer keep secret what is going on in their offices. Not only have government officers been allowed to canvass for government papers, but the postmaster of the Public Works Department, a gentleman whom I appointed myself, has been given a leave of absence under the pretext of illness.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is not an officer of my department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It does not matter, I am addressing myself to this House and the country. I am placing before them a particular state of affairs which is a very serious one. A public officer, the postmaster of the Department of Public Works, has been giveu leave of absence under the pretext of illness and he has been acting as chief circulation agent of the government organ in Montreal. His son, who, I believe, is not of age, has been appointed to his place at $1,200 a year. The gentleman to whom leave of absence on account of illness has been given has not been sick at all. He was not sick and the hon. minister knew he was not sick. I state the fact; he knew he was not sick. He has been canvassing as chief circulation agent of the government organ in Montreal and his son has been receiving 'his salary. In addition to that the postmasters of the province of Quebec have been forced to give the names of the subscribers of newsapers, which, in the estimation of some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, are not friendly to them, to the agents of government organs. I want to know whether the same privilege will be given to all the newspapers. For instance, will the agents of ' La Patrie ' be allowed to go to the postmasters in the province of Quebec and ask for the names of the subscribers of the newspapers received in their locality ? I will not object at all if the rule is applied to everybody. I do not rise to personally complain. As far as the newspapers I am connected with is concerned vfe have not suffered in spite of what may have been said) in the past. Our circulation is larger to-day than it was a year ago.


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


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, that is true today. I observe that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prgfontaine) says hear, hear. I am prepared to issue a challenge to him. I repeat that our circulation is larger to-day. The circulation of our two newspapers is larger to-day than it was a year ago, so that I do not complain personally, only I want to know whether such a state of affairs as that which I have described is to be allowed to continue. Will a postmaster in the province of Ontario be allowed to give* the names of the subscribers of the 'Mail,' or the 'World,' or the * Globe ' and if so I want to know whether the same privilege will be extended to us in the province of Quebec. The hon. Postmaster General. I hope will give us a satisfactory answer on that point.


Mr. TAYLOR.: May I ask my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) what use this gentleman

makes of the information he obtains from the postmaster ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not know that we should go farther on that point. I am only discussing the question of privilege. As to the use that is made of it, it is a very simple thing. Of course, the agents go to the subscribers of the papers that are supposed not to be friendly to my hon. friends on the treasury benches and offer their own newspapers. This is being done all over the province of Quebec. Provided the same laws apply to all I do not care.
The PRIME MINISTER (Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier)). It is evident that my hon. friend is proceeding under a delusion. He magnifies the work of a probably over-zealous agent into a government system. The hon. gentleman charges that the postmaster of the Public Works Department has obtained leave of absence from the minister under the pretense of illness, and he says the minister knew this official was not ill. I refuse to believe that the minister would give leave of absence, knowing that the official was not ill, but the minister will be here to speak for himself. I believe that if this official asked for leave of absence, he did It in the regular way, and I do not think that the minister had reason to suppose that he was imposed upon, if he was imposed upon.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is a question of fact. If the right hon. gentleman will apply to some of his friends in the House, they will tell him that the minister was approached and asked that Mr. Latour should be sent out as he was a very essentiai agent.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We heard a similar statement in this House a few days ago, and I understand the Minister of Public Works did not admit its accuracy. At all events, if the minister has given an improper leave of absence, it will be for the House to deal with the minister who is responsible. It is also stated that this officer is now acting as a canvassing agent for certain newspapers, and that he goes to the postmasters in several parts of the country, and asks to see the lists of subscribers to different newspapers. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has made the charge in such a way as to imply, that the postmasters had received an order from the Post Office Department to allow an agent for papers friendly to the government, to have access to the list of subscribers to other papers. On that point, the hon. gentleman is absolutely under a delusion. No such order has been given by the Postmaster General's department. If any postmasters have done that, they have done it without authority, and on their own responsibility, and without being ordered by i anybody to do it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My point is that I want to know if it is proper for postmasters to act in this way. I can tell my right hon.


George Taylor: friend that not one but twenty men are doing the same thing now. Nearly all the postmasters in the province of Quebec-a great many of them are Liberals now- have been told that they have to do it, and they are doing it every day. Iam prepared to prove to my hon. friend that it is actually a system now. If it is proper for the postmasters to do this, then I have nothing to say.


The PRIMES MINISTER.: As to that, 1 had better give the floor to the Postmaster General who will answer.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understand the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to make three distinct statements. He states, that the postmaster of the rublic Works Department has been engaged in canvassing for a newspaper, and that in the course of his canvass he has obtained information from the postmasters as to the names of persons to whom other newspapers were being sent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not allude to him more than to any other agent.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member further states that, the minister gave leave of absence to this officer, although the minister knew that the illness on which he obtained leave of absence did not exist.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman allude to me ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not by any means.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then, the Minister of Public Works will deal with that, and he probably will be here before this discussion ends. I have no doubt that the Minister of Public AYorks will give a satisfactory explanation. The third statement) of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was, that postmasters were being forced to give information of this nature.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not say forced.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I took down the word ' forced ' as it fell from the hon. gentleman's lips, but if he used it inadvertently he can modify the statement. Does the hon. gentleman say that the postmasters have acted under the direction of those who alone can give orders.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I say they have so acted.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At whose instance ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I say that gentlemen acting for government organs in Montreal are going to these public officers telling them that they represent the Liberal party, the government, and asking them in that capacity for the names of subscribers

to other papers. I say that in not one case, hut ini a hundred cases and perhaps more, this information is disclosed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (lion. Mr. Tarte) distinctly said that postmasters have been forced to give these names.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They have been practically forced ; I repeat that.


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman desires to suggest by that statement that any pressure has been brought to bear upon postmasters by the responsible head of the department, or by any official of this department ; lie has been misinformed. Further', I challenge him to make good that statement.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let the Postmaster General keep cool as I do. What statement does he want me to make good.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman said that postmasters had been forced to give the names of subscribers. If! he implies that the Postmaster General or any official in the employment of the Postmaster General, or any officer of the government, forced postmasters or brought pressure to bear upon the postmasters to disclose the confidential information they possess by giving the names of the addressees of mail matter, I say that he cannot make good any such charges as that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I never said that the Postmaster General or any of his officers gave instructions to that effect, but I do say that nearly all the postmasters in the province of Quebec, and even in the province of Ontario are giving that information. I say that they have been approached by agents of the party in office, and told that they have to give that information, and they are giving it. Surely the Postmaster General will not shield himself behind words. If you give me a Committee of the House I will prove within twenty-four hours that the postmasters are giving that information, in not one case, but in one hundred eases. Is it permissible for the postmasters to do that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Tlie hon. gentleman has qualified his original statement.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We will see; we will see.	.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps I may be permitted to present my view of it. We are winding- up a session in a debate not of to-day only, but of several days, of misrepresentation. This is in keeping with the tenor of previous debates. The hon. gentleman has sought to convey the impression that the postmasters of this country were more or less, by reason of the authority of or pressure from the government


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not say that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman said that postmasters were being forced to disclose the names of subscribers of newspapers. I challenge my hon. friend to prove-we will give him a chance to do so if he can-that the government or any officer of the government, with any consent of the government, or with their acquiescence or knowledge, has invited, or pressed, or authorized, or in any way warranted, the postmasters to disclose the names of the addressees of newspapers in any part of Canada. If my hon. friend had been attending to his duties in parliament he would not have felt it necessary to raise this question to-day; because in Committee of Supply the other day it was, raised by an hon. gentleman opposite, and I was asked to state my attitude in regard to the matter. The view I announced then is my view to-day, and it has been the attitude of the government ever since this government has been in existence. I stated then, and I state now, the information which postmasters possess as to the names of the addressees of mail matter of any kind, whether it consists of letters, parcels, newspapers or any other matter that may pass through the mails, is confidential; and they are not warranted in disclosing that information to any human being except the addressees themselves. I stated that in the most unqualified way. I stated then, and I state now, that if any hon. gentleman will specify the name of any officer of my department who has been guilty of any breach of confidence, I will feel it my duty to discipline that officer in a way appropriate to his offence. Is that a fair attitude ? Does my hon. friend take exception to it ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not take exception to that statement; very far from it. My hon. friend has made the right statement, and I congratulate him upon it. It is worthy of a Minister of the Crown. But I state again that over one hundred postmasters in the province of Quebec and in other provinces also have given freely the information which I have stated to the House. If my hon. friend wants me to make charges against them all in order that he may dismiss them, I am prepared to do it, although I do not wish any ill-luck to anybody; but these are the facts of the case. I will give him, with pleasure, the names of these officers, if he wishes to have them. What I meant to convey was this, that the postmasters, being approached by agents of the party in power, thought they were obliged to give that information, and they have given it freely. I am glad my hon. friend the Postmaster General has vindicated his position, and I congratulate him on the statement which he has just made and which I accept altogether.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then 1 my hon. friend will see that it is only fair

for him to modify his views. He overstated wliat he had in his mind.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will my hon. friend permit me to suggest that perhaps now he owes a duty to this House. He as a man of affairs knows that men enjoying- the good will of a particular party, the party in power for the moment, may go about canvassing. Our supporters, our friends, our sympathizers are legion in number, and they perhaps act as agents to procure subscribers for newspapers. Men who are engaged in canvassing for anything are zealous, and these men may go to a postmaster, and may bring to bear whatever arguments may occur to them in order to obtain such assistance as will enable them to succeed in their enterprises; but that does not mean that they are agents for the government or have any authority from the government. There is no human being /authorized by the government to exact such information as my hon. friend says has been imparted by postmasters. The postmasters themselves ought to be possessed of sufficient intelligence to know that any person who drops in and asks them for the names of the addressees of mail matter, have not any authority to demand it, simply because they choose to ask for it; and I would ask my hon. friend, since he says he can do so, to furnish me with the names of the postmasters who he says have been transgressors; and, as 1 stated before, these cases will be duly investigated, and the postmasters will be disciplined. The officers will of course be given an opportunity to explain what they have done, and steps will be taken to prevent any repetition of such action in the future.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would it not be well for the hon. gentleman to issue instructions to the postmasters generally that they must keep confidential what my hon. friend wants to be kept confidential ? I accept with pleasure the hon. gentleman's offer, and I undertake to give him the names of dozens and dozens of postmasters


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hundreds.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Dozens and dozens of names from hundreds of postmasters. I will undertake, with pleasure, to give the names to my hon. friend; and if he feels that the proper discipline would be dismissal, it is for him to say.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, I will undertake that the postmasters who he says have transgressed will never repeat the offence. Throughout the whole of this country there has been a practice for many years of postmasters acting as agents for newspapers, and they are not interfered with. Postmasters are permitted to act as agents to receive subscriptions for all papers, without regard to the politics of the Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
papers. If the House desires that that practice should be put an end to, the government and the department will give every consideration to that view. It will cut both ways.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I understood that there was a charge made in this House, not only to-day, but some two weeks ago, that an officer of the government, while ostensibly absent on his vacation, had been engaged in canvassing for a newspaper, and had been obtaining from postmasters in the province of Quebec the names of subscribers to certain newspapers in that province.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not make the charge directly against that officer. I make the general charge that postmasters in the province of Quebec have given information to agents of government organs. I do not know whether Mr. Latour himself has gone to these postmasters.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know how that may be. The matter was discussed in the House some ten days ago, and I think it would have been very well for the Postmaster General then to have issued the circular which he now proposes to issue. The men who are engaged in this work are inducing the postmasters to commit a breach of the law. Is it not an offence under the Post Office Act, or a breach of the regulations of the department, for postmasters to communicate information of this kind ? Would mv hon. friend inform me as to that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot say what the regulations are ; but if there is no regulation covering the case, there ought to be one. I think I have made my view quite clear. Regulation or no regulation, the duty rests upon the postmaster to observe the strictest confidence as to the names of addressees. I would not think a regulation was necessary in order to impress that duty on a postmaster. And the other evening when the matter was brought up, no specific charge was made ; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) made a state-men that this particular officer had been engaged in the work, and that night I asked the member for Compton to give me the information which I now ask from Jhe hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Mr. Tarte), to give me the names of the officers whom he says have offended. I promised to investigate the charge if that information was given me, but it has not yet been given, and again we have an indefinite charge made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I will give the information.


Robert Laird Borden: I was in hopes that my hon. friend the Postmaster General could have told us what the law in regard to this is. I agree with him that if there is no regulation there should be one, and if

there is a regulation then we have a provision in the statutes that any man who violates that regulation is guilty of a misdemeanour. The men who are going through the province of Quebec doing this work, are engaged in the work of inducing officers of the Crown to commit a violation of the law. It would be the duty of the government, upon the matter having been brought to their attention, to take legal proceedings against these men who are corrupting officers of the law, if the provisions of the law are sufficient for the purpose, and if the law is not sufficient I hope it will be amended so that this work will be stopped. The Postmaster General challenges us to show that lxis department or any officer of his department has been guilty of this conduct.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I understood that the Postmaster General made this challenge to the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ; I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to say that the Postmaster General challenged the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that there is some point in my friend's observation, but I do not exactly see it at present. Whether the officers of the department are doing this or not-and I am bound to take the statement of the Postmaster General that they are not doing it-certain persons representing organs of the government, are going, with the pretended authority of this government, to postmasters in Quebec and by means of that false claim, however false it may be, are obtaining information to which they are not entitled. That is one point of the observations of the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and it is a matter which invites the attention of the government, because whether or not any officer of the department is guilty of these acts, they cannot shut their eyes to the fact that their own supporters are, by their false pretenses and claims, coercing the postmasters of Quebec. They urge the fact that they are supporting the party in power, and they claim to have the right to have these postmasters dismissed or otherwise dealt with in case they do not furnish that information. I say that this demands the immediate attention of the government, and that the government should take proceedings against the postmasters themselves, but more especially against the men who are urging the postmasters, by threats of poltical influence, to do that which it is improper to do, and which, as I understand the law, it is unlawful to do. My hon. friend may issue as many challenges as he likes about the officers of the department, but my understanding is that this is being done by supporters of the government under the claim that they have the force and power of the government behind them. An admittedly
wrong thing is being done, even according to the statements of the Postmaster General, who says that he does not know whether there is such a regulation. But he admits that if there is not a regulation there ought to be one. Under these circumstances I think that some action should have been taken by the Postmaster General before this; action cannot be taken by him too promptly under the circumstances that have been disclosed to the House to-day. And let me tell my hon. friend the Postmaster General who spoke in a somewhat sneering way of the absence from the House of my hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte), that I do not think any member of the government is in a position to say very much about that, because we have now before us this matter involving the Department of Public Works, and the Minister of Public Works cannot be found to answer the statement of the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal. We have had ministers of the Crown very frequently absent from' their places in this House when we were discussing estimates in regard to which they could have given information that was desired. I quite understand that this absence is sometimes necessary, but yet I might advert to the fact that the Solicitor General-I do not know for what reason- has hardly made an appearance in the House during the present session. If we come to investigate the absence of presence of members, the hon. member for St. Mary's division can at least say that he has been in his seat in the House during this session about as much as any minister of the Crown.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I believe I have, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I do hope that the Postmaster General will give this matter the attention which its importance demands, and I am led to believe that he will give it that attention by the fact that he has to-day very properly and promptly said that if the names of these postmasters are furnished to him he will take steps to investigate. But I do not think he should stop there ; he should take steps to punish the men who have been inciting postmasters in Quebec and in Ontario as well-if the statement of the hon. member for St. Mary's division can be substantiated-under the guise of the pretended authority of this government, to commit a breach of their duty and of the law.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend says that I should immediately take steps to deal with this subject. Permit me to suggest that perhaps a duty is cast on those who say that they possess information as to the misconduct complained of. Some days ago it was stated by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) that certain postmasters had disclosed confidential information and had given the names of subscribers to newspapers. I then asked the hon. gen-

tleinan to furnish me with the names of the postmasters whom he said had transgressed, and that information was promised to me. Some days have elapsed, but that information has not yet been given to me. How could I investigate the cases when 1 did not know the names of the accused ? I then pointed out that we have ten thousand and more postmasters.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not urging action with respect to names not furnished ; I admit at once that it would be impossible to do that, but I say that the names have been promised to-day, and when these names are furnished he should proceed to punish not only the postmasters, but those who urged them to commit a breach of the law.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I told the House that when the names, are furnished to me I will then, for the first time, be in a position to intelligently investigate this charge. Cau my hon. friend give me the names of the officer of my department whom he stated in the House yesterday had made certain threats against an express company ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know the name of the officer ; I promised to give it yesterday, but the matter escaped my mind. I will give it to my hon. friend today. The name of the officer can be procured, I think, because the information has been furnished to me by the express company which was threatened.


Mr. EMMERSON.: The question raised by the Postmaster General as to whether it is proper for postmasters to act as agents for the newspapers is a very important question. I know, as a matter of fact, that in the constituency which I have the honour to represent there have been in the past, and there may be now, postmasters who are acting as agents for a very large and important newspaper in the city of Montreal. I consider such acts very reprehensible, as against public interests and against the other newspapers, for the simple reason that such postmasters know what is the circulation of every newspaper that goes through their office. It is very unfair to the general public that any postmaster should be permitted to act as the agent of any newspaper. I wish to emphasize the point raised by the Postmaster General, and trust he will take action to prevent any postmaster acting in any such capacity.


William Alfred Galliher: I must disagree with my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). The salary of many postmasters throughout the country is very small, and I see no harm in a postmaster earning an honest dollar by acting as agent for a newspaper.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: This practice, to which our attention has been Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
drawn by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), is not confined at all to the province of Quebec. To my knowledge these agents of newspapers supporting the government are travelling through the country seeking to obtain from the postmasters information as to the subscribers to all newspapers not friendly to the government. The postmasters are not the real culprits. We can find the remedy right here. One remedy would be for the Postmaster General to advise the postmasters not to give this information. They may not view the matter seriously and may give information to one side or the other without thinking they are doing great harm, and they may readily yield to the pressure brought on them by the agents of newspapers supporting the government. Another remedy would be for members of the government, who are behind these newspapers, to call off these men who are seeking this information. The real evil is not so much the postmasters giving the information as the agents of the government demanding it from them.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are not agents of the government.


James Clancy: They are in an indirect sense.	'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In no sense.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman and his friends profit by it. My hon. friend beside me suggests that each minister has a paper of his own. We have no objection to agents of government newspapers going around the country getting information, but we object to its being furnished by the postmasters. The Postmaster General need not wait for an inquiry. All he need do is inform the postmasters what is their duty.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I see an announcement in the 'Citizen' this morning which I would draw to the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General. It is to the effect that two special trains will leave the capital to-day with Conservative campaign literature.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon-. gentleman is out of order. That has no connection with the question before the Chair.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: To my mind the difficulty brought up by the hon. member for Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has its origin in the defective regulations of the department. The regulation plainly conveys to any postmaster the idea that he is free to give every information respecting the subscribers to newspapers which go through his office. Here is the regulation :
Article 176. No information can be given respecting letters which pass through the post office except to the persons to whom they are addressed and the senders on inquiry respecting delivery. The post-masters are n-ot permitted to

furnish any information respecting the names and addresses of persons who. receive correspondence at their respective offices.
There is nothing in that regulation regarding newspapers. It is entirely restricted to letters. An agent therefore could readily persuade the postmaster that the intention of the government was that he should give that information. I think that until these regulations are revised and reprinted in the postal guide, a special regulation should at once be sent out to all the postmasters, making this rule 170 applicable to newspapers as well as to letters.
Motion to adjourn (Hon. Mr. Tarte) negatived.


