1903-04-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Canada Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 100) to incorporate the Bank of Canada.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the London 1 oan Company of Canada.-Mr. McGugan- by Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 102) respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Royal Trust Company.-Mr. Casgrain-by Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 104) to incorporate the Brockville and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.- Mr. Dyment-by Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 105) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of The Standard Car Truck Company.- Mr. Lavergne.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 106) to amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens, chapter 11, statutes of 1897. He said :	Mr. Speaker, I
think the English system of setting forth the provisions of a Bill on the first reading is a good one, and therefore I take this opportunity of saying a few words with regard to this measure.' The Act, chapter 11 of 1897, provides that it is permitted to import skilled labour in or upon any new industry not established in Canada. The Bill I now submit proposes to eliminate these words ' in or upon any new industry not at present established in Canada,' and to permit the importation of skilled labour for established industries. The operation of the existing law has been found by parties engaged in manufacturing to work most disastrously to their interest ; and I can see no reason why a new industry should be permitted to import skilled labour and an industry which is already established in Canada should not be permitted to do so, if such labour is not obtainable in Canada.
Now, the manufacturers, as I have said, find that the operation of this Act inflicts upon them a great hardship. The importance of rendering our manufacturing interests effective, the importance of affording to them every facility and all necessary means to lead to their successful prosecution, do not need to be enlarged upon. If we are to build up the maufacturing interests of Canada it is unwise in my opinion, to handicap those interests by a restriction of this kind, a restriction which may prevent them entirely from obtaining the skilled labour necessary in the prosecution of their business. If we propose to transfer American manufacturing interests to this country, as we are doing, and as we will do to a still greater extent if our tariff is changed in the direction of protection, it will be necessary in such cases to permit those American manufacturing interests to
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: import skilled labour, and why we should impose this handicap under existing circumstances upon our manufacturing interests, I am at a loss to understand. Of course it should be our aim and object to develop the resources of Canada, to increase its wealth, to increase all lines of business in the country, and especially manufacturing business ; and it strikes me as being a line of action that can scarcely be defended, if we wish to encourage immigration to this country, to increase its population, to develop its resources-it is a line of action, I say, that can scarcely be defended to apply this restriction, to deny the right of coming to this country to a particular class of immigrants who prove to be the most valuable The Bill provides for eliminating that provision in the statutes ot 1897, and provides that manufacturers and all established interests in Canada should have tlie right to import skilled labour if that labour is not obtainable here.


Mr. CLARKE.: Who is to determine that matter ?


Mr. CHARLTON.: The statute lays dewn the conditions upon which that kind of labour should be admitted. It strikes me that our trades unions, in taking the step which has crystallized in this provision of the Act, are acting against their own interests, they are acting in a way and adopting a course that will prevent the development of industries in this country, and will indirectly operate injuriously upon there own interests in this regard. I know as a manufacturer myself, and through the experience of other manufacturers with whose operations I am acquainted, that this provision is a hardship that handicaps their operations, and in my opinion it does not work in the interests of the country. I see no reason why we should exclude from Canada a desirable, intelligent and skilful class of immigrants who wisli to come here and settle, and engage in the development of our manufacturing industries. These, briefly, are the reasons that have led to the introduction of this Bill, which, I may say, will receive the support of the entire manufacturing interests of tlie Dominion.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYD-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
Is it the intention of the government to introduce during the present session a measure granting provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories ? If not, why not ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: That matter is under consideration.


IS, 1903 SENATORS FOR MANITOBA AND THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES
[Stage Direction]
Mi'. BOYD-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
Is it the intention of the government to increase the number of senators for Manitoba and the North-west Territories, in proportion to their increased representation in the House of Commons ?
Tlie PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: That matter is also under consideration.


THE TOBACCO COMBINE.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Did the commissioner appointed to make an inquiry into the question of the tobacco monopoly or combine make a report to the government ?
2.	When will the said report be laid upon the Table of the House ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll).: The commissioner lias made a report, which I now beg to lay on the Table of the House.


A CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN PARIS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the new Canadian Chamber of Commerce, established in Paris, been authorized by, or else is it under the protection of the Canadian government ?
2.	Is there any correspondence, regarding the establishment of that chamber, with the government ?-
3.	Has the government contributed anything to the establishment of that chamber ?
4.	Does the government officially know of the organization of that chamber ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The new Canadian Chamber of Commerce alleged to have been established in Paris has not been authorized by the government, nor is it under the protection of the Canadian government. There is no correspondence regarding the establishment of such a chamber of commerce. The government has contributed nothing towards the establishment of such a chamber of commerce, and does not know anything officially of such an organization.


POSTMASTER AT LIME ROCK, NOVA SCOTIA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What salary is paid to the postmaster at Lime Rock, Pictou County, Nova Scotia ?
2.	Has his salary been increased lately ?
3.	If so. on what grounds ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: 1. $12.	2 and 3. No.


I.C.R.-TRACKMEN'S WAGES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KENDALL-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
1. What increase of wages has been granted to the trackmen of the Intercolonial Railway since the last session of parliament ?
2. What other increases have been made it) the Intercolonial Railway trackmen during the past six years ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: In July 1902, and since the last session of parliament, tlie track-foremen were increased fivm $1.05 to $1.75 a day, and the under-men from $1.20 to $1.30 a day. In January 1900. the track-foremen were increased from $1.00 to $1.05 a day, and the under-men from $1.15 to $1.20 a day. I may add that tlie increases last year took place since the last session of parliament.


NAVIGATION ON THE ASSINIBOINE AND RED RIVERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYD-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received the following communication from the Winnipeg Board of Trade :-
Winnipeg, 18th March, 1903. The President and Council,
Winnipeg Board of Trade.
Your committee, appointed to report on the Assiniboine river as a navigable stream, beg to report as follows :-
1st. That all the bridges now existing on the Red and Assiniboine rivers, east of Portage la Prairie, have been constructed with swing spans.
'2nd. That the population along the banks of the Assiniboine is becoming dense enough to provide traffic on the river.
3rd. That with the completion of the St. Andrews locks and dam, it is believed that an impetus will be given to river traffic.
4th. That the extra cost of providing for a swing span is inconsiderable.
5th. Therefore, the committee recommend that the board should use every means to have the Assiniboine and Red rivers retained and held as navigable streams ; and to that end. that representations be made to the Minister of Public Works.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
2.	If so. is it the intention of the government t.o provide for the improvements necessary to make the said Assiniboine river navigable ?
Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes, on 7th April instant.
2.	Matter will be given due c nsldera-t.ion.


WHARF AT BLIND RIVER.
[Stage Direction]
Mi'. BIRKETT asked :
1.	What are the names of the parties who tendered for the wharf at Blind river ?
2.	What was the amount of each tender ?
3.	What is the name of the party, or parties, to whom the contract was awarded ; and the amount of said contract ?
4.	Were any changes made in the plans or specifications of the said work, after the tenders were advertised, or since the awarding of the contract ?
Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland):: 1. Messrs. Robert Grant; Hoodie and McDerinid ; David Porter ; Green and Mackinnon ; David Conroy ; W. H. Lewis ; F. J. Sullivan; F. E. Fortin.
Robert Grant	$ 9,310 73
Moodie & McDermid	 9,375 00
David Porter	
10,900	00Green & Mackinnon	
10,995	00David Conroy	
11,000	00W. H. Lewis	
11,848 00F. J. Sullivan	
12,300	00P. E. Fortin	
14,975	003.	(a) Robert Grant, (b) $9,310.73.4.	No.


OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS MURRAY (Pontiac) moved for :
Copies of all engineers' reports, plans, specifications, estimates, and correspondence in reference to surveys made on French river and Lake Nipissing.
He said : With the consent of the House, I desire to add to my motion :
Also copies of all reports and surveys recently made on the Ottawa and Culbute rivers.
My object in bringing this motion before the House at the present time is to endeavour to get, if possible, some announcement from the government as to what they propose doing, and what their policy is in regard to this matter, also to get an expression of opinion from the representatives of the people of Canada in this House on this most important question. I need not remind the House of what has been said in that connection by representative men, the heads of the government of this country in years gone by. Take, for instance, the late Sir John A. Macdonald who, early in his political history, in referring to the construction of this particular canal, made this statement which is contained in the report of one of the engineers, Mr. Marcus Smith :
The Ottawa ship canal and the Pacific Railway must be constructed, and no voice would be raised against the great national work, which would open the western states and colonies to the seaboard.
He says that no one would raise his voice against that great project which is going to do more to build up Canada than any other project that has been proposed. We have also the statement of the hon. Alex. Mackenzie. He says :
I am perfectly satisfied that the Ottawa valley presents the greatest facilities of any route upon the continent for the transportation of the products of the North-west to the Atlantic ocean.
I think hon. members will bear me out when I say that this question has been brought before parliament time and time again. It was brought before parliament by Sir James Grant when he sat in the House of Commons representing the city of Ottawa, by the Hon. Peter White, who was then repi-esent-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
ing North Renfrew, by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who I am pleased to see sits opposite. I believe he is as strong an advocate of the project to-day as he was then. It was also brought up by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), Mr. Poupore and others. There has been a great deal of talk about this project, but the time has arrived when some action should be taken.- There have been engineers' reports one after the other. The first was prepared in 1858, when the late Mr. Walter Shanly prepared a report in reference to the construction of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. His idea then was that a ten or twelve foot depth of water way would be sufficient, but, of course, later examination and the development of the trade of -the country have shown that a twenty foot depth of water will be required. Mr. Shanly made a survey of the route and he reported most favourably. He said that the approximate cost for the depth of water which he proposed would be only about $24,000,000. Other engineers have reported upon the project, Mr. Clarke, Sir. Macleod and Mr. Marcus Smith. I think the latest survey of the whole route was made by Sir. Marcus Smith. He estimates the cost of the canal to be about $80,000,000. It may be contended that that would be a large sum for this country to undertake to expend, but when the great advantages to be derived from the project and when the great necessity of it are taken into consideration, it will be admitted that $80,000,000 is only a drop in the bucket. This natural waterway is considered to be more nearly an air line than any other stretch of water navigation in the known world.
The cost is not excessive when it is considered that this is the shortest route, the least expensive to construct, and that it will result in the development of our resources, of our great mineral deposits which we know this country possesses which are undeveloped, as no other project will. Before the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am sorry to say, few people appreciated the resources of the country through which that railway passes. When first, as a young man. I went to the Ontario legislature, in 1869, as the representative of North Renfrew, I met many people from western Ontario who knew nothing at all about the northern part of the province or about the Ottawa valley. They said : What kind of a country is it ? Who lives there ? There are only a number of Indians, squaws and a few lumbermen in that country. That was the impression then, and I regret to say that there are many hon. members of this House to-day who do not know very much about the Ottawa valley. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was enraptured with the grandeur of that country when he made a personal inspection of it. I accompanied him to Arnprior and he said to me :	We do not know what we possess.

We do not realize tlie grandeur of tlie Ottawa river, or the value of the water powers which we have all along that route. It is estimated that there are 750,000 horse power of water power on the route alone. Taking each water power at a minimum value of $10 per horse power, that means $7,500,000. Capitalize that at 3 per cent, and you have a value of $250,000,000. The construction of that great work would bring thousands of people into the country. It is considered that it will take five years to construct the canal and the result would be that instead of people coming in hundreds and thousands to the North-west Territories, the influx would be quadrupled. You will not be able to put up buildings sufficiently large to accommodate them. Our great North-west Territories are capable of sustaining fifty millions or sixty millions of people.
I am not a young man, but I hope to live with all who are listening to me to see the day in the near future, if this canal is constructed, that instead of having a handful of people, comparatively speaking, we will have a population of eighty to one hundred millions that Canada is capable of sustaining ; we will have an enormous influx of settlers. You are going to bring these people here by providing the country with such transportation facilities, as I am drawing the attention of the House to now. I am favourable to railways, I am favourable to this transcontinental railway,
I am favourable to building railways In isolated provinces, and of giving to the North-west Territories the advantage of good transportation facilities. I noticed a short time ago that a deputation of farmers waited on the government to oppose the subsidizing of any more railways. I venture to say that these very farmers came from a section of the country where they have railway facilities. We should look at the question in a patriotic spirit, free from local or sectional consideration. Although I am an Ottawa valley man, I have onjy wakened up, having been attending to my business, to the necessity of this great undertaking. I had never studied the question until recently, but I have made a close examination of tlie engineers' reports and an inquiry into the whole question. I may say that we have a report from the Senate-the Senate that I do not take much stock in, but I will give them credit for one thing they have done. They went into that question thoroughly, and they had before them men of eminence to give their opinions in regard to It. Amongst others they had a gentleman by the name of Thompson, an eminent engineer from Duluth. This gentleman said all that could be said in favour of the project. I need not draw the attention of the House to what the Americans are doing now. They have only lately voted $100,000,000 for the improvement of canals in order to facilitate trade and increase the traffic which passes through these canals from Canada. Are we going to allow that diversion of our
trade to continue ? We must bestir ourselves if we are going to build up our country and keep our own trade. Mr. Thompson stated before the Senate that this waterway transportation would mean a cost per ton of one dollar as compared with $27 by rail. It will be readily seen what a great advantage will accrue to the people of Canada by the construction of this waterway.
I do not want to dwell on the subject at any great length. I do not think it is necessary. I trust that hon. members of this House will take part in this discussion. All I wish to do is to draw the attention of the government and to draw the attention of the country to the necessity of carrying out this proposition.
I say, Sir, that this undertaking is within the means of the people; I say that it is an actual necessity for the country at larger and I say further that we cannot move too soon to initiate it, and when we once have commenced it to carry it on to completion. Surveys have been made by the government of Canada at considerable expense, and the present government has made a survey of the French river, the reports on which I have asked for as well as the approximate cost of the work. The French river work is all right enough so far as it goes, but wliat I advocate is that the whole scheme shall be carried out. I understand that the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) meant to have a survey of the French river with the object of ultimately carrying on the whole work, and he promised that he would report to parliament on the approximate cost. That was a businesslike way of handling this scheme. I give the Hon. Mr. Tarte the credit that he generally took a business proposition in hand in a businesslike way. I have every faith in the right hon. the Prime Minister and his present colleagues in the Cabinet that they will also grapple with the question. I had the pleasure of attending a deputation that waited on the government a short time ago from North Bay and Port Arthur and places in the vicinity, in favour of this project, and I am glad to be able to say that the answer given to that deputation by the government was satisfactory. I hope that the government has now arrived at the conclusion that there is a necessity for grappling with this important project in a businesslike way. The country has been put to considerable expense in getting engineers reports and surveys and things like that. That must mean something. They were surely not doing it for fun, and if it does mean anything then it is the boundeu duty of the government to go on with that work immediately, provided of course that the reports will justify them in doing so, and I verily believe that these reports will furnish ample justification to the government. As a matter of fact there is practically no canalling to be done on the French river and not more than thirty miles on the whole
[Stage Direction]
route, so that the work is easy enough from an engineering point of view. In face of the advantages which will accrue to the nation at large, is there an lion, member here who will object to the construction of this great national waterway ? I hope there is not. I hope that the unanimous opinion of this House will be that this work should be commenced and commenced at once. I say, Sir, that no scheme which we can devise, will tend so much to enrich the Northwest and to develop its enterprise and increase its population. It will give Canada such a prestige as it never had before. The country demands the Georgian Bay canal from a military point of view, from a commercial point of view, from every point of view. This is a business proposition, and I bespeak the support of hon. members for the government in carrying it out. I might go into further details, but they have all been referred to before, and to do so would be taking up the time of the House unnecessarily. In conclusion, Sir, I repeat the hope that every member of this House will be in sympathy with the motion and that it will receive unanimous and hearty support.
The PRIME MINISTER (Itt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The subject which has been brought before the House by my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Murray) is not exactly new to us. We have discussed it on more than one occasion in past years, and I do not know that there is anything to add to the declaration which has been made by the government on previous occasions. My hon. friend (Mr. Murray) is aware that a company has been chartered by this parliament to take power to construct what is called the canalization of the Ottawa' river and the French river from Georgian Bay to the waters of the St. Lawrence. I think that I may say that it was never expected that this company would be able to perform such a gigantic task unassisted. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Murray) that the company which was last organized has on one or two occasions approached the government witli a view of obtaining assistance to enable it to carry on the scheme which they have power from parliament to undertake, but the proposals which were made to the government were of such a nature that they could not be entertained. The assistance which they asked was of such a character that the government did not feel justified in asking parliament for the aid that was sought. When the papers are brought down my hon. friend (Mr. Murray) will see what was the character of the assistance which was required from the country at large, and I think he will agree with me that the proposal that was made to us was of such a character that the government was quite justified in taking the position which it did. For my part I think that the country would justify a moderate expend!-1 Mr. MURRAY.
ture-a leasonable expenditure of money- with tiie view of providing another means of communication between the east and the west. The route of the Ottawa river is undoubtedly the natural channel of communication between the east and the west. It was the route followed by the old voy-ageurs in the early days of the colony. When the North-west produced nothing but furs it was the route followed by the fur traders to bring the products of the west to the eastern shores. That trade has now become a thing of the past; settlement has gone into the North-west; immense quantities of products a>'e being sent from that fertile portion of Canada and they grow larger and larger as time develops. We are all aware that new methods of communication have been found, but nevertheless we know that undoubtedly one of the easiest and cheapest routes would probably be the canalizing of the Ottawa river. Whenever a company is prepared to approach the government asking for what I would call reasonable assistance, I think the government would be prepared to hear the application favourably and to ask parliament for that reasonable assistance. But if my hon. friend (Mr. Murray) expects that the government should assume such a gigantic work lam not prepared to say that that subject lias yet received such consideration as to enable me to answer in the affirmative. I do not think that at this moment the country is prepared to expect that the government should ask parliament to undertake this work out of its own resources. I rather think that the opinion is that it had better be left in the hands of private enterprise. When the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was my colleague in the government, he had rather thrown out the idea that the government might very properly undertake the work of canalizing the French river from the waters of the Georgian Bay to the waters of Lake Nipissing. That is a project, which speaking for myself personally, rather commands my sympathy and my favourable consideration. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that project. I am not prepared to say that the government is ready to endorse it at this moment. The matter has not yet been considered by council, and I give only my own expression of opinion upon this subject, and I do so very guardedly, but it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the view taken by my late colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in favour of the government itself undertaking thq full development of the French river from the waters of Georgian Bay to Lake Nipissing. If that were done it would be a means of having another port on the lakes, and it would undoubtedly contribute to solve the problem of the transportation of the products of the North-west to the seaboard. More than this I am not prepared to say at this moment. The government will have

great pleasure in bringing down all tbe papers asked for by my bon. friend (Mr. Murray).


John Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I was just on tbe point of rising when tbe premier rose, and I presume that tbe government desire, now that this question is before tbe House, that tbe views of members should be expressed, where members hold views on the question. The statement made by the right hon. leader of the House, that a company had been chartered, and that the demands of that company on the government for aid have been of a character that the government could not accede to, leads me to believe, as I always have believed, that if the construction of the Georgian Bay canal is to be undertaken, it will hardly be done by a company. The state of New York, as we are aware, has just appropriated $101,000,000 for the enlargement of the Erie canal. This is done as a state work. It is done for the purpose of cheapening the cost of transportation and securing for the great seaport of New York the business of the west. The Panama canal was undertaken by a company, and that company failed, and that canal is now being constructed by the United States government. A work of the character of the Georgian Bay canal is one which I think we can scarcely anticipate will be constructed by a company ; and it is better for us to face the question with the point in view whether there are reasons which would warrant the government in undertaking this work. We are confronted with transportation problems of vast magnitude. One shrinks almost appalled at the money needs of the near future for the opening up and development of the north-west, the settlement and production of which will increase rapidly ; and if we are to keep pace with that settlement and production we must provide ample trans-portatiou facilities.
With regard to the construction of a canal to Lake Nipissing, I have never looked with favour on that project, unless it were to be taken up as a part of the general project of a Georgian Bay canal. I could not see the force of establishing a seaport on Lake Nipissing. It would benefit the Canadian Pacific Railway, of course : but as a project standing by itself, I could not see that it would be good for the country, while as a part of the general scheme of a Georgian Bay canal, it would of course be commendable.
We can scarcely comprehend the prospective transportation needs of the north-west. Our American friends are fully alive to the probable increase of business to be derived in the near future from that vast region ; and the enlargement of the Erie canal simply means that the United States intend to compete for that trade, and to compete for it under conditions more favourable to success than exist at the present time. It is proposed to enlarge that canal to a depth of 12 feet, making it a barge canal. One of the most reliable experts on canal construction is Major Simons, who has charge of the construction works at Buffalo ; and that gentleman, in an exhaustive report made a year or so ago, took the ground that a barge canal to the Hudson river, capable of passing vessels of 1,000 tons burden, would be more economical than a ship canal of 21 feet of water. He stated that a vessel capable of navigating the great lakes must, when entering the canal, reduce her speed to one-fifth of her speed on the lakes, while keeping her whole crew. By a carefully prepared tabulated statement he arrived at the conclusion that the barge canal would serve the purposes of transportation better and cheaper from the lakes to New York, while the handling of the grain by elevating it from vessels to barges was calculated to put it through to its destination in better condition.
In view of this position taken by Major Simons, and in view of the fact that after careful consideration for years the state of New York has adopted his views and will construct this barge canal, if the referendum on that subject results favourably, we must see the propriety of examining carefully into the reasons which have led to the adoption of this course. If we were to construct a barge canal of 12 or 14 feet of water from the waters of Lake Huron to the St. Lawrence river, the grain of the west would then be shipped to the mouth of the French river; from that point it would be put through by barges to Montreal or Quebec, and there elevated to elevators and transferred to ocean going vessels. If the reasons which have led to the determination to construct a barge canal in the state of New York are well founded, the same reasons will apply to the construction of a canal by the Ottawa valley. These are points that require careful consideration, for we are confronted by a problem of great magnitude and involving the interests of that vast country to the west, the very heart and seat of power of this Dominion. We want to approach this question, not in a party spirit at all, but from a business standpoint, and give to it the consideration which its importance requires. There is one consideration that has had much to do with the proposed enlargement to the Erie canal- the question of competitive rates and the regulation of rates. The Erie canal is to be constructed, not because the railways cannot transport the produce of the west, but for the purpose of regulating rates and preventing a combination for the purpose of taking from the producers exorbitant freights. The same reasons would apply to the construction of the Ottawa river canal, the source of whose business would be derived from the waters of the great lakes, from Duluth, from Chicago, from

130S
Fort William, from the wheat fields of the north-west, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. There would be low vessel rates to the mouth of French river, and barge canal rates from that point to Montreal or Quebec. A low rate of freight would be held over the competing railways not as a menace, but as a condition of things that would compel them to give vastly lower rates than they would give if this competition did not exist. We want to divert that trade to our own ports of Montreal and Quebec. I have always believed that Quebec was the true competitive point to aim at in sending our grain to the seaboard.
For these reasons, I believe that this question should receive exhaustive consideration and discussion. The government naturally have no policy on this question. It is not a party question. The government are asking in the first place what the wishes of the country are, and in the second place what the interests of the country are, and the decision of the government will natur-aly be determined by the answers to these questions. The day has not yet arrived for asking what the policy of the government is with regard to the Ottawa valley canal, but it is a good time to discuss the question. We want to accumulate the data on which we can, later on, found our decision with regard to this matter. My own. belief is that we must make up our minds to confront very great expenditures ; we must make up our minds to draw upon the future. We must enter into obligations which the future must discharge, obligations for the benefit of the future, for the benefit of the untold millions who will people the north-west, but who, without transportation facilities will not people the northwest with the rapidity that will characterize the filling up of that country if those facilities are provided. And these great expenditures, vast as they may seem, if made honestly and with due regard to economy, will bring an adequate, a rich reward. I rose to present these few remarks upon this question because I feel, and feel very deeply, that the government now in power desire to consult the interests of the people, desire to do that which the requirement of the future demand, yet, at the same time, naturally shrink from undertaking vast obligations, and wish to be satisfied first that the demands of the country require that these obligations shall be incurred and that the expenditures will be justified by the results.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: The position in regard to this matter is one which should be discussed and thoroughly understood before we go any further. It should be understood that we are not asking the government to appropriate a large sum of money for the construction of this canal. What we ask is that a proper survey shall