THE USE OF MAIL BAGS.
George Taylor: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I want to ask if the hon. First Minister and the hon. Postmaster General have had a conference and what explanation he has to give the House ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I am pleased to inform my hon. friend that the difficulty to which he alludes has been successfully overcome. It involved considerable effort and a considerable expenditure of money, but we have done all that the resources of the country will permit. We ordered an additional supply of 1,000 mail hags, but I am sorry to say that that number was inadequate, and we have had to order 2,000. The delivery of these bags commences this afternoon and will continue rapidly, so that we hope soon to be able to place at the disposal of hon. gentlemen opposite all the bags now used in this very interesting and important public work. With reference to the dissemination of this literature, which my hon. friend characterized rather irreverently as ' stuff '-


George Taylor: The right kind of stuff, too.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
1 say with reference to this literature that we have made arrangements which I trust will successfully solve the difficulty. It is quite true that we have already chartered one special train, which will leave Ottawa as soon as the staff of special employees can be obtained' to man it, I think, by tonight. You will observe a mountain of literature already adorning the front of the House of Commons, and that trainload is being conveyed to the station as rapidly as the available supply in this city will admit, and as fast as steam will carry It to its destination it will be despatched. I am sorry to say-no, I am not sorry, but the fact is that a second train, and perhaps a third train will be necessary. But our duty, we think, is first of all to clear the lobbies and
halls of this building, as soon as that interesting task is performed, we will then proceed to try and clear out all the floor space that is occupied by this literature in the city post office. I hope that in the course of at least three days we will have despatched all these pieces to their destination, and they will afford, I am sure, most interesting reading to the addressees, and perhaps they will then consider, upon a careful perusal of them, whether the game has been worth the candle, whether the cost to which the country lias been put is fully warranted by this very extraordinary procedure. However, it is probable that the country will demand some amendment of the franking privilege. It certainly has been grossly abused.	,


Edward Frederick Clarke: By none more so than by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no case on record since Canada had an existence where such an abuse of the system has occurred as in the present instance.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a somewhat remarkable thing that a certain amount of mail matter which, as we were told yesterday, could not. be forwarded to its destination inside of six weeks, is now to be forwarded in 24 hours.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I made no such statement.


Robert Laird Borden: That shows what my hon. friend the Postmaster General is capable of, under a little pressure ; and I would suggest to my right hon. friend that if he is ever met with difficulties of this kind put forward by the Postmaster General, ail he has to do is to exercise a little pressure upon him such as was exercised by my hon. friend the member from Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Taylor) yesterday, and he will find him capable of almost any feat. Why, yesterday this mail matter paralyzed the Ottawa office, it was piled up in mountains. it would require six weeks of special exertion to forward it to its destination. But only last night an officer of the hon. gentleman's department said it could all be cleared out within 24 hours. My hon. friend himself has practically repeated the same thing to-day, and he desires to make a little political capital by talking of the expenditure of public money. But he has never contradicted the statement that the equivalent of 25 or 30 bags have been sent out daily by hon. gentlemen opposite during the past six. or seven, or -eight weeks. He has never contradicted that statement, nor has any hon. gentleman on the other side contradicted the statement that practically during all these weeks the addressing of envelopes has been done by servants of this country, paid by the people of this country, for hon. gentlemen opposite. That charge was made

some days ago in the House, and I have not heard up to this time any absolute denial of it, except that I believe it was denied by the gentleman in charge of the Department of Public Works. The Postmaster General thinks, under these circumstances, that he is making a little political capital by talking of the expenditure of public money in forwarding this literature, which I venture to say, does not amount to in bulk or in cost of transmission to one-half of the campaign literature which has been forwarded by hon. gentlemen themselves during the present session. I am here reminded of the fact that my right hon. friend the Min-iter of Trade and Commerce, if we are to talk about the franking privileges, distributed I do not know how many hundred thousand copies of a speech of his_ some years ago, when the House was not in session, and in violation of the rules which were laid down by Order in Council with respect to transmission of documents of that kind out of session ; and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce was invited at that time to contribute the sum of $25,000 to the treasury of Canada, being the amount which he ought to have paid for the distribution of that literature. I do not know whether that is the exact amount. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will, no doubt, make it good in time, because I am sure he expects to pay it before he ends his public career. It may not be convenient for him to do it at present, but we all appreciate the fact that he intends to do it at some time or other, and I do not think the department will be disposed to charge him interest on it. However, I am very glad indeed that the Postmaster General has been able to cope with this difficulty, and that we shall have these mail bags removed that have so long remained here, owing, so far as we can judge, to the fact that his department was not disposed to make a reasonable and moderate effort to forward this matter to its destination.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. the leader of the opposition is developing, if he will permit me to say so, a disposition to present a case in a very unfair light. I explained to him, I think, and it was something he well knows, that there is a vast difference between the surplus space that is afforded in mail cars for the extra literature such as this, and the case of a whole train, or a special train, set apart exclusively for work of that kind. The regular trains of the country have to carry much mail matter for the general public. What I stated was that the service supposed to be available for the extra postal matter here would not admit of more than 40 bags per day being handled in these postal cars. But, under the special arrangements which have been made, we have engaged trains and set them apart exclusively for this service, and with these extra trains we expect to be Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
able to solve this problem within the next three days.


George Taylor: I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if it is his intention to insist upon the Postmaster General refunding to me the $32 that he illegally and illegitimately forced me to pay


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.
Mr. TAYLOR-as express charges on matter that he should carry through the mails free. I want to say this one word-if the hon. gentleman, having been fortunate enough in his youth to receive an education-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. If the hon. gentleman wants to ask a question he can do so in the usual way, that is to say, without any discussion and without any statement of facts, simply putting the question.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman just criticised the words I made use of yesterday and I think it is my duty


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is nothing before the Chair.


George Taylor: Well, it will come before the Chair. My statement is this-it will only take a minute-I think I have a right, in justice to myself, to make an explanation. The hon. gentleman referred yesterday to the fact, and did again to-day, that X used the word ' stuff.' Now, I can find that in the dictionary.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This is not a personal explanation.


George Taylor: It is a personal explanation to myself. He accused me of using a word that can be found in the dictionary. But he used a word, ' sortation,' a word that cannot be found in any dictionary.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I hope my hon. friend the Postmaster General will refund to my hon. friend from Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Taylor) any undue expenditure he may have had to make; in the same way as he has asked my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to refund to the treasury a sum which may be due for a similar purpose. But, to proceed with the business of the House, my bon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) asked a question a moment ago of my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). My right hon. friend is now in his place if the hon. gentleman would repeat his question.


INSPECTION OF BINDER TWINE.
Mr. ALCORN asked :: 
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	The methods of the inspector of binder twine in collecting penalties from parties whom he finds offering for sale twine improperly marked or deficient in quantity is to point out the requirements of the Inspection Act and the penalties therein imposed for its infraction. He has collected penalties without process under the ' Summary Conviction Act.' In no instance has the party subjected to penalty objected to the payment of the minimum penalty rather than have the matter brought up and prosecution entered under due process of law.
2.	Answered, as above.
3.	Total collected, $506.75.
4.	The fines so collected have been regularly deposited to the credit of the receiver general.
5.	Answered as above.
6.	No special instructions were given to the inspector with reference to the collection of penalties. His instructions were to see that the terms of the Act were carried out.
7.	When the question of the collection of penalties was submitted by the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Justice, the reply was that ' Under subsection 2 of section 7, as amended by 2 Edward VII., chapter 32, it is provided that all binder twine deficient in quantity shall be confiscated to the Crown. The binder twine seized in this ease appears to have been deficient in quantity and would, therefore, be liable to be confiscated to the Crown and could then be dealt with by your department (Trade and Cotnmerce) in any way that it sees fit.' However, the deputy minister adds that he does not see anything in the Act that would authorize the confiscation of the twine upon' view, and that it might be strictly necessary to take legal proceedings to enforce confiscation. That this, however, is scarcely worth while for such small quantity, ' and I see no objection to
selling the twine back to the owners, as suggested.' The action taken in connection with this twine matter has been such as to cause the least possible annoyance to parties with whom twine not in compliance with the Act was found.


FISHERY OVERSEER AT BATHURST, NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. G. W. FOWLER (King's, N.B.).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefon-taine), if he has received any complaint concerning the alleged misconduct of an officer of liis at Bathurst, N.B., named William C. Robichaud, who is accused of using his office as a fishery overseer at Bathurst for the purpose of gaining votes for himself in an election in which he is a candidate ? The accusation is that this man is allowing persons who promise to support him to fish illegally and a complaint to that effect has been made to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and an investigation asked for. I would ask the hon. minister if be has received any such complaint and what is his intention in respect to an investigation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I received such information this morning only.


CATTLE-GUARD COMMISSION.
Mr. R. A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Fielding) if the commission appointed to investigate the cattle-guard question, and for which we voted a large sum of money, have made a report and if we will have the report laid upon the Table before the House adjourns I think that last year we voted some $5,000 towards the expenses of the commission, and the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) assured us in committee from time to time that before the House rose the report would be forthcoming. This is a report in which the public are very much interested. I understand the report has been made but that it is not yet before the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The report has been submitted and there is no objection to it being laid on the Table. The cattle-guard question has been dealt with by legislation at the present session, and I did not suppose that there was any particular desire for the report, but there is no objection to it being laid on the Table, and I will have it placed on the Table before the House closes.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, may I ask the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) for a moment ? I think he promised to give ns a statement showing the number of miles of railway subsidized and the aggregate subsidies promised for each of the provinces. I would like to know if he is prepared to give that statement now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the statement has been made, and I am having it copied. I think that during the day I will !be able to hand it to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell).


STEAMER ' EUREKA.'
Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask to be allowed to put myself right in reference to a matter with which I was occupied in my capacity of Minister of Public Works. I have read some reflections in the press regarding the matter. I refer to the use by Mr. Lacoste of one of the boats of the Department of Public Works named the ' Eureka.' I agreed with Mr. Cantin to have an invention of Mr. Lacoste applied to the boat a year ago when the season's work was over. When I left office the installation of the invention was not completed. The boat was still in the dock. I resigned or withdrew from the government on the 20th of October last. A test of the invention was made this spring or during the first months of the summer. I never loaned the boat to Mr. Lacoste for the test. I simply made an arrangement with Mr. Lacoste that was carried out by Mr. Cantin to the effect that the department would pay $3,000 for the installation of the invention, the government taking the right of using the invention free of charge if it should be successful. The test which has been made since has not been made under instructions from me written or verbal. 1 do not blame the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) for having made the test. It is his business ; it is not mine. I never loaned the boat, and I never made any arrangement with Mr. Lacoste that he should use the boat this spring. On the contrary my intention was to test the invention under the control and direction of the officers of the Public Works Department. That was my intention, and I did not make a bargain with Mr. Lacoste or any one else to the contrary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid I did not even read the answer which I gave to the question before I presented it to the House. The statement is made by the officers of the department who are responsible for giving the official information of the department in answer to questions. Several answers were prepared that Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
day, and I submitted them as they had been prepared by the department, supposing that the officers were in possession of the information and knew the facts. I shall look into the matter.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The information is altogether incorrect.


CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND SPECIAL TRAINS.
Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General as to the time the special trains conveying the Conservative literature are to leave, and from what depots ? It will be an important departure ; and we would also like to know how many bags there will be in each car, and what accommodation will be provided for the officials. There will be a crowd there to see them depart.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The matter is under consideration.


EXPENSE INCURRED BY GLOUCESTER
George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) if any application has been made from the county of Gloucester,. N.B., for assistance in respect to paying an amount of $9,000 expenses incurred in that county on account of small-pox. Small-pox was introduced into the county by some person coming over the Intercolonial Railway from Quebec or some other part of the country in the west and considerable expense has been incurred. I would like to ask if any application has been made to the government for a contribution on the part of the government towards defraying that expense.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I -have no recollection of it at this moment. Perhaps it may have been made. I will inquire in the Department of the Interior and give an answer to my hon. friend.


ALASKAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION- CORRESPONDS NOE.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I desire to lay on the Table of the House certain correspondence between the government of His Excelelney the Governor General and the imperial authorities concerning negotiations which led to the treaty to refer the Alaskan boundary question to a tribunal composed of judicial experts and upon the appointment of experts. I may say that the correspondence is not complete. I expect to be able to lay on the Table some more correspondence on the same subject.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: The only information which we have on that point is what is common property, and has been published in the newspapers. I do not suppose that we can expect to have authentic information upon that point until we are in possession of the official proceedings of the commission, which will no doubt contain the reasons of the commissioners, individually and collectively, as well as the dissent of our commissioners. It would he a good thing that at the earliest possible moment, the government should issue a blue-book-even during the recess-containing all the proceedings and negotiations, from the time the joint high commission parted) at Washington, up to the very last paper we have on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the correspondence which has been laid upon the Table, and the correspondence which the Prime Minister proposes to lay on the Table during the day-does it include all the correspondence and proceedings up to this time, or are certain portions of it regarded as confidential, on account of some objection which I understand has been raised ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The British authorities have not allowed the communication to parliament of certain portions of the correspondence. The matter is still under the consideration of the colonial authorities. As soon as permission is given, that correspondence will be made public during the recess, if not before.


Robert Laird Borden: The correspondence when it is brought down, will include all documents to the publication of which certain objections have been raised.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Everything.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There has of course been no objection raised to the publication of the correspondence from this government to the imperial authorities ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, there has. The colonial authorities have objected to the publication of the correspondence which has taken place between them and us, both as to what has been sent from here and as to what we received from England. In the course of time, everything must certainly be published and will be published.


RAILWAY ACT, 1903-CONFERENCE WITH THE SENATE.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Borden (Halifax) :
That twelve managers be appointed to meet the managers appointed by the Senate at the time and place fixed for the holding of the conference desired upon the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill entitled: An Act to amend and consolidate thie law respecting railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE! moved :
That the said managers be : Sir William Mu-lock, Mr. Fielding, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Hag-gart, Mr. Blair, Mr. Borden (Halifax), Mr. Monk, Mr. Barker, Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Demers (Iberville) and Mr. Wade.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for the House to go into committee on certain resolutions respecting the granting of aid to the Quebec bridge :
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In moving that you do now leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose, of having the House consider in committee certain resolutions which have been submitted with respect to the granting of aid to the Quebec bridge, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity to make a brief statement. The Importance of , another bridge across the St. Lawrence, at or near the city of Quebec, has been recognized for many years by gentlemen on both sides of the House. Several years ago this government came to the conclusion that the time for action had arrived, anl it was authorized to assist the company which had undertaken to bring about the construction of that bridge. A company was formed in the city of Quebec, with a capital of $200,000, with power to issue bonds in the usual way in connection with such public undertakings. The movement was recognized as one of



great importance in the city of Quebec, in the province of Quebec and in the Dominion generally. The city of Quebec manifested its substantial interest in the movement by contributing a subsidy' to the bridge of $300,000 ; the government of the province of Quebec manifested its interest in the enterprise bv contributing a subsidy of $250,000.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Is that an absolute gift ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, in both cases a free and absolute gift, and the money has been paid. The government of the Dominion also agreed to aid the undertaking by a guarantee of $1,000,000. The grants given by the city of Quebec, and by the government of Quebec have been paid, and of the grant offered by the parliament of Canada of $1,000,000, there has been paid the sum of $374,353. The company, with a capital of $200,000 nominally, have actually paid up and put into the treasury $65,585 of their private funds. With the capital of the company, with the aids granted by the city of Quebec, the province of Quebec and the Dominion of Canada, and with the power to issue bonds, the company proceeded to construct the bridge and they have made very considerable progress.


John Graham Haggart: What has actually been paid by the government here ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Three hundred and seventy-four thousand three hundred and fifty-three dollars. The company proceeded to let contracts and enter upon the undertaking. The substructure has been completed, and a portion of the superstructure. The work actually done by the company up to the present time represents an expenditure of $1,416,394. That expenditure has been made from private capital, from the gift of the province of Quebec, which has been paid in full, from the gift of the city of Quebec, which has also been paid in full, and from the gift of the Dominion government, which was $1,000,000, but which has been paid to the extent of only $374,353. The company have been obliged to issue bonds to assist the undertaking, and these bonds to the amount of $472,000 are outstanding. These bonds were given to the contractor in part payment, and he accepted them at 60 per cent of their face value ; so that while they represent a bonded indebtedness upon the enterprise of $472,000, the actual cash received from them was $283,279. There is now due to the contractors and others $779,551. This includes, however, the $472,000 of bonds at tlieir par value.


John Graham Haggart: To whom is the balance of $779,000 due ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a ,\ush balance due the contractors, besides


William Stevens Fielding: the outstanding issue of bonds. There are some charges for engineering and other things, but it is substantially due to the contractors. The company find themselves unable to prosecute the undertaking further, although the commercial prospect of the bridge is fairly good. I think most people who have looked into it as a business enterprise will agree to that. But even when an enterprise has an excellent prospect of commercial success, it is not easy to raise capital for a very large undertaking. This is a very large undertaking. The total cost of the bridge is estimated by Mr. Colling-wood Schreiber, the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, at $7,503,725. That includes not merely the bridge 'proper, but the approaches, and the terminal facilities in the city of Quebec.
Now, inasmuch as the company are not likely to be able to prosecute the work successfully, the government have deemed it wise to come to the relief of the company and the enterprise, and to change their form of aid. As I have already stated, we have granted $1,000,000, of which only $374,353 has been paid. The remainder is still in the treasury of Canada. We propose to cancel that balance, and to say that the company shall receive no further aid in the way of a subsidy or a gift, but that instead we shall grant them aid in the form of a guarantee, which we think, from the information which we have, will not ultimately cost the Dominion one cent. We quite realize that in all guarantees there is a measure of risk ; but so far as information is obtainable Horn competent railway men, we think there is a fair ground for the statement that the earnings of this enterprise will meet all its obligations, and that in adopting the form of a guarantee instead of actually contributing anything more to the bridge, we are cancelling an obligation of some $600,000 or more, which we would otherwise be obliged to pay. Of course, we give the company more valuable assistance for the moment by the guarantee, because by that means the enterprise will be carried to a success. With our grant of $l,000,o00, the company would not have been able to finance the enterprise so successfully as they will be with the guarantee. We propose, therefore, to guarantee a sum of money, in the form of bonds bearing 3 per cent interest and running fifty years, to a sufficient extent to meet the outstanding indebtedness and to complete the bridge.
But when we come to deal with the question of outstanding indebtedness, we find, as I have pointed out, that while as respects the bonds there is an indebtedness of $472,000, the actual value of the work which they represent is only $283,279, the difference representing a discount on the bonds, which the contractors were only willing to take on the basis of 60 cents on the dollar. We think we ought not to be called on to cover that discount or deficiency by a gov-

eminent guarantee. It is perhaps very common, in connection with the financing of an undertaking of this character, that bonds have to be sold at a discount. The discount in this case is perhaps larger than usual. However, the fact remains that there is outstanding in bonds secured by first mortgage on this bridge, the sum of $472,000, while the actual value represented in cash we have placed at $283,279. We think the difference, representing a discount of $188,000, should be met by the company themselves, and should not be covered by the government guarantee. We have, therefore, required them to subscribe for and pay up new capital to the amount of $200,000, which will practically all be applied to the payment of so much of these bonds as represent the discount. So that in applying our guarantee to the debts of the company, we shall be applying it only to that portion for which we have value received, while that portion which does not represent value received, but which represents a discount on the bonds, must be provided for by a further subscription and payment of private capital.
The company, as it stands now, has an actual paid-up capital stock of some $65,000, and it will issue a further sum of $200,000, making a total capital subscribed and paid up of $205,000 ; and we provide that no new stock of any kind shall be issued upon the undertaking, except the bonds which are to be guaranteed by the government, and that no liabilities can be incurred in the meantime except with the consent of the government ; so that the security which the government will have, will be, we think, very good.
The amount required to pay the outstanding debts and to complete the undertaking is estimated at $6,866,882. But that includes the payment of these bonds at par. We, therefore, deduct from that amount $188,721, which the private capitalists are obliged to provide for. That brings the balance required to pay the debts and complete the undertaking to $6,678,200. That amount we propose to guarantee in bonds bearing interest at 3 per cent for fifty years. We propose that the interest of the government shall be protected by having three directors on the board.


John Graham Haggart: Do you repay the bonds themselves, or only guarantee the interest ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Wo guarantee both the principal and interest. On the question of the earning powers of the bridge, we have some information which has already been laid before the House in the document entitled : ' Papers relating to the Quebec Bridge.' We have had estimates as to the probable number of cars which will use the bridge, and as to the probable revenue from various sources. There are a number of railways which will 460J
use the bridge immediately, because they touch both sides of the river; and undoubtedly, with the early development of trade, especially in connection with the new transcontinental railway, which will cross the Quebec bridge, there is no reason to doubt that any returns based on the present traffic will be sound and safe, because there is every prospect of a large increase at no distant date. We have information as to the probable earnings of the bridge from various sources. The late Mr. Walter Shanly, an eminent engineer, made an estimate as far back as 1885, in which he placed the earnings at $250,400. Mr. Walsh, the general passenger agent of the Quebec Central, in 1897 estimated the earnings at $259,164. Mr. .1. G. Scott, the general manager of the Bake St. John Railway, in 1899, confirmed the estimate of Mr. Shanly, placing the figures at $250,000. And Mr. Grundy, of the Quebec Central, a gentleman of high standing, who still takes a very deep interest in this work, has estimated the earnings at substantially the same amount as Mr. Shanly and Mr. Walsh. Substantially therefore these gentlemen, the late Mr. Shanly, Mr. Walsh, of the Quebec Central, Mr. Scott, of the Quebec and Lake St. John, and Mr. Grundy, estimated some years ago that the earnings would be $250,000 per year.


John Graham Haggart: And we did not know anything then about the transcontinental.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No; my hon. friend, with his natural sense of fairness, points out that at that time they knew nothing about the transcontinental project. Nor did they even know that the Great Northern was to be constructed. The conditions have therefore been changed since these reports were made, but whatever change has taken place is in favour of the enterprise, because the volume of business is increasing. We have had inquiries made very recently by officers of our own government, officers of the Intercolonial, into the probable earnings of the bridge. Mr. Tiffin, the general traffic manager of the Intercolonial, has made a report on the subject, the substance of which will be found in a letter addressed to me by Mr. Schreiber, chief engineer of government railways, dated Ottawa, September the 19th. Mr. Schreiber sums up as follows :
With reference to the matter of the probable extent of traffic over the Quebec bridge, when constructed, as to which you desire some Information. I have to state that, under date the 1st instant, Mr. Tiffin, the traffic manager of the Intercolonial Railway, has furnished an estimate of the number of cars that, it may be anticipated!, would cross the ' Quebec bridge ' dally, not taking into consideration traffic that may arise from the construction of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. This estimate is as follows :



Estimated number of cars daily.
Intercolonial' Railway	 130
Grand Trunk Railway	 75
Quebec Central Railway	 71
Total	 276
Extended to a full year, the aggregate is^ 276 cars per day plus 313 days equal 86,388 cars, which at $4 each, amounts to $345,552 per annum.
As to the rate of $4 per car, I find that It is higher than the rates paid in Canada at some points, but lower than the rates paid on some of the large bridges in the United States.


John Graham Haggart: Did you take the working expenses into account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not come to that. I am speaking of the possible earning powers. We have therefore, on the advice of the chief engineer of railways and canals, the probable earnings estimated at $345,552 per annum. Let us see now what our obligations are on the other side. Three per cent on the amount to be guaranteed will be $200,346. We are providing in addition that there shall be one-half per cent on the amount of guaranteed bonds set apart each year for the purpose of a sinking fund. That will not be sufficient to extinguish the loan in the fifty years. It will take about sixty-five years to extinguish the whole loan at that rate, but, in the common practice, we do not aim at extinguishing the whole loan but at having a very substantial sinking fund to assist in doing so. If this enterprise should continue in the hands of the company to the end of the fifty years, we shall have a sinking fund sufficient to extinguish about $3,750,000 of the debt, and there will be no difficulty whatever in financing the balance upon a new issue of bonds. However, I do not anticipate that that contingency will ever arise. No doubt long before that this bridge will be taken over and become the property of the government. We shall have annual) interest, $200,346; the half per cent sinking fund, $33,391; or a total of $233,737 to pay every year. The working expenses are estimated by Mr. Frank Grundy of the Quebec Central at $85,000. Adding this to the $233,737 gives a total of $318,737, against which we shall hare an income, which is estimated according to the estimates I have already given, confirmed by the chief engineer of railways and canals, at $345,552.


John Graham Haggart: Do the working expenses include repairs and depreciation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Under our contract repairs and renewals are considered as working expenses, and 1 take it for granted that these working expenses are included in the estimates I have given I am not sure whether Mr. Grundy did include working expenses, but I assume he did because he is a very capable railway man and would no doubt include them in his calculation.


Adam Carr Bell: I thought 1 understood the hon. gentleman to say that the interest would be about $200,000. But three per cent on $8,000,000 makes $240,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The amount we are guaranteeing is not $8,000,000 but $6,678,200. The whole cost is estimated at $7,500,000, but the amount we shall require to pay off existing indebtedness, not including discount on the bonds, and to complete the undertaking we estimate at $6,678,200. We have therefore a very safe margin on which to base our assurance that this bridge will, from the beginning, guarantee us against any loss; and while, by the step we are taking, we shall be giving aid in a better form and securing the completion of the bridge, we shall on the other hand not be adding to the obligations of the country ultimately, and be avoiding the payment of over $600,000, whicli otherwise we would be obliged to pay out of the million dollar grant already authorized and only partially paid.
My hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) reminds me too that in this estimate of the cost we are including the customs duty to an amount approximating from $700,000 to $800,000, which will come back directly into the treasury. That is an additional fact to be taken into account.
While for the present we are assuming that it will be wise to allow this enterprise to remain in the hands of the company and let them complete the undertaking, we do not look forward to its remaining permanently in the company's hands. In view of the importance of the bridge and the number of railways which will pass over it and its relations to the new road we are about to construct, and for various other reasons, wre think it is highly probable that, at no distant date, the government of Canada, no matter who may be in power, will desire to take possession of the road as a national work. Therefore, we are providing in the contract that we shall have power to take possession of the enterprise any time after completion, upon one month's notice. If we do, we shall then pay to the company the amount of net cash they put into the enterprise, which, according to the contract, will be $265,000, with interest at the rate of five per cent, less any dividend that may have been earned in the meantime. And we will pay them a premium of ten per cent on the par value of their stock, which is not an unusual thing in taking over an enterprise. That par value as fixed in the contract will be $265,000. Thus they will receive their money back with interest at five per cent, less any dividends which may be earned, and ten per cent advance on the money they have put iu.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How soon does the hon. minister expect that the government will be obliged to take over the undertaking ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The government will not be obliged to take it over at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But, as a matter of policy, my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) said that undoubtedly before long the undertaking will be taken over and become the property of the government. My hon. friend has touched on that point, and I would like to ask him if it is a matter of two or three years, or if it is to be taken over simultaneously with the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would be a matter for consideration. The company is allowed three years in which to complete the undertaking, and from the moment that the undertaking is completed we will have the right to take it over upon one mouth's notice. We can take it over at any time after 1906, whether the road is completed or not. On whichever event shall first happen, either the completion of the road or the arrival of that date three years hence, the government shall have the right to take over the undertaking, and I am inclined to think, as I said before, that any government which is in power will find at no distant date that it will be to the advantage of the Dominion to take over that bridge. However, there has been no arrangement in that form, but we have thought it wise to protect the people's right to acquire that bridge at any time after its completion or after 1906.


James Clancy: Is any time fixed in the contract at which that bridge is to be completed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is to be completed on the 1st December, 1906. In addition to that, the Minister of Justice calls my attention to the fact that if, during construction, we are not satisfied with the progress made, if the road is not being pushed forward to successful completion, the government shall have the right to take it over, apart from the general right they would possess afterwards. If we should take over the bridge at any time we would find ourselves in this position : The Quebec government would 'have contributed $250,000, the city of Quebec would have contributed $300,000; the government of Canada would have contributed in cash $374,000. So long as the enterprise remains in the hands of the company we treat these sums as free gifts, as they were intended to be, to the enterprise ; but if the Dominion takes over the bridge, we shall then become accountable to the government of the province of Quebec and to the city of Quebec to the extent of the money they have placed in the bridge.


John Graham Haggart: Why should you pay them for their advances ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because we think that if we take possession of the property as a national work, we should then be willing to account for these advances, but we become accountable to the province and the city of Quebec only for profits which the bridge may earn. We shall, under the contract which we have made- with the company, have the right to take possession of the bridge, and the bridge becomes the property of the Dominion of Canada without any question as to title whatever. We do not recognize any title of the government of Quebec or of the city of Quebec in the bridge, but we do recognize the fact that they have contributed their respective sums of $250,000 and $300.000, and we will place these contributions in precisely the same position as the $374,000 which we have contributed. If the bridge earns anything beyond its working expenses and beyond the interest on its bonded indebtedness, if there are profits, we will divide these profits equitably among the contributors of the three amounts, but there shall not be paid to the government of Quebec or to the city of Quebec more than three per cent interest on the amount of their contributions. If the bridge does not earn anything beyond the working expenses and the interest on the bonded indebtedness, neither the city of Quebec nor the province of Quebec will receive a cent


John Graham Haggart: Have you fully provided for that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is in -the contract, section 21. If it becomes a profitable enterprise and we are making money out of it, we will account to the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec for three per cent on their money so long as we are making money out of it. If we do not earn money, neither the city nor the province of Quebec can receive a penny. They *will have no title, but will have what I may call a deferred interest in the bridge to the extent of the amount they have contributed, and we may at any time extinguish that by paying the amount they have contributed to the bridge.


John Graham Haggart: Have they any lien on the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: None whatever.


John Graham Haggart: Why, then, do you create one ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We do not so long as the bridge remains in the hands of the company. They will give that as a free gift, but if we dispossess the company, take the bridge over and make money out of it, we think we should account to the city and province of Quebec for their share or pay off the indebtedness.


James Clancy: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the division of profits
14C99

was to be made on the sum contributed by the government, the $374,000, as against the contributions of the city and province of Quebec, or as against the whole sum which the government will advance in taking over the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The $374,000 will be the only sum ; if we take the bridge over we will have the bonded indebtedness to carry, and that will be the first charge before any one can get any money other than the working expenses.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Would it not be more advisable, in view of the government intending to take over this bridge, to simply guarantee the $472,000 bonds instead of contracting this issue of $200,000 of stock, which they may have to take over at a premium ? Would it not be better to simply guarantee the $472,000 at once and be done with it ?
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. No ; because in this case we will oblige the company to pay the $188,000 themselves out of their own pocket. No new stock can be created under this contract. The amount we will have to pay as premium on the stock will be one-tenth of the $265,000, or $26,500. That is the limit of the premium, and it is a small amount.


John Graham Haggart: Do you think that you can get the stockholders to put their hands into their pockets and pay the $200,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They must pay the $200,000 more of their own money, every dollar of which must be paid up before they get this guarantee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a good investment; they get 5 per cent interest and 10 per cent premium.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a good investment, except that it might be fifty years before they can get it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is very doubtful.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I say frankly that I think some of these days the bridge will be taken over. Of course, we cannot guarantee that a good government like the present will be here forever.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Would it not be more advisable for the government to take it over at once as their own property and complete it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is something to be said in favour of that suggestion, but after full investigation we have concluded, since the company have made negotiations and have carried on some of the work, that we had better let them finish the work.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Does the hon. minister consider the clause in this contract sufficient to guard the expenditure of this money ;


James Clancy: that is, that the money shall be expended only in the construction of this bridge ? Are there sufficient guards thrown around the expenditure of the proceeds of these (bonds ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We think we have sufficiently protected it in that respect. Money can only be paid for value put into the bridge upon the certificate of the government engineer.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great pity that a matter of this importance has been brought to the attention of the House on the last day of the session ; I mean that to-day we are called upon to discuss a scheme of great magnitude, a very interesting scheme, and we have really not the time to bring to the consideration of that project its importance deserves. I see no necessity for such a wonderful and hasty proceeding. The condition of the Quebec bridge, its need of assistance, existed prior to the meeting of this House on the 12th of March last. It was fully discussed during the sitting of the Quebec legislature ; it formed the subject of a very careful investigation there, and of a lengthy discussion ; and it was stated during that discussion, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice knows, by the Prime Minister of Quebec himself, the president of this undertaking, that he would apply to the Dominion government for assistance. He was asked in the legislature if he contemplated seeking assistance from the city of Quebec and he said that he did not, neither did he contemplate seeking assistance from the legislature ; and if I am correctly informed, when asked whether he intended to apply for it here in Ottawa before the meeting of this legislature, he stated that he did. Under these circumstances, does it not appear rather unfair to the House that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice should, in the last hours, in the last minutes, one might almost say, of this session, come dow-n with such a complicated plan as the one which he 'has presented to this House ? I mention this because I have always been favourable to that project, and the Conservative party, as members of this House are well aware, was committed to assisting the construction of the Quebec bridge before 1896. Circumstances of which I have little knowledge prevented the party then in power from carrying out its pledge. But the project was sanctioned, the necessity of that undertaking was admitted, and it was merely a question of knowing how best to help carry out that great enterprise. Therefore there is no difference of opinion in regard to the policy, at least that is the way I understand it; the only difference of opinon is as to the way in which the 1 thing can best be done.

Now, what I submit to this House, briefly, is that under the agreement of my hon. friend which he has submitted to the consideration of the House to-day, he confides the expenditure of a sum of over $6,500,000 to a company that has only put into that undertaking, so far as we can see, the sum of about $50,000, a company which is concentrated in the hands of a very few men, and they are charged with the expenditure of this sum of nearly $7,000,000 without any accountability to this House. According to the statement of my hon. friend, which of course we must take as well founded, it is the expectation that before long, if the transcontinental railway is going to be carried out, we shall take over that work, and it is going to become the property of the government. When I asked my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals how soon he expected that would be done, he said that three years would be given to terminate the bridge. Under the expectation that the government are going to carry out that transcontinental railway as soon as possible, and if that bridge is terminated within three years, we will at that time, perhaps before, at any rate very soon after, under the general policy in connection with the transcontinental railway, be called upon to take up that work. So that we are confiding ihe construction of this bridge which we intend to make our own property, and the expenditure of a sum of over $6,500,000 to parties who are not responsible to the government. I say that we have no control over the spending of that money, no supervision, and that the interests of the city of Quebec and its vicinity, and the construction of that bridge and its approaches in such a way as to satisfy clearly the wants of the public at that point, are confided to a select few who form this company, without any accountability.
Clause 14, is the one under which this government is empowered to name three directors. But those directors are not obliged to make any report to the government, they are a minority in the board, and consequently that company that has a paid-up capital at the present moment of abbut $50,000-it 'is alleged $65,000-that company is going to have the spending of all this money and the carrying out of the work. Under these circumstances, the policy of the government being to see to the construction of that bridge, there being, as I understand it, no controversy about its utility, it seems to me it would have been far more proper for the government itself to undertake the construction of that bridge. My hon. friend may say that the government is only guaranteeing these bonds. But we must couple that statement with the statement made by the minister that we are going to take over that property, that it is a necessary link in the transcontinental railway, and I think-because I do not want to
go into the details, the calculations have been placed before this House by my hon. friend-but I think there can be no doubt in the mind of any member in this House that we are going ultimately to take up that property and make it a Dominion government property. Under these circumstances are we right to confide the spending of this money and the conduct of this undertaking, with its approaches to Quebec on one side and to Levis on the other, to a company concentrated in the hands of so few people, when it appears to be obvious that the control of that important undertaking and the progress of the work ought to be continually under the eyes of the government and under the eye of this parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I find that that company lias not given conclusive proof of its competency to carry out an undertaking of that magnitude. Here let me call attention to a very important motion which was made before the legislature of Quebec by the member for Dorchester, in which the history of the operations of this company is fully gone into. The facts connected with the working of that company are enumerated in that motion, which I will not read to the House, but only point out some of the facts, and if those facts are correct, I submit that this scheme has been prepared hastily, at the last moments of the session, and that if the proposition which I lay before you is correct, it would be the duty of the government themselves to carry out these important works rather than to confide them to this company. At least I think we ought to have in this measure some provision whereby, from time to time and regularly, we should know, in the interests of the public, exactly how this money is being applied and how the works are being carried out. Let me call your attention to the fact that an estimate was prepared for the use of the Quebec government which then had control over this bridge, of what the bridge would cost. That estimate was prepared under the instructions of the then Minister of Public Works of the province of Quebec, the late Mr. Duffy, and on the 6th of August, 1902, was placed before the Quebec government.
Under the estimate made by a very careful engineer the cost of the substructure of this bridge was placed at $819,450, and the cost of the superstructure, after having been very carefully gone into by Mr. Yallee, the government engineer, was placed at $2,800.000. The province of Quebec subscribed to that undertaking the sum of $250,000 to be payable in instalments. That amount was to be paid to the builders of the bridge as the work proceeded. 20 per cent according to the estimates of work done on both substructure and superstructure and never more than $30,000 in one year. The amount granted by the city of Quebec was payable at once, and it was so paid. Under the conditions of the sub-

scription, although up to the present time the substructure alone is terminated, the province has already, as I understand it, paid $90,000 in cash, and- Mr. Parent, the provincial premier, who is also mayor of the city of Quebec and president of the bridge company, in spite of the conditions of the subscription of the province of Quebec, has, as president of the bridge company, pledged the province of Quebec to a loan made by the Bank of Montreal of $160,000. So that, although the bridge is not advanced in degree sufficient to authorize the total payment of the provincial subsidy to the structure, the whole of the subsidy under the management of this company, has become pledged to the company, and the whole amount is practically paid already.