John Charlton: be made of the whole route, that we may know with reasonable exactness what the work will cost before we undertake it. We believe this is one of the greatest routes on the continent for the transportation of the products of the North-west to the seaboard If that is the case, the country should have knowledge of that fact; and, if the cost will be too great for our means, we ought to know it in good time. The state of New York, one state alone, is preparing to spend $101,000,000 to improve the Erie canal. If they take the matter so seriously, surely we should do the same with regard to this great water route through our country. If we can shorten the route to the seaboard by 340 miles, as I believe we can, surely that is something that we should know and understand; but, if the cost of construction is to be too great, we ought to know that also. We contend that this is not properly a canal, it is merely the construction of a certain number of locks, the work of this character to be done covering a distance of fifteen miles. There are thirty miles altogether, but in reality fifteen miles is already constructed and in operation, and the construction of the other fifteen miles would shorten the distance from Chicago and Fort William to tlie seaboard by no less than 340 miles. That is a most important item. There are parties now in the North-west who are face to face with the serious problem of how they are to get their products to market. This canal will greatly increase the facilities for the transportation of those products. It should not be forgotten that the earlier the crop of wheat can be marketed, the more valuable it is. Every month, every week, and even every day that it is retained in the owner's warehouse makes it less valuable, for delay means more shrinkage and more loss in every way. What the people of the North-west want is to get out their crops ns early as they can, in order that they may get the best return for it. We contend that if this canal were constructed, it would materially assist the Canadian Pacific Railway in getting out the crop. The great difficulty with the Canadian Pacific Railway is not that they have not a sufficient number of cars, but that they have not sufficient engine power to take the cars away. Last winter, train after train stood dead on the tracks in the North-west because the road had not the engines to move the cars. It is impossible for the Canadian Pacific Railway to construct the engines fast enough; nor can they purchase them in this country or in the United States. So, we wish to assist them to make the most out of the motive power in their possession. If the Canadian Pacific Railway were to double track their road between Fort William and Winnipeg- and we understand that they have already let the contract for that work-they would tieble their capacity for taking out grain. See what an important thing that is. We do not wish them to use their engines to

bring that grain down to the seaboard but merely to take it to Fort William, where facilities would be provided for taking cheaply to the port of shipment. In that way, we can get vastly larger amounts of grain out of the North-west early in the season than we can get otherwise. Some tell us that the days of canals are past, that canals have done their work, and that to-day nothing but the railway is practically useful in the work of transportation. But the experience of the world goes to show that canals are most valuable in assisting railways to do their work. There is a certain class of traffic which, if the railways handle they must handle it at a very small rate of profit, or, sometimes, almost at a loss. I refer to the carriage of raw material, such as grain, stone, iron, coal and other things of that sort. Now, if this work were done by the canal the railway would be free to carry the freight that Is most profitable. In all cases where canals have run alongside of railways they have been found to be of great assistance to the roads. In fact, railways which were run alongside canals that were not worked have been run without profit, but when the canals were put in shape and began to work, the railways have paid a dividend. The reason is that the canals carried the rougher class of freight on which the railways' profit was little or nothing and they made traffic by building up factories and bringing in people, and so giving the railways more of the better kind of traffic to do. So we say that if this canal were constructed, it would be of great assistance to the railways as well as to the country generally. It is not my intention to go into the subject at greater length, but what I wish is to urge upon the government to take this matter up and give us the desired information, so that we may know the cost of this work and may be able to calculate whether our means will justify us in undertaking it, or whether it is too great for us at present. With the information before us we shall know just what we have to do.


Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (St. Mary's, Montreal).: Last year, when those who had received a charter at the hands of the late government, applied for its renewal, I made as strong objection as I could. But it was represented to us that there were vested rights, that these men had spent pretty large sums of money in making surveys and trying to organize a company to make the enterprise go. I reluctantly consented to the renewal of their charter. But my colleagues were all of the same mind, after having discussed the question thoroughly, that the French river should be excluded from the charter, and it was. A complete survey of the French river has been made by the department of Public Works. My hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Murray) forgot to mention that survey. The engineers of the Department of Public Works deserve a great
deal of credit for the complete, intelligent and thorough survey they have made of the French river-in point of fact it is the only complete and thorough survey that has ever been made. That survey is available with its maps and charts. The report which will be laid on the Table of the House will show that for the small sum-I call it a small sum-of five millions of dollars, the French river can be improved and made a waterway twenty-one feet deep from its mouth to Lake Nipissing. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said a moment ago that the improvement of the French river should be undertaken only on condition that it would form part of the whole project. There must be a beginning to everything in this world. If we construct this first part it will be the first step towards the completion of the whole great project. There has never been any complete survey of the Ottawa river and nobody knows what will be the cost of that work. I have gone over the Ottawa river, but I am not in a position to say, or even guess, what will be the cost of that great work. It will cost a large amount of money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot say. I do not like to give figures on questions that neither I nor anybody else has studied thoroughly, but as far as we are able to know, the project-I speak of the canalization of the Ottawa river from Lake Nipissing down-would cost, judging by the information we have, in the neighbourhood of $80,000,000. That is a large amount of money. I do not say that this country has not the means to spend $80,000,000, but I doubt very much whether ave are prepared to do so now. We have so many large enterprises to promote that it is necessary for us to pause when we have to face such a large expenditure. I altogether share the view expressed by my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) a moment ago, when he said that the country should undertake itself works of that kind. You can always build railways, there is plenty of room on this Canadian soil to locate railways, but there are only one Ottawa and one French and one St. Lawrence river, and I earnestly urge my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister-who, I may say, has given a great deal of thought and consideration to the views I have often laid before him-not to commit himself to any plan by which the Ottawa river would be made a private enterprise. If that ever should be done, we will have practically no control over it. My hon. friend from North Norfolk has said that if the French river project only be carried out, it will benefit the Canadian Pacific Railway. My hon. friend perhaps has been a little unwise in saying that. It is no use prejudicing the public mind against Canadian enterprises. The people of this country have spent in the neighbourhood of one hundred

million dollars to build the Canadian Pacilic Railway. We bare built that railway ourselves. It has rendered us immense service. There are few works of waterways improvements that will not benefit the railways. Where would we be to-day if we had not the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway and their ports on the lakes ? Midland is a great port to-day because the Grand Trunk Railway has its terminal there. Depot Harbour is a great port also because it is a terminal of the Canada Atlantic Railway. It would be the easiest thing in the world to build another railway paralleling the Canadian Pacific Railway to North Bay if necessary. We have plenty of area to do so. If the French river project were carried out, it would place Montreal in a better position than New York. From Buffalo to New York by rail are 445 miles ; and from North Bay to Montreal the distance is only 360 miles. It would place the St. Lawrence in a better position to handle the western trade than the route via Buffalo and New York and other American ports. Let us open as many avenues of trade as we can within our means and we will not have too many. It is no use in my saying more to-day, but before I take my seat let me beg again the right hon. gentleman, who has all the responsibility of the government of this country to-day, not to alienate great national property for the benefit of promoters. We have been giving too much to promoters. Let us keep at least the control of our national properties- national properties that we cannot duplic-cate. We can build other railways, but let me say again we cannot have another Ottawa river. To give the Ottawa river to a private corporation would be just as bad as if we were to give up our canals. It is represented that our canals do not pay. For my part, I am surprised that they have done so well. We have not equipped them, we have done nothing at both ends of our canals. Let us equip our canals. We are doing that now. but doing it pretty slowly. When the St. Lawrence is equipped as it should be, when our canals are equipped ; when we have harbour facilities as we should have at Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal, Port Colborne, we will see what advantages we will then enjoy. Railways cannot carry the trade of tiie country in the summer in competition with waterways. It is very important indeed that such questions as this should be always discussed without party bias. As my hon. friend from North Norfolk says, this is not a party question, but an undertaking of national import.


Hon. JOHN IIAGGART (South Lanark).: It is not my intention to go fully into the question at present before the House. Every member of this House, who has been here a couple of years, knows my views on the subject. I believe that the undertaking which is advocated by my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Murray) is one of the most Hon. Mr. TARTE.
important in the interests of Canada that ever was propounded before this House. I have not altered my views on the subject. If we are ever to become a great nation, if Montreal is to become the great port nature intended it to be, and if our country is to receive the development it deserves, it depends upon the people themselves; and one of the most important undertakings to achieve that desired result is the building of the canal advocated by my hon. friend from Pontiac. I never had any other view on tiie subject. The undertaking is one which must some time be done, in the interests not only of this country but of the whole population surrounding the great lakes to the west of us. There is no use talking, it is proved mathematically, it is beyond all doubt that carriage by water is cheaper than carriage by rail. There is no probability in the future that that will be overcome. We are placed then in a position where we undoubtedly have the advantage in the carrying of the immense products of the west to the east. These must eventually pass over our territory, and it depends entirely on our people themselves whether we shall secure all that trade in our generation or leave that to be done by future generations. I am not going to discuss the question fully to-day, because probably a better opportunity will come later. I intend to go fully again into the question when the government announce its policy with regard to the commission for the purpose of inquiring into the transportation question. I think perhaps that that will be the better time to discuss the subject now before us. But we have the important announcement from the right hon. gentleman who leads the government that several propositions have been made by a company for the purpose of building this undertaking from the Georgian Bay to the port of Montreal, and that they were unreasonable and that the papers will be brought down and will justify the action of the government. He is favourable to the scheme as propounded by the ex-Minister of Public Works, and says it is a necessity for the country to complete the canal from Georgian Bay to Lake Nipissing. That may be the commencement of a great undertaking, but it would not be, in my opinion-and I have read all the articles on the subject-worth the expenditure of a single cent if the undertaking were to be completed in the manner proposed by the hon. member for Norfolk. He stated that big vessels can be carried on a twelve-foot navigation cheaper than on a twenty-one-foot navigation. The navigation of the western lakes by American boats down to Buffalo is on a twenty-foot navigation. The proposition of the exMinister of Public Works is the correct one, namely, the continuation of a channel of that depth of water down to Montreal, or, if we are going to use Lake Nipissing as part of the scheme, to have a twenty-one-foot navigation as far as Lake Nipissing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And there are only 61 feet to overcome.


John Graham Haggart: That is all the difference between the Georgian Bay and Lake Nipissing, a rise of 61 feet. I may remark that I think all through navigation in the future should be made a depth of twenty-one feet, the depth which is adopted as a standard by the Americans between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, and down the St. Mary's river to Buffalo. What an absurdity it would be to load boats at Port Arthur, bring them down to the mouth of the French river, reload them into barges drawing twelve feet of water, and carry them up a few miles to and through Lake Nipissing, then unload them again on a railway and carry them to Montreal. The case needs only to be stated to show its absurdity. The reason that our navigation on the St. Lawrence has not been utilized, up to the present time, to the extent it should be, is simply the fact that all vessels loading on the great lakes of the west are built for a navigation different from that which we have adopted on the St. Lawrence river. If we are to divert that traffic from the west to the east through our own waters, we must have a navigation the same as theirs. Perhaps I am going too fully into the subject.
I may say that I was gratified with the statement of the Prime Minister. He sees the importance of constructing that work. He agrees with the ex-Minister of Public Works as to the importance of extending the navigation into Lake Nipissing. The reason he rejected the proposal of the company was on account of its unreasonableness ; but he is prepared to consider, and perhaps enter into, an arrangement with a company that offers a more reasonable proposition. I am not going to discuss the question which the ex-Minister of Public Works has raised as to whether it would be better in the interests of the country that the government should retain absolute control of the canals, or whether it would be better to enter into some favourable arrangement with a company for the purpose of building that work up to Lake Nipissing. That is a question which should be considered entirely upon its merits. Some of the most important canals, doing the largest business in the world, are owned by companies, and that fact does not interfere with the benefit of the nations who are users of those canals. Possibly the company's proposition was an unreasonable one ; possibly we should adopt the argument of the exMinister of Public Works, who says that we should not part with any of our franchises in the manner that it is proposed to give them to companies. But that is beside the great project itself. I believe a Georgian Bay canal will do more for the development of this section of the country than any other scheme that has been proposed. I am in favour of its extension to Montreal. I am cosmopolitan enough to 42
favour the scheme that was propounded by the Hon. John Young, when lie was a member of this House for Montreal, who advocated the extension of that canal, with a depth of twenty-one feet, to the city of New York. He was of the opinion that that scheme, besides benefiting New York, would benefit this country and benefit particularly the port of Montreal. My hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Murray) says he does not expect to live to see this undertaking completed ; for myself, I hope to live at least to see it commenced. I believe that the future of this country depends greatly on the development of the natural advantages which we possess for the carriage from the west to the east of the immense quantity of products which is bound from year to year to increase.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: The hon. member who has just taken his seat made one statement with which I cordially agree, that if that canal was built it would be of immense value to the locality through which it runs. I do not think any one will disagree with that statement. It might be of great value to the country as a whole as a great highway of commerce ; I should neither affirm that nor deny it. But the gigantic undertaking itself is what interests me, in view of the very imperfect knowledge we have of it. Why, we cannot even discuss it intelligently, because we are entirely without any knowledge as to what it would cost the country. We have had that scheme before this House for several years. I remember distinctly that when it was brought before this House for the first time it was contended that the canal could be built and equipped for less than nine million dollars. I believe at that time it was intended to make it with a navigation of eighteen feet. The cost afterwards crept up to $15,000,000. I believe the next time it was discussed in this House we were told that we could have completed an eighteen feet navigation for an expenditure of $15,000,000, provided the country would raise part of the money and that a company could be found to raise the balance, and who would engage to build the work. The estimated cost was afterwards raised to $25,000,000, and it was said that undoubtedly the scheme could be completed for $25,000,000. The next time it was debated in this House the cost still remained an unknown quantity, because we were told that it might be anywhere from $25,000,000 to $60,000,000, but there was no doubt whatever that it could be done for $60,000,000. Now, it must be apparent to this House, as it is to the country, that the parties who are dealing with this scheme know very little about it. They have given us no intelligible data upon which to estimate the cost, of this canal, nor can we judge even approximately what it is likely to cost. The exMinister of Public Works says that we do not know much about it, that we have very



little definite information, but we do believe it would cost at least $80,000,000 to complete it. I have no doubt that next year the estimate will reach $100,000,000.
Now, 1 say that in view of this uncertainty, even if we were confronted by no other difficulties in regard to this undertaking, it behooves us to go slow, to move with great caution, until we get more correct data upon which to estimate the cost of that great undertaking. The lion. ex-Minister of Public Works said in reference to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that he regretted the statement he had made that providing navigation between Georgian Bay and Lake Nipissing, or improving it, would benefit the Canadian Pacific Railway more than anybody else. The hon. ex-Minister said:	I regret to see the disposition to
create a prejudice against one of the great Canadian enterprises. It is not, in my judgment, with any desire to create a prejudice against that Canadian enterprise, but what I understood the hon. member for North Norfolk to intimate was that if the expenditure took place as contemplated last year it would be of more benefit to the Canadian Pacific Railway than it would be to the Canadian people. Therefore, he was justified in drawing attention to the matter. If the undertaking is engaged in under any consideration, it ought to be for one purpose principally and for one purpose alone, and that is for the purpose of making a great highway of commerce, a national highway of commerce, which would be valuable to the Dominion of Canada more than to any private enterprise in the Dominion of Can* ada.	.
Now, we have been informed, during the present session, that the government contemplate the appointment of a transportation commission to make inquiries, and to take into consideration the feasibility of different routes. I presume the object of the appointment of this commission is to get information as to the cost of these routes, the value of them when they are provided, the advantage they will be to the country as highways of commerce in and in view of that fact I say that we would be doing a very improper thing if we were to make any move towards committing the country to an undertaking of this nature before that commission had time to make ample inquiry and report to this House. If the merits of this route are as great as its advocates claim, that commission will undoubtedly find it out and so report to this House, and when we take up that project, if we ever do, it will be done more intelligently and with better information than the House is possessed of to-day. We have practically no information in regard to the cost of the undertaking. It seems that it is the merest guess work. Are we prepared to justify the Canadian parliament in commencing an undertaking that will cost anywhere from $60,000,000 to $150,000,000 or $200,000,000 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Mr. MURRAY.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Has he ever read the report of the Senate on the question ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, I have.


Thomas Murray: The information is given there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must frankly confess that I think the information given there is based on very imperfect data. It seems to me that it is the merest guess work in the world and as evidence that it is guess work, I may say, that when intelligent engineers have gone over the ground years afterwards, they have declared that the work will cost upwards of three times as much as that report shows it will cost. Is that not evidence that the information contained in that report is not based on reliable data, and is not such as we would be justified in accepting as even approximately indicating the cost. As year after year new men look into the enterprise, they report that a larger and a larger expenditure will be required to complete the work than previous engineers have estimated it at. That in itself is sufficient' to show that the data is quite unreliable. I agree with the exMinister of Public Works in one thing in toto, and that is that if the enterprise is ever gone on with, it should be as a public work belonging to Canada and not be put into the hands of any private corporation. I think it is a great mistake to lock up our highways of commerce, or to leave them in the hands of private corporations that can tax the trade of the country, that can handicap the trade of the country on one route as compared with another, or that can place a tax upon commerce, thereby interfering with the freedom of commerce as a private corporation would undoubtedly do provided they were allowed to build that canal, because they will place a tax upon the commerce so as to get a return upon their money afterwards.
Another question which has interested me a good deal and in regard to which I cannot agfee with the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and it is in regard to the great benefit that would accrue if we have the navigation between Georgian Bay and Lake Nipissing made good. Why, when we get to the port of Lake Nipissing, the nearest port to Montreal, we are no nearer to Montreal than we are at Midland or Parry Sound. What great advantage would it be to have the navigation made complete between Georgian Bay and Lake Nipissing if we reach no closer to Montreal at the end of the route than we are already by two or three very good routes of navigation so far as the Georgian Bay goes ? The navigation to Midland Harbour and to Parry Harbour, because the difference between Midland Harbour and Montreal and Parry Harbour and Montreal and the port of Lake Nipissing and Montreal are practically the same. We were told here last year that it would cost about $5,000,000 to make good

tlie navigation between the Georgian Bay and the port of Lake Nipissing, yet, if that expenditure were made we would be no nearer Montreal than by the present lake navigation, either by way of Midland or of I arry Harbour. That being the case, it th>es seem to me that we are not justified in undertaking that heavy expenditure for making a route by way of Lake Nipissing that will be no better when it is finished than routes we have at the present time.
There is another thing that I have often thought and I think it should not be lost sight of, and it is that the history of the past has taught us a very important lesson that no matter how cheaply transportation is carried on by water, the railway companies nearly always manage to compete with it during the season of navigation. We have evidence of that in the trade between Buffalo and New York. They have a canal which affords some nine feet of navigation, hut the railways carry grain over the same distance for about the same cost and thev compete with the canal there. It does not necessarily follow that because railways will carry products the same distance for the same cost during the season of navigation we should not incur expense to build canals, because there is another very important element which comes in and that is that canals are a guarantee of low transportation as long as we have them and they hold the railways in check. If the canals do nothing more than this we should have these highways of commerce. Now, I am not arguing against the feasibility of this route as a great highway of commerce, provided we have twenty-one or twenty-two feet of navigation. I agree with the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that if we ever have that route we must at least have twenty-one feet of navigation. I do not agree with the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that navigation can be carried on as successfully with a canal where there is only fourteen or fifteen feet of water as with a canal where there is twenty-one feet of water.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure that we can have twenty-one feet of water from Lake Nipissing right down ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not questioning that because I do not know anything about it, but what I say is that if it is to be a >Tory great commercial waterway, for the whole of the Dominion of Canada, the best results can only be obtained by making it it least twenty-one feet, because the whole' :rend of the times is to have vessels of arger and larger capacity every year. The >ther day a vessel came to Midland laden with 350,000 bushels of grain, and day ifter day vessels come to Meaford, Colling-vood, Midland, Parry Harbour and Georg-an Bay ports carrying 250,000 bushels, whereas a few years ago 20,000 bushels I
was considered a large cargo. When such large vessels get to a fifteen-foot navigation they would simply have to tranship and the cost of transhipping once would equal the cost of transporting a thousand miles by water. This shows the importance of having twenty-one-foot navigation if the results that will accrue to Canada generally are to be at all commensurate with the expenditure. Let me say in conclusion that we should make haste slowly. I do not underestimate the value of waterways, but 1 do say that in face of tlie imperfect information we have ; in the absence of any definite information as to what this scheme would cost; in view further of the fact that we have a commission appointed now to inquire into these things, the scheme should be left in abeyance for the present. We should get all the information possible for this House and then let parliament exercise its judgment as to whether or not it would be in the interest of the country for us to undertake this gigantic scheme.


Mr. N. A. BELCOURT ("Ottawa).: Whenever this great project has been under discussion in this parliament the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) never misses an opportunity to tender advice and to impress upon us that we should go	slowly. He generally
supports that advice with the statement that we know nothing about the subject, and that he himself in particular knows ndiking about it. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) wishes to enlighten himself on this subject.; if he wishes to know something about it, I would advise him to look up the very valuable information published by the company which at one time contemplated the construction of this work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) told the House a few minutes ago that we knew little ox* nothing about this scheme, and I based my statement on his remarks. If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who has considered the matter carefully, has to admit that he knows nothing about it I do not need to apologize.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I take the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) that he personally knew nothing of the subject. I know he must be open to conviction, and I suppose that he wishes enlightenment, and therefore I invite him to read the pamphlet which was published by the company to which I have referred.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have read every word of it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am sorry the hon. gentleman has so soon foi*gotten it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You may tender that advice to the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte).


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am afraid I will have to assume that the hon. member (Mi*.