James Clancy: Is that in addition to the amount of subsidy already paid ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is in addition to the $90,000 already paid. The contractor for the construction of the bridge is obliged, under the contract which he made with the bridge company, to pay for the construction of the bridge and for all contingencies and expenses of the company, whatever that may mean, with the federal subsidy, with the subsidy of the city of Quebec and also with the subsidy of the province, so that in reality it is he who lias disbursed up to the present time all the amounts connected with the construction of this bridge. The substructure has been finished. The cost was estimated by a competent engineer at $819,000, and yet we find by a document produced before the legislative assembly of Quebec, bearing No. 37 of the documents filed during the last session, that the amount due to this contractor for construction as far as it has progressed is not $819,000, but $1,217,359.38. On the one hand, an estimate made by Mr. Vallee, a competent engineer, of a little over $800,000 for the work to be done; on the other hand, an amount of expense incurred for the bridge so far of over $1,200,000. This claim of $1,200,000 due to the contractor has been approved by the company. That is a fact which we know. The company has also approved of an account due to the contractor for the beginning of the work done upon the superstructure of $199,000. These two items united form a total amount of expenditure due now by the company of $1,416,394. That is the amount due now, although, as far as I know, there is no superstructure yet upon the substructure and the substructure was valued at $819,000. In the Quebec legislature an effort was made to obtain some light upon this extraordinary expenditure, and a motion was made there having for its object the placing before the legislature of the details of all these claims, and notably of the moneys which the contractor, being liable for all contingent expenses, had paid to the law firm in' Quebec of which Mr. Parent, the


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Prime Minister, is a member, in connection with the construction of this bridge. The legislature denied that motion upon thte supposed ground that in the Public Works Department at Quebec there could be found no information upon that, important point, the object of the motion, which was made on 11th March last, being to find out how It could be possible that such a large indebtedness as an amount of over $1,400,000 could have been incurred upon the undertaking which had advanced to such a point only as would warrant the expenditure of say $1,000,000 or almost $500,000 more than this work was valued at. T mention this fact to give the House some idea of how the work was carried on. Up to the present we have an expenditure upon the substructure of $1,217,000, which should have cost, according to the estimate of the engineer, $819,000, and an expenditure of $199,035 on the superstructure, making $1,416,394, part of which has been paid with the discount obtained at the Bank of Montreal, of the amount which was payable by the province of Quebec, 20 per cent of which was to have been paid as the work progressed, and not more than $30,000 in any one year.
Of the debentures of the company, as I understand it, $533,594 have been issued in payment of part of this construction account. With half a million of debentures they have paid indebtedness due on construction account to the amount of $213,258. Surely there has been a profit to somebody upon these debentures ? There was a sum of $213,258, or thereabouts, payable, and there was a sum of $188,721. which is the amount of the discount at the Bank of Montreal. At any rate, the debentures having been paid for at the rate of 60 per cent of their face value will yield a profit to somebody. At the present moment, the city of Quebec has paid $300,000, the province of Quebec has paid $250,000. and the Dominion government, on account of the $1,000,000 vote on account of this undertaking, has paid $374,533, or there has been a total on account of subsidies paid of $924,533.
When Mr. Yallee, the engineer of the provincial government, was commissioned by the Hon. Mr. Duffy, provincial treasurer, to make an accurate report upon the cost of these works, he reported the cost to be $819,000 for the substructure, and $2,800,000 for the superstructure. The estimate we have now before us and which was made in September last by Mr. Schreiber, brings the cost up to $4,767,500, or $1,148,050 more thau Mr. Yallee said the cost would be. We have no accurate information as to the cost of the approaches beyond what is contained in the estimate of Mr. Schreiber, and that estimate is very unsatisfactory because we do not know on what it is based. For the south approach, the estimate is $21,000 for land and damages, and $459,800 for the construction of the double track and a yard (presumably at Levis). The land and

damages estimated tor the north approach is much larger, being $414,000. We have no information as to what this estimate is based on, as to its details or as to whether it is correct. For the construction of tlie double tracks and the sidings the estimated sum is $533,060. The total amount in the estimate of Mr, Sehreiber up to the 17th of September as to the amount necessary to completely finish the undertaking is $(>,725,360. The debentures which will l>o issued by this company, and the control of the proceeds of which will be entirely in the hands of the company amount to $6,678,500. The estimated cost, as 1 have said is, $6,725,360. I would ask the Minister of Railways and Canals or the Minister of Justice, if it is intended to repay the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec with the proceeds of these bonds. The amount of subsidies given so far is $900,000 and that has gone into the construction of tlie work.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend is omitting the duty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have omitted it purposely, because the steel rails may be made in Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not for the steel rails. It is for the superstructure of the bridge which is being made in the United States at the present moment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Even so, I do not think the figures meet the amount paid by the Dominion government, by the provincial government, and by the city of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may say that so far the work has not been carried on by the company in a manner which would warrant us in believing that the company is more competent to carry out the work than is this government. From the papers submitted, to the House, it will be seen that probably four or five individuals control the whole company. What they have paid in so far they will have returned in paid up stock, and they are asked to invest a further sum of $200,000, but they will do so with a certain prospect that the government is going to take over the bridge, and they will receive five per cent upon the investment, plus ten per cent bonus, when the government takes over the whole undertaking. Under these circumstances, I feel that although the project is an excellent one; the people of the Dominion who are now interested in that work since it has become a national undertaking, and the people of the immediate district as well, would have far better security if the government had direct supervision over the expenditure of this six and a half million dollars. Since a commission is to be appointed for the express purpose of building the Transcontinental Railway, a part of which this bridge will become, it is my opinion that every interest would be far better safeguarded if the work were entrusted to that commission. I believe that the people in the vicinity of Quebec would prefer that this expenditure shall be under government control, through this commission of experienced men, so that they would have absolute knowledge of how every cent of this money would be spent. If we take the facts set forth in the motion made in the legislature, and the facts contained in the documents submitted to us here; there can be no controversy but that a great saving of money would be effected if the construction of this work were carried out. by the commission, or under tlie direct supervision of the Dominion government. We would thus secure absolute control of a work which is ultimately going to fall into the assets of the Dominion, which is part of a railway which has been sanctioned by parliament. If it was deemed necessary and useful to commit the construction of that railway to an independent body or a quasi independent body, to a commission composed of competent men, why should an exception be made of the Quebec bridge 7 Why should not that large sum of $6,500,000 which we are ultimately going to pay-we have that admission from the Minister of Finance, and there is no doubt about it in the mind of anybody-be confided to the same body, with such a control over the expenditure by this legislature as would ensure the money being spent in such a way as not to afford an opportunity for any company or individual to derive any profit from the carrying out of the undertaking, but to ensure the largest possible measure of public benefit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Speaker, It is very pleasant indeed to hear my hon. friend admitting the absolute necessity of this undertaking. In fact, it would be impossible for any man with any knowledge of the local conditions existing at Quebec, to doubt, not merely the advisability, but the imperative necessity of the construction of such a work. For the last twenty-five years it has been the dream of every man in Quebec to see this work accomplished. We labour there under exceptional disadvantages. There are three important railways on the south side of the St. Lawrence- the Intercolonial, the Quebec Central and the Grand Trunk-none of which have connection with Quebec ; and a population of half a million people in a district tributary to Quebec are completely cut off from access to the city, except by means of a ferry, on which the rate in summer is two cents per 100 pounds, and in the winter four cents per 100 pounds. These rates are relatively prohibitive. It is gratifying to observe that the criticism of my hon. friend has reference not to the scheme, but to the method in which assistance is to be given to the eom-

pany. His chief criticism is with respect to the organization of the company itself. I am sure that my hon. friend must be labouring under a complete misapprehension when he imagines for one moment that the men connected with this company are liable in any way to divert any of the money they receive, or to be parties to an expenditure that is not absolutely necessary in the interest of the enterprise. It will suffice for me to give the names of the gentlemen who are connected with it. Take, for instance, the names of Mr. Chateauvert, Mr. Lemoine, Mr. Audet, Mr. Garneau, Mr. Breaky, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Rioux, Mr. Price. These are the names of the most prominent citizens of the city of Quebec ; and when my hon. friend learns that these men are directors of the company and are in control of it, he will realize the absolute impossibility of any such eventuality as that which he suggests occur-ing. My hon. friend will be glad to learn also that new capital is to be brought into this enterprise. I am sure that he will be pleased when I tell him that I am authorized to say that of this new stock of !i>200,000, Mr. John Sharpies, of Quebec, takes $50,000, the Allan firm, Mr. Hearn and others, $25,000, the Grand Trunk Company, $25,000, and the Quebec Central Company, $25,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will allow me, I do not think these men are very heroic. If I had money to invest at 5 per cent, with a 10 per cent premium, I should be quite willing to put it into that company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am pointing out the absolute impossibility of such eventualities as my hon. friend suggests occuring, with such men at the head of the enterprise. My hon. friend practically says that the directors are not to be trusted. What benefit have they to derive from the enterprise ? They are putting their own money into it, and what position do they occupy under this contract 7 Not one dollar's worth of work can be done without the approval of the government. Every plan and specification has to be submitted to the government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Plans have to be approved of by the government, as in the case of every public work of that nature ; but they make the contracts, and they have absolute powers in regard to the location and construction of the work.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let my hon. friend just read the last part of paragraph 6, of the contract, and he will find that the proceeds of the bonds are to remain in the possession of the government that the money is to be paid out on progress estimates, that the certificates of the work as it progresses must be made by the government engineer. What greater control could the government have ? If my hon. friend will read this contract, he will see Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
that the result of it is that this is a government work, carried on for the government through the agency of these men whose names I have mentioned. Not a dollar's worth of work can be done without the approval of the government, not a toll can be levied or a farthing charged except with the consent of the government. What more direct control could there be ?


John Graham Haggart: Is the contract already let for the completion of the bridge and the approaches ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it was let years ago ; and if my hon. friend will look at the contract, he will see that provision was made fixing the price of the iron at the time that it should be required- a very important provision ; because as the result of that we have saved the consequences of fluctuations in the iron market, and are able to contract with the company under very favourable conditions. The contracts both for the superstructure and for the approaches have been submitted to the government engineer.


George William Fowler: Were they submitted before they were signed '?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, before they were executed.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Has the Phoenix Bridge Company the contract for the superstructure ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount of the contract for the superstructure 1


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Three million three hundred and eighty-eight thousand three hundred dollars for the steel part, $156,500 for the wooden part, and $4,800 for the track on the bridge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are all these contracts with the same company ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, they are all in the one contract.


Mr. GOURLEY.: What is the length of the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot give the length. I know that the centre span, the cantilever span, will be something like 1,800 feet in length. It will be close on 200 feet longer than the span of the bridge of the Frith of Forth, which at present is the largest span in the world.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What is its length in miles, in a general way ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I imagine it would be a mile from the abutment on the north side to the shore abutment on the south side. Of course, the expensive part of the bridge will be the cantilever portion ; the centre span.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Does the hon. gentleman know whether the cost of the substructure exceeded1 the estimate, owing to the difficulty of finding a proper foundation ? I understand that the contractor had to go down a greater depth than he at first anticipated.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: That is the cost of the superstructure already existing, but I would like to say that the estimate made by the provincial government engineer in that connection does not happen to agree with the estimate made by the Dominion government engineer. There was over $300,000 extra expenditure as the result of the discovery, when the south pier was put down, that it was practically on quicksand, which made it necessary to go down some 15 or 18 feet deeper than was originally contemplated. I may say that the estimate of the work done is not an approximate estimate, such as is made before a work is begun. The figures now submitted are based on the work actually done and approved by the Dominion government engineer. In so far as the subsidy granted by the Dominion government is concerned, it was neeesssary that the progress estimates of the work done each month should be approved by the Dominion government engineer before any subsidy could be paid, so that the figures given here are not an estimate made by Mr. Vallee, who may or may not be a competent man, and who may or may not have seen works of this magnitude carried on before, but they are an estimate of the actual work done.
My hon. friend has referred to the estimate of the cost of the approaches. He says that we have not sufficient detail. But it is a very easy matter to make an estimate of the cost of the approaches. The first question to be considered is the question of land damages; and any one who has any knowledge of the conditions in the neighbourhood of Quebec can easily determine the probable cost of the land grants. The whole territory covered by the approaches on the north side of the river will not exceed six miles, and it is very easy to estimate within that distance what the cost of the land is likely to be. The next question is what is the cost of construction likely to be, that is to say, the embankment, the grading and the iron. But that is all very simple. There is no great trouble making an estimate of that description, and in any event we have the statement made by Mr. Schreiber. the government engineer, on whose experience we may safely rely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How is the approach made on the north side of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The approach starts from the north abutment of the bridge and goes down along the river front, extending to the city of Quebec and ending in a place called Champlain market,
at which point the existing railway systems -the Great Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Lake St. John-will connect with the contemplated terminus.


John Graham Haggart: Is that near the dock which the government built ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: About a quarter of a mile from it. The point I speak of now is immediately below the Dufferin Terrace.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Does it go around the bank of the river ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. The result will be you will not only have a bridge at Quebec, but material for the best harbour in the world. You will have six miles of river front served by this line of railway, and you will have 42 feet of water over the whole course, with a very small expenditure. Instead of being, as now, absolutely dependent upon the Princess Louise Basin, where you have got but two berths for steamers drawing 30 feet of water, yon will have this whole river front covered by this line of railway. Not only are we now providing for a bridge to connect the north side of the St. Lawrence with the south, but also for the harbour improvements; because when you get down towards the city of Quebec to within about a mile of the terminus, you then run along the wharfs, and it will be necessary to build an embankment along the wharfs, which will afterwards serve as' a magnificent embankment for sea-going vessels. You are not only providing this means of communication between the north and south shores, but further equipping the harbour of Quebec, so that you can have then a most commodious and complete harbour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How is it contemplated to get down from the height of the abutment of the bridge on the north side to the level of Champlain market ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: According to the profile now in existence, it is intended to start from the upper level of Cap Rouge, then go along the cliff to get down to the lower level at Pointe a. Pizeau, immediately below Sillery church. There you will reach the lower level, and from Pointe fl. Pizeau there will be an approach of three and a half miles into the city on absolutely level ground.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I had an idea that the fortification went sheer down to the water.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, but the government property does. The natural fortification does. The basis of the citadel goes down to the water ; but at the (base of the rock on which the citadel is built, there is a narrow piece of ground where the Allans wharf is situated.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: How broad ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: About 100 feet, and then you immediately come to the water.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Sufficient for a harbour and the transaction of business ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, there is not a single house in that locality. My hon. friend will remember that that is where the landslide took place some years ago, and there have been no houses there since.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is what gave me the impression that there is no room fox-wharfs there.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, there is. That is where the Allans formerly brought their vessels to discharge and take on passengers. There are about 25 to 30 feet of water there, and out from the wharf we have 40 to 50 feet.


David Henderson: Will the x-ailway track run along this narrow strip ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, the intention is to run by that place and down to the terminus, which is about a quarter mile further down. My hon. friend made refex-ence to the contribution of the city of Quebec and that of the province, and asked how they ought to be dealt with ? When that enterprise was started, the city of Quebec voted $300,000 to aid it, and the provincial legislature, realizing- 'that it was a work of provincial importance, voted it a sum of $250,000. With respect to that $250,000, my hon. friend m-ade reference to something that occurred in the local legislature, and said that I probably knew all about it. Well, I know very little aboixt what takes place there. We have as much as we can take care of here, without paying attention to what goes on in the legislature at Quebec. But I do know something of this transaction. The $200,000 was voted in aid of the construction of this bridge, payable at the rate of $30,000 per year, but if before the total amount of $200,000 would be paid at that x-ate, the work should be completed, then the total amount would become payable at once. As the work progressed rapidly, the money was eax-ned very rapidly. The substructure was begun and completed within two years.
I am now speaking in the hearing of the chief engineer of the government, and I say it is acknowledged and admitted that there is no more perfect piece of work on this continent than the work which has been done in connection with the sub-stx-ucture. The -work was all completed within two years, the provincial contribution of $250,000 was earned but was not available because, under the contx-act, the money payable by the provincial government and by the city of Quebec was payable pro rata on each progress estimate. The money was very x-apidly eax-ned but was not available because under the terms of the Mr. GOURLEY.
statute it was payable to the amount of only $30,000 a year. In order to enable them to meet their obligations and to pay their contractor, the company went to the bank of Montreal and the bank of Montreal advaix-ced the money, taking as collateral security this $250,000 due from the province ; that is the whole transactioix. The province agreed to pay $30,000 a year and instead of paying the contractor they pay the bank which advances the money. My hon. friend x-eferred to the advances of the city and province. In so far as the city and province are concerned, I may say that the city is much interested in the construction of the bridge and that the $300,000 which they have contributed was contributed as a voluntary gift with the intention that th'e shareholders of this company should benefit to that extent. That is the intention. I have here the resolution of the city council of Quebec in which they say that this is intended as aid to the enterprise. They did not expect any part of this money to be returned. The province of Quebec gave their contribution as a subsidy absolutely, as the Dominion government agreed to give $1,000,000 and have paid $374,000. Thxis you have the Dominion, the province axxd the city all realizing that this is an important work municipally, px-ovincially and from a Dominion standpoint and they all contributed to the work. Now it comes to pass that possibly the work may be taken over, under this agreement, by the Dominion. That is to say that one of the parties who contributed to the -construction of the enterprise may take the whole enterprise over at a certain time. If the Dominion should take it over and px-ovide for the expenditure they are called upon to make under the existing contx-act, [DOT] then this will happen : After the Dominion has been released of ail obligations with respect to the bonded indebtedness or the sinking fund for the amount paid to the shareholders, on their stock, then you will have the Dominion interested in this enterprise to the extent of $370,000, the amount of the subsidy. You will have tiie province of Quebec interested to the extent of $250,000 and the city of Qxiebee to the extent of $300,000. Then the Dominion says : After we have been relieved from all liabilities under the new arrangement, and after we go back to the old condition of things, then we shall deal with this entex1-prise as an enterprise in which three parties are interested ; and after we get rid of all our obligations, if there is any px-oflt, we do not want to take the profit, we are not entitled to it any more than the others who contributed to the enterprise. Then all of those who put money into the enterprise will receive their money back. The gov-enxment will have the right either to pay back the capital or to keep the money in the enterprise and pay the province and city so much per cent per annum

oil their investment. It seems to me that that is a perfectly fair proposition and one which places all those who have put money into this project on the same footing. I do not know that there is any thing in what my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) would criticise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not make any particular criticism of that, but if my hon. friend will allow me, 1 will read the resolution to which I referred. The resolution says :
On the 10th of August, Mr. Vallee, the engineer of the provincial government reported that out of the $250,000 to be paid by the province to the company. $56,600.45 would have to be allotted to the substructure and $195,399.55 to the superstructure. On the 21st of September following the Order in Council was passed adopting the conclusions of this report and in spite of the fact that the payment of the subsidy has been divided, although, the superstructure alone was constructed the province have paid already $90,000 instead of $56,000. Moreover, on the 4th of December following, the Minister of Public Works made a report the object of which was to contradict the Order in Council of September 21, 1900, in which report of the September 21st, it was declared that the whole $250,000 was then fully earned and that the government of the province of Quebec should bind and oblige itself to pay that sum of $250,000 to the Bank of Montreal in contradiction to the Premier's Order in Council and although the work was not completed and the conditions of the grant by the province had not been observed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend will look at the statute he will see that It has been literally complied with. I am not dealing with the motion, because motions can be so easily made to read so as to suit a particular purpose. I refer to the statute of the province which provides for the subsidy and my hon. friend will find that the transfer to the Bank of Montreal was made literally under the terms of that statute.
Another error into which my hon. friend has fallen is the. statement that nothing has been done in connection with the superstructure There has been expended on the superstructure the modest sum of $156,000 ; two short spans have been completed and are now in place and can he seen by any one who passes by the bridge. $156,640 have been expended in connection with the superstructure. The subsidy of the province of Quebec has simply been transferred. It is paid over to those who have earned it, and it has gone into the enterprise, there is no dispute about that and it has gone in on progress estimates certified by Mr. Vallee the government engineer who certifies to the payment of progress estimates by the province of Quebec. My hon. friend has referred to the motion of Mr. Pelletier, I would like to refer to something which occured in the city of Quebec about two nights ago when my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and his leader (Mr. Borden, Halifax) were entertained in that city and it was a great pleasure to me to observe that when
the gentleman went to Quebec that city maintained its reputation for hospitality and that a magnificent reception was given to him. I congratulate him. The gentleman who made that motion, speaking of the bridge at the banquet in the hearing of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) said :
The Quebec bridge has been promised to us by important Conservatives. That promise was not kept, and that was an error. The electors should always insist upon the accomplishment of any promises made and they should prefer that fewer promises he made and that those made be carried out.
Mr. Pelletier did not say that that promise was not kept by the present administration and like my hon. friend he approves of the building of the bridge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not of this proposition ; lie did not know anything about this.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No ; that motion in the Quebec legislature to which my hon. friend refers was probably made for the purpose of making party capital, but I am glad to see that here we are broader and do not try to make political capital out of a public enterprise.
I do not know that there is anything more for me to say at this stage hut when we are in committee If there are any questions which hon. gentlemen desire to ask and which I can answer I shall be glad to answer them. I may say to my hon. friend that I have a very great interest in this bridge.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Not a financial one ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not to the extent of a farthing, direct or indirect and I do not think any one suspects me of having an interest.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, I did not say so. You have too much sense.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This goes into my constituency, into the heart of one of the most important parishes I represent, my native parish Sillery. It goes through a part of the county with which I am very familiar and runs down to the constituency of my hon. friend for Quebec West (Mr. Power) and both of us are much interested, for as I said, for a quarter of a century the dream of every man in Quebec was to see this bridge built. It was promised and promised, to us but we never saw the realization of it. We have now come within, I think, measurable distance of the end. I have made myself familiar, as far as I could with the abilities I possess, with all the particulars of the enterprise and I assure this 'honourable House that any information I can give I shall be glad and delighted to give.
With respect to the discount on the bonds I may say that this is the position : When this contract was let the company had, as paid up capital. $50,000. It had available for the construction of this bridge, subsidies

of the Dominion government, of the local 'government, and of the city of Quebec. That is to say, $300,000 from the city of Quebec, $250,000 from the provincial government, -and $333,000 from the Dominion government, for there was then available out of the Dominion subsidy for the substructure only on-e-third, and more than that has been paid out of that Dominion subsidy in connection with the superstructure. That was the financial condition of the company at that time. Now, this contractor entered into a contract with this company to build that work, a most important undertaking. As 1 say, at that time no man knew what the result of this undertaking might be with respect to the foundation. They have been obliged to put in this foundation sixty feet below the bed of the St. Lawrence river, at a place where the tide rises eighteen feet. At times his men were working at a distance of thirty-two feet below the surface of the water.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What is the tide at that place ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It varies from fourteen to eighteen feet.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The Shubenacadie bridge was built in forty feet of water.
The MINISTER OB' JUSTICE. The conditions under which the Shubenacadie bridge was built did not at all compare with those prevailing here. Those were the conditions under which the contract was taken, and this contractor agreed to take 80 per cent of his progress -estimates in cash and 20 per cent in bonds of the company-one-fifth of the whole cost of the substructure in bonds of the company, and the company in the financial condition I have described. Now what was the outlook for him at that time ? Was the outlook such as that he could ever expect under these conditions, if lie did not take considerable risk, even to receive the payment of 60 cents on the dollar ? There was large risk, and he took that risk, and the result has been that the enterprise has turned out a success. Now lie says, I want a hundred cents on the dollar, that is the condition of the contract. Now what position does the government take ? The government says : This is a binding obligation on the company. The company undertook at that time to enter into a contract and to assume this binding obligation. They agreed to pay that 40 cents on the dollar, it is an obligation that can be enforced against the company at any time. The government say to the company : Yery well


John Graham Haggart: What was the object of the company to pay the difference ?
The MINISTER OB' JUSTICE. The position the government took was this : The government said : Yery well, that is a binding obligation, a legal obligation that may be enforced against the company,1


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: and they must provide the means necessary to pay that obligation. Provide the means necessary to pay that obligation, subscribe an additional $200,000, which will be sufficient to pay that discount of $183,000, let the company pay that, and then when the company has liquidated that liability to its contractor and paid that discount, we will step in and guarantee their bonds, but we won't do it until the company have paid the difference. That is the position the government took. I do not see that there is anything wrong in that. It is merely providing that the company should liquidate its own liabilities with respect to that particular contractor. The company is asked to liquidate this liability, and in the result we have the additional guarantee that the construction of this enterprise will be properly looked after, because of the additional investment that these gentlemen are going to make in the enterprise, they are putting $200,000 more of their own capital into the -enterprise. The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has this in his mind, that if the government take this enterprise over, of course the shareholders will be paid the $200,000. But the government will not take this enterprise over if it is not a success, the government are under no obligation to take it over.