Sproule) lias made up liis mind against the project, or otherwise he would not be so 1 prone to tell us how little we know about it, and how much less he knows about it.
I would ask him to read the report of Mr. Wisner, who is oue of the most prominent engineers on this continent, who has travelled from the Georgian Bay to Montreal, who has examined the surveys which have been made and who has given his emphatic opinion that the improvement of the river Ottawa on the lines suggested is not only feasible, but that it is also to be a great commercial success. It has been my pleasure on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, for years past, both in this parliament and elsewhere to urge as strongly as 1 could in my humble way the canalization of the Ottawa river from the Georgian Bay to Montreal. I do not propose at this hour, when other business is so pressing, to go over the whole ground at length, but it is my duty to emphasize one or two points. First of" all, I wish to say that the improvement of the Ottawa river is a work which does not, as some people imagine, interest only a few constituencies which border upon the Ottawa river. It must be apparent to every member of this House as it is to the commercial community of Canada that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal is of the vastest importance to every portion of Canada.	.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 
Mr. THOMAS MACK  IE@North Renfrew: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this Georgian Bay canal, I do not call it a canal, but a great stretch of lakes with narrows between them. These narrows are very short in places, and it should not cost very much to make them navigable. This work will give us a great waterway all the way from Montreal to the Georgian Bay. I know probably as much
about this route as any other member of the House. I have driven timber from North
Bay into the Georgian Bay, and down by the great lakes and the St. Lawrence to Quebec, and I have taken timber from four miles east of North Bay down the Ottawa and St. Lawrence to Quebec, without any difficulty. If the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) had gone over this route, he would know better what he is talking about. I notice that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is always ready to oppose anything required for eastern Ontario, but is always ready to support any proposition in the interest of western Ontario. I am sure that any one who knows the Ottawa river route will come to the conclusion that there is a great waterway there. It will cost money to open it up, of course; but it costs money to open up any route. I do not believe, however, that it will be necessary to construct more than twenty miles of canal to provide a twenty-one-foot channel all the way from the Georgian Bay to the St. Lawrence river. I hope the government will look into the matter. I am opposed to the canal ending at North Bay; I would like to see it go through. I do not care whether the work is done by the government or by a private company so long as it goes through.
It is the cheapest and quickest route by which grain can be brought from the Northwest. We cannot get railways into the North-west for a number of years, but we could get by this route to North Bay in one year, and our railways would be able to carry all the grain from the North-west. I hope that the government will look into the matter, and I am sure they cannot fail to come to the conclusion that they will have to build without delay at least the first portion to North Bay. Although I am opposed to the work being done piece-meal, I would rather see it come in that way than not attempted at all, and then in a few years we will have this route completed to Montreal at a cost which, I believe, will be far less than many people imagine. There have been some very complete surveys of the Ottawa river made in the old days and the estimated cost did not figure up to anything then like what is estimated now. I trust that the hon. members of this House will not oppose the project but give it their support, and I am satisfied it will be a success in the long run.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of lease made between the superintendent general of Indian Affairs and S. G. Holbrook and Adam S. Benn for the south half of lot number twelve, concession two, township of Tuscarora, county of Brant, also of lease made by said superintendent general to one Gibson for south half of lot number five, in said township, for better identification both said half lots belonging to or for the benefit of Indian
[Stage Direction]
locatee, Robert S. Sawyer ; also of lease or agreement for or In reference to one of said half lots made (previous to said leases to Holbrook and Benn and Gibson) by said superintendent general, or the late Indian agent, Captain Hugh Stewart, to or with one R. Brant ; also of all indorsements made on the said leases, or any of them ; also of all other agreements or writings made by or between said superintendent general, or Indian agent Daniel J. Lynch, and said Holbrook and Benn in reference to the said lease to them ; also of all receipts or acknowledgments made to the department having charge of Indian Affairs, or the said Lynch, of or for rent or other payments made by the said Holbrook and Benn, or either of them, under or in connection with the said lease to them, or having reference to or in connection with the lands mentioned therein; also of all letters or correspondence between the said department or Indian agent, the late Captain Hugh Stewart and Daniel J. Lynch, and the said Holbrook and Benn, Gibson and Brant, or either or any of them, or from or to either or any of them to the other of them, in reference to or in connection with any or either of the matters or things above mentioned, or in reference to or in connection with a certain order for ten dollars, dated the third of April, nineteen hundred and one, made by said Sawyer on Hugh Stewart, late Indian agent, in favour of said Holbrook ; also copies of all letters or correspondence between said department. and said Indian agent, Daniel J. Lynch, or by or from either and each to the other, in connection with or in reference to any or either of the said matters or things ; also statement in detail, showing all moneys received by the said department from said Indian agent, Daniel J. Lynch, for or on account of any of the said matters and things aforesaid, with dates, items and amounts, and for which, and what ; and also to or for what, and for and by whom, such money was paid out or applied ; also of any petitions, or writings in the nature of petitions, in reference to Indian agent Daniel J. Lynch, and the names of those signing, the same : also of all other documents, papers and writings in connection with or in reference to all or any or either of the matters aforesaid.- Hon. Mr. Tisdale.
Copies of all corespondence and Orders in Council relating to or concerning the leases issued to Robert Anderson, J. J. Doyle, et al., Messrs. Bronson and Ray, C. A. Matson, et al., and Joseph W. Boyle, respectively, and to all other leases now in force, issued to other parties for hydraulic mining locations, in the Yukon territory.-Mr. Ross, Yukon.
Return of the contract entered into between the government and the Canadian Construction Company, for enlargement and improvement of the Farran's point canal, and the profiles, plans, drawings, and specifications in conection therewith ; all accounts and claims made by the said contractors, for extras or damages under or in connection with this contract ; and particularly claims Nos. 5b, 9 and 10, made by the contractors. Copy of the Order in Council of February 5th, 1900, authorizing the payment of $70,309.74 to the construction company. And a return of all papers, documents, letters, memoranda, Orders in Council, and rulings of the honourable the Treasury Board in reference to the items 8b, lock foundation on rock, $9,588.50; 9, extra unwatering of prism, $7,534.28 as referred to on pages A-24 to A-36, inclusive, of the Auditor General's report for the year ending 30th June.-Mr. Lennox.
Mr. MACKIE.: 


TUAASPORTATION COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
lion. Mr. TARTE moved for;
Copy of the Order in Council appointing Sir William Van Horne, Mr. John Bertram, and Mr. Harold Kennedy, members of the commission on transportation ; and of other documents and papers, relating to the appointment of such a commission.
Tin: PRIME MINISTER. There is no Order in Council yet passed but there will lie one in a few days, and it will be brought down.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: At (lie beginning of the session, the right lion, the First Minister promised to lay on the Table! all correspondence between this government and Germany and the imperial authorities regarding German discrimination, but so far that correspondence has not yet been brought down. I would also ask when Hie correspondence between Canada and the government of Great Britain with regard to the Bond-Hay treaty will be laid on the Table.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The correspondence with Germany will be brought dowu to-morro\f. With regard to the correspondence between Canada and Great Britain on the subject of the Bond-Hay treaty, we are at present communicating with the imperial authorities in order to have power to bring down certain despatches which form part of this correspondence, and the authority to do so has not yet come.


CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 39) to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals and to amend the Criminal Code 1892 (Mr. Brock) read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.
Oil Section 1.
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) please explain the object he has in view in this Bill ?


Sir. BROCK.: The Bill is a very short one, and has been drawn up to meet cases arising in the actual experience of those interested in these matters. The object, in tlie first place, is to provide that cars used for the transportation of cattle shall be provided with fodder, that they shall be properly clean and kept clean, and that where cattle are unloaded for the purpose of resting, watering cr feeding, the car shall be cleaned out and reprovided with proper bedding. I may explain that in our cattle market in Toronto, cattle arrive from a distance in a most shocking state witli dirt, having been put in a car where they

are shipped hundreds of miles away, brought down, changed at times to be watered or rested and returned to the same filthy car. This Bill provides that where they are unloaded for the purpose of resting, water or feed, that the car should be cleaned out- that is, wherever possible-exception being provided for cases where the dirt is frozen solid and the cars cannot be cleaned. It also provides that the cars must have proper feed and bedding.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND .CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Has the hon. 'gentleman (Mr. Brock) before him the statute he seeks to amend ?


William Rees Brock: I have not it before me, but it is quoted in the Bill-subsection 5, section 514 of the Criminal Code. The most important provision of the Bill, probably, is that in the next subsection, which reads :
5a. No smaller animals shall he confined or carried in the same car, van or vessel with any larger animals of different species, unless a suitable and substantial partition, securely fastened to the car, van or vessel, is placed and maintained, and is sufficiently strong, to keep the smaller animals securely separate, from the larger animals.
A year ago, I was sent for to go to the cattle market in Toronto to inspect a carload of animals that had been sent in from some distance. Lambs and sheep had been driven in under the larger cattle, and many of them arrived in Toronto in a most shocking state. The lambs and some of the sheep had been trampled and some were disembowelled. The railway company stated that they had no responsibility in the matter, the responsibility being with the shipper. It is difficult to get at the shippers as they may be at a great distance and hard to find. We thought, therefore, that we should have an Act of this kind by which we could get at the railway in case cattle should arrive in such a state. The last section of the Bill provides for right of entry and is as follows :
The right of entry provided for in section 515 of the said code may be exercised in or upon any car, van, truck, vehicle, cockpit, vessel, place or premises in which any police officer or constable has reasonable grounds for supposing that any breach of sections 512, 513 or 514, as hereby amended, is taking or has taken place.
That is the whole Bill.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may explain that this is the very first moment that my attention has been called to this Bill and that I learn that it deals at all with the question of railways. That being the case, I am quite unable, at the moment, to give such consideration to the clauses of the Bill as would enable me to pass upon them with any satisfaction to mvself or with any advantage to the committee. I think that the Bill is one that might very properly be referred in the ordinary way to the Select Standing Committee on Railways. It has a very important bearing on railways, and should be threshed out by that committee. I have no doubt at all that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) is proposing a very proper remedy for very serious grievances. I have no opinion at all against this Bill, and it is not with the view of offering the slightest opposition to it that I make the suggestion that this committee rise and the Bill be referred to the committee on Railways, where the matter can be better dealt with.


William Rees Brock: I have no objection whatever to the suggestion of the hon. minister (Mr. Bair). But the hon gentleman and the House will see that this Bill applies not only to railways, but to farmers who bring cattle into market, as they often do, in large vans. It also has reference to the loading of cattle aboard vessels.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course, it is not limited to railways, but it has an important bearing upon the operation of railways. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) move that the committee rise, so that the reference to the railway company may take place.


William Rees Brock: I am quite willing to take
that course, as I take it that it is the quickest way to reach the object I have in view, which is to have this Bill made a law as soon as possible.


Mr. MONK.: This is a Bill to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals and to amend the Criminal Code, 1892. It can be only incidently-I think very incidently-that it would require the consideration of the Railway Committee. I understand that it may be necessary for the hon. minister to look into the Bill but there is something ominous in the reference of the Bill to the Railway Committee. I was about to suggest to my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that the Bill might be allowed to stand for the consideration of the minister instead of being referred to the Railway Committee.


William Rees Brock: I simply wanted to have the Bill made law, and if the best way is to allow it to stand for the present, I am willing to allow it to stand.
The MINISTER OB' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. 1 would suggest that my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I do not know why my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) should speak as he does ataut the reference to the Railway Committee. I do not think that he has anything that would justify the suggestion that Bills referred to that committee receive anything but the fullest and fairest consideration.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have found such a reference to be the death of a Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And why not ? What is the use

of haying a committee, unless it has full power to express its judgment upon measures referred to it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think mine is the experience of a great many members of this House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Monk). The reference to the committee is simply for the better guidance and management of our legislation. There is no such object in view as the hon. gentleman suggests. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: When a minister asks that such a course should be followed, we take it as equivalent to an assurance on the part of the government that the Bill shall not be delayed, but shall come back to the House in good time. Otherwise it would not be fair to the hon. mover of the Bill to take such a step. But assuming that the motion is equivalent to the assurance I speak of, I do not know of any better place for the consideration of these clauses with regard to the shipment of animals than the Railway Committee. That is the proper tribunal. But, if the minister does not agree that the Bill shall go there with the understanding I have mentioned, it might be equivalent to the death of the Bill. He will see that we have a chance. I think that is the best course to adopt.
Progress reported.


OTTAWA VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 68) to incorporate the Lumbermen's Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Charlton-by Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt-by Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 85) to incorporate the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Clare-by Mr. Lancaster.
Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the Vancouver and Coast Kootenay Railway Company.-Mr. Maepherson-by Mr. McCreary.	[DOT]
Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Brockville and North-western Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment- by Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Niagara-Well-and Power Company, Limited; and to change its name to the Niagara-Welland Power Company.-Mr. Guthrie-by Sir. Calvert.
Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Dominion Gas Improvement Company.-Sir. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Dominion Burglary Guarantee Company, Limited; and to change its name to the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.-Mr. Bickerdike.

Mr. LEMIEUX.: A mistake has been committed. Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the New Canadian Company, Limited, which stands in my name, has been passed over.


Sir. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It has been called.
The PRIME S1INISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He can move it now.
M1'- MONK moved the second reading of Bill (No. 59) respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.


Sir. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: I object to this Bill being taken up in place of Bill (No. 36) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. Some nights ago when Bill (No. .36) came up, the hon. member for Nicolet (Sir. Ball) moved the second reading, and he was. asked to allow it to stand. I object to Bill (No. 59) being rend, because it is connected with Bill (No. 36). I have just allowed Bill (No. 36) to stand at the request of the member for Nicolet. I do not want Bill (No. 59) to go on now, because it forms part of Bill (No 36). I want both Bills to stand, or else I wish to proceed with Bill (No. 36)
The PRIS1E S1INISTER (Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Laurier). Stand.
Sir


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 60) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Sir. Ross (Ontario)-by Sir. Calvert.
Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: Sir. LEMIEUX moved that Bill (No. 83) be read the second time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the hon. gentleman's Bill (No. 83) was called, it was I who asked that it stand, because I think it is connected with the two other Bills which have been ordered to stand.
The) PRIS1E MINISTER. Stand.
Order allowed to stand.


SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Sir. BICKERDIKE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Shipping Federation of Canada.
Mr. SPROULE  .@: It will be well to have an explanation of this Bill. I see some intimations in the press that this is rather far reaching in its nature.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: There is nothing very far reaching about the Bill. The shipping firms of Slontreal wish to incorporate themselves into an association similar to the bankers association, or the butchers association, or any other association for mutual protection. I do not think there is anything

outside of that in the Bill, but if there is, I will explain it to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule). I know there is nothing in it other than an ordinary association of steamship companies just on the same principle as the bankers or any other association now exists.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the press reports it would seem that it is a combine of the shipping people of Montreal, and if that is so, it might be a very far reaching and injurious Bill, and it still seems so from the limited explanation that the hon. gentleman has given as to the aim of the Bill.
Mr. BIGIC15RDIKE. If it were such a Bill I would not have introduced it.


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

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt.^Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House agaiD go into Committee of Supply.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) to the return which was brought down to the House the other day as to the number of railway accidents which have occurred in the Dominion of Canada during the past six months, and the enormous attendant loss of life. The return bi ought down covers the period from the first of October last to the first of April, and during that period of six months no less than 142 accidents took place in which, or as a result of which, 179 human lives were lost. It is a matter profoundly to be regretted that even since the first of April there have been other railway accidents. Several have occurred since that time in which, or as a result of which, many human lives have been lost. There seems to have been an epidemic, if I may use the expression, of accidents during the past eight or nine months. From the information obtained from the government, it appears, Mr. Speaker, that there is no public official under the control of the Department of Railways and Canalg, or of the Minister of Labour, whose duty it is to make inquiry at once into the cause which has led to these accidents, to make inquiry under oath to ascertain all the particulars antecedent and leading up to an accident, to ascertain any steps that might be taken to avoid a recurrence of a similar accident, to ascertain what was the condition of the road bed and rolling stock, to make inquiry as to the number of hours employees on these railways are on duty, to make inquiry as to the efficiency of the train crew, as to the sufficiency of the station help, as to the hours the station masters are supposed to be at work, and also to make inquiry as to the experience and
efficiency of the telegraph operators. I think it must appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that in view of the number of accidents that have happened during the past six months in the conduct of our railways and in view of the fact that these railways are operated under a code of rules which have to be submitted to and approved by the government it is in the public interest that some official should be appointed at once by the government and given full oower to make ino.uiries as to these accidents and to endeavour to ascertain their causes and put a stop to their recurrence in the future. We learned recently from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that there was no official whose duty it was to make such an inquiry. At present, all the information that the public obtain as to the cause of an accident, is gleaned from the finding of the coroner's jury, but I am sure I am within the sense of this House when I say that these juries do not obtain all the information that is necessary for the public to form a judgment as to the causes which have led to the accident. It seems to me that there is something wanting in the method adopted by coroners' juries to obtain this information. It seems to me that it is necessary in the public interest that an official should be appointed to make these inquiries, not only that a more searching investigation may be made into the causes of accidents, but also that the employees of the company who may be called to give evidence may have the protection which such an official could afford them in giving evidence before a jury or making a statement to him. I believe that in the United Kingdom there is some public official whose duty it is when a serious railway accident occurs involving a loss of human life to proceed at once to the scene of the accident, make a full and complete inquiry and report to the government. I am sure it is so self evident that it is desirable to have an inquiry of this kind instituted and a report made to the government that I only need to draw the attention of the right hon. First Minister and of h?s colleagues of the government to the situation which exists in Canada,, to have them take definite action in this matter at the earliest possible moment. We have the Department of Railways and Canals and we have also a Department of Labour. It would surely be the function of an official of one or other of these departments to act in the manner suggested. I believe that the Department of Labour has an official whose duty it is to inquire into the number of hours, work performed, the wages paid, and so on, on works with which the government is identified. I think under these circumstances the powers of this officer might be enlarged, or some officer might be appointed from the Department of Railways and Canals to make an investigation such as I have suggested and to make a report. I saw it stated in one
JCOMMOjSTS
of the English papers recently that during the year 1902, notwithstanding the many millions of passengers carried by railways in the United Kingdom, not one human life was lost. It is deplorable and regrettable that the public of Canada have had to read from day to day and month to month during the past six or eight months of accideut succeeding accident with daily regularity and with attendant loss of life and property. I think if such an officer as I have suggested were appointed the result would probably be greater care upon the part of all concerned in the management and operation of railways. Railway companies have been given great privileges and great powers; they ought to be held responsible by the people for the way in which these privileges and powers are exercised, and it seems to me that if a rigid inquiry were made wnen-ever an accident occurs in which human life is lost, and if those responsible were held strictly accountable for the loss of human life, much greater care would be exercised than at present in the operation of these roads, and the result would be that in future we would have fewer accidents and less loss of life. I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways and Canals, or the Postmaster General or whatever minister is to answer :	What is the
policy of the government with respect to this matter ? Has the attention of the government been called to these frightful accidents which are growing constantly more frequent from one end of the country to the other ? Is it the intention of the government to take some decisive action to have an inquiry on oath as to the cause of these accidents ? Is it the intention of the government to hold the company responsible, or the employees responsible, if dereliction of duty is shown ? I am sure, Sir, that the matter is of sufficient importance to justify me in drawing the attention of the House to it at the present time. I know that the people throughout the country are commencing to fear very much, are in fact becoming nervous because of the frequency of these accidents.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I have no complaint to make at all that my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has brought the subject up this afternoon. He was good enough to drop me a note a few moments ago telling me that he would call attention to it when the House would go into Supply.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I did not expect the House to go into Supply for some hours yet.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand. Had I had a little more time it would have enabled me to bring down some information which might have a bearing upon the subject, but perhaps a subsequent opportunity may offer. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is no doubt irn-


Mr.   CLARKK@: pressed, as others have been, with the extreme gravity of this subject. It is startling to think that so many lives have been lost in railway accidents within the short period of six months, and unless we had the actual figures one would have scarcely thought it possible. Immediately these ' facts were brought to my notice I submitted the subject for the consideration of my colleagues, and we have been considering it since at every spare moment which has been available to us. We are considering very seriously what is the best course for us to take. It has not escaped our attention, and I can assure my hon. friend that we are not indifferent in the matter. But it is a much easier thing to say that action should be taken than to determine upon the nature of the details of such action. In my own department there was an accident recently which it was possible for me to deal with without getting formal authorization from the Governor in Council, and I confess that I have not yet been able to find an individual possessing the precise qualifications that would be necessary to enable him to conduct such an inquiry in an efficient manner. You need a man who has practical experience in the operation of railways, who is familiar at least with the regulations in a general way, and who knows from having worked on railroads in what manner these accidents are likely to occur, so that he can press his investigation in the most effective way. ITp to this time I have not been able to select a person who I think possesses the necessary qualifications for that purpose. The Railway Act contains ample power to authorize the Governor in Council to appoint an officer and to endow him with any powers which may be necessary for the purpose of conducting a thorough inquiry; authorizing the summoning of witnesses, the compelling of them giving testimony, the production of hooks, papers and documents, and all evidence that may throw light upon the question. I think the present legislation is ample in that respect. However, I would point out that that law has been on the statute-book for a very' long number of years, ever since confederation, and it has never been acted upon so far as I am aware of. It may be that in a special case a person has been appointed to hold a particular individual inquiry, but there has been no oflicial named or charged with the duty of holding inquiries whenever accidents upon railways occur, entailing loss of life or of property. I appre-fiend that there have been very grave accidents in the past; as disastrous no doubt to life and property as any that have recently occurred, so that the subject must have been oftentimes under consideration, but for one reason or another no official has been appointed. I am not authorized definitely to say just what action the Governor in Council will take upon this subject, but the House and the country may rest assured that we will endeavour to reach a wise conclusion in the premises, and if it shall appear to

us that the appointment of an official for such a purpose would tend to produce good results, that course will be determined upon.


Edward Frederick Clarke: AVhat is the practice in the old country ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is an official in the old country who has general authority to make on his own motion inquiry into any railway accidents and to report his conclusions to the Home Office or to the Board of Trade, or to some department pf the imperial government. It may be that we would do well to have an official similarly equipped with power and appointed by the government of Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has alluded to the remarkable freedom from loss of life on railways in the old country. It is a very striking fact, but it does not mean that loss of life has not taken place to a very considerable extent in connection with the operation of railways. It merely refers to the fact that the lives of passengers have not been lost. The accidents referred to in the return brought down the other day are not accidents to passengers alone. A very small proportion of them involved loss of life to passengers on railway trains. We know, unfortunately, that some very serious casualties have occurred whereby passengers have lost their lives, but the great majority of deaths and permanent injury on railways occur in the shunting yards to employees, and not when the trains are on the line in the ordinary course of travel. The men get a carelessness bred by familiarity with the habit of jumping on and off shunting engines. They are fully alive to the danger and hazard of what they are doing when they are committing an indiscretion, but before they know what they are about, they are run over by a train and life is lost. So that it is not possible to organize any regulation which will protect the men to a complete extent, or to a much greater extent than the present regulations, against the consequences of their own negligence and folly. We had an accident of a grave character on the Intercolonial Railway the other day. one of the gravest that has occurred for a long time. It is almost impossible to form a judgment as to why or how that accident came about. I have had the very fullest reports from the officers of the department on the spot. There is no question at all but that every provision which has been ordained for the purpose of ensuring safety to trains coming and g pig which are liable to meet one another, had been observed, so far as regulations could do it. The conductors and engine men on both trains received their orders where the crossing of these two trains took place -at Windsor Junction: and they both acknowledged receiving them. The train which is entirely to blame for the collision came to the point at Windsor Junction where it ought to have stopped. There was the semaphore signal forbidding that train going out; yet, notwithstanding that the engine driver swept through, and within two miles and a half of where he should have stopped his train, it collided with the other.,


Mr. INGRAM.: How long was that engineer on duty ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only three or four hours ; he had just come fresh to his train. That officer was one of the best and most experienced men we had ; he had been thirty-two or thirty-three years in the service without a mark against him. It appears that he did not lose Ms life, and he has made the statement that he must have lost his senses, which is the only explanation he can make. He knew he was to stop, and was apparently thoroughly alive to the duty of his stopping the train until he came near to the point where it was to stop, and then the mental machinery failed to work. Now, I do not think, if we had an investigation of the fullest and amplest character, it would give us any more evidence as to the facts : but I thought it was desirable, and I concluded that if I could find some suitable person who would go there and have everybody who knew anything at all about the matter give his evidence, I would have the matter thoroughly looked into. I do not know that we can get any more light, but it will be a satisfaction to know that every effort has been made to trace out all the facts and to see whether there is any fact that we do not know. I can only say to my hon. friend that we realize the full gravity and importance of this subject. We shall not treat it with indifference, hut will deal with it in such a manner as we deem | conducive to the protection of life and property.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am sure the members of the House will be gratified to know, from the statement of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals, that the government have under consideration this very serious matter to which my hon. friend from West Toronto (Sir. Clarke) lias referred. I was somewhat surprised a few days ago to learn that the government had not in their possession any statistics of the number of fatal accidents that occur on railroads, or the number of persons injured in railway accidents.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are providing for that in the new Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: I was going to suggest that the matter might be covered in the new Bill. The Minister of Railways and Canals has announced that under the law as it exists a person can be appointed to make an inquiry into an accident. In the past the public has been ignorant except in the case of fatal accidents, as to the cause of railway accidents, or where the responsibility rested.

It seems to me that we have arrived at a time in this country when the government should obtain under the Railway Act all the powers that are necessary, if they do not at present possess them, to investigate railway accidents, and also to see that the railway companies carry out the rules and regulations which are submitted to the government for approval. I am informed that sometimes there is a laxity in carrying out these rules and regulations, through overwork, the great pressure of traffic, and that sort of thing. I think it is the duty of the government to inquire into all these matters. However, I am very pleased to learn that the government have this subject under consideration, and all I would urge is that they try to put some machinery into operation as soon as possible with the view of minimizing and diminishing railway accidents, and somewhat approaching the state of perfection that exists in Great Britain, where my hon. friend states that during the year ending March 31st, 1902, there was not a single fatal railway accident.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Among the passengers.


Albert Edward Kemp: The memorandum which is taken from the newspapers, does not say that, but I accept that as correct.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not think there is so much fault to be found with the rules of the companies. I do not think the trouble lies there, but it is due to the management of the railways doing their utmost to cut down their operating expenses. To this end they discharge old reliable men and put into their places younger and inexperienced men. The cause lies in that more than in anything else. When freight becomes congested it takes the trains longer to pass over the lines, and the men are kept longer on duty. As a result of being a long time on duty accidents occur due to that reason, the employees not being as alert as they would be if they worked only ordinary hours. I think the greatest curse of all is this system of cutting down expenses at the cost of efficiency. The loss of life, not only of employees but of the travelling public, is a result of the experimenting by railway companies to reduce the cost of operating their lines. I think that the government would take a step in the right direction if they would appoint some first-class man who, in case of accident, would have full power to fairly investigate. These investigations held by coroners' juries are not reliable and in many cases do not bring out the actual facts. As one having some railway experience, I am in a position to say that the despatches in railway offices frequently send orders which they refuse to O. K. If they carried out the rules of the company, they would O. K. these orders, but they have refused and what has been the result ? The result has been that when the operators at the


Albert Edward Kemp: stations were asked to produce the O. K. they could not because the despatchers had refused to give it to them. So that an operator, although he had been doing his duty, had no proof to bring, because the despatcher refused to give the O. K. order. I know myself of a serious accident which was visited on a man who was perfectly innocent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Railways if he has taken any steps towards having an investigation generally into the frequency of these accidents during the past few months, and into the cause of the accident on the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have said that nothing has been done in the way of appointing any official to pursue inquiries of this kind since the law has been on the statute-book, and that although I have power as minister, in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, to have an investigation on my own motion without getting authority by Order in Council, into the accidents which occur on the Intercolonial Railway, none have yet been investigated except by officials in the ordinary way, but that I was quite resolved to have, if I could find a suitable person, an official appointed for that purpose in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. I further stated that I would have an investigation into the recent accident.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What I asked the hon. gentleman was whether he had taken any steps of any kind to investigate into the cause of the frequency of these accidents during the few past months. We have had a discussion in which it has been urged that the accidents are nearly always due to the desire of railway companies to reduce the cost of operating their lines, and I wish to know if any steps had been taken at any time, of any kind, to investigate into this matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Mr. G. BARKER (Hamilton).: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Minister of Railways proposes to consider the question of making an inquiry through a proper official into the causes of accidents. This inquiry should not be made merely after an accident occurs but should be in the nature of a general and continuous inspection for the purpose of preventing accidents. I do not know, and I do not very much care to discuss whether the troubles we have had so frequently this year have been due to any one or more of the particular causes referred to in the House to-day. But whatever the cause, whenever a serious accident happens, you will find that there are turn or three officials of one class or another implicated, each of whom has neglected some rule or order of the company, and that if any one of them had observed the rules

and regulations approved by tbe government, the neglect of another would not have caused the accident. Nearly always you will find a combination of two or three errors causing an accident and that if one of the men had done his duty, no trouble would have occurred. I think that indicates a very general neglect to carry out the rules adopted by companies and approved by the government. Those who know anything about the railway rules are convinced that if they were observed, an accident would be almost impossible except from some defect of machinery or appliance. In nearly every case there are two or three officials, one checking the other, and if any ,^ie of them did his duty there would be no accident. The difficulty is rather this, that a man working year after year without anything happening, becomes convinced that some particular rule is not essential to the safety of the train, and he neglects complying with it, and of course, when no accident occurs, nothing is ever heard of the neglect of the rule. That is due to the very natural reluctance of one employee to peach on his fellow employee. The officials of the railway companies probably never hear of the neglect until some lives are lost, or there is some destruction of property. Then an investigation takes place, and they learn that for months, and perhaps for years, some particular rule never has been observed. The inspector, of which the bon. member for West Toronto has spoken, should be a man in continuous employment, and not one sent out simply when the minister hears of some dreadful accident. He should be on duty as inspector from the beginning of the year to the end, travelling continually over the railways and seeing that the rules provided for the safety of the public are being observed. If a competent official of that kind were appointed I am satisfied that many of these accidents would be avoided, and we would have less need for investigating the cause of destruction of life and property.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to say a few words on the subject of wrecks and loss of life upon the railways, which was under discussion before the House rose for recess. These disasters seem to haVe been especially frequent since the last of December; the losses since that time have been quite remarkable. It is time steps should be taken to prevent the continuance of this great evil. We are sent here by the people to represent the people and to protect them, and this is an occasion that calls for action on our part. We have before us. in the person of the hon. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) the
man who should take the first step in this matter. Of course, unless that hon. gentleman moves, other managers and presidents of railways will say : So long as the government remains inactive, we will do the same. And in so saying they will be quite right. The Minister of Railways is the proper man and the only man to set this reform in motion. We were told in 1890 that this government would be a government of reform and a government of example. Let the government set the example and bring forth a proper measure of reform. What I wish to say is this-for I will speak but a few moments and would like to be well understood-in the first place the Minister of Railways must be aware of how his own men are worked on the government railways. I cannot speak so well about the government railways, but speaking of railways that I do know, I can tell the House that drivers- engineers, as some call them, but they call themselves 1 drivers '-firemen, conductors and telegraph operators work too many hours at a stretch. Often, you see these men go on duty in the morning with instructions to remain on duty until they are told to quit. Sometimes they will be ten, twelve and even fifteen hours on duty. The result may be that a wreck takes place and there is a loss of life. And when the question is asked by the public how the accident occurred, they are told : It was on account of tiie operator. But there is somebody behind. and the operator is not always to blame. Those who give instructions to the operator are often to blame. When the men in responsible positions tell an operator or an engineer, or a conductor, to stay on duty until he is told to quit, they are the men who are to blame, and the only ones. The Minister of Railways, being at the head of the government in these matters, should make the first move, and provide that drivers, conductors, firemen and telegraph operators shall be allowed to work only so many hours out of the twenty-four. Understand me well-when I say they should be restricted to so many hours, I do not mean to say that you should go to the extreme. To say that one of these employees shall not work more than fourteen hours or sixteen hours would not do. Take a driver who runs an express at the rate of forty, forty-five or fifty miles an hour, and sometimes even at sixty miles an hour, at the risk of his life-such a man should not be on duty more than four hours at a time, say four out of sixteen or twenty. Working for such a length of time, these men will be fit, and it will be safe to entrust to them the lives of passengers. The same way with the conductors, and the same way with the telegraph operators. A telegraph operator, let us say, is ordered on at six o'clock in the morning; and at eight o'clock in the evening or nine or ten o'clock, his hours of duty not ended, he becomes tired and goes to sleep. A train may pass by which should be stop-

peel by the operator, but he, tired with overwork, is sound asleep, how can he stop the train 7 The result is that there is a wreck ahead and loss of life. The government may say that it will be too expensive to give these men short hours. But there are two ways of looking at it. Suppose that it should cost the government .$20,000 a year extra to employ the additional staff necessary to give this class of employees such short hours. Why, in one wreck you will lose fifteen or twenty or sixty or even a hundred thousand dollars. But that is not all, nor is it the worst. It may be that five or six or even ten or fifteen lives are lost. Who will restore those lives 7 The people are dead and gone and that is the last of them for this world. The Minister of Railways, if he would but say the word could prevent all this; and to him the people look to take the first step. And if the hon. minister is kind enough to adopt the necessary measures, he shall have my support. It will be the duty of everybody to support him cordially. I was coming up on the Canada Atlantic Railway to-day. Some people asked : Why do not you go by the Canadian Pacific Railway, for there is a strike on this road 7 There is one example. A number of employees have stopped work, and we are even told that signals have been ta mpered with. Of course, it may be said that the government is not to blame. But all this goes to show the dangers that are involved and that should be overcome as far as possible. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) must travel a great deal by the railways. Should he lose his leg in a railway accident-would not that be a loss that could not be made good to him by $50,000 ? And should he happen to lose his life, of course, there is no money that would redeem that. Therefore, this House has a right to call upon the hon. minister to take steps before more disasters occur, to secure greater safety to those who operate or travel by the railways.


Mr. M. K. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: Mr. Speaker, the subject which is before the House, and which was discussed for some little time before recess is of more than passing importance. It is one that has awakened keen and lively interest in the public mind. I am not at all in sympathy with the kind of propaganda which would unnecessarily excite the public mind against railway companies or unnecessarily embarrass those companies with legislative enactment. We know that the duties of railway managers are of a very onerous character. On one hand they have the lives of people committed to their care in very large numbers. On the other hand, they have the interest of the public who have invested their money in their railways, and the managers are naturally desirous of running their roads so that they may pay some decent dividend on the capital invested. It may be that there has been too great a tendency towards econ-Mr. MORIN.
omy in the running of railways, which may be to some extent responsible for the large number of accidents that have occurred in this country during the past six months. This is a matter of national interest and of national importance. It is not merely a question of loss to the railway companies, or even a question of a loss of life, but it is a matter of national importance, because if the statistics in Canada should show that life is much more imperilled on railways here than in other countries, it would be detrimental to the settlement of this country. it would be detrimental to the investment of capital in this country, and in a number of ways it would hinder that progress which we have a right to expect and which we are all looking for.	[DOT]
As I said before, I am not in favour of legislative enactments that would unnecessarily embarrass the operation and management of railways, but I think we owe it to the public and to our constituents to bestir ourselves and to prove that we are alive to the public interest in view of the deplorable loss of life that has recently occurred in railway accidents. I understand that the railway companies have very strict rules for their employees, which are intended to safeguard the travelling public, but these rules are not always implicitly obeyed. For instance, I understand they have very strict rules with regard to the use of intoxicants while their men are upon duty. Now from what I can gather from remarks that I have heard, I believe that in many cases the men are worked over hours, whether from compulsion or whether from a desire to work longer hours in order to get more pay. I do not know. But certain it is that evidence has come out to show that men have been kept on duty fifteen or sixteen hours in the twenty-four. Now it is not in human nature to bear up under such a strain, nor ought the lives of the travelling public to be committed to men who work such long hours. From what I can gather they resort to stimulants in consequence, and from information had I believe that engine drivers and their assistants are in the habit of using intoxicants to stimulate them under weariness and exhaustion in performance of arduous duties for long periods. I was recently with a man who said that he had frequent opportunities of riding upon one of the engines belonging to a line of railway that I know very well. He had been himself in the employment of the company, and he stated that having the confidence of the engine drivers he frequeptly rode with them, and he knew for a fact that they were accustomed to take stimulants with them, and were frequently under the influence of those stimulants. More than that, we know that men who work very long hours and become wearied have been known to fall asleep on their engines, when they were travelling at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour. We can form but a slight conception of the immense danger to the travelling

public which must ensue when they have entrusted their lives to men in this condition and under these circumstances.
I understand that this motion has for its . object to bring this matter to the attention of the government so that some means may be taken to safeguard the travelling public and lessen the danger of railway accidents which have been so frequent recently. Compared with the record of European countries and compared with the record of Great Britain, our record for railway accidents, during the last six months especially, is of an unenviable character. I do not know how it compares, as to mileage and population, with the record in the neighbouring republic, where accidents have been considered more frequent than in any other part of the world. But I am sure we are acquiring an unenviable reputation in that respect.
I hope that this discussion will lead to some ! appointment by the government which will reassure the people, and will at least show that the government appreciate the importance of this matter. The railway companies have been given large privileges in their j charters, and we have a right to exercise supervision over their management by the appointment of some commission of inspection which will tend to lessen the frequency of accidents which have been so appalling during the last six months.


Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: I think it proper to draw , the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to one branch of this case which, I think, judging from the remarks he made this afternoon, he has failed fully to appreciate. I refer to a feature of the case that was clearly brought out by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and also by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), that is, the question of prevention rather than the question of investigation after the difficulty has arisen. I understand from watching what has happened in the last six months, and from taking note of the accidents that happened before that time, that there is a necessity for taking preventive measures, or such means of supervision being adopted as will lead to a diminution of the danger of accidents in the future. That this can be done, I think will be admitted by any person who has given any attention to the matter. When these accidents occur we have had evidence from time to time that in many instances they result, not from the want of stringent regulations made by the railway companies, but from the failure of the company to put those rules vigorously into operation. In many cases accidents have undoubtedly resulted from the fact that the companies were endeavouring to carry on their operations with too small an expenditure of money, or were imposing upon their employees more duties or greater responsibilities than they could possibly discharge. Now this afternoon the member for Hamilton, I think, referred to the fact that the railway companies, while they make regulations and obtain the proper sanction of those regulations, still in many instances have failed to carry them out. I know an instance that occurred between the town of Barrie and the city of Toronto not many months ago, where the regulation as to the passage of trains at a certain point had been deliberately ignored for, I think I am safe in saying, a year, if not to the direct knowledge of the head officials of the company, at all events to the knowledge of many of their prominent officials. While no trouble arose, they virtually winked at the infringement of their own rules. But, unfortunately, not long ago an accident occurred, and what then happened ? All the officials that could be charged with responsibility were immediately dismissed. The company would not take as an excuse that the company itself had long been aware that the rule was being broken. The answer was : You are bound to obey the rules, and when an accident occurs you must stand the consequence. This is only one instance of many which point to the fact which the Minister of Railways and Canals entirely ignored in the remarks he made this afternoon. What the public needs is the appointment of some official of the government whose duty it would be to see that proper regulations are made and enforced to insure the safety of the travelling public, to make himself familiar with the actual working of the various railways, and to see that these regulations are efficiently carried out. What the hon. minister says in regard to the fact that there is a statute in force which enables us to appoint some one to investigate the causes of accidents after the accidents have occurred indicates a very ineffective remedy, but if an active official of the government is charged with the duty of seeing from time to time that certain necessary rules are being carried out on the various railways, then, there is no doubt at all that great good will result and the number of accidents will be greatly diminished. This, I hope, will be sufficient to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to this important matter and to enable him to act and to act now. I cannot but feel that it is a very regrettable circumstance that whilst everybody in this country has been shocked by the number of accidents that have occurred, whilst every public man, every intelligent man, has had full knowledge for months and more than months of the absolute necessity of some action being taken by the government to lessen the number of fatal accidents that are occurring, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has not been in a position to-day to tell the House that he has adopted some effective measure already to advance the remedy and prevent the recurrence of these disastrous accidents.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Cimir to go into Supply, I would like to draw tlie attention of the House to what I consider a very reasonable grievance. We have now been sitting for a month and I think I am right-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has spoken on the motion to go into Committee of Supply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I only asked a question.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Only a question V


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have been sitting for a month and I think I am right in saying that with the exception of some very trifling legislation, there has been very little done beyond the passing of estimates and the furnishing of supplies. In this I think we have acted very generously; we have voted, ii I mistake not, several million dollars and we have shown a disposition, at least every time I have been present in this House to go into Supply, and I think I may claim that we are doing it unduly at the present moment. I have no desire for my own part to retard in any way the work of Supply. I know that it involves considerable labour for the minister in charge of the department, and for my own part, in order to advance the work of the session, I want to assist the minister as much as possible when the estimates of his department come up to pass these estimates, because we have quite enough work without creating obstruction in the slightest degree. For my own part I disclaim any idea of creating obstruction, but what I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to lion, members of both sides of the House respectfully is that we are not proceeding in the regular way. We have grievances to redress and the voting of supplies ought to be preceded by the redress of grievances. Now, I will just enumerate to the House some of the important questions that are before us this session and which, according to my view, create the question of grievance. I will not speak of the tariff, Mr. Speaker, because we have the announcement of the budget speech for to-morrow; still, I do not suppose there is throughout the whole country a single person, however indifferent that person may be to the great political issues of the day. who, if asked, what is the question that is disturbing the public most at present, or which is creating an interest in politics, will not answer at once : It is the question of the tariff. Well, we have been over a month here and we have had no opportunity for the discussion of this most important question upon which there are so many different opinions throughout the Dominion. We have remedies to apply to the Election Act. Hon. members


Haughton Lennox: on this side, and lion, members on the other side of the House have introduced measures to remedy serious grievances in the electoral law. Why cannot we take up these grievances and remedy them before we continue voting money day after day as we are doing at present. At the very opening of the session we had the announcement of the Redistribution Bill. What is that but a grievance ? The right lion, leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said, when introducing his Bill, that it was intended by that Bill to remedy a grievance, hut going outside altogether of the question of party in respect to that Bill, the taking of (he census and the result of that census now before us creates a grievance and before proceeding any farther with Supply we should apply ourselves strictly and absolutely to remedy that grievance. That is what I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, in respect to the Redistribution Bill.
We have had the announcement made to the public and I think it was confirmed in this House that we are going to have a transportation commission. That was foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne. What is tlie scope of that commission ? Is it designed by that commission to remedy the serious ills that are indicated in the speech from the Throne. What will the work of the commission be ? Is it going to take away from the government and the House the mission of defining and establishing a policy upon that great question, perhaps the most momentous one we have to decide during the present session ? What will be the cost of the commission ? Is it a machinery which will meet with the approval of the House ? Why cannot we, in accordance with our constitutional duty, keep Supply back until these grievances have been set right ? Why cannot these questions be discussed before we get to work to vote the money required for the next year ? We have the Railway Bill; we have a voluminous document set before us, the object of which is to remedy a grievance. We have divided opinions as to the nature of the remedy afforded for existing ills. We have to discuss the question of the railway commission whether, here, again, that commission will undertake the responsibility of curing the evils which have been time and again set before the House by bon. members from the far west, by lion, members from the province of Ontario and from the other eastern provinces. We may be divided upon this question; we may be divided irrespective of the question of politics. but what I submit to the House and the government is that if we proceed regu-Iarly and constitutionally we ought to take up a measure like that one and see it through before we are called upon to vote supplies.
I believe there is to be a militia Bill ; we have had a foreshadowing of great reforms in our militia system which must entail

considerable public expenditure.' Our representatives at the conference in London stated what would be done in this respect when they returned to Canada. Where is that militia Bill ? Are the increased expenditures for these reforms to be brought in at the end of the session, or are we going to have them before proceeding to the duty which we must accomplish en connaissance de cause, when we are called upon to vote supplies for the coming year. Again there is the question of the new transcontinental line which has been discussed throughout Canada for many months passed, and yet all that we have heard with regard to this most important subject is what the newspapers have published of statements made by ministers outside of this House. We have heai'd nothing in this House which would indicate to us what extra expenditure will be laid on the public by reason of this great transportation problem. Is it unfair that we in our role as critics of the government, should ask that before we be requested to vote supplies that we should know what the nature of that measure is going to be. Should the House go into Supply to-night we will be asked to vote money for the building of wharfs, and the construction of breakwaters, and are we not entitled before we go into this voting of supplies to know what is the policy of the government in respect to that transcontinental scheme which will call upon the people of this country to make very great additional sacrifices of money ? After all, under the modern understanding of the constitution, the government is nothing else than a committee of this House, and the government should make known to this House its policy on such an important matter as this. I was through a by-election just before this session opened, and one of the important questions discussed there was the reorganization of the departments of the government. The electorate of Mai-sonneuve were told that if the Department of Public Works had been taken from the province of Quebec where it had been for many years, it was with a good object. It was stated that in view of the great works which are to be executed on the lower St. Lawrence, it might be better that the Department of Public Works should remain vested in one who knew the immediate requirements of the navigation of the lower St. Lawrence, and we were told by the ministers there, as we have been told in the speech from the Throne that a Bill would be introduced which would place in the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the control of the works on the St. Lawrence from Montreal to the sea. Where is that measure ? If it was a grievance during the election in Maisonneuve it is a grievance still. Is it right that we should be asked to vote money for public works before an attempt is made to remove that, grievance as the government promised it 43
would be made ?, There is also a Bill, which has the character of a public Bill, to change the constitution of the Supreme Court. That Bill is in the hands of my hon. friend from St. Jean and Iberville (Mr. Demers). I venture to assert that the hon. gentleman is ready to proceed with that Bill which he claims is destined to remedy a grievance, but I venture also to assert that the hon. gentleman has been requested to leave that Bill in abeyance, just as he has been requested to leave in abeyance the Bill designed to remedy what we in my province consider a grievance, namely the existing state of the law as interpreted by the highest tribunal in the empire in regard to the protection of private property from fire caused by the operation of railways. All these and many other important matters involving questions of policy, questions of grievance, are put aside and this House is asked, to go into the voting of supplies. Under these circumstances it is not only our right but it is our duty to call attention to this state of affairs. Unless we have some absolute assurance from the government as to the policy which is going to obtain in regard to these great questions, which are really the questions of the session, we will righteously incur the blame of the people of Canada for consenting to this unconstitutional method of conducting public business, and when we have voted supplies, then we will be left without any adequate remedy to insure the removal of public grievances. I protest against this manner of conducting public business. We have seven or eight important questions ; the only questions of the session that really interest the public, and the constitutional and proper method for us to pursue is first and foremost to apply ourselves to the solution of these questions and then take up the voting of supplies. I say this frankly to the government. I have no desire to obstruct business in any way ; it is not in accordance with my feelings to be compelled to have recourse to the system of discussing at length! item after item. But it seems to me, Sir, that we are varying the good old rule of the British parliament that first and foremost we must proceed with the settlement of measures which are for the good of the people and for the settlement of which we are here, and that we should keep back the furnishing of the supplies until those measures are satisfactorily settled. Having said this, if the government call upon us to proceed with supply this evening, I am quite ready as I was when we were called on to go into supply several weeks ago to go on; but I felt that I would not be performing my duty if I did not call your attention, Sir, and the attention of the House to what I consider an important point.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir Win. Mulock).: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have



the assurance of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that his observations are simply based on a deep conviction on his part as to what should be the procedure rather than upon any desire to delay the legitimate work of parliament; but he has to-night laid down a new practice, and one without a parallel either in the mother of parliaments or in the parliament of Canada. I have yet to learn that it has' become a practice, either by rule or by practice itself, that parliament shall not proceed with the great work of the session in such order as may be most convenient for the government and parliament and most in the interests of the country. It has never yet been the rule that great public measures introduced by the government shall always be disposed of before the voting of supplies. My hon. friend has perhaps forgotten the advanced state of work when parliament met this session. I have had twenty years or more of experience in this House, and I think I am correct in saying-and every hon. member who has been in parliament during that time, will agree with the statement-that never before did a government meet parliament better prepared with its work than did the government at the present session. When the speech from the Throne was disposed of-and it was disposed of with gratifying business alacrity-the departmental reports were immediately laid on the Table, and we were prepared to render an account of our administration during the last fiscal year. A few days afterwards we laid before parliament some of the important legislative measures now engaging the attention of the country. On the Order paper I find, among government Bills and Orders. Bill No. 21 an Act to amend the law respecting railways. My hon friend would argue that we must dispose of that measure before we proceed with Supply. Is that his argument ? That Bill was introduced on the 20th of March. It is of a very far-reaching character. No goveniment ever introduced a measure of this kind into the parliament of Canada before; it affects great interests; it is a measure the country is greatly interested in. Does it not seem becoming that the details of that measure should be a reasonable time before the country before parliament proceeds to convert it into an Act of parliament ? We do not possess all the wisdom of the country-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I include hon. gentlemen opposite in that observation. The aggregate wisdom of parliament itself does not perhaps represent all the wisdom of the country; and I hope that before that measure becomes law many of the citizens of Canada who are deeply studying it will offer valuable suggestions towards its betterment, if it is not perfect already. Is it not becoming that a measure Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
of such importance, and one so novel in its character in this country at least, and which relates to the interests of every class in the Dominion should not be proceeded with with undue haste ? My hon. friend complains that we are not proceeding to improve the harbour of Montreal or the river St. Lawrence. I find by the estimates that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is about to ask parliament to assent to a vote of $500,000 for the improvement of the St. Lawrence ship channel. This is not a new work, but one to which parliament has already committed itself. My hon. friend complains that we are not proceeding with the improvement of the St. Lawrence channel, and yet he will not let us get into committee in order that we may vote the money required for that purpose. He argues that this work must stand over and that we must not go into Committee of Supply until we dispose of these important Bills, including the Bill for the establishment of a railway commission. I ask this House is it the right procedure to stop the voting of supplies until we pass that Bill ? Have we all the wisdom that the country possesses on that measure ? Would we not be chargeable with proceeding with undue haste if now, at the conclusion of the first month of the session, and before the Bill has been before the public twenty days, we took it from the people and converted it into an Act of parliament to-night ?