John Graham Haggart: They can do it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But they are under no obligation to do it, and the government will see to it that this enterprise is not taken over if it becomes a financial disaster ; but if it. becomes a success, and if the government do take it over, why should we not assume this liability as well as any other liability ? If it is a legal obligation, a fair and honest debt due by the company, why should it not be paid ?


John Graham Haggart: Can you do this without coming to this parliament and getting a grant of that money ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We could not get it of course without the sanction of parliament, and we make that provision.


John Graham Haggart: Under the contract you are empowering the government to enter into an arrangement of that kind. If you have -entered into an arrangement, the question is whether you will not be bound by that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We would have to come to parliament for the money to do it.


John Graham Haggart: But it. may be obligatory upon the Crown.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is a provision which will enable the government as against the company to exercise its rights. But that does not mean that if parliament does not sanction the act of the government

they can do it. If parliament does not give its sanction there is no obligation.


John Graham Haggart: We are empowering the government to enter into an arrangement of that kind if they think proper.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let my hon. friend read section 23 :
It at any time, and with or without notice, the government shall pay or cause to be paid to the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec, or either of them, the amount of their respective subsidies of $250,000, and $300,000, all payments, whether in respect of capital or income, to be made under the foregoing provisions to the said government of the province of Quebec or the city of Quebec, respectively, shall at and from that time absolutely cease and determine.
We are under no obligation to pay them anything. This is a provision that if we do pay them that, in order to get rid of even a moral claim, they may possibly have, that we shall pay them this amount with the interest mentioned in the clause. There is no other obligation upon us to do it


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask if the government have considered the claim made by the city of Montreal for aid to the Lon-gueuil bridge, In connection with this matter.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE, I am under the impression that the company that was incorporated for the Longueuil bridge has no legal existence, I do not think that a company was ever formed. The Incorporation Act was passed, but I do not think that the companay ever took any action under it. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that this is not a local matter. Let me also remind him that there are at Montreal and in the immediate vicinity three bridges across the St. Lawrence.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Private bridges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Very private. Look at the estimates of what they have cost the country, and you will find that the country is largely interested in them. There is the Victoria bridge, the La-chine bridge and the bridge 'at Coteau, and now we are- providing this session for the Bout be l'lle bridge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That does not cross the St. Lawrence river.


George William Fowler: I think the House will agree that this is a very necessary work in carrying out the general transportation scheme. But while this is the case, there is certainly some difference of opinion as to the manner in which this scheme is being carried out. The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) 'did not clear up all the difficulties which I discovered on looking through this contract as it appears before ns. In the first place, there seems to be no accounting for the amount of stock, of which a great deal has
been made, that is supposed to have been paid up by the company. In looking over the estimates as given us in the preamble of the agreement, and also in the letters of Premier Parent, in connection with this matter, I find that the amount paid out to the contractor on account of the work done is exactly equal, with the exception of a difference of $56, to the amount of the subsidies which have been received, so that no part of the capital stock of the company has gone into construction, and I fail to understand where the capital has gone.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There was a great deal of preliminary work before the contract was entered into at all. There was no more difficult engineering work to be done anywhere than in connection with the location of the bridge.


George William Fowler: That is all taken into consideration in the estimates we have from the Department of Railways and Canals, and yet the amount paid out of the capital stock remains unaccounted for. I fail to see why the government should be called upon to guarantee or to make the company guarantee 100 cents on the dollar in the payment of these bonds. The contractor took them at 60 cents on the dollar in payment for work done. These bonds are drawing interest at their full face value of 100 cents on the dollar, so that the contractor has made a very good bargain with the company. The difference between $283,279, Which the bonds realized, and the $472,000, which is the face value of the bonds, is $188,000. It would follow that $283,000, being the amount which the contractor gave the company credit for, this $188,000 is an amount which may be called the water of these bonds. The government by this process are performing1 a modern miracle ; they are turning water into gold instead of turning it into wine. It seems to me that this is a matter with which the government should have nothing to do, and that it is a matter which should be settled by the contractor and the bridge company. I notice that the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals estimates the total cost of this bridge at $6,725,360, and I must congratulate the deputy minister upon the way in which his estimate coincides with ' the amount of the contract. The hon. Minister of Justice tells us that the amount of the contract for the steel superstructure is $3.388,800. That is exactly the amount of the estimate of the deputy minister for that work. The hon. Minister of Justice tells us that the contract for the wooden floor beams is $156,500. That also coincides exactly with the estimate of the deputy minister. The hon. Minister of Justice tells us that the contract for the track on bridge is $4,800, exactly coinciding with the estimate of the deputy minister. We find then that $6,725,360 is the estimated cost of this work, an estimate which, as I say, agrees exactly
147] 9

with the contract. There has been paid for this work in cash, the .proceeds of the subsidies, $914,862, which leaves a balance of $5,811,000, which, according to the estimate, will be the amount required to complete the bridge. But Mr. Parent, president of the Bridge Company, and Premier of the province of Quebec, has requested that $6,900,000 of the bonds be guaranteed in order to complete the bridge. The government have not seen fit to accede to the whole of his request, but 'they have agreed to guarantee bonds to the amount of $6,678,200. That leaves an apparent difference of something like $1,000,000. That is attempted to be accounted for by the duty on the steel superstructure. I presume that the contract is given for the steel superstructure. The estimate is placed at three and a half cents per pound, which is a fair price at the present time for heavy bridge material. If it were lighter bridge material, it would probably amount to three and three-quarter cents a pound. It is not proper to add the duty to the cost of construction of the bridge. That is already accounted for in the contract price, and at any rate the steel should be bought in Canada. There is a million of difference in that, and there is $188,000, the difference between the amount which the bonds realized on their face value, which have not been accounted for. The members of this House are all agreed as to the necessity for this bridge and that the work is one which should be done in carrying out the general transportation scheme of this country and providing the necessary transportation facilities for the great trade development which is going on. For anything which is going to a national undertaking I am perfectly willing to vote any necessary amount, but I do think that this scheme as proposed is not a proper one. We know something about these bridge matters in the province of New Brunswick, from which I come. There is just such another bridge, only a cheaper bridge, in the city of St. John, owned by a bridge company, and built by the bridge company just as this bridge is being built at Quebec. It was built under the old government. Almost the entire amount of the money used in construction was loaned by the government, as I understand it, and upon it they paid a certain rate of interest- I think 4 per cent or 4J per cent. I am not sure as to the details of the undertaking, but the members of the government will know them. As a matter of fact, that bridge company have made a splendid revenue out of that bridge, although the amount of money they put into the bridge was very small. I ain told on the best authority that every year the stockholders in that bridge company receive actually more than double the amount they put in. I have understood -I do not vouch for the accuracy of these figures-that the actual amount paid in by each stockholder was $700, and that each
year they have an income from the bridge of $1,100 or $1,200. 'That is done at the expense of the general public. Certainly a handicap and a hindrance to trade are caused by allowing these people to charge a greater amount for the carriage of trade over this bridge than should be allowed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They can-hot do it here.


George William Fowler: The conditions in this case, I do not think, are different from the conditions of the other. I think the conditions in both cases are about alike. The government should build this bridge themselves. They are actually undertaking all the risk of this enterprise. They are guaranteeing, not only the interest, but they are absolutely guaranteeing the principal of the bonds ; they are guaranteeing the whole amount, and if there is any profit the company will reap the benefit of it. It is shown here, if we are to believe the estimate of receipts, that there is going to be a fine thing in this for the company. The expectation is that they will be able to divide $56,000 a year on the lowest estimate of profit. After they pay interest on the bonds and after they provide for the wear and tear and other expenses of maintenance, they will still have a profit of $56,000. They actually pay in $200,000. and the amount of $65.000, which the hon. Minister of Justice says was put into preliminary work, or $265,000 in all, and they divide a profit of $56,000, which is a pretty nice income from an investment of $265,000. That is equal to 25 or 30 per cent.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The government has no liability at all.


George William Fowler: It has been presented to us as an essential feature of the scheme, that it is a profitable scheme and that the government will not incur liability. There are contingencies which might throw liability on the government, and so far the government are incurring the only liability in the whole case. They are not only guaranteeing the bonds to be issued but they are actually guaranteeing at least sixty jrer cent of the bonds already issued by the company. There is no responsibility whatever upon the company; with them it is a ease of heads I win tails you lose. Why do not the government do the work themselves, when they can do it better and more economically.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If it is not a success and the government does not r take it over, what becomes of the $200,000 of new money that is to be invested ?


George William Fowler: The Minister of Justice quite understands that it would be a very easy matter to provide $200,000 without a cent being put up.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: 


George William Fowler: I do not say that it will be done in this case, but there are instances on record where it has been done and I could tell the hon. gentleman how it could be done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Don't.


George William Fowler: I will not, because in case the Minister of Justice does not know, if I told him perhaps he would communicate it to the company and I want to avoid that. We are assuming all the responsibility, and if the bridge is not a success we are the losers. While I am very strongly in favour of the building of this bridge, and while I believe it will be as beneficial as the Minister of Justice thinks, and will enable the harbour of Quebec to get trade in increasing quantities which we would all be glad to see; yet I cannot but think that it would be much better for the government to build the bridge under the Railway Commission, or by a special commission, believing as I do that it would then be built in a more economic manner, and that the money of the country would not be wasted.
it cannot build one single foot of wharf. If the Minister of Justice will refer to the records of the Public Works Department he will find that it will cost about $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 to provide proper accommodation at the very place he has spoken of. 'there is a batture right opposite-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman must know the Mariners' Chapel at the immediate entrance to Diamond Harbour. From Diamond Harbour down to the Champlain Market there will be three-quarters of a mile where you are absolutely on the shore of the river. You have to go along on the wharfs with your railway, you cannot go anywhere else. There is no use talking about a batture.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know that, but the Minister of Justice knows as well as I do, and perhaps better, that there is a batture there which prevents ships from coming to the shore.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at all.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I was one of the promoters of the Quebec Bridge Company years ago, and I have always taken a great interest in this work. The country is now invited to guarantee $6,678,000 in addition to what we have contributed in the past. The Dominion treasurer has paid $374,000, the province of Quebec, $250,000; the city of Quebec, $300,000; in all, $924,000. If I understand the position, the contract for the substructure is the only contract that has been awarded. I do not exactly know the amount of the contract entered into with Mr. Davis, but the amount estimated by the chief engineer for the substructure is $1,217,400 and the cost of the superstructure, for which a contract has not yet been given, is estimated at $3,388,000. That will make $4,600,000 for the substructure and the superstructure of the bridge itself. The balance of the money which we are asked to guarantee is for land damages, construction of double track, tracks on the bridge, wooden floor, &c., the whole reaching the large sum of $7,500,000. About $1,000,000 is going to be employed in land and damages, and the purchase of land. I lived for fifteen'years very near the spot where the bridge is built, and I know the locality very well. The land on the north side belongs to private parties who will be very glad indeed to sell it. There is to be $414,000 for land and damages on the north side, and a little more for the south side. The Minister of Justice has said that the government is providing at the same time six miles of water front accommodation. Well, the new project, as it is placed before us to-day, will not provide for one foot of water front accommodation in Quebec. There is no money voted for deep water wharfs, and with the amount of money placed at the disposal of the company to purchase land, 461


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why, the batture begins at the upper end of Lamp-son's cove and goes up to Sillery.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Surely the Minister of Justice knows that the bridge is being built at Cap Rouge, much further up than Sillery. The bridge is being built at Cap Rouge; and I say that to give proper water accommodation in those six miles would involve an expenditure of $10,000,000. There are reports in the Department of Public Works to show this.


Adam Carr Bell: What have the improvements at Montreal cost, and what length of water front is there ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is no possible comparison between the two. I speak of the Quebec case as I know it to be. My hon. friends have only to look at the expenditure provided for here. There is not one cent for wharf accommodation. The money is provided for the purchase of land, for the building of sheds, stations, and so on, for the bridge itself, and for the approaches on both sides of the river ; but not one foot of water accommodation is provided for. This point I think I have made very clear, and it cannot be disputed by anybody who knows.
As to the financial aspect of the project, it stands thus :	This government at first
agreed to give $1,000,000 of subsidy to the company, the Quebec government and the city of Quebec supplying the balance of the subsidies, which this very same company declared to be sufficient to carry out the undertaking. My hon. friends on both sides of the House have only to refer to the debates which have taken place in the Quebec House and also here, and to the reports



of the company, as proof of that fact. Well, the company have heen mistaken in their calculations. 1 do not blame them too much for that, because in the case of such large undertakings X quite admit that we are all liable to make mistakes. I know that Mr. Davis, in order to have safe foundations for his piers, has been obliged to go much deeper than he anticipated. Of course, he should have looked carefully into the nature of the soil at the bottom of the St. Lawrence before undertaking this contract. At the same time, not desiring to be unfair to him, 1 grant that that cost him a pretty large amount of money ; but it is only a detail. The two governments and the city of Quebec have already paid nearly $1,000,000. In my opinion, if the subsidies had been capitalized and if the undertaking had been floated in a business-like manner, there was enough money to carry out the work. Many able business men have expressed the same view. However, the project has not been carried out, and we have now to say whether or not we approve of the scheme placed before us. The government are to guarantee fifty-year bonds for over $0,000,000. If I understand the seventh clause of the contract, the government will issue these bonds as the company earn the money. In other words, the contractor will be paid by the company with the proceeds of the bonds as he earns the amounts so paid. I want to ask my hon. friends on the treasury benches whether this is a very good financial method. If the bonds were floated in one block


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Look at paragraph 8. Provision is made first for getting the money. That is to be got in any way the government shall determine most advisable under the circumstances ; that is to say, by making one issue of the bonds at one time, or by making partial issues at different times. It would be premature to say now how that should be done.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The government holds the money and pays it out on progress estimates ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like the point to be made clear. Suppose the bonds are issued in one block, how is the money to be disposed of ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It goes to the credit of the government, and will be paid out on monthly progress estimates ns the money is earned.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Minister of Justice said a moment ago that the contract for the superstructure has not been awarded. What interest have the contractors to do work as cheaply as they can when they know that the government will take over the work ? The Minister of Finance has said that very distinctly. In my humble


Joseph Israël Tarte: opinion, the position in which we are placed is that we are giving without tender a contract to a contractor. The government have stated that the work is of a national character ; and having stated that, they will take it over, what is the use of our giving a guarantee of 3 per cent to a private company ? What is the use of leaving the whole thing in the dark ? Because we do not know whether the bonds will be floated In one block or in several small blocks ; that is a question to be decided. The only thing we are sure about is that we guarantee fifty-year debentures at 3 per cent interest. The money will be borrowed ou our own credit at 3 per cent. Under the circumstances, as some hon. members who have preceded me have said, would it not be better for us to take over the work now ? 1 do not see any reason why we should guarantee bonds at 3 per cent for private parties, undertaking at the same time to take over the work ; because there is no possible doubt that the government will take it over. There is one very clear reason that will oblige them to take it over, and very soon. I say all success to the (bridge, but I believe there is not much doubt that the work will not pay its working expenses and the 3 per cent at the beginning and for some years. This means that we will take over the work as soon as it is completed. Therefore I say again that we are only giving without tender a contract to the Quebec Bridge Company, and we are giving the guarantee of our national credit without having complete control over the work. In my humble opinion, the government would have done better if they had settled immediately with Mr. Davis and the company, and had taken over the work, and borrowed the money to complete it on the national credit, instead of borowing for the benefit of a private corporation. It is beyond question, and we cannot blame them, that the men expect to make a profit out of the transaction. If they were not expecting that, they would be fools indeed. They are in business to make money, and not for love ; but if it were not too late, and I do not think it is, and if the company were disposed to come to an agreement to that effect, I think it would be better for the government to carry out the work themselves. I am for the equipment of the port of Quebec, and I hope that this guarantee will not prevent the government from equipping that port at a later period. That is a greater necessity than the building of this bridge. The bridge will be a useful thing, works of that kind are always useful, but it will not bring to the city of Quebec one-tenth of the trade which would be brought by the proper equipment of the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec and our lake and canal ports. In my humble opinion, the government should lose no time in making up their minds to complete the equipment of the St. Lawrence route.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that an important measure of this kind should be brought down earlier in the session instead of being presented to us a day or two before prorogation. However, there seems to be a eon-sensus of opinion that the work would be of great benefit, not only to the province of -Quebee, dmbdo-thfr Dominion of Canada. If I remember rightly, two or three years ago the Quebec Bridge Company was incorporated; and in the letters of incorporation the government reserved full powers to control rates, as is usually done in cases of the kind. As I understand it, the city of Quebec gave a bonus of $300,000 to this com pany, all of which has gone into the enterprise; the province of Quebec gave $250,000, and the Dominion government has agreed to give $1,000,000, on which it has paid $374, 353. We find, therefore, that the company has received from the city, the province and the Dominion, $924,253. It has also received payments on capital stock amounting to $65,585.70, making total cash receipts of $889,938.70 already invested in the project, and the company now finds itself in this position, that it is not able to finance the balance of the scheme. It seems to me, Sir, that the position is such that the government has authority to come to the assistance of this company. If it should not, the company will not be able to go on with the construction of this work. I have listened attentively to what was said by a number of gentlemen who spoke on this question, and I quite understand the importance of having a bridge at that point. We find that there is no bridge east of Montreal,' and there is a distance of 180 miles which is practically closed during five months in the year, between the south and north shores, from Montreal to Quebec. West of Montreal we have the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge, the Canada Atlantic Railway bridge and the Ottawa and New York Railway bridge-three bridges spanning the St. Lawrence within a distance of some 07 miles. I can quite understand, therefore, the importance of having a bridge at the city of Quebec. The only question to my mind is whether this contract properly safeguards the public interest, and if I am wrong in any statement I may make, I should like to be corrected. I understand that on consideration of the government guaranteeing these bonds, amounting to $6,678,200, the company releases and foregoes all claim to the $625,647, being the balance due on the million dollar subsidy. Then, the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) raised a question with regard to the stock As I understand the condition, there is $65, 000 worth of stock, or rather $55,000, paid up on the stock subscribed, and under section 3 the company agree with the subscrib ers to the capital stock, that they shall surrender such stock to the company, and in 461*
lieu thereof accept paid-up stock to that amount paid by them on their shares and be relieved from further liability on the stock so surrendered.
Section 4 provides for issue of stock to the extent of $200,000, the proceeds to be applied in payment of the discount at which the bonds of the company were issued.
So far as I am concerned, I quite conceive that the $472,000 are a legal liability, and shall have to be discharged, either by the company or by the government, if they assume this work, but it did seem to me that the wise and proper way would have been for the government simply to have guaranteed the bonds for an amount including the $472,000.
With regard to section 7, the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) raised an objection. As I understand that section, the bonds guaranteed by the government shall be issued and the proceeds thereon paid to the company as the construction is proceeded with, to the satisfaction of the government, and in such sums as the chief engineer of the government railways, -or such other officer as the government may appoint, may certify or justify. How far do these words ' or justify ' go ? Would the engineer of the government have the right to inquire whether the amount paid was a proper one, having regard to the value of the work, and whether any contract was given at a greater amount than it should have been ? Would the government engineer be justified in inquiring into the value of the work done ? I think the public interest should be protected on that point. I do not wish to detain the House, but simply wish to understand thoroughly this matter, as it is important. I understand, of course, that under section 12 the plans and specifications have to be approved by the Governor in Council, and further, that the government will control the tolls. I understand it lies largely in the power of the government to fix the tolls.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: In that case, the government can fix the tolls at such a rate that they may.collect a revenue sufficient to pay 3 per cent interest on the $6,678,200, or $200.346. Judging by the reports we have, it appears to me that even at a moderate rate of tolls, there will be no difficulty in collecting an amount sufficient to pay the 3 per cent on the bonds guaranteed by the government. It seems to me that the position of the government is such, if it had to intervene and either take the works entirely out of the hands of the company or adopt some means such as the plan now submitted of seeing that the works were completed.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am glad to see that my hon. friend from Corn-