Haughton Lennox: Practically the same Bill was introduced last session and has been before the country ever since.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then it will be all the better for the careful consideration it has had during that time. Then my hon. friend argues that we should proceed with the budget speech before we vote the supplies. The budget speech is fixed for to-morrow. Was a budget speech ever presented at an earlier date ? I trust it will be an exceedingly gratifying one to hon. gentlemen, as I think it will be to the country; and inasmuch as that speech is to be delivered in a very few hours from now, what public good would be gained by deferring the public business to-night and idling the time of parliament ? Hon. gentlemen will remember that this is not government day. This is a private members' day, and I think I am correct in saying that never before in twenty years has the Order Paper been as free of matters introduced by private members as it is at this moment. We were able, with the common consent of parliament, to take Thursday as a government day, simply because private members' work had been exhausted, and to-day, before six o'clock was reached, all the private members' work was exhausted, we had the option of adjourning or proceeding with government business. As a working government we deemed it our duty to do our work instead of adjourning at six

o clock. My hon. friend complains that we should stop the voting of supplies until the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) proceeds with two measures, forgetting that these two measures were called for this afternoon and were not proceeded with. Consequently the Order paper was exhausted and we had the option of adjourning or taking^ ifp Supply. I think the country will admit that we are pursuing the right course when we proceed with the business of the country. My hon. friend complains that we are not going on with the Redistribution Bill, and he claims that till we do, Supply should not be voted. But the Redistribution Bill has been referred to a special committee. Does my hon. friend say that the whole proceedings of parliament should stand over, that nothing should be done, that Supply should not be voted until the committee on the Redistribution Bill have made their report ? It is only necessary to mention my hon. friend's suggestion to show how absurd it is. My hon. friend is in a hurry to see a new transcontinental railway policy introduced. But how long did it take the former parliaments to formulate a policy for the transcontinental road we now have, the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Was that policy introduced at as' early a period in the session as the present V This scheme of a new transcontinental road is a large one. It would have far-reaching importance. It has been discussed in the public press, and many different opinions have been advanced. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) not long ago advocated the construction of such a road by the government, other hon. members favour giving aid to a private company to build it, and others protest against the adoption of any such policy at all. My hon. friends from St. Mary's division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and Pontiac (Mr. Murray) argue that the most important feature of transportation which can engage the attention of the country is not a transcontinental railway, but a canal connecting the Georgian Bay waters with the Ottawa river. All these different views and considerations must be well weighed before the government can be called on to decide on a policy. Yet my hon. friend argues that all these measures must be disposed of before we go into Supply, and supposing the government should say that it was not in favour of any of these policies, then, according to my hon. friend's argument, no Supply should be voted and the King's business should be allowed to fall into confusion. Our practice hitherto has always been that Supply should take up the time at the disposal of the government for that purpose on every government day, and on private members' days the time not required for private business. We are economizing time by proceeding in this way. It has never been the practice in any parliament to do what my hon. friend suggests, and I think that before this parliament inaugurates a new policy and procedure, it 43J
should take a little more time to consider it than can be had in this off-hand way of giving advice just on a motion to go into Supply. My hon. friend was not here when we adjourned last night or he would know that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who was then leading the opposition, asked what business would be taken up to-day, and my right hon. colleague, the Prime Minister, announced that we would proceed with the Orders of the Day and if time were still left, we would take up the Public Works estimates. With regard to those estimates, let me point out that they do not involve any new public works, but are merely for the carrying on of public works, to which the country has already committed itself, and I am sure that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will see that whatever force his contention would'have if we were invitiug the House to vote expenditures on entirely new works, it can have no application when we are simply asking the House to deal with public works to which parliament has long since given its sanction.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. minister apply that remark to the Quebec estimates ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am speaking of the Public Works estimates we are about to proceed with.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The pyrotechnical display which the hon. gentleman who is now leading the House has just given us, may have been interesting to the hon. gentlemen on that side, but it did not throw much new light on the situation. The hon. minister started out by saying that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier was introducing some new principles. What new principles ? The principle he enunciated is as old as the British parliament, and that is the redress of grievances before Supply is granted. The hon. minister says that we have an important Bill before us, the Railway Commission Bill, a new measure, and that it has been before us for twenty-five days, but that measure, as he was reminded by an hon. member from this side, is only the Bill revamped which was before the House last year. It has been discussed by the press at different times throughout the year, but we have no substantial information from the government as to how that commission will be organized, what it will apply to when organized, what will be the scope of its powers, how it is likely to prove beneficial in redressing the grievances under which our people are labouring or in improving the transportation problem. These are questions on which the government has given practically no information. Is it improper that we should desire information as to the policy of the government on this important measure before we vote Supply ? No doubt it would suit the government to have the Supply voted as early as possible, because once the Supply Bill is passed the

government can dispense with our services. But it is for the puipose of having public measures considered as they should be, that the supplies are held back until we know the details of the government's policy and the lines of action they propose to carry out. The government have not given us that information. True they have announced their measures, but they are all like the Redistribution Bill, practically in blank form. The House has as yet no information as to how redistribution will take place. We are told that it is to be regulated by a committee, and the right hon. the First Minister has said to us :	1 When we appoint the committee we will hand in our schedule and you will do the same with yours.' And then, forsooth, we are likely to vote through ours whether you like it or dislike it. We are told that this is practically representation by population, but we are told in the next breath that county lines are to be observed. If you have one, you. cannot have the other. That was clearly pointed out years ago by the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. He declared it was impossible to have representation by population if you observe the county lines. But you have the anomaly in this House that the government is going to observe county lines and yet is going to grant representation by population.


Mr. COWAN.: Are you opposed to the observance of county lines V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not saying whether I am opposed to it or not. I am simply showing what the information the government has given us about it, and expressing our desire to know more. Then, there is another very important question mentioned by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in which the country is vitally interested and on which we have no information. I refer to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. There are two or three transcontinental lines before the government and the country to-day, yet we are in the dark as to the policy the government intend to adopt with regard to them. We desire information. we wish to know what the government's policy is so that we may be able to judge for ourselves whether it is right to grant them these supplies or not. But, after we have granted these supplies, they may turn to us and say: You may go home we have the supplies and do not care for your opinions on other matters. This is the reason why we wish to know their policy with regard to these great matters now under discussion, before we grant them these supplies. The Commission Bill I have already referred to. It is a very important one, but wo know nothing yet as to what its scope is to be, what the powers of the commission will be, what railways the measure will apply to or how far it is likely to be useful to the railways or to the country. From the very first it seems


Thomas Simpson Sproule: to have been the aim of the government to get the supplies voted. The hon. member for North York (Hon. Sir William Mulock) upbraids my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) with being unwilling to vote the supplies necessary for the works in the great port of Montreal. Why, last session we voted supplies for this work up to the 30tli of June next. The government have money enough to go on with, and there is plenty of time between now and the 30tli of June to vote any supplies that may be needed for the ensuing fiscal year. So, no question arises as to whether it is right or wrong to prevent the government from getting the supplies at the present time. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) in my judgment was entirely right ; the position he takes is in harmony with the well understood principles of constitutional government. He only asks that the government should place their policy before parliament and before the country so that the opposition may have an opportunity of criticising it, and the country an opportunity of understanding it, before supplies are voted to enable them to carry on the affairs of the country. That is the position that has always been taken by parliament, and we are only doing our duty to parliament and the country, when we demand to know what the government's policy is on these various lines, before we grant them the supplies they are asking for.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public works-chargeable to Income, harbours and rivers-Ontario-Bowmanville, to complete repairs to breakwater, $1,000.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this work on private property ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I find that parliament has been expending money on this for a number of years. The property was originally vested in the municipality, I believe.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it in private hands now?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe it is the property of private individuals.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would be interesting to have the names of the owners of the property. Some of the hon. minister's supporters may be able to give us the information. It is extraordinary to vote public money to be spent on private property. The hon. minister ought to give us other information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I only investigated the matter to-day, and was somewhat surprised to find that parliament was spending a good deal of money from time to time on some of these harbours that are not vested in the Crown. I must say, that although I have been in the House for a long time, I was not aware that this was so generally the custom as I find it to

have been. I And that there has been a total expenditure of $29,000 on this work by the Dominion government covering a number of years. So, this is not extraordinary, I may say. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has taken part, like other members of the House, in voting more or less to this work. There was a vote of $4,000 last session, and this is a vote of only $1,000 to complete the work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that it was only to-day that the hon. minister became aware of the fact that this was private property. Would it not be as well to give the hon. minister an opportunity to further pursue his researches, and, for this purpose, to let this item stand for three or four days? He may be able, within that time, to get fuller information as to the owners of this property on which public money is being expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am willing to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) all the information at my command.
I understand -that this property is mainly in the name of a Mrs. Raines, a widow of Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is Sirs. Raines the sole proprietress ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Almost the sole proprietress. There are other small shareholders.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are they ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A part of the stock is held by a widow lady in Bowmanville, a Sirs. Galbraith, and another of the proprietary is Sirs. McClellan.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are we to understand that the sole proprietors are these two widow ladies ?
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Three. And there are other very small stockholders.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) says that he can give us all the information. Will he not tell us who are the others in addition to these three widows ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not pretend to have this information in the department. That which I have given, I have obtained from the member for the riding (Mr. Beith). This vote is only a small balance of $1,000 to complete the work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A sort of a widow's mite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is very interesting and amusing, no doubt, to see the bachelor Slin-ister of Public Works looking after the interests of the widows. Of course, he would be reluctant to interfere with them. But there is involved in this vote a principle, a principle we have fought against for many years. We fought against it in the case of a dock at Sault Ste. Slarie, in the case of
another dock at Port Arthur, and, I think, in the case of a dock at Bruce Mines, and others. That principle is the expenditure of public money upon private docks. Some of these docks we have had to buy from their owners at high prices, and in buying, we had not even the advantage of a reduction in the price to the extent of the money we had put into them. That is where the principle comes in, a principle which, in my judgment, is entirely wrong, namely, to put public money into private docks which we may afterwards be obliged to buy, and to pay a higher figure for than their actual value.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Is this harbour owned by the government, and is the hon. member for West Durham looking after it and constituting himself the guardian of the three widows, owners thereof ? How much money has been spent there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Samuel Hughes: Is the government taking over the Oshawa harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: How much money has been expended on it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not got that information at the moment.
BrontS, harbour improvements, $2,700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last year there was an appropriation of $3,000, most of which has been expended. This appropriation will complete the work.


Mr. TAYLOR.: When is this money to be expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Right away.


George Taylor: I understand it cannot be expended before the 30tli of June.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As soon as it is available.


George Taylor: I ask this question because the Postmaster General, a few minutes ago, stated that if we blocked the estimates we blocked the carrying on of the improvements. Last session we voted all the money that the government asked for up to the 30th of June, and we do not block any improvements in this country if we pass the estimates before the 30th of June. I understand that this money is not available until after the 30th of June of the present year, therefore the statement of the Postmaster General was altogether incorrect when he told my horn friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that if we blocked supply in any way we blocked the improvements of Montreal harbour, because there was in the estimates of the Minister of Public Works a large amount for improvements in Montreal

harbour, and that money cannot be touched until after the 1st of July.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my hon. friend misunderstood the Postmaster General. What he said was that the appropriation the House was being asked for was to continue works that parliament had already authorized. My hon. friend is perhaps technically right in saying that this money cannot be spent until after the Supply Bill has been assented to. But he will remember that it is one of the misfortunes of conducting public works that if time is lost, if we are compelled to wait before beginning them, they may cost considerably more. After this vote passes it is quite within the right of the department to go on with the work. After parliament has assented to these votes, although the Supply Bill may not have passed, where the works are under contract, we feel ourselves authorized to go on and spend the money.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Was the $3,000 voted last year expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, $2,875 was expended up to the end of the year. The work was done by a government dredge.


Mr. HENDERSON.: This work has been going on for several years. I would like to ask the minister if the $2,700 now asked is likely to complete the dredging and the construction of the wharf, or will a further sum be required another year ? I may say that the people there are anxious to have this work fully completed, and I hope the minister will be able to tell us that the appropriation now asked for will complete the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimate submitted by the chief engineer is that $1,500 will complete the repairs to the pier, that $1,200 more is required for dredging the harbour to a depth of eight feet. He estimates that this will complete the work for the present.


David Henderson: So that no further sum will be required after the present year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not for the present work.


David Henderson: Whilst this estimate is before us, there is another matter I would like to draw attention to. I regret that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not in his place. It is to be regretted that whilst these estimates for public works are going through that that hon. gentleman should continually absent himself from the House, because there is so much connection between the two departments. I understand these wharfs are usually handed over to the Marine Department, that lighthouses are constructed by the Marine Department, so that there is a certain connection between the work done by the Public Works Depart-1 Mr. TAYLOR.
meut and that done by the Marine Department. Now, we have no person here to answer for the Marine Department. I drew the attention of the minister a year ago, I think, to the fact that the people were promised, in 1900, that a lighthouse would be constructed on this wharf. Such a construction would be very desirable. There is a considerable amount of fishing done on the lake extending some ten or fifteen miles from this port, and a lighthouse would be very desirable for the benefit of the fishermen. Sometimes in dark nights the men lose their way, and they have no signal to guide them to the port. If the department did nothing more than construct a lighthouse, it would be a great benefit. I was told last year, I think, that the government had no record of the promise that was made for the construction of a lighthouse. I can understand that. I think the promise was only made by the candidate who opposed me for the purpose of securing a few extra votes. I do not suppose he had the authority of the government, nor do I suppose that he lias any intention of seeing that the promise is carried out. But the promise was made to these people, and I am one of those who believe that every election promise of that kind ought to be carried out. In the case of Bowmanville, a public building was promised in the last by-election, when it was announced in the papers. 'Vote for Mr. Beith and you will have a public building.'


Samuel Hughes: He denies that.


David Henderson: There is no necessity for denying it, it was published in the press at the time. The government did supplement the promise made to the electors at that time, when they were asked to vote for Mr. Beith and secure a public building ; and I think it is only fair that the government should supplement the promise made to the electors in the present case. The electors gave my opponent a good vote there, a great many more than he was entitled to. They have done their share of the contract, they have done their part, and now they want the job completed. I hope the Minister of Public Works will see that this work is given to them that they were promised.
I say again, I regret that the Minister of Marine is not in his place. It is important that he should be here whilst these estimates are going through, so that we may get some statement from him about it, because, apart from all other considerations, whether it was intended to be done at the time or not, or whether it was merely to influence an election, I say there is a necessity for it, and it will be in the public interest to erect it. I hope the hon. Minister of Public Works will be able to influence the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if he has not the power within himself, to supplement that pledge, or at any rate to give the people there what they have been led to expect thev would get.


Samuel Hughes: In support of 1 the position taken by the hon. member for >
Halton (Mr. Henderson), and to show that j the government in certain places are carry- ' ingi out their ante-election pledges, made by some of their speakers-I regret very much < that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) is not in his place- i I will read from the West Durham newspaper, the ' Canadian Statesman,' of January 8th, 1902, previous to the election of the then candidate and the present hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Beith), to 1 show that these gentlemen did make promises on that occasion and that they are now fulfilling them. On January 8th, 1902, the ' Canadian Statesman ' said :
Conservatives in this town know that Robert Beith can get government favours for this town if any man can, and that Mr. Thornton would be unable to accomplish anything. We want a new post office and customs house, don't we '! Other ridings have received new public buildings. "We want our share of patronage but can only get it by sending a government supporter to ask for it. Return Mr. Beith to parliament and Bowmanville will get these necessary public buildings.
I am glad to see that the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) is carrying out the ante-electioni pledges of the Liberal party. In another instance this paper says :
For 18 years the Conservatives were in power at Ottawa. Millions of dollars were dispensed for public buildings and otherwise during that period, but not a dollar for West Durham till the Liberals got into power, then necessary grants were made to keep Newcastle and Bowmanville harbour piers from being washed into the lake. Millions of bushels of grain have been shipped from time to time from these | harbours for West Durham farmers and will still be in years to come. Further assistance is needed. Bowmanville badly needs a new post office and custom house and Robert Beith can get these also. Vote for him and see what he will do.
I am delighted to see that the hon. Postmaster General is carrying out the bribe-1 beg pardon-the pre-election pledge, as I had better put it, made to the electors of West Durham and Bowmanville. On December 25th, in the same paper, I find this :
There is also the matter of patronage and legislation in the interests of West Durham. Does any oue suppose for one moment that Mr. Thornton could get any favours Tor us from this government ? To imagine such a thing would be the height of absurdity. Few people know what Robert Beith has already done along these lines. At this very time the rubber factory is supplying goods to the government railways on orders secured through Mr. Beith's inQuence. Then we have got to have a new post office and custom house. There must no longer be any ifs or buts on this public necessity. This town needs a new post office and must have one very soon and Mr. Beith is the one man who can get it if any man can. We have waited patiently for better times, now we have the good times and Bowmanville wants a new building suited to the requirements of a post office and a custom
house. We believe that if Robert Beith is elected we shall get it-in short order too. We are not urging this as a reason altogether for supporting Mr. Beith,

'
Not altogether ; of course they had some other things.
But if we want a public building, we are not
as likely to get it if we send a man opposed to the government as if we sent one to support it.
I am delighted, when quoting these statements in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Halton, to see that the hon. Postmaster General and Minister of Labour is carrying out the pre-election bribe offered to the people of West Durham. The reason I have read these statements is that on an occasion, not very long since, the hon. member for West Durham positively denied that an appeal was made to the electors of West Durham along those lines. I have quoted from the Liberal paper statements made on the eve of the election there, and now the hon. gentlemen opposite are delivering the goods.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that I will be pleased to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the subject that he has mentioned. However, he will have an opportunity when the estimates of that department come before the Committee to urge the importance of having a light at that point. I think something should be done in the matter. It occurred to me when the hon. member for Victoria (Sir. Hughes) i was speaking that he must have been supporting the hon. member for West Dur-1 ham (Mr. Beith), because the statements he quoted reminded me very much of his own ( writing in his spicy paper the Lindsay ' ' Warder.' However, my hon. friend must know that it is only on the merits of the ' ease that I have asked for this vote.
1 Mr. HUGHES (Victoria). As reference t has been made to myself, I may say that [DOT] I stand, I presume, the only man in Canada that never asked a man for a vote. I have never yet stooped to offer any public, 1 personal, or private bribe to any elector. I ' would commend this to the attention of the i hon. Postmaster General and to the hon. 5 Minister of Public Works, but especially to 3 the hon. Postmaster General when he goes 3 up around the methylated spirits mauu-" 1 factory where he gets good rake offs, and ~ I would suggest that we might have a com-j mittee or a commission at Ottawa as well e as ht Toronto.
t Burk's Falls, Magnetawan river-wharf, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: S' This is for building a wharf at Burk's Falls. r There is an extension of the Grand Trunk g Railway which renders available thirty _ or a forty miles of navigation, and people bring

clown a great deal of material to be transshipped at that point. The Committee knows this is a newly settled part of the country, needing assistance. I think the money is well expended. The pier is under contract, the price being $5,400.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Is that the total cost 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost will be about $6,000.
Burlington channel piers-works of renewal and repair under contract, $50,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract. The vote of $50,000 is required to make provision for completing the works, for the renewal and repairs under contract in connection with the reconstruction of the pier on the south side of Burlington channel. The total amount of the contract is $96,700.


Mr. BRUCE.: May I ask the hon. minister if the work on the Burlington piers will be completed this summer 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The expectation is that this work will be completed this summer. I have had representations made urging that it is necessary that this work should be completed, and instructions have been given to proceed with the work as quickly as possible. There has been some delay, but a great deal of material is on the ground and the work is proceeding very much more quickly than for some time past.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: The work has been going on very slowly since the first appropriation was made, and if this appropriation is going to be expended on the same, principle we are not likely to finish it within the next ten years. I notice that on an expenditure of $1,500 over $700 has been spent for advertising. I do not think we can build piers very quickly under these conditions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report of the engineer just received says that the work is proceeding very much more expeditiously than it has been in the past.


Samuel Barker: I think it is proper to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to an item that appears in the expenditure of last year in reference to the estimate now asked for-Burlington channel, repairs to piers. The present item is to cover repairs to piers, and in the Auditor General's Report of 1902, page Y-263, we find $1,521.15 expended on repairs to piers of which $733.22 are for advertising. There seems to be too much advertising for the amount of work done there.
Depot Harbour-breakwater, $75,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much was spent on that work last year 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must say that this work has not-proceeded


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: very rapidly. It was let at a season of the year when the class of timber which had to be ordered and cut in special sizes could not be obtained. However, I do not regret the delay because since looking into this work with the engineers, I believe we can make a change in the construction that will be much in the public interest and it is my intention to recommend that change. It will cost just about the same as the work under contract, but it will give greater accommodation to the public. The present contract is for a breakwater 1,700 feet long by twenty feet wide, and it is proposed to reduce the length of the breakwater to 500 feet, which will be sufficient to protect the present wharf but to make it very much wider so that two railway tracks can be laid down, and also afford a wharf for the accommodation of the general public. This is one of the very best harbours in the province. It is the only harbour I know of that requires very little work in the way of dredging after the piers are erected. A great deal of business is carried on there and it has been represented to me that a great deal of lumber is being brought down to this harbour to be shipped to different parts of Canada and also for export to the New England States especially. I believe that without increasing the amount of the estimate we can provide a great deal better accommodation for the public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the amount of the contract for the present work 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was let by contract for $195,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much has already been spent 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $8,000 or $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it let to the lowest tenderer 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I may say that my intention is to recommend the continuation of the present contract; it is doubling up the work instead of continuing it out as I have explained.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What explanation does the minister give os to the changes he proposes to inqke 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The present contract provides for a pier 1,700 feet long and twenty feet wide. I find that the pier can be shortened so as to give sufficient protection, and widened to eighty feet, on which we can put two tracks of railways. The water is deep and boats can unload on both sides of the wharf. When a boat arrives with lumber it is very desirable to have accommodation to land that lumber, because you cannot always land it from the boat into the railway car. We hope that the trade of that port will grow so that perhaps in the future the wharf and

pier may have to be extended, but at all events we are dealing with the present now.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was not the contract let to Mr. Davis.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contractors are Davis, Haney and Millar.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was the contract not let for $157,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract for the crib work is for $157,500, but there is $37,500 for rip-rap.


Albert Edward Kemp: What revenue will the government derive from this wharf which is going to cost $200,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is impossible to tell exactly what the direct revenue will be, but every one who has studied the development of that district will know that the indirect benefit to all Canada will be very great. Something like 15,000,000 bushels of wheat were shipped through Depot Harbour last year, and this will give increased facilities for shipping not only grain but lumber and other commodities as well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does the minister propose to adjust the account, because his contemplated changes will apparently alter the nature of the whole work. Who makes an estimate of what the difference in the cost will be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no change made at present but I thought it my duty to tell the House that I had those changes in contemplation. The estimates are made by the chief engineer of the department. It is not so difficult to get at the details after all, and before the work is proceeded with I shall submit to the House the plans proposed by the chief engineer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The suspicious thing about it is this : That the departmental engineer gets out a plan for a certain work, recommends that as suitable for the locality, a contract is let for a large sum of money, $10,000 is spent and then the engineer changes the whole plan. It would indicate that the first plan was made on poor judgment and imperfect knowledge, or otherwise there would not be any necessity for changing it so very soon. The next question is how to make even an approximate estimate of the difference in the value of the work now as compared with the original contract. There is always an amount of suspicion attached to a transaction where a radical change is made in a work shortly after a contract is let, and an arrangement is made privately between the minister and the contractor as to what shall be paid for the work. The practice, I think, is very bad. It might be, if the minister invited tenders for the work he proposes to do now,
that he would receive tenders for doing it at a very much lower figure than it is likely to cost. At any rate, the public have had no opportunity of tendering for this new work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is altogether mistaken. It is quite true, perhaps, the minister might have made this change without consulting parliament, but I am not in favour of doing business in that way. I thought it my duty in making the change, to submit the recommendation to parliament. Neither is it correct to say that the chief engineer exercised bad judgment under the existing conditions when he recommended this pier to be built as it is. I am the one responsible for looking into the work, advising the recommendation, and asking parliament to endorse my recommendation. If there was anything suspicious about it I would be very sorry to be accused of anything of the kind, and I certainly would not submit a proposition to make a change which I did not think warranted in the public interest and likely to receive the endorsement of the members of this House. My view of the matter at any rate is that a great deal more public benefit can be got for the expenditure by the changed plan. As to calculating the price, my hon. friend will know that for the same class of work there are so many cubic feet to be done under contract, and by the change there will be no advantage to the contractor and no disadvantage to the public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says the work can be estimated, but in one instance you have two face walls, 1,700 feet long with 25 feet between them and in the other two face walls 500 feet long with 80 feet between them, and you must fill in between them. That kind of work can be done very much more cheaply where there is a wide space between the walls than where there is a narrow space.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will see that there are so many cubic feet of timber work, stone work, or earth work, as the case may be. We are not going to pay any more than will be paid for the same class of work under contract. However, I am not asking for any change, but I have taken the first opportunity to intimate to the House what I thought would be in the public interest. If, when I submit the proposition and the plans to the House, it does not receive the endorsement of the House, I will carry the work out as it is. But I feel so confident that it will receive the unanimous endorsement of the House that I propose to make the recommendation.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Will this work when completed belong to the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this is a government work.
13S3


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Of course, I do not object to the expenditure of the money, but it appeared to me that a breakwater was quite a different thing from a wharf. I have always understood that a breakwater was built for the protection of a harbour. I think that is in the public interest; but I do not think it right that the government should build a wharf from which they will receive no revenue, simply for the benefit of some corporation. I think that is an important harbour, and that it is in the public interest that it should be improved; but I do not think it necessary to double up the breakwater and provide space for railway tracks for the benefit of some individual corporation to make money out of at the expense of the public. That is the way it strikes me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say to my hon. friend that the very opposite is the case, and I know that I shall have his endorsement. This is not for the benefit of any corporation. A breakwater is often used as a landing pier, and there is no reason why it should not be, and by making this change we shall get a very much needed wharf which will be of great advantage to the public. I am sure that when I bring down the plans the hon. gentleman will agree with me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister says that when we see the plans we shall be perfectly satisfied; but the very few moments that 'we have to look at plans which are laid on the Table at the very time the item is voted, afford little opportunity to obtain any information, or to exercise a judgment on the matter in hand. I am not saying that this work is wrong; it may be all right; I am only objecting to the principle of making radical changes in an important work like this after the contract is let. I still contend that the party who does the work could do it very much cheaper by filling up a space of 80 feet wide than by filling up a space of 25 feet wide, because In the larger space we could use almost any kind of material. Then, letting a contract for a certain kind of work, and telling the House that is what is needed, and the House accepting that information as correct and voting the money on the strength of it. and the next year coming back and practically changing the whole plan, at least arouses a suspicion in our minds that the matter could not have been well considered in the first instance, or that there must be some special reason for making so radical a change, and we want to know what it is. Then, the other question comes up which we have often debated in this House, of changing large contracts on the recommendation of the engineer and putting it into the hands of the contractor and the government to manipulate the figures between themselves as to what shall be paid for the work.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring down the plan and lay it on Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
the Table, so that my hon. friend will have an opportunity of examining it before I make any recommendation.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the government build Depot Harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been a lot of work done by the Canada Atlantic Railway at Depot Harbour in the way of wharfs and elevators for its own purposes, but this is for the shipping interests, and I do not know of any work the government has undertaken which is so much in the public interest as Depot Harbour.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that Mr. Booth has spent about $750,000 on this Depot Harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would be on wharfs and elevators in connection with his own work, but not in connection with this.


Andrew B. Ingram: If this is a breakwater protecting the harbour, what part of this harbour does the government own ? Does the government own it all or does the Canada Atlantic Railway or Mr. Booth own any part of this harbour which the government is now protecting ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is for the benefit of the harbour and for the advantages of shippers outside the railway and is under the complete control of the government.


Andrew B. Ingram: Therefore the interests of Mr. Booth and those of the government will not conflict in any way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister bring down the tenders received for that work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the work going on now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract is let, the timber has all been got out, and the change can be made at present without loss to the country. I will bring down the plan and submit the change I propose to the House, and if the House does not approve, no change will be made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not desire to dispute the statement of the hon. minister, but would it not be a more business-like proposition to bring down the amended plan before asking us to pass the item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The House is already committed to the contract. It is a legal, binding contract, and the only question is whether the change I propose would commend itself to the good sense of the House. If not, we will go on with the work as originally contemplated.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me that this is rather an unusual proceeding, but I am going to accept the statement of the hon. minister, and he says we will get full information when the plan is brought down.
Georgian Bay, Point au Baril route-improvement of the Devil's Elbow channel between Parry Sound and Killarney, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What improvements are you making there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a vote to provide for the improvement of the channel. It is being pressed by the navigators and is very necessary, it is for the removal of a shoal that is very dangerous to shipping.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is by dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Xes, and blasting too.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you doing it with your own dredge or by contract and day's work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have no dredge there to do the work and will have to make arrangements for a dredge at the usual terms.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What are the terms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It depends altogether on the size of the dredge and its capacity for work-$8 to $12 per hour, if by the hour, and if by contract, so much per yard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you pay per yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The average price would be about thirteen cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you do the blasting work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Under the supervision of our own engineer and not by contract. It is very difficult in a small work like this in a channel to make any specifications. It would take the appropriation to make them.
Goderich harbour works, $16,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for renewing the original portion of the old superstructure of the pier. The total cost of repairing is $16,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How is the work to be
done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be somewhat difficult for me to pledge myself without further information, as to whether this would be done more advantageously under the supervision of an engineer and by hiring labour, than by letting a contract. If specifications can be prepared, I prefer to let a contract, but if not we will have to hire our own labour and buy material.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does this constitute all that the people of Goderich demand from the Department of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, demands have been made, not only from Goderich, but the whole of the district and from Toronto West, that a breakwater should be built at that port. I myself believe it is a matter of necessity, if we are to have the benefit we should have on Lake Huron. At present mostly all the shipping goes up the American side of the lake because we have not any harbour of refuge on the Canadian side. There are in addition splendid facilities already erected there in the shape of an elevator and other improvements at the harbour. I am very muoh impressed with the representation that a great deal of the grain of the west might be taken caye of here if we had the proper facilities. However, the discussion of that matter will come up more properly when I ask the House to consider an appropriation for the purpose of improving Goderich harbour.
I do not think it is a local work, but national in its nature, and the shipments to Canadian ports depend a great deal on our being able to take care of the grain which comes to these lake ports. Larger vessels could come to Goderich than to many of the other places. I am informed by the Grand Trunk that they would be prepared to take care of the grain and that perhaps from fifteen to twenty millions of bushels could be easily handled if there was a very moderate expenditure on the harbour.


Albert Edward Kemp: Goderich is not a harbour of refuge in any sense at the present time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For want of protection to the boats coming in, it is almost impossible, I am informed, to take a vessel into the harbour. I am informed by lake captains that if, following the experience of some of the ports on the American side, a pier were built out to break the rolling of the sea, a vessel might enter the harbour with some safety, and they could use it as well as they do the harbours on the other side of the line.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would the breakwater be an expensive undertaking ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think not. I intended to look into the matter more fully and have a further report from the engineers as to the character and cost of the work. I think that at least a test might be made at very moderate expense. Representations have been made to me that the cost of a breakwater such as would make this a first class harbour of refuge is in the neighbourhood of a couple of hundred thousand dollars.


Mr. MACLAREN (Perth).: I have many communications from 'that part of the country with regard to the harbour, and they say that for two hundred miles along the shore of Lake Huron there is not a safe harbour

for steamers to enter in case of storm. The grain men and millers all through that part of the country are very anxious to have the harbour put into proper shape. I may say also that I have a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Stratford, and letters and telegrams from Mitchell, Seaforth, Goderich and all along that line; and I think the government should do something to put the harbour into proper shape. So far as I am concerned, I will do everything in my power to help them.


Mr. BENNETT.: Is this $16,000 to be spent on the two jetties that run out there, or on some work in the bay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to be spent on the pier on the south side of the entrance channel.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Speaking about the contemplated expenditure for the purpose of a breakwater, I understand that the hon. gentleman does not consider that to be a work specially for the benefit of the harbour of Goderich, but one of national importance that must be undertaken by the government-to provide a harbour of refuge and put the harbour into such shape that large grain carriers can come in.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who owns the dock inside ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is government property.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the elevator on the government pier ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry to say that I am not sufficiently familiar with the locality to be able to say whether the elevator is on that pier or not. I do not think it is.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: With the permission of the Committee, I will read a brief extract from the letter of the mayor of Goderich :
Buffalo handled 12,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain in 1902. Goderich has an elevator capacity of slightly over 20,000,000 bushels a season, but we handled only three millions and a-half bushels last year because our harbour cannot be entered in the fall after bad weather.
That gives an idea of the business that might be done.


Albert Edward Kemp: The mayor of Goderich, over his own signature stated that $730,328.70 had been spent on the Goderich harbour. Can the minister inform us in what way this' was spent ? Was it in dredging, in breakwaters, or how ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount given by the department; is $713,341.43, much the same as the amount stated by the mayor. This covers the expenditure from 1850. The money was spent in dredging, building wharfs, making repairs, &c.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: 


Andrew B. Ingram: There was a breakwater there at one time, has it gone to pieces ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the present pier was swept away, but it was rebuilt. It is not the protection we are speaking of-which, of course, has nothing to do with this vote, but the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) brought it to the attention of the Committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: But what I am asking about is the breakwater which was once there-a very good work. There was a good deal of shipping in Goderich harbour at one time. It seems to me that the difficulty with regard to Goderich harbour and the Maitland river is that when the ice thaws in the spring and the water comes down, the sand is carried out between the piers and prevents vessels coming in. It seems to me if they had a cut and a breakwater such as they had before, it would put the harbour into such shape that shipping could come in as before.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any revenue from this dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot answer my hon. friend. As he knows, that is another department, and would come under another head.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that, according to the report:
The timbers are in a very much decayed condition, in some instances it being difficult to find sufficient sound old timber to spike the new timber to, and these remarks will hold good with reference to the south pier as well. Some slight repairs should he made to both north and south piers as well as to the check-water. . . . These repairs will be only temporary, as the timbers of both piers are so badly decayed their superstructure should be completely renewed within two or three years, or breeches will be washed through into the newly dredged channel.
Evidently, the works are not in very good condition. I noticed in the letter advocating this being made a harbour of refuge, which, I suppose every member got, it is stated that we have spent a very large amount of money already. Perhaps as much as three-quarters of a million in that harbour and that if we did not spend more the work would be of no use. But this would suggest either that the expenditure has not been wisely carried on or that the harbour is a very difficult one to make. And, if we make further heavy expenditure, we may find we are still without the harbour of refuge. As to making the harbour fit for grain carriers to come in, I think that should be done, but whether we should spend so much in making a harbour of refuge is another question. On the basis of the information we have, it seems a very doubtful question whether it would be well to do that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is hardly under consideration now. At

the same time, I may say, I am having further information collected with regard to the question, I have consulted some of the captains of the vessels in those waters, who, after all, are the practical men. They gave their experience with regard to similar works erected in places on the American shore. They know something of the advantages of breakwaters such as is proposed for Goderich. Of course, conditions vary in different places. It may be to some extent an experiment, but I think that, from the experience on the American shore we should be perfectly safe in making the improvement I speak of. It would not require a very extravagant expenditure to make the trial. As to what effect the breakwater would have in making this a harbour of refuge, I have asked the engineer to prepare a plan of the shortest breakwater that could be built there that would have the desired effect of allowing ships to enter the harbour. In that way-of course, I may be mistaken; it was an idea of my own-I think it possible that we might, for a very reasonable expenditure, learn what the effect of the larger one would be at that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you proposing to repair all these docks ? What interest have we, for instance, in the Grand Trunk dock ? I see that is very much out of repair, and is a menace to both life and navigation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no doubt the Grand Trunk Railway will repair their own dock. I may say that they joined a deputation in making representations to the minister in favour of an appropriation. But none of this vote is to be spent dn the property of the Grand Trunk Railway, or on any other property. It is for the improvement of government piers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not possible to have specifications prepared and tenders called for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not prepared to pledge myself, but I may say that I prefer to let this work by contract if the specifications can be prepared.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can understand how the Grand Trunk Railway would desire to press upon the government the expenditure of a large sum of money ; but I think private docks should be kept *up by private corporations.
Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements to $15,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where does the hon. gentleman propose to spend the largest part of this item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that last year $15,000 were spent at Beaverton, Burk's Falls, Goderich, Huntsville, Hawkestone, Marksville, North Bay, Port Findlay, etc. For the current year-small sums were expended at Bruce Mines,
Kingston graving dock, Lancaster, North Bay, Presqu'ile, Summerston and Sydenham river, &c.; and generally a sum of $7,000 for different works throughout the province.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: Is some of this money to be expended in repairing the dock at Presqu'ile ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, $144.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Does that property belong to the government or to a private corporation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the information. I was reading out the items that were spent.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like to know why the Minister of Public Works should expend money on that work. It does not belong to the government, it is owned by a private party. It seems strange that the government should spend money there on a work from which they receive no revenue whatever.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the principle is to expend this money on private docks as well as on government docks, we want to know it. Some of us have private docks in our constituencies, and we might approach the hon. gentleman with the view of getting some money expended on them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At a previous sitting of the House I said that I was surprised to find that so much money had been spent in previous years on this class of works. I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) should have supported for so many years a government in voting money to be expended on private docks. I am not prepared to say at the present moment that there might not be a justification, in the public interest, in spending money on a wharf which, though not owned by the government, might be used by the public at a nominal charge. But generally speaking, I think it would be much better that properties on which public money is spent should be vested in the Crown. It is also true that through municipal assistance private companies have built works on the lake shore and at other points, and it seems that the government has been aiding them on the ground that they were of public utility.


Andrew B. Ingram: My experience with the Conservative party has not been such as the hon. gentleman intimates. A number of years ago I asked for a small amount of money for Port Stanley harbour. It was owned by the London and Port Stanley Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway Company had it leased, and the government refused to spend any money on that harbour until it was transferred to the government, and after it was transferred to the government, then I was able to obtain a small amount for that harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What evidence has the hon. gentleman that that harbour was transferred to the government ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I myself held the documents some years ago relating to the transfer. But my principal reason for rising was to remind the hon. gentleman that in my constituency there is a harbour which is contributing towards licenses. Their money is being paid into the hands of the government, and while the government is willing to receive money from the fishermen at that port, they are unwilling to expend any towards fixing up the harbour for the benefit of the fishermen. The fact that by a recent judicial decision the license fees from the fishermen are now handed over to the Ontario government should be no reason why these men should be deprived by this government of the enjoyment of a proper harbour.


George Taylor: Is any part of this $15,000 to be expended in the harbour at Gananoque ? When the late Minister of Public Works visited that town I think he promised the deputation who waited on him that something would be done. While speaking on this point I would ask the hon. minister if he would kindly have an engineer from his department go up there and see the work that is going on now. The Rathbun Company are rebuilding a dock over 300 feet long. It was originally built with timber and filled with stone. They have taken the timber down below the water line and they are renewing the whole work with concrete. It will cost a very large sum of money but when they get the dock completed they will not have sufficient water outside to allow vessels of deep draft to approach laden with coal. I presume there are more arrivals, as you will notice by the report of the customs department, at Gananoque than at any other port on the Canadian side of the lake. I think the least the government can do is to make a fair appropriation for the necessary dredging before public docks. Not a dollar has ever been spent by the government on the dock at Gananoque; indeed, all the docks have been built by private parties, but unfortunately we have not a sufficient depth of water. I think it would be in the interest of the country generally if, in place of renewing docks and piers with timber as the government are doing, they should commence doing as all towns are doing, that is, putting down permanent sidewalks, doing away with the wood and putting in concrete. I think it would be well if the hon. minister would send one of his men to inspect the work that is now nearing completion at Gananoque.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The matter mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has been brought to


Andrew B. Ingram: mj attention and it is under consideration to make provision for dredging at the point he has mentioned as well as at Kingston. We have to realize that the larger boats now in use make deeper dredging necessarv. I have asked for an increase of $5,000 in that province for this general work of dredging. Considering the size of the province and the number of harbours that have to be dredged it is a very small amount and I think that after the estimate is made up we may have to ask for probably an increase of $5,000, because, I believe, a great deal of satisfactory work can be done by the government dredges if we had sufficient money to do a lot of work that we now let by contract. It costs so much to move these private dredges from place to place while if there is a bar filling up, such as the hon. member for South Leeds refers to at Gananoque, the government dredge can be sent without any extra expense being incurred because the employees are under pay, and good effective work can be done at these various harbours. I agree with the hon. gentleman as to the advantage of concrete over wooden work, especially now that we cannot get the class of timber that was formerly available. I have been pressing on the engineer's department my own personal view in regard to this matter and the superstructures of many of the new works we are undertaking, or rather the works that parliament is committed to and which were only commenced since I took office, are being made of concrete. With modern machinery and the improved method of making concrete you can build a concrete work of a considerable size for the same price as a first-class timber work and it will wear a great deal longer.


George Taylor: The Rathbun's who are large lumber dealers claim that they can put in a concrete wharf cheaper than a timber one. The large steamers owned by the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company and plying between Toronto and Kingston refused to call at Gananoque because of the insufficient depth of water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am surprised to hear the statement of the hon. Minister of Public Works that they had not money enough to keep the dredges going. I always thought the contention was that the government had not dredges enough to do the work. Parliament has never been niggardly in voting all the money required to keep the government dredges going. We have always heard the complaint that we could not use up the money by employing government dredges and that we had to hire private dredges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not had dredges at points where there has been considerable work to do. At some places the dredging has been in deeper water than the dredges we had in Canada are able to work. There are many such places not only in Ontario but especially in the lower provinces. I find that we have an-

other vote for general dredging out of which I propose to have this work done at different points, where it is required.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You do not intend to have dredging done to any great depth at Gananoque. I presume you could not dredge very deeply there because otherwise you would undermine the concrete wall, so that there could not be any very deep dredging there. I did not know there was on the Georgian Bay very much deep dredging required to be done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I was speaking generally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to ask the hon. minister if he can give us any idea of the number of private wharfs upon which we are spending government money and the number of wharfs belonging to the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be very pleased to have a statement prepared.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And where they are ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, where they are located and the number. There is quite a number.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know there is and I always thought the principle a bad one. I can understand that in the early history of the country where private enterprise would construct a dock that was valuable to the country it might be justified, but I never could understand the wisdom of spending large sums of money on building up private property, the revenue of which went entirely to the individual. There are examples of this at Sault Ste. Marie and Bruce Mines. I see you have a dock at Hawkestone in the county of Simcoe. The government can have no interest in that.


William Humphrey Bennett: A boat called there last summer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there one ? Well, that is a revelation. I was not aware that any but row boats called there. I hold that the principle is wrong. Where private individuals reap the rewards of our expenditure and the country receives practically no benefit from it beyond the convenience of shipping over the dock, it does seem to me that we are not justified in carrying this practice to the length we have done for many years. Two years ago, I understand, it was proposed to buy that Presqu' isle wharf. Now, I am told that that dock has not been in use for years and years and it is of no value to the public. The government made some kind of a preliminary contract to buy this dock which was of no use to the public, and the purchase of which would be beneficial to no one except the estate which owned the property.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister has stated that the practice has prevailed for a great many years of expending public money on
private docks, and he asks for money tonight to continue that policy. He has promised the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) that he will bring down a statement showing the number of private properties on which public money has been expended. I would ask the minister what is his own opinion in respect to this policy ? Does he intend to continue to ask the House for votes of this kind in the future ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These small votes are in order to complete works already under way. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) that I am not in favour of the policy. So much is that the case that I asked the other night for a vote to purchase a wharf instead of spending money in improving private property, but hon. gentlemen opposite, acting within their right, thought that I should not be trusted to take over that property until they got further information. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of this policy, and I do not think I shall come down with a new vote asking for such an expenditure unless I am able to give special reasons that will commend themselves to parliament. I am pleased that the hon. gentleman made the suggestion that we should have a list of such works owned by private parties or corporations; so that we will see what reason, if any, there is for continuing the expenditure of public money on such works. I find that the owners put a very high estimate upon some of these works, and there is a conflict between the government and the private owners as to their value. Generally speaking, I am in favour of spending public money only on the property of the Crown.


David Henderson: I notice that the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Marine are absent, and I again am compelled to lodge a complaint against these ministers for their lack of attention to the public business. I want to submit a question to the Minister of Public Works which I presume could be better answered by the Minister of Customs, with reference to the transaction of public business on these private wharfs. What I desire to know is : How does the government protect the revenue of the country against the importation of goods through harbours and docks of this character, as I understand that there are no wharfingers or public officers in charge of them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the answer to that is simple. You ship subject to duty or in bond, and notice is sent to the customs officers, and if any parties are trying to smuggle they would be detected on a private wharf just as well as on a public wharf or anywhere else.


Mr. BLAIN.: We voted at the last sitting $9,000 for the Blind river wharf. Was that property purchased by the Crown, and if so at what price ?

The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. The property was purchased at $400, speaking from memory.


Richard Blain: Last year the Minister, of Public Works told us that the price fixed for the property was $250. How did it come to increase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was probably the estimated cost, but the price was $400 about.


Richard Blain: I wish to make a brief statement in respect to some money that was proposed to be expended on'Port Credit harbour in the county of Peel, and which harbour is owned by private individuals. Some years ago this matter was brought to the attention of the government and there was considerable correspondence with the council of the township in which that harbour is situated. The township council was told distinctly that the policy of the government was that they did not expend any public money upon harbours owned by private individuals. It seems surprising, in view of that statement, that at that time and up to the present large amounts of money are being expended by the government on harbours owned by private individuals. I direct the attention of the minister to the fact that Port Credit harbour is a very important harbour for that section of the country, and the expenditure of money there would be in the interest of the public generally. Last winter the cost of coal was a very important consideration to the farmers, and it would be in the interest of the people there if money were expended on these harbours upon that part of Lake Ontario, so that the people would have the opportunity of competing in coal by reason of the fact that coal laden vessels could come there. The pier of that harbour is in a very bad condition, and the harbour requires dredging.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is that harbour under municipal or private ownership ?