[DOT]wall (Mr. Pringle) supports this motion. The support should come from other provinces. We have been accustomed to seeing a fight between the provinces when any measure was proposed that benefited any one province and I am glad to see the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) supporting this scheme. I read the contract thoroughly and as far as the terms are concerned it is [DOT]well enough, if there is nothing behind it. If the provisions here set forth are carried out there can be no harm in the transaction, but unfortunately the trouble with these schemes is that it so often happens that people suspect that some one is going to get boodle out of the project; that is the misfortune of our public life, the suspicion that there is some steal. In the past Canada has been divided into two parts by the River St. Lawrence, and in the old days had it been in Europe it would have been two countries; but now, with the construction of railways and the building of bridges, countries are united that in the old days would be separate and I say that this bridge should have been built years ago. Quebec should have been united and as a maritime province man I have always felt when I approached Lfivis that it was a most awkward thing that there should be no bridge joining the south shore of the St. Lawrence with the north shore, because that river interrupted the whole communication from the north. The construction of this bridge has been my dream, as well as the dream of every man in Quebec. As far as I am concerned I have no objection to the building of this bridge if it is honestly carried out and I would have no objection to the amount involved.
I would like the Minister of Finance to have a little conference with his late colleague the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals with regard to a pension scheme on the Intercolonial Railway. This Quebec bridge and the pension scheme on the Intercolonial should go hand in hand; they are both in the interest of transportation. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals became very popular among the railway people in the maritime provinces ; they had great confidence in him, and I think it will be very hard for any other Minister of Railways and Canals to get so thoroughly into the confidence of the railway people as did the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, chiefly because he was broad enough and liberal enough to propose a system of pensions for the Intercolonial Railway men. I am told that when a man has served on the Intercolonial, especially on the new large engines, for twenty or twenty-five years, he is unfit to continue in that business or any other. And are we going to turn our public servants out upon the street, after serving this country for twenty years, without the slightest care ? In the interests of the transportation system of this country, we must look after the men who are engaged
upon the Intercolonial Railway. Although I am opposed to the government and to the Minister of Railways and Canals, as far as politics are concerned, I do not hesitate to support that measure and justify it as a wise expenditure of the public money of Canada. I have received a communication from a number of railway employees in Nova Scotia, asking me to obtain information as to how far that scheme has progressed. I understand that a scheme was prepared by the men, revised by the officers of the department, that a workable scheme had been developed by the officers of the department, and that it awaited the approval of the Minister of Railways and Canals and the subsequent approval of parliament. Of course, I understand that with the change that has taken place in the Department of Railways and Canals there may be a little delay, there must necessarily be a hiatus. I know hundreds of employees of the Intercolonial Railway who are anxious to take advantage of such a system as this but who inform me that they are unable to retire as they have no means of support and therefore it becomes very important that action should be taken in this matter because otherwise you will have a number of men employed on the Intercolonial who know that they are not fit to be entrusted with the duties they are discharging. But these men have no choice, they must continue at their posts, and therefore, I commend highly the far-seeing, statesmanlike view of the late Minister of Railways and Canals. Of course, I have had no personal communication with him, but I understand from association with the railway men, that he had approved of the general system of pensions for the Intercolonial Railway employees, of course without committing himself to the details. I approve of that scheme and I am prepared to justify it at any time and at any place. I would like to learn from the hon. minister and the ex-minister just what position this matter is now in.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am aware that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) had this subject under consideration, and had interviews with the railway officials about it. The matter was not pressed to a conclusion and since the change in the department nothing further has been done; therefore, I am unable to do more than to say that the matter Is under consideration.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: I have to make suitable acknowledgments to my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) for his kind and compli-mentai'y reference to myself personally.
Mr. GOURLEiY. They were the truth, Sir.


Andrew George Blair: While I do that and may avow at once that I have very strong sympathy with the policy of providing a pension system for the employees on the
Mr. GOURLE7.

Intercolonial, I confess that I do not at the moment see any very close relevancy between the subject of the Quebec bridge and the subject of a pension system for the Intercolonial.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I made it the occasion; of course, I had finished my remarks on the Quebec bridge.


Andrew George Blair: I understood my hon. friend to convey the idea that they were associated together, and ought to be dealt with at the same time. That is rather in conformity with log-rolling ideas that are sometimes practiced. I have no doubt that the subject will receive the consideration which its claims merit. Before retiring from the department, officers, or experts, or actuaries were engaged making a report on the subject. They had inquired into the system which is in operation upon the Canadian Pacific Railway and upon the Grand Trunk Railway, and these two systems were placed alongside the proposals made by the men themselves. The men sent in a scheme, when they understood the subject was going to be taken up, which they desired the department to consider. I did not think it was comprehensive enough, for reasous which I need not go into. I think they were of the opinion that a much less sum would suffice than I thought was necessary. It always appeared to me that when you are adopting a system of that description it is necessary to deal with a considerable number of old employees, men who have been a long time in the service, and who could not hope by any system of contribution to derive any benefits from that system. They would have to be provided for, therefore, in some reasonable way, and would not come within the scope of that scheme. However, under the circumstances I thought it necessary to have this expert inquiry made. We had persons in our employ, and they are still in the employ of the department, I presume, who are engaged in making this inquiry, and when their work is completed, [ have no doubt the minister will see the advisability of giving the subject his earnest consideration, and of calling the attention of his colleagues to it.
Passing from that matter to the subject immediately before us, I would like to say one word before I sit down. I am more than pleased to see that the proposal to ensure the construction of the bridge across the St. Lawrence river at Quebec, meets with such general favour on both sides of the House. I have been very warmly disposed towards the enterprise myself during all the time I was in the department, and my sympathy with it was owing to the fact that it meant a good deal for the advantage of the government railway system. I did not look beyond that at the moment, not do I think it necessary to look beyond it now, to justify the adoption of a sound scheme. I presume, from all I have heard to the contrary, that
there are no serious objections to this scheme to ensure the construction of the bridge. The extension of the government road to the Georgian bay, which hon. members know has been a pet idea of mine, is one which 1 think would be much strengthened by the construction of the bridge at Quebec. If we are to ensure over Canadian territory and by Canadian seaports the export of our western produce, it will always be necessary and important that this great water-way should be used. In using the water-ways of Canada, we must not lose sight of the port of Quebec as one of the most important to be found anywhere, standing as it does as compared with other important outlets through which this traffic will necessarily have to pass. The better and more adequately you equip that port, the more surely will you guarantee the future use of that port as a gateway for the imports and exports of Canada. As my hon. friend the Minister of Justice suggested, the port of Quebec is only accessible by one railway, but when this bridge is completed, with the splendid equipment with which it will be provided, in conjunction with the railway along the northern shores of the St. Lawrence, the port of Quebec will be second to none, in my opinion, upon this continent. When you provide an adequate and efficient equipment for a great port at the head of deep water navigation of the St. Lawrence, you guarantee that the people who have grain and other produce to ship will be able to do so speedily, and will be afforded economical means of getting their freight across the ocean.
Now there are one or two things which have been said in relation to this matter that I would like to allude to before pitting down. I think it desirable that the contract should contain a clause that, before the option which is referred to here, is exercised, the opinion of parliament should be taken upon it. I understood the Minister of Justice and the acting Minister of Railways to concur in the suggestion. If that suggestion meets with favour, it would be necessary to incorporate it in the agreement. I take it that the present contract is only provisional, and will be made more complete before it is finally signed. But in my judgment, it will be necessary to insert such a clause if the object be that parliament should have a further say upon the matter. The hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) said that under this arrangement opportunities would be possible for a great deal of private benefit to be realized out of the profits which would accrue from the operation of the bridge. He instanced the case of what is called the St. John Railway and Bridge Company. That bridge, which was constructed across the falls at the city of St. John, was built by a private and incorporated company, and largely built, as he has properly said, by means of a loan made to the company by the Dominion government. There should

be in this contract a clause similar to that which was originally put into the agreement under which that loan was made to this railway and bridge company, namely, that it should be optional with the government at any time, I think also subject to the approval of parliament, to take over that bridge upon paying to the company, or the individual members of the company, the amount of the loan which had been made, with an additional percentage to cover any reasonable claim as probable benefits that would have accrued to those who entered into the contract and carried it out. Well, it so happened that after the lapse of some years, and while that option was a living option, which might be exercised at any time in the future, it was deemed advisable for some reason or other, which reason I cannot state, because I never heard what the reason was, to expunge that clause from the contract, and the result is, that, notwithstanding, as the hon. member for King's has said, individual persons who made small subscriptions have been reaping handsome profits out of the undertaking, the government has no power to retake the property except under the general expropriation power which it possesses. I would hope that if a clause of this kind is inserted in the present agreement, empowering the government at any time in the future, particularly if the property be a paying one, to take it over, it will be accepted.


David Henderson: 
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) has already spoken.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I just want to make an explanation, and I will only take a minute. I would like now to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) whether he will at an early date undertake to consider the scheme which I have brought to his attention and give an answer ? The people who are concerned are in the very awkward position of not knowing what to do. There are fifteen or twenty men men living in my own town who are interested in it. I do not want to press the hon. Minister of Finance unduly, but if he would undertake to consider the matter and give an early answer, it would, I think, suit the purposes of those people on whose behalf I make this suggestion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would be very glad to consider the matter, but there would be no means of giving any answer. The matter would have to be taken up by parliament, and action on it could only be taken later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the resolution.
Resolution reported.
On the order for the second reading of the resolution.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I saw a statement in ' Le Soleil,' that the government has given more than was asked for in this matter. Is that statement correct ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend will apply to the Minister of Finance, he will find, I think, that we have given less than was asked for.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The statement which is attached to the papers
shows that the request was in excess of our compliance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I thought it was a strange statement, but 4 Le Soleil ' said that you have given more than was asked for.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not the habit of the Minister of Finance.
Resolution read a second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 272) to authorize aid to the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company towards the completion of its undertaking, and to confirm an agreement between His Majesty and the said company with respect to such aid.


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

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As the time lias arrived for the conference witli tlie Senate with respect to the amendments made to the Railway Act, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a message from the Senate informing this House that the managers of the conference on the part of the Senate would meet in the Senate Committee Room No. S at S.;t0 o'clock this evening.


QUEBEC BRIDGE-AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved second reading of Bill (No. 272) to authorize aid to the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company towards the completion of its undertaking, and to confirm an agreement between His Majesty and the said company with respect to such aid. He said : Before the dinner hour, the House was disposed to proceed at once with the later stages of this Bill ; but it was reserved in order that an amendment might be made in it.
David Henderson: Was that the amendment suggested by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. It was claimed that after this contract was confirmed the government might possibly have the technical right to take over this property without the consent of parliament. That not being the intention, we have drafted a clause providing that that power shall not lie exercised unless we have the consent of parliament previously obtained.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 270) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railway therein mentioned, read the second time, the House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In this Bill the changes made, as compared with the resolution, consist in the inserting of the word ' bridges ' in a number of cases. For instance, in section 5, where it is provided that the subsidies may be granted to such companies as established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their abilities to construct and complete the said railways respectively, the word 'bridges' is added. In like manner the word ' bridge ' is inserted wherever the word ' railway ' occurs in a similar connection. Sly lion, friend, the leader of the opposition, asked very properly whether, in view of the provisions of the new Railway Act, we should adhere to the old drafting in the Subsidy Act. For example, where it requires that the rates be fixed by the Governor in Council, should we not replace the Governor in Council by ' the Railway Commission ' ? On reflection, we have concluded that it would be better to let the clause stand as it is, because we have a contractual obligation with the companies, by which their rates are subject to the supervision of the Governor in Council. There can be no harm possible, and good might come from leaving that clause as it is.


Robert Laird Borden: The point I suggested was that you are retainnig the control of the Governor in Council while at the same time you have appointed a new tribunal to deal with the rates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It creates a double supervision of rates, which may not be necessary, but which can do no harm.


Robert Laird Borden: You are giving the Governor in Council co-ordinate power with the Railway Commissioners.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it will mean that they will both exercise the same power. If it were not a matter of contract, the general provision of the Railway Act would apply, that all railway rates must be fixed by the board. But in this instance, there is a special contract, and we think that the obligation is one which should be retained. I do not think it creates any new power. The most that can be said is that it may be perhaps not necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection is that the resolutions bind the companies Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
to fix their rates in accordance with the order of the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council fixes the rates through the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. You retain that in the Subsidy Act, but at the same time you establish a different tribunal and take away the powers of the Governor in Council. You are creating a co ordinate jurisdiction, which may give rise to difficulties. I have not sufficiently considered the question to say that it will do so, but I remember curiously enough hearing exactly the same question debated in the Imperial House of Commons, some years ago, with regard to the government of Ireland Bill. They were establishing two jurisdictions, and the point raised was as to which jurisdiction was to prevail. Suppose the Railway Commission -would fix one set of rates and the Governor iu Council another, which is to prevail ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Bill providing for the establishment of a Railway Board has not yet got through the shoals of the Senate, and if any accident should happen there, we might fall back on the provisions of the Subsidy Act.


Robert Laird Borden: ' We dealt with that contingency in the National Transcontinental Bill by providing that the Governor in Council, or such other authority as for the time being has power to regulate railway rates, shall have jurisdiction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a provision in the Railway Bill providing for the establishment of a Railway Commission to take the position of the Governor in Council.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We might desire to have a more favourable rate than the average rate established by the board, and we might want to make it a matter of obligation that, in consideration of the subsidy, a railway company should charge a lower rate.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman desires to accomplish that result, he should use plainer language than he does in this statute. You may have disputes ns to which tribunal really should prevail.


David Henderson: Would this clause in the Railway Act have any bearing on the question, subsection 2, of section 8 :
,2. Whenever by an1 Act or document the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is given any power or authority, or any duty is cast upon it, in regard to any company, railway, matter or thing, the power or authority so given, or the duty so cast upon the said committee, may or shall, as the case may be, he exercised by the board.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Justice is of opinion that that would apply in this case.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it apply to an Act passed this session ?
, The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. I think so. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. Both Acts will come into operation practically at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: I have seen, but I cannot recollect the instance, declaration made in a statute that its general provisions shall apply to Acts passed during the same session. I do not know whether it is necessary, but I remember instances of that kind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Except as to the amendments to which I have drawn attention, this Bill is an exact copy of the resolutions with whicli the House has already dealt, and unless lion, gentlemen wish the whole Bill read, we might safely adopt it.


David Henderson: I have no desire to have the whole Bill read, but the hon. minister will remember that when we adopted resolution 31, namely :
To the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Woodstock northerly to a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at Berlin, or from Ingersoll to Stratford, or to any point on the Grand Trunk Railway between these places, not exceeding [DOT]35 miles, being in addition to, and continuation of the 9 miles mentioned in item 1 of this section.
-it was on the distinct understanding that the wording of this resolution might be changed. The contention was that this was a double-barrelled resolution, that it gave this railway company the power to hold up Woodstock, Berlin or Stratford, and get the one to bid against the other. I think that is a scarcely fair way in which to treat those municipalities. In my opinion the company should be restricted to a particular route and not be given alternative routes. I still hold to the idea that a subsidy having been granted from Ingersoll to Woodstock, the new subsidy provided in this case should extend from Woodstock north to Berlin, instead of going back to Ingersoll and running a road from there to Stratford. I assume if this clause be adopted, that possibly the road may never be built from Ingersoll to Woodstock. I do not know what the intentions of the promoters may be. but it would be absurd to run nine miles out to Woodstock and stop there. We have granted a subsidy already from Ingersoll to Woodstock, and this clause should be so amended as to provide for the road going on from Woodstock to Berlin.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 am not in a position to recommend any change. The message I received from the hon. member who is much interested in this railway Act said that the wording, as it now stands in the Bill, had been submitted, after very careful consideration, on behalf
of the company. My hon. friend from Grey moved in amendment that this subsidy should be given for 35 miles northward to the Grand Trunk Railway by the most direct route. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Seagram) showed me a message which he had from the board of trade, urging that the company should be compelled to go by Berlin. On the other hand, I have a message from the Board of Tradle at Stratford urging the contrary. Under the circumstances, not having knowledge as to which is the best route in the public interest and in the interest of the company, I am not prepared to take the responsibility of deciding which should be adopted. I therefore hardly think that I can consider the rival interests of those1 who desire that this railway should go through their municipality, and I think we would be perfectly safe in standing by what we agreed to the other night. My hon. friend from Grey has had representations made to him as 1 have had to me, and on the whole we thought that we had better leave the resolution as it stands. I do not know who is going to choose between the-rival municipalities. I do not like to assume, not having any information that I could submit as an argument, that it would be better in the public interest the company should go one way or the other. I imagine that each municipality will look at rather its own interest, and it is rather late now to propose a change.


Mr. INGRAM.: I think that to meet the wishes of the company I could move an amendment which would be more acceptable to them than the present proposition, namely that the subsidy be granted from the town of Collingwood for the distance provided in the Subsidy Bill, and that it apply from Collingwood for the distance mentioned here. That -would give them an opportunity of getting material more cheaply from Collingwood than they can now by extending the line to Ingersoll. I am satisfied the company would prefer that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no one here representing the company ; and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) having stated that this was submitted after careful consideration by the board and he himself being away ; I cannot support any change at present.


David Henderson: I have never considered the question of applying this subsidy from Collingwood southward. Even from Berlin to Collingwood, it would be a distance of upwards of 100 miles. That is a portion of the road for which this company has asked no subsidy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The company pressed very hard for a subsidy from the present terminus to Collingwood. but there are a great many applications for subsidies. They have succeeded in building forty or fifty miles by means of

subsidies received from time to time, and I think it was felt that they might not get anything at all if they pressed for the whole this session.


David Henderson: I beg to move that the words in the third line of clause 31 ' From Ingersoll to Stratford or to any point on the Grand Trunk Railway between these places be struck out.' The clause would then read :
To the Tilsonsburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company, (or a line of railway from Woodstock northerly to a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at Berlin, not exceeding thirty-five miles, being in addition to and continuation of the nine miles mentioned in item 1 of this section.
That would make good English and common sense, because a subsidy has already been granted to Woodstock. It would be quite proper to say that this would be in addition to the nine miles mentioned in item 1 of this section. The object of the road is to supply a means of conveying coal from Port Burwell northward to the agricultural country through which it will pass, and the various manufacturing towns of Ingersoll. Woodstock and Berlin and other points between. To subsidize a road from Coliingwood, with the idea of building from that end first, would not for years accomplish the purpose the promoters have in view, namely, to secure a cheap and speedy means of conveying coal from Port Burwell on Lake Erie into these manufacturing centres. I hold that it is certainly in the interests of the municipalities that the one should not be held up against the other. I still stand by what I said on a previous occasion. that to go to Stratford you would for a considerable distance parallel an existing line. Yon can get on board the train at Stratford and go to the Georgian bay and in so doing you would parallel the proposed road.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC- WORKS.
Seventy-five to a hundred miles apart..