Richard Blain: It is partly private and partly municipal ownership. I am surprised that the government should continue the policy of expending money on private harbours in face of the statement made to the township council to which I have referred. Perhaps I could get the minister to say that out of this vote of $15,000 which is to be expended on harbours partly owned by the government and partly by private individuals, that he would send his engineer up to look over Port Credit harbour, and to report to him if something could not be done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I said, I am personally opposed to spending money on private harbours. In this case, municipal ownership makes the work somewhat in the public interest, and I shall be pleased to grant the request of the hon.


Richard Blain: gentleman and have a report made upon it, and see how it stands.
Lake Temiscamingue-wharfs, $5,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this a new wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for two wharfs for the accommodation of tlje people of that district. One will cost about $9,000 and the other about $1,500.
Midland harbour-dredging, $12,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is Midland harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend must know that Midland is going to be the Buffalo of Canada. It is one of the most important harbours of Ontario.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I notice that a vessel was agrouM there the other day. What is the depth of water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It varies from fifteen to twenty-one feet. It is the intention to make a channel a uniform depth of twenty-one feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the minister if the warehouses and the dock, for which the town paid $10,000, have been deeded to the government, have they been rented, who has rented the dock and who the warehouse, and what rental is paid ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W'ORKS. These matters have not been attended to yet. We only got the deeds a short time ago, and this week is the first opportunity I have had of asking the chief engineer of the department and one of the principal officials to visit the harbour. As soon as I receive the report I shall be able to give information on this and other matters.


William Humphrey Bennett: I may say that there is one large warehouse and two smaller ones, and also an excellent dock at which boats now land. All these being now the property of the Dominion, I think it would be in the public interest and in the interest of fair play that the department should ask for public tenders for the use of them, and that they should not be given to any person without competition. May I ask the minister if he promises that that will be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that will be attended to.


William Humphrey Bennett: I may say that they have been rented, I understand, for $500 a year, which I think is a small rent.
Oakville-repairs to pier, &c., $6,000.


David Henderson: Will this vote put this dock in a thorough state of repair ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report of the engineer shows details indicating that this will complete the work and put it in good shape.

these fears were unnecessary. The pi'os- i perity of that time has continued. Each i succeeding year has shown an increasing , record, and we find ourselves to-day with an outlook that is in every respect encouraging and satisfactory. I take up the affairs of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June last, the accounts of which have been before the House for some time. I am sure that hon. gentlemen will agree with me when I say that the exhibit made for that year in the public accounts is a very gratifying one.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 7 prosperous tliat our expectation by a-*very* lie revenue reached the! leing greater than my| 3, and greater than the! ills year by $5,536,088., hat increase of revenue corresponding increase! this case it was not so. j have shown, was very 2 which I formed ; it \ at less. But while my! enditure was a close i [ have already pointed nate by a considerable that instead of a sur-liich I estimated, we an actual surplus of :pt the surplus of our [DOT] Tears earlier, this is the J ias ever been recorded .s s of Canada. The ie-Jj ill be found in nearly^ lave here a statement, of the receipts in tin [DOT] the years 1901 a t is as follows :
>-l.

Increase.	Decrease.
S	$
3,706,694 878.867 476,910 705,616	
	289,342
. |	
5,828,088	291.999
0,536,088	
-		!	
de in all departments	
3 shown under near1	
tns business, and onJv	
articles was there a	
too, the increase was	
7 the following state-	
ie quantity of goods	
ng thereon.	
	
TV.	
		Increase.
1901-2.	
S	$
5,618,113	439,836
1,071,608	100,753
881,597	58,859
400,035	37,409
2,433,355	124,895
1,137,279	111,014
The increasing revenues and improved condition generally of the finances of the post office is worthy of special note. The following statement covering the expendi-tare usually given under the head of post office, and including all except civil government, is interesting :



POST OFFICE.

[Stage Direction]
Year.
Revenue.
1890	; 2,964,014	3,605.011 !1897	1 3,202,938	3,789,478 !1898	.. -3,527,809	3,575,4111899	. . I 3,193,777	3,003,7991900	... 3,205,535	3,758,0141901	.; 3,441,504	3,931,4401902	... 1 3,918,415	4,023,030
Expend!- Deficit. tare. ,
$
700,997
580,539
47,602
410,021
552,479
489,941
105,221
The actual amount of surplus or deficit in the post office has been the subject of much discussion. There is, however, no room for any misunderstanding on the subject. The Postmaster General has made a statement, in which, for the purpose of comparison with the figures ,of former years, the service in the Yukon and Atlin districts is omitted, and leaving this out there w<vs a small surplus on last year's operations. Considering that in previous years of comparison there was no charge at all for a service in the Yukon and Atlin, it is perfectly fair to make a comparative statement in this way. But if we put this aside and compare the expenditure of the Post Office Department of to-day with that of former years, we have before us the gratifying fact that while there was in 1896 a deficit of over $700,000, in the last fiscal year, 1901-1902, this deficit was reduced to $105,000.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deficit in 1896 was $781,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The figures I have here are $700,997, but I will look that up. However, the result is the same. In 1896, the last year under the former administration, the deficit in the post office account was upwards of $700,000. My hon. friend the Postmaster General has not only been able to carry on the service generally in a very efficient manner, but he has extended it, especially in the Yukon and the Atlin districts at a considerable cost, and he closes the year with a deficit of only $105,221. Even if this were the whole story of the post office, this statement would be a most gratifying one, of which the Postmaster General might well be proud. But the statement becomes immensely better when we consider the great reduction of taxation which lias at the same time taken place in the Post Office Department. When we remember that under previous administrations
44*
the domestic rate of postage was three cents, and that under the present administration this has been reduced by one-third, and when we remember the great reductions that have taken place in the postage rates to Great Britain and the colonies, we must all feel that the financial results of the present post office administration have been remarkably satisfactory. It is a record of administration which the government and the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) particularly, may point to with satisfaction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that deficit reduced out of the revenue of the post office ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as I am aware, it was. I do not quite see the point of my hon. friend's question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Simply this, if I may be allowed to explain. I understand that the old deficit of $700,000 was wiped out by an item put in the estimates for that purpose, but it was not revenue from the post office.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not quite see the difference ; the fact remains that at the close of the year 1890 there was a deficiency of some $700,000. Just how it was paid is of little consequence; and if under the circumstances which I have described, my hon. friend has reduced that to $105,000, I think that is a record which even my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) should receive with satisfac-
In the Department of Railways, also, there is a large increase of receipts. We have been spending a great deal of money on the Intercolonial Railway, the returns for which we expect in some degree through increased receipts, but also to some extent, as in the case of the canals, not through direct dividends, but through service rendered in the general development of the business of the country. Nevertheless, it is gratifying to know that the volume of business on the railways has been greatly increased, as appears by the following statement of the revenue, expenditure, and surplus or deficit for a series of years :
Revenue and Expenditure-Consolidated I und- I NTERC'OLON IA L RA1LW AY.
Year.
1895,
1901
Revenue.
Expenditure
$ cts.
2,928,080 92 2,940,717 95 4,552,071 80 4,972,235 8" 5,671,383 91
$ cts.
3,481,472 97 2,950,300 91 4,431,404 69 5,460,422 64 5,574,503 30
Expenditure greater or less than revenue by
$ cts.
+ 553,392 05 +	9,582	96
- 120,667 02 + 488,186 77 96,820 61

Thus, on the Intercolonial Railway proper for the last year there was a surplus of .$96,820.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman include the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I said the Intercolonial Railway proper. But the Railway Department has to deal also with the Prince Edward Island Railway, which is commonly associated with the Intercolonial, hut is a different road, with a different gauge and operated under different conditions, and under a distinct account. The Windsor branch is also owned by the government, but is leased to the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company on conditions under which the government keeps up the track and receives a certain part of the earnings ; and that railway yielded a surplus for the year of $33,228. But against these two surpluses, on the Intercolonial and on the Windsor branch, there was a deficit on the Prince Edward Island Railway of $72,150. So that taking the operations of these three railways together we find that there was a net surplus for the year of $57,898.
Railways-Consolidated Fund-Collection of Revenue-Including Intercolonial Railway ; Prince tEdward Island Railway and Windsor Branch.
Y ear.	Revenue.	Expendi- ture.	Surplus.1890....	8 3,140,078	1 s 1 s 3,254,442!	1897....	3,060,784	3,195,959	1 98. ..	3,313,847	3,508,048	189!)	3,945,817 4,774,102	3,690,612 4,005,228	24!), 2051900....	10S,9341901....	5,213,381	5,73!), 051	1902....	5,918.997	5,801,09!)	57,898
Deficit.
113,701 12!), 17', 1! 0,801
525,070
So far I have been dealing with the expenditures of the year 1901-2 on consolidated account, that is, the expenditures chargeable to income. There were, of course, other expenditures, chargeable to capital and spec! ial account, which have to be considered. The following is a comparative statement of our expenditures for 1901 and 1902, covering not only expenditure on consolidated fund account, but also all the items of capital and special expenditure, thus showing our total outlay for the two years :	"
Total Expenditures 1901-2 CoiMPAred with 1900-1.
Service. .	19C0-1.	1901-2.	Increase. i$ cts.	- * [DOT]8 cts.	$ cts.Consolidated Fund	46,800,367 84	50,759,391 97	3,893,024 13Capital- Railways	3,914,010 50	5,102,838 99	1,188,828 492,300,509 89 l,0u6,983 39 209,060 90	2,114,089 88	2,190,125 09	1,183,141 70Dominion Lands	370,837 97	101,777 07Militia	135,884 79	299,097 43	103,812 04Canadian Pacific Railway 	8,978 87	448 70	Total Capital 	7,095,488 34	10,078,038 06	2,383,149 72Special- Railway Subsidies	2,512,328 86	2,093,939 00	South African Contingents and Halifax Gar-	908,631 42 3,421,010 28 11,110,498 62	247,741 45	*Bounties on Iron and Steel	791,089 38 3,132,769 83 13,211,407 89	791,089 38Total Capital and Special	2,094,909 27Total Expenditure of all kinds	57,982,800 46	03,970,799 80	5,987,933 40
* Previously paid out of Customs receipts.
8 ctsl
245,880 01'.
8,530 17 v
418,389 8$. 000,939 97-
288,240


William Stevens Fielding: 



APKIL 16, 1903 13S5

[Stage Direction]
The expenditures on capital account, for railways, canals, public works, Dominion inml« militia and Canadian Pacific Railway Amounted in 1901 to $7,695,488.34, and in 1902 to $10,078,638.06. Special expenditures, such as railway subsidies, South African contingents and Halifax garrison, and bounties on iron and steel, show a total in 1901 of $3,421,010.28, and in 1902 of $3,132,769 83 Our total expenditure of all kinds in'1901 was $57,982,866.46, and in 1902, $03,970,799.86.
Coming now to the affairs of the fiscal year 1902-3, we find an even more satisfac- i tory state of our finances. The revenue from the 1st of July to the 10th of April was $48,348,125.67, against for the corresponding period last year $43,169,658.04, showing an increase in the nine months of $5,178.467.63. I feel confident that the remainder of the year will show a further increase, and I anticipate that the revenue of the year will come very close to, if it does not ' reach $65,000,000. Our revenue last year was a little over $58,000,000, so that the House will see I am counting on an increase of revenue this year amounting in round numbers to seven million dollars. Our expenditure for the current year up to the 10th of April was $32,870,204.95, and for the corresponding period last year $31,94G,181.16, showing an increase this year of $924,023.79.
It will be observed that while during these nine months our revenue has increased over $5,000,000, our expenditure, chargeable to income, for the corresponding period has increased less than $1,000,000.	1 anticipate
that this favourable condition will continue to the end of the year and that our expenditure chargeable to income for this^ year will be about $51,650,000, against a similar expenditure last year of $50,759,391.97; showing a probable increase of expenditure for the vear chargeable to income of only $890,608.03, while at the same time I am counting on an increase of revenue of $(,000,000. Since 'l am estimating the revenue at $05,000,000 and our probable expenditure chargeable to income at $51,650,000, it follows that at the close of the year, as between our ordinary expenditure chargeable to income and our revenue, we shall have a magnih-oient surplus of $13,350,000-a surplus far and away above any previous surplus in the financial history of our Dominion.
Associated with a question of this character there is always of course the question of our public debt.
An lion. MEMBER, Hear, bear.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: ' Hear, hoar ' says my hon. friend opposite, and I am delighted to be able to assure him that upon that point also I have a statement to make as to which we need not fear any comparison. I have here a statement of the increases and decreases of the public debt, as they have occurred from time to
time. Those increases and decreases in our net public debt are as follows :



NET DEBT-STATEMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS

[Stage Direction]
Increase.	Decrease.
		.$ 3,041,163	
	. 2,417,802	
	2,317,047	
		$ 779,639
-j QA1 		. 2,986,196	
]QA9f 		. 3,349,085	
		5,650,000
		
	$14,111,296 6,429,639	$6,429,639
Net increase, 7 years Average per year	 Average of 18 years, 1ST 1896 		. .$ 7,681,657 .. 1,097,379 8.. 6,563,075	
For the current year we do not anticipate any increase of the public debt. Last year we added $3,349,085 to our debt, which was considerably less than I expected. In the statement I presented a year ago, I anticipated a considerable increase of our public 'debt as we bad large capital expenditures going on then, the outcome of which it was ditti A to closely estimate. But happily tlie outlay on capital account proved less than' mv estimate and the revenue very much greater. Tlie result was that we added to our public debt at the close of tlie 3rear onl3T tlie moderate sum of $3,349,085.93, which was considerably less than I expected. At tlie close of tlie present year, after providing for all our charges against income and our expenditures on capital ac count, which will be $10,000,000 or a little more,' I anticipate that we shall not only add nothing to the public debt, but make a reduction of that debt to the amount ot $5,(550.000. If my expectation as to the favourable outcome of tlie present year be realized-and I think we may count with considerable safety on its being realized m the main-we shall find that in the course of seven years, we shall have increased the public debt by $7,681,657, being an average of a little over $1,000,000 per. annum, or to be exact, $1,097,379 under the present administration. And against this, we have the fact that our predecessors increased our public debt during the eighteen years of their administration from 1878 to 1896 by $6,563,075 per year.
That, Sir, is a statement made to the close of the 'current year, when we shall have bad seven years of financial administration by this government, showing that the average increase of the public debt during these seven years was but $1,097,379 per year. But making a statement for four yeais onlj-, I find this result. That in the course ot the last four years, including the presenfi we shall have increased our public debt 282.73 in the years 1900-01 and 1902 and shall have increased it by the amount
[Stage Direction]
13.88
'£	1389
of $6,429,639.71 in 1900 and 1903. The figures are as follows :
NET	DEBT-STATEMENT FOR POUR YEARS.	
	Increase.	Decrease.
1900.		$ 779,639 71
1901.,		
1902..		 3,349,085 93	
1903..		5,650,000 00
		
	$6,335,282 73	$6,429,639 71
So that taking these four years, during which we have certainly made liberal appropriations for the publio'service, during which great public works have been carried on, and during which our hon. friends opposite have even charged us occasionally with ex-travagence, we shall have paid our expenditure on consolidated account, on capital account, on special account, and every other account, and will not have added one cent to the public debt of Canada.
Robert Laird Borden: I did not catch the hon. gentleman's figures for the estimated reduction of the public debt.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 

000.	Now with regard to reduction of public debt, it may be well to notice that it is very seldom the lot of a Finance Minister of Canada to be able to speak of a reduction of the public debt. Some hon. gentlemen, who may not have followed this matter closely, may be surprised to learn that prior to the advent of this government, only twice in the history of the Dominion of Canada was there a reduction of the public debt. Once in our time, prior to the present, have we had a reduction of the public debt, amounting to upwards of $700,000, and now, in the present year, we have this large reduction to which I have referred. While presenting these figures, let me frankly say that I do not think any Minister of Finance of this country should be expected to show often a reduction of the public debt. In a new country like Canada with a great many public works requiring to be assisted, with many demands on the treasury, it would not be surprising that each year we would not only be obliged to spend our ordinary revenue but to incur some debt in order to carry on our great public works.
That, Sir, has been the experience of Canada during the greater part of its history. Where we have had surpluses-and we have had many of them-almost invariably they have been absorbed by the expenditures on capital account. Only four times in the history of Canada have there been reductions in the public debt. That is to say, there have been only four years in which the Dominion was able to provide for all its expenditures and have a balance wherewith to reduce the debt. Twice in the time of our predecessors these reductions were made, and twice in our time. And, if there is anything in making the calculation, I may say that the reductions in the seven years of our Hon. Mr. FIELDTNG.
administration, were nearly twice as great as the reductions made by our predecessors during the whole of their time. However, while I call attention to these reductions and regard them as a very gratifying feature of the financial statement, I do not hesitate to say that, as a rule, a Minister of Finance will not be able to show reductions of the public debt, and it will be no discredit to him if he is not able to do so.
I have prepared a statement of the public debt per capita, this, of course being the fairest way to make the comparison. It is not to be supposed that the public debt will remain at a standstill; but, as the country glows in population it is able to bear an increased amount of debt without increasing the weight of the burden upon the people. Beginning with the year 1891, we find that the debt per capita has been as follows



NET DEBT PER CAPITA.

[Stage Direction]
Year.	Population.	Net Debt. Per Capita.	1891	.. .. 4,833,239	$237,809,030	49.201892.. ..	.. .. 4,877,748	241,131,434	49.431893.. ..	.. .. 4,923,818	241,681,039	49.081894.. ..	.. .. 4,971,536	246,183,029	49.521895.. ..	.'. .. 5,021,005	253,074,927	50.401896.. ..	258,497,432	50.961897.. ..	.. .. 5,127,220	261,538,596	51.011898.. ..	.. .. 5,184,373	263,956,398	50.911899.. ..	266,273,446	50.781900.. ..	.. .. 5,306,113	265,493,806	50.0419fw .	268,480,003	49.981W-.. '..	.. .. 5,438,915	271,829,089	49.971903.. ..	266,179,089	48.31Th'e statement I have just given might be made even more favourable. In the estimates of population I have followed the method of calculation usually followed in the census office, by which they add a certain percentage from year to year during the interval between the times of census taking. But I have no doubt, taking into account the large increases in population during the current year, that a correct statement if one could be made, would show a much larger population for the present year than in the estimate I have made. It will be seen that I estimate the population for the present year at 5,509,000 and the net debt at $48.31 per head, as against $50.96 per head, the rate when this government came into office .	.
On the question of surpluses, which is always an interesting question, I have here a statement which gives the surplus or deficit for each year from the year. 1897 up to the present time. It will be remembered that, while this government was in power during 1896-7 it had to carry on the financial affairs of the country under conditions which in the main, came to it by way of inheritance from its predecessors. It was not in a position to control the expenditures wholly; in fact the estimates for that year were prepared by my predecessor, and, coming into * office when there was no time to revise them, we were glad to accept them, in the main,
and act Bis seen tin blit tlia1 a surph
1596-	7..
1597-	S.. 1898-9.. 1S99-1901
1900-	1..
1901-	2..
1902-	3 (
Tot?
Totf
The prospei any st that it give ai ing pr< becaus ancial docum bo fou referei the de banks five ye
[Stage Direction]

Th
whei

C
^ 1389
n„d act upon them for that year. It will be "Jen that, for that year, there was a deficit, but that for every year since there has been a surplus

[Stage Direction]
country. I have here a statement of the total exports and imports
Surplus.
o	$1,722*712	33>
L" "	
4,837,749	001S90-1000 *.*.	
8,054,714	51900-1	
5,648,333	29
7,291,398	061902-3 (estimated) .. .. 13,350,000	00
Deficit. $519,981 44

[Stage Direction]
Year.
Total for 7 years.
1,904,907 19 $519,981 44 519,981 44
	$131,027,532
		148,387,829
	 200,957,262
		174,401,205
		198,179,847
		218,607,390
		224,420,485
		381,517,236
		386,903,157
	 423,910,441
1870.
1875'.
1880.
1885.
1890.
1895.
1900.
1901.
1902.
3,384,925 75
These figures include total exports and total imports which in turn include coin and bullion.
My next statement is one showing the imports for consumption and the exports -

[Stage Direction]
Total net surplus for 7 years.. ..
tm-UH. $544,539.61.
The general condition of our country is so prosperous that, it is not necessary to quote anv statistics for the purpose of showing that it is so. The figures I am about to give are not quoted for the purpose of proving prosperity which is apparent to all, but because the Budget Speech is a sort of financial library in which you can file a few documents of this character and which will	- - - *
bo found useful and interesting tQ1		i96'.48o'.190
reference. First, we have a statement of 1902 the deposits of the people in the cliarteie banks of the country. I give the figures foi five year periods :-	*

[Stage Direction]
Exports.
$ 49,739,998 62,608,814 74,628,212 83,336,197 84,263,164 91,387,295 106,013,394 177,776,044 194,509,143 196,480,190	209,970,864
These figures include merchandise only, (coin and bullion excluded). Equally satisfactory is a statement of our exports confined to home products.
Year.	Imports.
1868.'	$ 67,090,159
1070		 66,902,074
	 117,408,568
69,900,542 99,755,775 111,682,573 100,675,891 172,506,878
1875. 1880. 1885. 1890. 1895. 1900.

[Stage Direction]
54,074,460
61,094,860
76,244,065
95,030,429
128,631,455
"	....	182,688,227
	 nnrr	C
277,256,716	1
315,775,429
nqoV	"	 344,949,901
Feb. 28, 1903	 366,682,122
A statement of the discount of the chartered banks is a measure of the business ot the country. These figures for five year periods are as follows :-
DISCOUNTS-CHARTERED BANKS, JUNE 30. Year	Discounts.
186g '	$ 51,966,120
Year.
1868.
1870.
1875.
67,107,167
136,771,679
isqa		111,956,858
toor	  162,847,002
Toon	   195,987,402
1895.'.	   224,507,301
1900		
1901		
1902		
Feb. 28, 1903	
The total trade also is one of the means whereby we measure the prosperity of the
316,634,620
318,240,549
348,690,611
382,225,338
	$ 45,543,177
		56,081,192
	  67,490,893
tosa	   70,096,191
	  76,183,518
tonn	   82,335,514
Isos	   99,528,351
!qnn	  163,510,790
10A1	   177,431,386
1902.'.'.'. !!!! 1!	  196,019,763
In connection with the statement of surpluses which I have read, I think, having reference to some criticism which occasl°u'>
ally appears in the press, that I should otter a further observation. It ought not to be necessary to make any explanation concerning these surpluses, but sometimes vie sec in the public press, and even m journals from which I would expect greater iiitel-Lio-ence and greater fairness, the statement that the surpluses which the 8'ov^}nt;n have been able to set forth, are unreal, be Amuse thev do not cover all classes ot ex-1 penditures. Now, it ought to be vv ell un stood by hon. gentleman, and it vv ill be un derstood by the older members of theHous , that the distinction which is obseivea 11 our public accounts between capital expenditure and expenditure chargeable; to income, is not a discovery which I hav e made.
[Stage Direction]
Except the bounty
It is not an invention of mine. It has existed in the public accounts from the beginning it has properly existed ; and I hope it will be clearly understood that in that respect tlieie is no change. The public accounts m this respect are kept as they always have been kept. There is a proper distinction. Sometimes it may be difficult to draw the line, but as respects the greater part of our expenditures on capital account there is a properly drawn line between capital expenditures and expenditures chargeable to income. However that may be, we have simply carried on the sarhe method of keeping accounts that our predecessors have followed.
An hon. MEMBER,: on iron.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am glad my hon. friend has reminded me of that, but I would have spoken of it in any case. If you look at the statements which appeared under the head of capital and the statements to-day, you will find that the only new item of any considerable amount is that respecting the bounty on iron. Now the former method of dealing with that bounty was one with which we need not fear a comparison. What was the former method of keeping accounts with regard to the bounties on iron ? We had the moneys deducted from the customs revenues, they were classed as a refund of moneys. Considering that not a penny went into the treasury, it would be difficult to understand how they could be properly classed as a refund. There never wans any money paid , into the treasury in this connection': but year alter year the payment of these bounties, for some reason that I have never been able to understand, was made out of tiie Customs Department and stated as a deduction from revenue. 1 think any business man on cither side of the House will acknowledge with me that that was not a proper way of keeping the accounts. You do not tmd anything anout the bounties on iron m the public accounts, as a rule. If you looked into the Auditor General's' Report, you might discover that in his analysis of the work of the Customs Department account was taken of the fact that certain moneys were paid as a refund, or some-tlnng of that kind, for bounties on Don Well, so long as the sums paid for bounties were not very large, this perhaps was not . a very serious matter, though, whether the sum was large or small, it was not a sound method of bookkeeping. But wlieu it came to our knowledge that under this bounty arrangement we were likely to pay large sums of money running up perhaps to millions of dollars a year, then it became necessary that we should treat the matter properly and put it in some other place in the public accounts, and so we began to treat it in the same way as we treat a railway subsidy. Therefore we have charged these bounties on iron and steel to what is


William Stevens Fielding: west there is every probability that we shall receive a large sum from this source in the early future. It is difficult to make an estimate of the amount. Probably $2,000,000 per annum will not be an excessive estimate. As I have already pointed out, it is not a case in which the Dominion profits by the transaction. We shall have to repay ultimately to the bondholders all money which we shall so receive. But in the meantime the government will have the use of the money at the rate of 3^ per cent per annum and to the extent of sums coming into the treasury in this way we shall be relieved from the need of borrowing.
A very interesting feature in connection with the enormous development of business in Canada, and a feature which must have attracted the attention of some of my hon. friends opposite who are interested in large financial concerns, is that this great development of business has been carried on in the Dominion with a comparatively small increase of banking capital. When we look back we find that in 1895 the paid up capital of the chartered banks of Canada was $61,685,329, and we find that the increases from year to year have been as follows :



CHARTERED BANKS-PAID UP CAPITAL.