David Henderson: Perhaps five or ten miles at some places and a great deal more' at others. The distance widens as you proceed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: How far from Wiarton to Coliingwood ? It must be over 100 miles.


David Henderson: Probably about 50 miles, but at the Stratford end they would be close together. North of Waterloo and Berlin there is .a section of country which has no railway running through it. This would supply a territory that is not provided with railways ; and I think would on the whole supply a town more deserving of a railway subsidy, than even those further west.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must stand by the proposition, under all the Hoa. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
circumstances, and ask my kon. friends to vote for the resolution as submitted. I have not sufficient information to say which route should be adopted.


RAILWAY ACT 1903-CONFERENCE WITH THE SENATE.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As there is urgent business of importance to be attended to, namely, our conference with the Senate, I must ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again,


David Henderson: I wish to do justice to the Minister of Public Works. I forgot entirely that Woodstock was his home and had no intention of making him vote against something that would be in the interests of his own town.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The timie fixed for holding a conference between the two Houses on the question of certain amendments to Bill (No. 21) intituled : ' An Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways ' having come, the Clerk will read the names of the managers on the part of this House.
The Clerk of the House read the names as follows :
Sir Wm. Muloek, Mr. Fielding, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Ilaggart, Mr. Blair, Mr. Borden (Halifax), Mr. Monk, Mr. Barker, Mr. Emmerson. Mr. Olarke, Mr. Demoers (St. John and Iberville), Mr. Wade.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I declare the proceedings of the House suspended during the said conference.
And the sitting of the House was suspended accordingly.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the Chair.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE, one of the managers of the conference on the part of the House of Commons reported that they had proceeded to the place of conference and had delivered to the managers of the conference on the part of the Senate the communication of the House, giving the reasons of the House for disagreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 21.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 270) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railway therein mentioned.
Mr. HENDERSON moved to strike out from section 3 of clause 2 the words, commencing in the third line :
Or from Ingersoll to Stratford or to any point on the Grand Trunk Railway between these places.

Amendment lost on division, and section 2 agreed to.
On section 5,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved to add tlie words ' and bridges ' between the words ' railways ' and ' respectively ' and also between the words ' lines ' and ' for ' in line 43, and also after the word ' lines ' in line 54.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved to strike out the word 1 those ' in line 6 and to insert in lieu thereof ' the railways and bridges,' and to add the words ' and bridges ' between the words ' railways ' and ' hereby ' in the last line.
Section as' amended agreed to.
On section 8,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved to amend section 8, by adding the words ' and bridges ' between the words ' railways ' and ' for ' in the thirtieth line and by adding the words ' or bridge ' after the word ' railway ' in the thirty-fifth line.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 269) respecting the management and control of public and other works- (the Minister of Justice)-read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section I,
Mr. BARKER.: I wish to call attention to what I regard as a very material alteration in the responsibility for public works as affected by this Bill. This Bill purports to authorize the government, by Order in Council, to transfer matters within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works, for instance, to any other department. Parliament has seen lit to prescribe certain regulations with regard to all works within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works and these are established for the protection of the public. For example, in section 13 of the Act respecting public .works, the minister is compelled :
To invite tenders by public advertisement, for the execution of all works, except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and staff of the department.
There are various other clauses in the Act passed in the year 49 Victoria, chapter 36, for the protection of the public in the administration of the public works of the Dominion. Now, what do we find here ? The
Governor General in Council, if this Bill becomes law,
May at any time transfer the management, charge and direction of any public work, or any power, duty, or function with respect to any work or class of works, whether public or private,, which is assigned to, or vested by statute in, any minister or department, to any other minister or department ; and from the date appointed for that purpose by the Governor in Council, such power, duty, or function shall be transferred to, and vested in, such other minister or department.
Nearly all of the departments of the government are free from the restriction of any statutory provision, but it has been found necessary, or at all events expedient, in the interests of the public, that as regards the public works and as regards another department to which I need not refer here, but particularly as regards the Public Works Department, that there should be certain restrictions and certain provisions for the guidance and direction of those who administer that department. There are other departments which have no restrictions whatever. The Postmaster General, for example, has a free hand in almost everything he undertakes. The Minister of Inland Revenue has a free hand. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has a fairly free hand. And yet, by this Bill, the works pertaining to the Minister of Public Works may be transferred to any one of the ministers who have a free hand. The government may transfer the handling, the conduct of works involving millions of expenditure, without the provisions, without the restrictions, that would pertain to those works if they were administered under the department to which they properly belong.
Now, I think that this is a most material matter for the consideration of the House. I do not know why it should be found necessary at the present moment to bring in such a Bill as this ; I do not know any particular reason at the present moment why it should be necessary for the government to transfer from one department works that ordinarily belong to another department. But if it is necessary, if for any reason it is found that the minister administering one department of the government is unfit, or unable, or incapacitated from performing the functions relating to his department, and it is necessary to transfer some of his functions to another minister, I do not see why, in doing that, it should he necessary to deprive the public of the protection which has been deliberately and thoughtfully provided by parliament with respect to such works. I do not think that anybody will dispute that under this Bill, as it has been introduced, a minister to whom certain public works may be transferred, will bo absolutely free from the l'estrictions which would affect that work if performed in the department to which it properly belongs. The Minister of Pub-

lie Works may have authority to build canals and improve harbours, to do all works of that nature; but in letting out the contracts respecting those works he is bound by the restrictions and provisions of the Public Works Act. Apparently the government think that it will be convenient to transfer- those works to some other department. But there is not a word in this Bill, now introduced, that would provide for the public the protection in the other department that has been provided as regards the administration by the Minister of Public Works. Without any personal allusion whatever, I. may ask, why should the Minister of Public Works, who is bound by certain statutory provisions and restrictions, be enabled to transfer, for example, to the Minister of .Tustice the construction of enormous canal works, and that the Minister of Justice should thereby be enabled to let out those contracts, to accept tenders, to deal with the whole subject involving millions of dollars, perhaps without one restriction that would be applied to those works if they were carried out according to the statute I have referred to.
I do think, Mr. Chairman, that this Bill has been introduced without reflection, that it has been introduced for a particular purpose, to enable the government to transfer certain works from one department to another without the slightest sequence to the public. There is nothing in this Bill to indicate to what particular minister it is intended to transfer works or duties of the Minister of Public Works:	We may have suspicions upon
that point-I prefer not to deal with the suspicions-I do not care to what minister it is intended that the superintendence, or management, or whatever you may call it, of the Public Works Department shall be transferred, whether to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the Minister of Inland Revenue, to the Minister of Justice, or any other one. I say that under this Bill, when these ministers get the management of the works, they will be absolutely free from every provision that has been made in the statutes of this Dominion for the protection of the public. Now, I would like to ask the First Minister whether he really intends that. Surely when the Public Works Act was passed putting in certain restrictions and provisions for the protection of the public, to provide against, I may say, fraud-I do not hesitate to say fraud-to provide against an unreasonable letting of contracts or anything of that kind, it was the intention of parliament-to protect the public. There was -no question then, there was no intention then, to discriminate between one minister and another; the intention was that whoever should have the control of the expenditure of the enormous amount of money that is under the control of the Public Works Department, that whoever should have the power to expend that Mr. BARKER.
money, to distribute it to friends or opponents, should come within the provisions and restrictions of this Act. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that these few innocent looking words, the short provision of this Act. is intended, or at least calculated, to operate in removing every protection the public has, and I protest earnestly against the passage of a Bill of this kind in its present form.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), I think, is somewhat in error when he assumes that this is a departure from the established principles such as we find them in the Acts affecting the different departments. Let me refer him to chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, the Act respecting the Department of Agriculture, where he will find that section 5 .provides absolutely for what may be done under the Bill introduced to-night:
The Governor in Council may at any time, assign any other duty or power to the Minister of Agriculture and may also assign any of the duties or powers hereinbefore enumerated to any other member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
That is to say, by Order in Council it may be possible to take from the Minister of Agriculture some of the duties assigned to him by the Act repecting that department and hand them over to another minister. If my hon. friend will refer to the Act respecting the Secretary of State's Department, chapter 26 of the Revised Statutes, section 5, he will And a similar provision.	.


Samuel Barker: I do not dispute that the duties of the Minister of Agriculture might safely be transferred to other ministers, but the Department of Public Works and the Department of Agriculture are very different things. There is no comparison. The hon. Minister of Justice cannnot argue from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Public Works. It may be reasonable to allow the Department of Agriculture to transfer the sowing of cabbage seeds or anything else to the Minister of Public Works or to the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid I would not be a success with the cabbages.


Samuel Barker: But to transfer the enormous works of the Department of Public Works to the Department of Agriculture is a different thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will observe that not only do we find that provision in the chapter which has reference to the Department of Agriculture but we find it also in the chapter which has reference to the Department of the Secretary of State.	.
Mr. BARKER, That is worse still.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to draw his attention to the words of section 8 chapter 36 which is an Act respecting the Department of Public Works, because he will find something similar there. Section 8 of chapter 36 reads as follows :
If at any time a doubt arises whether the management, charge and direction of any public work belongs to the Minister of Public Works or to the Minister of Railways and Canals, the question shall be decided by the Governor in Council, and the works and property which shall be under the management, charge and direction of either minister may, from time to time, be determined in like manner.
Then the Act goes on to say :
And the Governor in Council may determine by which minister any power vested in the Minister of Public Works on the fifteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, shall be exercised.
Provision being thus made for the transference by Order in Council of any of the functions or duties performed by one minister to the other. My hon. friend will And in the Act relating to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, chapter 25, the Revised Statutes, section 3, that the same provision exists. Not only is that the case but if my hon. friend will read section 3 of the Act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries he will find that if this Bill is intended to be applied to the Department of) Marine and Fisheries it is almost apparent that a transference can be made without new legislation at all by Order in Council. Section 3 reads as follows :
The duties, powers, and functions of the Department of Marine shall extend and apply to the subjects and boards and other public bodies, officers and other persons, and services of properties of the Crown, enumerated in the [DOT]schedule to this Act, of which the said department shall have the control, regulation, management and supervision.
What are the provisions of the schedule ? Sub-section 24 of the schedule provides :
That the minister may have assigned to him any other duty or power which the Governor in Council may assign to him.
So that, generally, the terms of the Act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries authorize what my hon. friend says ought not to be done. Then my hon. friend objected to this legislation on the ground that public interest would be safe' guarded by the provisions which are to be found in the Public Works Act in respect to tender. My hon. friend said that works which are now under the direction of the Department of Public Works ought to remain with the department because the provision of the law affording a safeguard in respect to tenders applicable to the Department of Public Works would not be applicable to any other department. If my hon. friend will turn again to the Act respecting the Department of Public Works,
chapter 36 of the Revised. Statules, section 13, he will find the following provision :
The minister shall invite tenders, by public advertisement, for the execution of all works, except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
That is the protection, as my hon. friend sees, that is contained in the Public Works Act. My hon. friend will see that the Act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries, section 5, is in terms similar to section 13 of the Public Works Act, so that the terrible calamity that my hon. friend imagines would result from a transference of a work belonging to the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries would not take place because the same provision which exists in the Public Works Act in respect to tenders exists in the Act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. minister contend that every department of the government is subject to the same restrictions and provisions in regard to these various works that the Department of Public Works is subject to ? He may transfer under the operation of this Bill the operations of the Public Works Department to a department which is not subject) to these restrictions. That is what I object to.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the object of this Bill is the object indicated by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). There is no doubt that in the definition given by the law of each of the departments of state, in so far as I recollect, at the end of each chapter defining the duties of each department it is stated that generally the Governor General can assign to the head of the department other duties.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not in all cases.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is in nearly every definition of the duties of the departments.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think there are many chapters defining the duties of the departments where that provision is not found. Nor is there any doubt that where doubt exists as to which department should be entrusted with certain works a special mode is provided in the law for defining the department which shall have charge of these works. That is not the object of this little Bill which appears to be a very innocent Bill, but it is intended to effect a very serious object. The object of this Bill is to take work which is clearly within the 1 functions of one department and by Order

in council transfer it to another department. It is very different from the case as pointed out by the hon. Minister of Justice, and it is very different from the case where there is doubt and tvhere the legislators provided a mode of solving that doubt. It is by Order in Council taking work which has been assigned to one department and transferring it to another. What is the reason ? This is the reason : When the present hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) came before the electors of the district of Maisonneuve it was charged against him that the department which he had undertaken was not as important a department as the one which was held by his predecessor and it was claimed before the electors of Maisonneuve that we had lost something and that some explanation should be given as to why a department less important than the other had been confided to that minister. He said at every public meeting that it was intended to transfer from the Department of Public Works to his department all the public works having reference to navigation-wharfs, bridges, in fact, according to the statement made by him to the electors, the Department of Public Works was virtually going to be transferred to his own department. He has not been able to cause that promise to materialize because the present hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) very properly has objected to breaking up his department. It is intended before the next general election to transfer all the works connected with navigation in and around Montreal to the Department of Marine and Fisheries by Order in Council and in face of the law which assigns these works to the Department of Public Works, in order to tell the electors that the government has broken up the Department of Public Works and has transferred all the works in and around Montreal and all the works connected with navigation from Montreal to Quebec, and as the hon. minister himself said, all the works connected with navigation from the Yukon to the Straits of Belle Isle, to his department. When the elections are over these works will, by Order in Council, be retransferred to the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. That is the object of this Bill clearly and evidently and we claim, as my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has claimed, that the law ought to be contrary to that. It is for the parliament of Canada to assign to each department the duties which shall appertain to it. The ministry is but a Committee of this House; it belongs to the House alone to decide what attributes shall be given to each department of government. This is an attempt to obtain from the House power to switch over by Order in Council certain works from one department to another, for the purposes of the election, and afterwards to re-transfer them again. That Mr. MONK.
is why this Bill is introduced at the last moment.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) looks into the statute constituting the different departments of government, lie will find several provisions to the effect that the attributes of one portfolio can be transferred to another, according to the judgment of the Governor in Council.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then why do you want this V


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is the case in some instances but not in all. For instance, the mounted police are under the jurisdiction of the president of the council, but the very section which says that, enacts that the control of the mounted police can be transferred to any other minister as may be deemed advisable. There is therefore a good deal of latitude in that regard. It is not the object of this amendment to give to any minister the power to build and construct, which is now vested in the Minister of Public Works. The object is simply to enable another minister to manage and administer public works already in existence. I believe that to be a wise provision. If the departments were organized as I would wish, I would give to the Minister of Public Works the duty of building and constructing, but when the works have been constructed, I would transfer them to the different departments to which they belong. I would place wharfs under the control lof the Department of Mgirine and Fisheries; armouries under the Department of Militia and Defence, and post offices under the Postmaster General. But, I would not give to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or to the Postmaster General the power of building and constructing. I would , reserve that exclusively for the Minister of' Public Works. If it were thought advisable that contracts should be given, then there would be no necessity for introducing this Bill. Every one will agree that it is far better to allow a minister to administer the works which come within the purview of his department. My hon. friend has said that und,er this law you could transfer to the Minister of Justice all the works of the Department of Agriculture. Parliament has already trusted the Governor in Council that no such absurdity would be committed, and I think parliament can trust the Governor in Council in this case. These general powers are often taken, but they are subject to the discretion of the Governor in Council, and subject always to the superior jurisdiction of this parliament. It seems to me, therefore, that there is no reason to say there is anything extraordinary in this legislation, and I think my hon. friend IMr. Barker) will, on reflection, agree with me.


Samuel Barker: If the First Minister had in view the transference of certain works

from one department to another concerned in similar works, this Bill would have been framed in very different words. This clause says :
The Governor in Council may at any time transfer the management, charge, and direction of any public work, or any power, duty, or function with respect to any work, or any class of works.
If the right hon. gentleman can -tell me any broader language that could be used for the transference of all the works of any class from the department of one minister to that of another, I would like him to tell me what those words are.	If the
hon. gentleman wishes power to transfer to the Department of Agriculture all the works concerning the harbours of Canada, he can use no better language. If the Governor in Council should see fit to transfer from the Railways and Canals Department the management of our canals, this Bill would authorize it. You can transfer any work from the Public Works Department to another department, and that without the restrictions which are provided in the statute for the guidance of the Department of Public Works. That is my point, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice has given an answer to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) that the words of this Bill are wide enough to transfer the entire jurisdiction with regard to any class of public works, from one department to another. The section provides that :
Any power, duty or function, with respect to any class of works, whether public or private.
. These words are ample to transfer all the wharfs under the control of the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and so on, I do not understand why this Bill should be necessary now. Is there likely to be any public emergency by which the delay between one session and another would be injurious to the public interest is such a matter ?
I submit that the proper course is to deal with each case by itself when the emergency arises, and to deal with it by legislation. If you desire, as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier states is the intention of the government, to transfer part of the works now under the control of the Minister of Public Works to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, bring in your Bill for that purpose. If you desire to make any other transfers from one department to another, bring in your legislation for that purpose, and let the House deal with it. Why should the House delegate this power to the Governor in Council ? There seems to be no good reason for that, and no emergency is likely to occur which would make a delay from one session to the commencement of another session in any way injurious to the public interest. It does not seem to me that this statute is necessary. For the more
important departments there are provisions which have been found sufficient for the public interest up to the present time, and it seems to me that some explanation should be given as to the reason which induces the government at this time to bring in legislation of this character. What new feature is there in the transaction of public business which makes it desirable that legislation of this general character should be enacted ? No reason whatever has been given for it except that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that in respect of three or four departments legislation of an analogous character already exists. Well, has that legislation not been found sufficient ? What is the real reason for the introduction of this Bill, and what does the government propose to do under it ? If the government have nothing in mind which they propose to do under it, then the legislation should not be proceeded with. If they have any proposal before them with regard to the transfer of some works from one department to another, they should tell us the nature of their proposal. Unless they can assign some definite reason for such legislation, it seems to me to be unnecessary.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Let me say to my hon. friend that the reason for this legislation is to be found in the statute which has already been quoted, but which I will take the liberty of reading again in more detail, with regard to the Department of Agriculture. Section 4 of chapter 24 says :
The following subjects shall be under the control and direction of the Minister of Agriculture, that is to say :
1.	Agriculture.
2.	Immigration and emigration.
3.	Public health and quarantine.
1. The marine and immigrant hospital at Quebec.
5.	Arts and manufactories
6.	The census, statistics and the registration of statistics.
7.	Patents of invention.
8.	Copyright.
9.	Industrial designs and trade marks.
10.	Experimental farm stations.
This vests in the Department of Agriculture certain very extensive powers ; but the Act goes on to provide that it shall be iu the power of the Governor in Council to add to these duties of the Minister of Agriculture or to transfer to some other minister some of the duties assigned to him ; and this is the power proposed to be exercised under this legislation, if it becomes law. The subjects of immigration and emigration have been transferred by the Governor in Council from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. Then, I think it would be more proper to have the Marine and Immigrant Hospital at Quebec transferred either to the Department of tlin Interior or to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. With regard to this Bill, my hon.

friend rroip Jacques Cartier says it is for the purpose of enlarging the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It will certainly be proper at some time or other to recast the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Public Worts Department and the Department of Railways and Canals. At present a steamer leaving say Fort William for Quebec or below Quebec, while on the great lakes, is under the jurisdiction of the Marine and Fisheries Department; when it reaches the canals it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Railways and Canals ; when it reaches the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, it is under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department ; below Quebec it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries again. I think this is very absurd. That steamer throughout its whole journey ought to be under the control of one department. It might have an accident at one place and another at another place, in which case it would have to deal with two departments instead of one. For my part, I think we should make these laws more in accordance with common sense, to say nothing else. In my opinion the Department of Public Works ought to be a great building department. But when a public building is put up, if it be a lighthouse, for instance, it ought to go to the Department of Marine and Fisheries for administration ; if a wharf, it ought to go to the same department ; if a drill shed, it ought to go to the Department of Militia ; if a post office, it ought to be put under the control of the Post Office Department. But to-day you have the absurdity of having the whole management of the post office building in the city of Toronto or in Charlottetown, or anywhere else, put under the Department of Public Works instead of the Post Office Department. All the caretakers and the menial officials are under the Department of Public Works. X would rather have the control of these buildings assigned to the respective departments to which they belong ; and this is the object of this legislation.


Samuel Barker: My right hon. friend refers to the statute relating to the Department of Agriculture. I hardly imagine the right hon. gentleman is serious in referring to that department as one to which we might transfer the public works of the country. Surely there is no analogy at all between the two departments. The provision in the Act relating to the Department of Agriculture, enabling the government to transfer to that department some other functions, means, I think, the transference of something analagous to the functions of the department. Surely he would not transfer to the Department of Agriculture the management of the railways of the country. No one would imagine that the Act respecting the Department of Agriculture would give the Governor in Council power to transfer to that department all the


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: railways of the country. If you can transfer the Public Works, you may transfer the Railways and any other department to the hon. gentleman who, with the assistance of the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell), manages the Department of Agriculture. The hon. gentleman refers to the Department of Railways as an analogous department. If the right hon. gentleman wishes to transfer from the Department of Public Works to the Railway Department, certain works, such as the harbours or anything of that kind, in some measure connected with railway work, let him bring in a Bill and it will receive rerespectful and careful consideration, and the right hon. gentleman may have some grounds for an argument in favour of the transference ; at all events, that question will receive careful consideration from the House. What I object to, and what I think ought to be objected to by every member in this House, is giving to the Governor in Council the power to transfer important duties and functions at will from one department to another. I do not wish to expend time upon the subject, it seems to me so clear that it would be an offence to hon. gentlemen opposite-I am sure It would be an offence to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House-to argue the thing. If there is anything whatever in the Public Works Department that can be properly transferred to any other department, let the right hon. gentleman bring down his Bill to again define the functions of the respective departments, and the House will pass upon it. Those functions are defined in the statues of the country ; they have not been left to the ministers to apportion. The right hon. gentleman wants to reverse all that parliament has, from time to time settled as to the functions of each department. The right hon. gentleman wants to take something, he does not tell us what, from one department and put it into another department. As parliament, when organizing these departments, said what the functions of each were to be, let us follow out that arrangement and when a change is needed let parliament make it, but the right hon. gentleman has no right to ask us to delegate that authority to the ministers of the day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Might l ask the hon. gentleman if he has examined the Bill very closely, and if he has come to the conclusion that the words :
The Governor in Council may at any time transfer the management, charge and direction of any public work

would include the construction of a public work ?


Samuel Barker: But it goes on :
-or any power, duty or function with respect to any work or class of works.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me get down to that point. Would the words

I have just quoted include the building of a work? My own view is that they would not. They would mean to transfer the management and direction of a work after the work is completed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It includes the wharfs in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: After their construction.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose, as we find from the estimates is very often the case, one of these works is destroyed and we have to spend $40,000 or $50,000 in repairing it. [DOT] Would not the words even so far as we have gone include that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is a question whether it would or would not. I am not prepared to say whether it would or would not. What I mean to say is that it does not seem to me that'these words would imply authority to carry on work of original construction.


Samuel Barker: Would the construction of the eastern section of the transcontinental railway be a public work ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The eastern section of the transcontinental railway would be a public work ; construction is another question. The question I put now is whether the management and control of a public work includes construction ? It seems to me it does not. Then if you go on, you will see :
Or any power, duty or function with respect to any work or class of work whether public or private.
It seems to me that any power, duty or function would imply that sort of power, duty or function which the public works exercise, for instance, over public commissions like the Harbour Commission, at Montreal or Quebec. This does not include construction, but simply a sort of supervision or control over^what is done by these particular corporations. 1 quite understand that if these words can be construed so as to mean original construction, it would be necessary to go further and to add a section which would protect these particular public works. If my hon. friend thinks there is any danger in that direction, and that the provisions I have already pointed out as existing in one of the Acts at all events, is not sufficient, you might add :
And the provisions of the Public Works Act shall so far as they are applicable apply to any work or property, the maintenance, control, or management of which is hereby transferred.
So as to protect the public in the way he has indicated.


Samuel Barker: Does a public work mean a work completed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I want my hon. friend to realize that what is being transferred is the management or direction
4f>2
of public works. What it is important for him to consider is the meaning of the words 1 management, charge and direction.' Do either of these words include original construction ?


Robert Laird Borden: Those are not the important words, because they are not carried down into the latter part of the clause, as the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has just pointed out to me :
The Governor in Council may at any time transfer the management, charge and direction of any public work, or any power, duty, or function with respect to any work or class of works, whether public or private, which is assigned to, or vested by statute in, any minister or department, to any other minister or department; and from the date appointed for that purpose by the Governor in Council, such power, duty, or function shall be transferred to, and vested in, such other minster or department.
Leaving out altogether the words on which the Minister of Justice is laying so much stress, the important words are those which are repeated the second time in the section, and these it seems to me obviously include what is suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) whether the Minister of Justice thinks so or not. I think the first expression might include it, they certainly would include repairs, but the words in the latter part of the section undoubtedly include construction. I do npt think the Minister of Justice would venture to say they do not. How could you get wider words than the expression any power, duty or function with respect to any work or class of works.' I would defy any mail in this House to get a broader form' of expression, including construction and everything else, than these words. Beyond doubt, in my opinion, they include construction as well as management.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With all due respect to the Minister of Justice, I do not think it is possible to entertain any doubt on this point, that the management, charge or direction of any public work means the execution of that work. If my hon. friend has any doubt about that, if it is bis intention to transfer a public work to another department, why not use the word 'maintenance'? But the Minister of Justice will not make that change, because the Prime Minister has let the cat out of the bag; be has stated in reply to my own observation that it would be advisable to transfer the works connected with navigation between Quebec and Montreal, for instance, where several departments are interested, to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. That was the argument used in the Maisonneuve election, that is what is contemplated. But the^Minister of Public Works will not consent to a legislative change such as was promised by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and as he won't consent, it is contemplated to do it by Order in Council in order to carry us over the period of the next election. Will



my right bon. friend the Prime Minister state here upon bis responsibility, that it is not intended within the next six months to transfer some of the powers of the Minister of Public Works to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ? If my right hon. friend will make that declaration, while I still consider that the Bill is useless and improvident, he would give me great satisfaction. My right hon. friend will not make that statement, because he has let the cat of the bag, and reveals that is what this Bill is for ; and I think that on the question of principle, as well as because it is an election dodge, it ought to be opposed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I can say that if it is transferred, it will not be retransferred; it will remain transferred.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know whether my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will say that these words do not include ' instruction ' ? And if they do include instruction, why do you put to one side the safeguards which now surround the public works of the country?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I certainly think that the safeguards which are now provided in the Public Works Act ought to be put in here, and for that purpose I move that the following words be added to the first clause :
And the provisions of the Public Works Act shall so far as they are applicable apply to any work or property, the maintenance, repair, control or management of which shall be transferred under this Act.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Will the Minister of Justice tell us how much he is going to leave to the Minister of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not my business.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is very important that these changes should he made only after very careful consideration, and I move in amendment that this law shall come into force on the 1st day of September, 1904.


Edward Cochrane: Time can't wait.


David Henderson: The Minister of Marine aud Fisheries can't wait.
Amendment negatived.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE TARIFF.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['We lay it on the Table ; that is for the House to say.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The determination of the government in relation to the tariff was announced at an early stage of the session,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: and in accordance with the established practice in Canada the changes then proposed took effect immediately. But it becomes necessary for us to give more formal effect to them, as usual at the close of the session, by having the resolutions adopted and included in a Bill. I therefore beg to invite the attention of the Committee to the resolution which is placed upon the Notice paper, and which will be found on page 194 of the Votes and Proceedings, bearing date the 16th of April. It will be found that this is a resolution, put in proper form, for enactment of the few changes that were then announced, and I now desire to move that the resolution therein set forth be agreed to, with one amendment to which I desire to invite the atttention of the Committee. In the resolution providing for the imposition of a surtax upon certain foreign goods we rqad as follows :
Such surtax shall not apply to any goods actually purchased on or before the 16th day of April, 1903, by any corporation, firm or person in Canada for immediate transportation to Canada.
It was subsequently determined and so announced in the press that the thought contained in these words ' for immediate transportation to Canada ' should be expressed more definitely and therefore a circular was issued by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and announced in parliament at the time that in respect to these words ' for immediate transportation to Canada ' the privilege of importation without the surtax should be applied to all goods which were actually purchased prior to the date of the budget but which might not be imported into Canada until a later period, it being held that the orders' having been given and the contracts made a reasonable time should be allowed to permit importers to bring in their goods. We made no change in the principle that all goods not, actually purchased prior to that date should bear the surtax, but if they were actually purchased prior to the date that the duty was established the parties might have until the 30th of September to import their goods without the tax taking effect. That arrangement was carried out and I have reason to believe that it gave very general satisfaction to the trade which would otherwise have been very much embarrassed. I therefore propose to carry out the amendment by moving that the words 1 for immediate transportation to Canada ' be struck out and that the words ' if imported into Canada on or before September 30th, 1903,' be substituted. Otherwise the resolution stands as announced at the time of the budget.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What was the date announced ? My recollection was that it was the 15th September.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, tile 30th.


Robert Laird Borden: Wliat was the position then-that the surtax would not apply to goods purchased at any time before tlie 30th September of this year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not purchased before but imported before. To obtain exemption from the surtax purchase must have been made before the date of the budget, but the actual importation was permitted until the 30th .September. The date has since passed and the exemption is now practically at an end. The surtax applies to all goods that are imported.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the bon. minister whether any Order in Council was passed and what date it bears ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: An Order in Council was not formally passed for the reason that we could not pass an Order in Council until this Act passed. But following the practice of Canada in these things immediate action was taken upon the announcement in the budget. The regulations which were made had the same effect but they were not based upon an Order in Council, because, until the passing of this Act, we had no legal power to make an Order in Council.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). Of course there is rather an anomaly in all these matters inasmuch as you have to pass an Act to indemnify yourself for an Act of illegality, and in this case there was a double illegality, because, in the first place, there is no statute and in the second place there is no Order in Council under the terms of a statute.


David Henderson: I see a good deal of controversy in the papers as to who pays this surtax and I would like the hon. minister's opinion on that point.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Just at the present moment it would be very convenient to accept my hon. friend's contention that the consumer does not pay the duty.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman^ (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has really no convictions on the subject.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4,


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Under the Act of last session a license fee was substituted, but that Act did not at once come in force, it having been reserved for the imperial approval. We did not repeal the old section of the tariff, but the Act having since been approved, we will now collect the duty in the form of a license. There is one other resolution, notice of which has been given.
It has reference to the posters and handbills 462*
of an objectionable character. At present we can exclude such things when they are immoral, but it was represented to us by a deputation of gentlemen that it was not desirable to have the walls of our cities covered with pictures depicting crime. It was thought that easy familiarity with these scenes is not the best way of causing our youth to pursue the path of virtue, and we deemed it wise to provide for the exclusion of posters and handbills depicting scenes of crime or violence.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this intended as a covert attack upon the Conservative campaign literature.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, although I am inclined to think that if one wanted to be critical, the literature referred to might be brought within the Criminal Code. However, we are in a generous frame of mind.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend misunderstands me. The Conservative literature depicts scenes of crime and violence committed by the government.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It does not pass through the customs.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be comforting for my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) to know, that that home industry can still be carried on.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, there is a very large factory on the other side of the House.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 273) to amend the Customs Tariff Act, 1897.


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

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I beg to lay on the Table of the House the report of the Cattle-Guard Commission.


Robert Laird Borden: It's big enough to block a train.


James Clancy: Do you propose having it printed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter having been dealt with by legislation, I doubt that this very interesting report is so valuable now.


James Clancy: It might be interesting to have the experience of the one-eyed steer.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: Will it be published ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We lay it on the Table ; that is for the House to say.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
Tlie House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the following message had been received from the Senate:
On resolution No. 20,
Mr BORDEN (Halifax).: Before that is concurred in, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the employees of the Halifax post office forwarded to me some time ago a copy of a petition which they had presented to the Postmaster General, in which
They humbly and respectfully beg leave to reauest that the salaries paid to the employees of the outside service of the Post Office DeP^*' ment be increased to the same rate as those at present paid to the employees of -the inside service.
The petitioners mention two reasons on account of which they believe themselves to be justly entitled to the advance asked for, one the increased cost of living, the othei the responsibility of post office work, lney set forth in this petition that:
All classes of labour have been compelled to ask for -more wages to meet the increased cost of living; and in the case of post office officials whose duties require that they be at the office at a very early hour in the morning and a so late at night, it is necessary that they reside near the office, and to make this possible a higher house rent has to be paid. Those who cannot afford to pay this rent and have to occupy houses at a great distance from the office, or in the suburbs find it arduous to maintain a necessarily punctual attendance.
Tbey also set forth in the petition that the work is very irregular and strenuous, necessitating attendance at the office eat y in the morning and late at night the same dav, that the responsibilities and duties of the office are very great and severe and for these reasons tbey ask tlie consideration o tbe government. This subject, I think, was discussed to some extent in connection with the measure which was introduced by tb . Postmaster General with respect to the officers of the inside service. Tbe petition appears to give good ground for the consideration of tbe claims of these officers m the outside service; I know from my personal observation that their duties are in many cases very arduous, and I believe their salaries have not been increased, although the cost of living has greatly increased during the last eight or ten years. I therefore ask, on their behalf, the consideration of the government to the facts set forth in this petition.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will call the attention of my hon. friend tlie Postmaster General to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax).
The Senate on the 22nd of October, 1996, resolved that a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that another conference is desired with the House of Commons for the purpose of communicating to them the further reasons which induced the Senate to insist oil their amendments to the Bill entitled:
An Act to amen-d and consolidate the law respecting Railways,' and that the managers on the part of the Senate will -meet in room No. 8 of the Senate at eleven o'clock to-night.
The PRIME MINISTER moved that the House agree to the conference asked for by the Senate. [DOT]


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask, having regard to the peculiar formalities of these proceedings, whether it might not be necessary to take authority for what is called a free conference. It would appear from tlie ordinary procedure that one House simply submits resolutions adopted by that House to tbe other, and there appears to be sohie difficulty about any conference or discussion which might lead to some medium course. I would suggest to the right lion, gentleman who leads the House that it might be wise to give the managers of tlie conference some power for what is called a free discussion or free conference.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The suggestion is a good one, but for my part I confess that I am rather ignorant of these formalities. I have had no time lo look into tlie books to see what is to be done. But if we have power at this stage to move for a free conference, I would certainly add that to my motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The procedure, according to Bourinot, appears to be this ; That when a Bill is sent from the House of Coin-mons to tlie Senate and the Senate makes amendments to the Bill, in which they persist, then the House of Commons asks for a conference, and managers are appointed to go to the Senate to confer with the Senate and give reasons why they cannot consent to their amendments. If the first conference is unsuccessful, then the Senate lias a right to ask for a new conference, and to give the reasons why they persist in their amendments. That is what they are doing now, they are now asking for another conference with the House of Commons in order to give the reasons why they persist in tlieir amendment. After that, if there is no agreement, then a free conference can be held. Here is what Bourinot says :
The -report of the managers is then to he considered and disposed of by the House to which it is sent, which may take place immediately or be postponed to a future time. The result will


William Stevens Fielding: be communicated to the other House by a message. Sometimes a second conference will be necessary, when the first has not led to an arrangement between the Houses. Or a free conference may be held when two conferences have been fruitless.
After two conferences have been held a free conference may take place.


The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That Hon. Sir William Muloek, Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Hon. Mr. Fielding, Hon. Mr. Haggart, Hon. Mr. Blair, Mr. Borden (Halifax), Mr. Monk, Mr. Baker. Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Clark. Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville), and Mr. Wade be managers of the conference on the part of the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The time fixed for holding the second conference between the two Houses on the question of certain amendments to the Bill (No. 21) intituled an Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways,' having come, the Clerk of the House will read the names of the managers on the part of this House.
The Clerk read the names.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The members named will proceed to the place of meeting, and in the meantime the sitting of the House will be suspended.
The sitting of the House was accordingly suspended.
The Speaker having resumed the Chair.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) on behalf of the managers of the conference presented the reasons of the Senate for insisting oil their amendments made to Bill (No. 21) entitled an Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways, as follows :-
1st. Under section 3 of the Bill as passed by both Houses the Act is made to apply to all persons, companies and railways (other than government railways) within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
2nd. Under section 4 as passed by the Commons and adopted by the Senate as section 6, the Act is also made to-apply to all local railways which may be declared works for the general advantage of Canada.
3rd. The above two sections cover the whole field of the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada on the subject matter at issue.
4th. Section 7, as passed by the Senate, applies to all local railways the principle applied to street railways and tramways by the Commons under section 7 of the original Bill.
5th. Section 6 of the Bill, as passed by the Commons, is objectionable on the ground that It seeks to make once for all, as applying to all local railways happening to cross or connect with federal railways, the declaration which under section 92, subsection 10 of the British North America Act, 1867, should be made only as to individual eases as they arise.
6th. The same section is also objectionable on the ground that it brings under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada works owned and operated by corporations which remain creatures of provincial legislatures.
7th. The same section is objectionable on the further ground that the declaration in question would take permanent effect, although the crossing might be only temporary..
The Senate doth also insist on its amendment numbered 11 for the reason already assigned, and also for the following reasons
First : That the decisions of the Board of Railway Commissioners will from their nature apply to a multitude of cases and involve important interests.
Second : Because instead of being inconsistent with the spirit and with other provisions of the Bill, it merely extends the right of appeal provided for in the latter paragraph of sub-clause 3 of clause 44 of the original Bill to cases where leave Is obtained, from two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, which right of appeal was limited in such original Bill to cases where leave was obtained from the board.


The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That a message be sent to the Senate requesting a free conference on the proposed amendments to Bill (No. 21) entitled : An Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That the managers of the conference on the part of the House he Sir Wm. Muloek, Hon. Mr. Fielding, Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Hon. Mr. Haggart, Hon. 'Mr. Blair, Mr. Borden (Halifax), Mr. Monk. Mr. Barber, Mr. Eimmerson. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville) and Mr. Wade.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again resumed consideration of resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have the honour to in-from the House that the Senate agree to a free conference, and that the managers on the part of the Senate will be the same as those who acted in the two former conferences.
The sitting of the House was accordingly suspended.
The SPEAKER having resumed the Chair.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps able to report what in substance occurred at the conference that was held in one of the rooms of the Senate. It was decided that amendments 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill, should be accepted, and that the amendment with respect to the right of appeal, section 11, should not be accepted. The Senate concurred therein, and that clause will remain as when it left this House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The report of the conference will go on the Orders to-morrow,

and I presume a motion will be made in accordance therewith.


Andrew George Blair: Lest there be any misapprehension, I may be permitted to say that the House of Commons managers agreed that amendments 5, 6, and 7, of the Senate should be accepted. There was a modification, however, agreed upon by the Senate, accepted by the managers on behalf of this House, that section 5 of the original Bill was to be restored with some slight verbal alterations. That will appear in the report which the Minister of Justice will submit to the House in writing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It would
be more satisfactory if a formal report would be made to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: That would be better, because it is desirable that it should be made to the Senate in exactly the same form in which it is made to this House, so as to prevent any misunderstanding hereafter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was fully expected that prorogation would be reached this afternoon, but because of an intimation given to us in the course of the conference with the Senate, it is not likely that we can have prorogation to-morrow, and that being the case, we may assume that it will take place on Saturday at an hour to be agreed upon at our next sitting. There is no object to be gained therefore by sitting later.


Robert Laird Borden: Then my hon. friend expects prorogation some time on Saturday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1 a.m., Friday.

Friday, October 23, 1903.