[Stage Direction]
31st January, 1895.. ..	.. .$61,685,329
" 1896.. ..	.. .. 62,196,496
" 1897.. ..	
" 1898.. ..	.. .. 62,292,614
" 1899.. ..	.. .. 63,284,043
" 1900.. ..	.. .. 63,734,845
" 1901.. ..	.. .. 66,436,767
" 1902.. ..	.. .. 67,621,011
" 1903.. ..	.. .. 72,856,125
It will be observed that for a long period there was practically little or no change in the volume of bank capital, but while that was the fact, trade and commerce continued to expand in a remarkable degree and the banks were able to handle all these transactions. The explanation, of course, is to be found in the fact that owing to the increased wealth of the people, the bank
many of the others found their circulation running close up to the limit of their paid up capital. Several schemes have been suggested with a view to increasing the power of the banks to issue notes. We have not felt justified in encouraging any departure from the principle now recognized in the Bank Act, namely, that paid up capital shall be the only basis for the bank circulation, and although, at one stage, one or two of the bankers were inclined to take another view, I think there is a general agreement that this is the soundest and safest rule. A number of banks, realizing that they should have, not only a sufficient circulation for immediate requirements, but also a safe margin to meet the development of business, have taken steps to increase their capital, and, of course, with the increase of actual paid up capital there comes an increase of circulating power. In this way, it is fully expected that during the present year, even with the great development of trade which is going on, the banks will be in a position to provide amply for that part of the currency system of the Dominion which depends upon them.
While the banks of the country furnish a considerable portion of the notes for circulation, another portion of the requirements of the country is met by the issue of Dominion government notes. There has been no change in the law respecting the issue of these notes for quite a long period. Under the Act as it now stands the government are authorized to issue $20,000,000 of Dominion notes with a reserve of 25 per cent which reserve must take the form of either gold or debentures guaranteed by the imperial government, which are practically the same as gold. For all notes issued in excess of $20,000,000, the government hold dollar for dollar in gold. It will thus be seen that under this law the government are permitted to issue $15,000,000 of notes unsecured ; that is to say $20,000,000 being allowed on the basis of 25 per cent reserve, the
that in this wmy banks have been provided with ample funds for carrying on the increased business of the country. For a long time this worked out satisfactorily and there has been no difficulty in supplying the necessary amount of bank circulation to carry on business, but during the past year, owing to the great development in
deposits have been greatly increased, and j $5,000,000 of the issue was protected by a
deposit of gold, and $15,000,000 were issued upon the general credit of the country. I think it will be generally admitted that if ; Canada at that time was justified in issuing $15,000,000 of notes on the general credit of the country, the great advance that has, taken place in the revenue and wealth of the country will justify the issue of a larger; business, some of the banks began to be j sum to-day. I propose to ask parliament anxious as. to whether or not they would | to amend the Currency Act by providi g be able to supply the necessary amount of that instead of $20,000,000 to be issue , bank circulation. The law provides that a ! with a reserve of 25 per cent, the amou
shall be raised to $30,000,000, the reserve, still to be, of course, 25 per cent. For ail; issues over $30,000,000-and our circulation; is already considerably above that figure-r we shall continue to hold in gold dollar to dollar. The effect of the proposed change will be, that, whereas, under the present ...	... , Act, there are $15,000,000 of notes unsecurea
insufficient. Several of the banks at all ! and resting upon the general credit of tn times had a safe margin to work on, but country, under the new proposal there may;
bank is permitted to issue its own notes up to an amount equal to its paid up capital. Most of the banks have, in times past, found themselves with ample note circulation for their business. But during the past year, with the great increase in the trade of the country, there began to be a fear that the banks' resources in this respect might be
William Stevens Fielding: Some other lion. MEMBERS. How does that suit you for a cheer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The country is prosperous ; our manufacturing industries have, on the whole, enjoyed, and are enjoying, great prosperity.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where there are exceptions to this rule, it must not he hastily assumed that these exceptions are due to tariff causes. There may he some cases in which that is debatable, hut I think it will he found that in many cases where complaint is made, if that complaint is well founded, that the causes of difficulty are not to be found wholly in the tariff. Indeed Sir, the manufacturers themselves who have communicated with us, have rather based their claim for changes, not so much upon the present condition of affairs as upon the probability, as they think, that we shall soon have less prosperous times. I think, Sir, that most of the manufacturers to-day are suffering, not from want of orders, but for lack of sufficient hands and factory space to enable them to supply the demand.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am far from saying that there are not exceptions to this, but I think it is not too much to say that subject to some possible exceptions, the general condition not only of the country at large, but of the manufacturing interests of Canada in the main, is highly prosperous. We know that all classes have prospered in Canada of late years, and it is an interesting fact that manufacturers have shared in the largest degree of that prosperity, for they have held their home markets to a large extent ; they have all or nearly all been busy, and their shipments to foreign markets have been constantly increasing. Therefore, even from a manufacturers point of view, we think the situation is not so bad. There may be a necessity at some early date to make fur-tlier tariff changes than those which I now propose, but if so the extent to Avlrich these changes should be made and the character of the changes may be in a considerable j degree dependent upon the attitude of certain other countries towards Canada ; certain countries as to which we are not to-day in a position to say exactly what they may be disposed to do now or in the earlv future.
I suppose it will be generally admitted that while we are anxious to improve our trade relations with the world at large, there are two countries with which we naturally have or would like to have intimate trade relations. The one, it goes without saying, is our mother country ; the other is the neighbouring republic, because they are so near to us and so closely identified with us in many things that we must desire to have close and friendly relations with them.


David Henderson: Now with regard to the trade relations with the mother country. We decided several years ago to grant a preference to the mother country in the markets of Canada. There has been a desire among bath parties, among all classes of the people of Canada, that that preference should be reciprocal. We do not differ in that. All will admit that if that could be brought about, it would be a desirable thing for Canada] and we hope for the mother country as well! But we have had different ideas as to the best means of accomplishing this. We have been criticised by hon. gentlemen opposite because we gave a preference to the mother country without demanding something in return. We have thought that our view was the better ohe. We thought that under the circumstances in which we were then placed that it would not only be useless but harmful to have pressed a demand upon the British government for a return of the preference. .
In this, Sir, we were not speaking our own views alone. Members of this government had the opportunity to communicate with able, experienced and influential men in the imperial parliament, and the conclusion Ave reached, after such communication, was that the time was not favourable for pressing a claim of that character. At the same time Ave quite realized that these are days in which changes rapidly occur; and in the discussion of the question in this House, Ave have repeatedly said that it Avas quite within the bounds of possibility, and even probability, that at no distant day some change might be brought about in the attitude of the British government and the British people on that subject. Hon. gentlemen opposite have frequently endeavoured to assure themselves and others that the imperial authorities Avere ready and Avilliug to give us a preference. We remember Poav it was stated that Mr. Chamberlain had practically offered us a preference, and that Ave had [DOT] declined to have it. We remember Iioav it Avas said that the Duke of Devonshire had also practically offered us a preference, and Ave had refused it. All these things, Iioav-ever, Avere mere fancies. Mr. Chamberlain made no such offer, and the Duke of Devonshire, Avhen appealed to, flatly denied the A'ieAArs attributed to him. It AAms quite evident that Ave had nothing to expect in that way; but a change might come, and it did come sooner than Ave had reason to expect- . not a change, lioweATer, which took the form of any preference to the colonies. In the midst of a great war, in a time of financial Strain upon the imperial treasury, which still continues, the British government adopted the policy of a tax on breadsfuffs. That change on the part of the imperial government produced a neAV situation of , AAdiicli Ave liaATe not failed to take advantage.
It was one thing to propose, as our opponents did in 1897, that the British goA'ernment should tax the food of their people for our
i*
14(
her
Car
mu
in
be
It
pro
the
the
sho
fert
1m v
the
and
imp
will
quo
heir
ona
occi
be
Cha
enca
fere
mar
to b
was
valu
of g
try
kav(
subs
Whi
took
on t
the <
berk
evid
a loi

Benefit, in order to grant an exemption of I Canadian goods from tlie taxation. It was too j much to exited that the British taxpayer, j |n tLie then state of public opinion, would j be willing to adopt the policy of preference, j It was a very different thing, however, to | propose to the British government, not that j they should tax the food of their people for j the sake of the colonies, but that they j should take off taxation by granting a pro- ! ference in favour of colonial products. We have not failed to press these views upon the imperial authorities from time to time, and in various ways. When the duties were imposed, representations were made, but without success. We resolved to carry the question into the colonial conference to be held in London in connection with the coronation; and at that conference this subject occupied a great deal of attention. It will be remembered that in a speech by Mr. Chamberlain at the beginning of the conference, he expressed the opinion that the preference granted by us, while of value as a mark of the good-will of Canada, and much to be appreciated as a matter of sentiment, was nevertheless not of much material value; and he added that if the question of granting a preference in the mother country could be entertained at all, it would have to be by the granting of some further substantial preference on the part of Canada, j While we regretted that Mr. Chamberlain took that view, we felt that we should not on that account fail to press our views on ! the other side. This statement of Mr. Cham- j berlain is very interesting, however, as an I evidence of his attitude on the question. For i a long time it was commonly represented by I our opponents in this country that Mr. Cham- j berlain had been making speeches avowing his readiness to grant a preference, and similar claims had been made with respect to the Duke of Devonshire. But what do we find ? We find that not only was Mr. Chamberlain never disposed to grant us any preference, but he has now said that before he could consider the question of a mutual preference to be within the realm of practical policy, we in Canada would be obliged to consiuer whether we would not give a further preference to British goods. It is therefore perfectly clear that the impression ''vhicli some lion, gentlemen opposite have had for years regarding Mr. Chamberlain's attitude on this question is an entire delusion. Terhaps in some respects it is to be I'egretted that the full proceedings of the conference were not made public. However, there were good reasons for the course that was pursued. It was understood from the beginning that the proceedings were to be confidential, and some of the gentlemen present, relying on that, discussed matters with the freedom of confidential negotiations. To nave published all the speeches after that understanding would of course have been a breach of faith. In a conference of that character there are always arising not only
national but international questions, and it would not be proper for matters of that kind to be made public unless it were so understood from the beginning. There is no room, however, for any misunderstanding as to what happened on the question of preferential trade, or as to the position taken by the Canadian government. Not only was the subject discussed again and again in the conference, but we had frequent opportunities of discussing it with the British ministers individually, and particularly with Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Gerald Balfour, the president of the Board of Trade. We contended, as appears in the blue-book containing the proceedings of the conference, that the preference was not only of sentimental value but also of great material value to the British trader and manufacturer. While we contended that the preference already granted was of more value to Great Britain than the British officials had I been disposed to admit, we told them that ! if the imperial government were prepared ! to adopt the preferential policy and give our 1 products exemption from the duties now imposed or hereafter to be imposed on foreign goods, we would be prepared to grant some furtiier preference, subject to certain .conditions which were clearly laid down. We frankly stated that we could not undertake to give that further preference in a manner which would operate to the disadvantage of our own industries. As between the British manufacturer and the- Canadian manufacturer, we thought we had gone as far in the way of reduction of duties as we could. But we pointed out that Canada consumed a large quantity of goods imported from foreign countries; and in return for the preference which we sought for Canada, we were prepared to so rearrange our tariff as to give Great Britain a further preference, not over the Canadian manufacturer, but over the foreign competitor.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The views of the Canadian government on that question are referred to in the memorandum submitted to the conference by Mr. Gerald Balfour, president of the British Board of Trade, which appears on page 35 of the conference report, and reads as follows :
PREFERENTIAL TRADE. Memorandum by Mr. Gerald Balfour, President British Board of Trade.
x\s a result of tlie communications which have taken place, it is understood that the representatives of the colonies hereinafter mentioned are prepared to recommend to their respective parliaments preferential treatment of British goods on the following lines :-



CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
The existing preference of 33J per cent, and on additional preference on lists of selected articles-
(a)	by further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom ;
[Stage Direction]
(b)	by raising the duties against foreign imports ;
(c)	by imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list.
The rest of the memo, refers io Australia. New Zealand and the Cape, and I need not detain the House by reading it.
Now, the result of the whole discussion, so far as the record shows, is a resolution found on page thirty-six
The general resolution that was finally adopted as covering the principle underlying the several proposals comprised in Mr. Balfour's memorandum, was as follows :-*
1.	That this conference recognizes that the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would stimulate and facilitate mutual commercial intercourse, and would by promoting the development ot the resources and industries of the several parts, strengthen the empire.
2.	That this conference recognizes that, in the present circumstances of the colonies, it is not practicable to adopt a general system of free trade as between the mother country and the British dominions beyond the seas.
3.	That with a view, however, to promoting the increase of trade within the empire, it is desirable that those colonies which have not already adopted such a policy should, as far as their circumstances permit, give' substantial preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
4.	That the Prime Ministers of the colonies respectfully urge on His Majesty's government the expediency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the colonies, either by exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter imposed.
5.	That the Prime Ministers present at the conference undertake to submit to their respective governments at the earliest opportunity the principle of the resolution, and to request them to take such measures as may be necessary to give effect to it.
It will be observed that Mr. Balfour's memo, speaks of an increased preference to be granted to Great Britain by Canada, but does not make any reference to any preference to be granted by Great Britain to Canada. That, however, means nothing, because the reciprocal character of the arrangement was well understood and so expressed in the other documents. The cop-elusion of the whole discussion was that this additional preference which we were debating was only to be granted to the mother country for and in consideration of the preference we had asked for the products of Canada in the markets of Great Britain. That is made abundantly clear in the memo, of the Canadian ministers, which is filed on the subject. That memo, is a little lengthy, yet I must ask the House to bear with me while I read it, because although it was published some months ago, its nature may be forgotten. As it is a statement not only of our views, but of the views which were expressed by Mr. Chamberlain on behalf of the British government, Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
and was published with think we shall do well to ; consideration
his authority, I
five its terms our

[Stage Direction]
This subject has frequently engaged the attention of the conference. At an early stage Mr. Chamberlain suggested that the question could most conveniently be considered by the representatives of each colony placing themselves in communication with the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and the officials of that department. Accordingly the Canadian ministers had several protracted interviews with these gentlemen, and discussed the whole subject very fully. Opportunity was also taken to present the Canadian view to Mr. Chamberlain. Now that the conference is drawing to a close, it is desirable that the course of the discussion, and the conclusions reached by the Canadian ministers, should be outlined and placed on record.
From the beginning of the proceedings the Canadian ministers have claimed that in consideration of the substantial preference given by Canada for some years to the products of the mother country, Canadian food products should be exempted in the United Kingdom from the duties recently imposed. Representations to this effect previously made through the High Commissioner for Canada were supplemented by the ministers, both in writing and in the personal interview's with the imperial ministers.
Mr. Chamberlain, on behalf of the imperial government, was unable to agree to the proposals of the Canadian ministers. He represented that the imperial government, while highly appreciating the good feefing manifested by Canada in the granting of preferential treatment, did not think the material results to the trade of the United Kingdom were as great as the Canadiarf ministers claimed. He further said that the change desired by Canada would he an important departure from the 1 established fiscal policy of the Kingdom, and that if the proposals could be entertained at all, as to which he was not prepared to commit himself, it would he necessary for Canada to offer some material tariff concessions bevond those which she had already voluntarily given.
The Canadian ministers, therefore, submitted a memorandum on the subject of the advantages already received by Great Britain from the Canadian preferential tariff, with a view to showing that these were of much value, and entitled to weight in the consideration of the whole subject.	>
While urging that the benefits of the preference were such as to entitle Canada to the desired exemption from the duties on food pro- , ducts in the United Kingdom, the Canadian ministers stated that within certain limitations they were prepared to consider the 'request of Mr. Chamberlain for further concessions in return for the desired preference in the markets of the United Kingdom. While it was not; deemed necessary to enter into questions as to . the wisdom or unwisdom of the policy adopted . by all governments in Canada, of raising the revenues chiefly from customs duties, the Canadian ministers pointed out that under that po-: licy large industries had grown up which had to be considered in connection with proposed tariff changes. Large reduction of duties bad been made in recent years, especially on Brit-
I
is
mi

°rity, r
rms our'. I

[Stage Direction]
the at- L
ly stage! Question,*
T the re- ;| raselves '!!.« of the'% the offi-, Vi e Cana*, erviews' e whole:
0	take# tainber-1 ng to * he disA by the ed and
igs thai in con-,.
' given',',
1	of the should 5m the ons to J High nented in the isters. iperial 5 pro-reprewhile fested treat-to the eat as
fur-anada i the *
, and ed at com-mada eyond riven, litted tages the
w to , and [DOT]
' the
efer-; de-pro-dian dons it of re-kets not s to pted the ' ina-po-had >sed had ritish imports. It was feared that in some lines of importance further reductions might create a disturbance of trade which would not be conducive to the welfare of the country. But the Canadian ministers pointed out that the Canadian tariff was by no means prohibitive, that large quantifies of goods were imported, and that a great proportion of these came from foreign countries. In any lines in which it appeared that the goods would be manufactured in Great Britain it might be possible to so readjust some duties as to give an additional advantage to the British manufacturer, and thus turn over to him a volume of trade which at present is held by the manufacturers of foreign countries.	*
The Canadian ministers stated if they could be assured that the imperial government would accept the principle of preferntial trade generally and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereinafter imposed, they, the Canadian ministers, would be prepared to go further into the subject, and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada.	_
Meanwhile the Canadian ministers determined to present to the conference absolution affirming the principle of preferential trade, and the desirability of its adoption by the colonies generally, and also expressing the opinion of the Prime Ministers of the colonies that His Majesty's government should reciprocate by granting preferential tenms to the products of the colonies, in the markets of the mother country. The Canadian ministers desired to have it understood that they took this course with the strong hope and expectation that the principle of preferential trade would be more widely accepted by the colonies, and that the mother country would at an early day apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties. If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally, or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.
London, August 11, 1302.
Surprise lias been expressed in some quarters-I have heard it expressed, I think, in this House-that the colonial conference did not produce some more definite result. ^ I think that that is the result of some misapprehension. Tire colonial conference was not a legislative body; it was not what could be called an executive body; it was at the best merely an advisory body. All it could do was to consider the various subjects brought before it, and to express the conclusions which might be reached by the gentlemen comprising it, leaving to all the governments concerned the duty of taking up the matter later on if it should be deemed necessary. That is exactly the position in "which this matter of preferential trade stands to-day. The end is not yet. We are not prepared to say at this moment what may be the answer of the British government with regard to the view we have placed before it.
We are aware, Sir, that Mr. Chamberlain, the able Colonial Secretary,, whose interest and support we would naturally desire and hope to obtain, has been for some months absent in South Africa, where he has rendered very valuable service to the empire. While we are glad that he was there to render that service in the pacification of South Africa, his absence has(>
perhaps, to some extent, been a loss to us, inasmuch as, had he been in London during these six months, we might have had his valuable help in the consideration of this matter. The budget speech of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ritchie, has not_ yet been delivered. We are so close to it, that it may be too much to expect that this subject would be dealt with in it. But, however that may be, this much at least may be said-that, as we were invited by Mr. Chamberlain to express our views on this subject, as he took an interest in the matter, and as there are others in the imperial parliament who take an interest in it, some of whom are prepared to express themselves more freely than Mr. Chamberlain himself was prepared to do, the least that the British authorities can expect is that we shall [DOT]allow a reasonable time to elapse before anything further is done. But if, after further consideration, they come to the conclusion that our request is not a reasonable one, if, owing to their adherence to certain views they cannot grant us the preference, we shall be free to take our own course. Whether, in such a case it! would be wise, in the interests of Canada, to modify or change the preferential tariff, would be a question to be considered. But, putting aside other considerations, if the British government and people do not show any appreciation of the value of the preference, then, so far as the British government and people are concerned, they cannot complain if we see fit to modify or change that preferential tariff. Of course, Sir, theie would still remain the more important consideration, how far, if at all, that tariff could be changed with due regard to the interest of the masses of the Canadian people.
Next to Great Britain, the country with which, in the past, we have been accustomed to say wre desire to deal, is the United States. I suppose it is not too much to say that, for some years, our friends across the border have not been too well disposed towards the admission of Canadian products into their markets. 'While from one point of view, we have been disposed j:o regret their attitude, there are other considerations which would dispose us to modify veiy much any expressions of dissatisfaction. When the people of Canada discovered, after frequent efforts, and after ample time given for consideration, that there was a stioi g hostility on the part of the United States authorities to granting liberal	arrangements, they ceased to grumble about the matter but, like sensible people, made up
! A
£41
[Stage Direction]

140!
tlieir minds to seek for markets elsewhere. And they sought and found them. I think that the proposition that these peoples, living side by side, should enjoy a greater freedom of reciprocal trade, is as sound to-dav as it ever was. But it is the simple truth to say that we no longer feel the need of reciprocity as keenly as we once did. There will be no disposition, I am sure, on our part to clamour for reciprocity with the United States. But there can be no doubt that while, in the past, the tendency of the Americans generally have been adverse1 to reciprocity, there have always been in. the United Stales a number of very able and thoughtful men who have been well disposed toward better trade relations. I think that that class of people is now increasing and that there is a manifest growth of public opinion in favour of better trade relations between the United States and Canada. That growth of opinion in favour of reciprocity has been manifested in several ways, one of them being an approach on the part of an authorized representative of the United States government to the government of Canada, that the Joint High Commission, which met several years ago, first at Quebec and afterwards at Washing-tion, shall bo again convened. The fact that such an approach has been made is well known, of course, for it lias been announced in the public press. I thought that, perhaps, the House would desire to know exactly how the matter stands, and so 1 asked the Prime Minister to give me the correspondence which, if the House does not object to receiving it in this manner. I will read. The first letter from Senator Fairbanks to the Prime Minister is as follows :
United States Senate, Washington, D.C., February 13, 1903. My dear Sir Wilfrid,-The matter between the boundary between Alaska and Canada having been transferred to a special tribunal by our respective governments, I presume that no obstacle remains to the reassembling of the Joint High Commission. I write, therefore, to inquire when it will be agreeable to you * to have it reconvene. Any date after the middle of next month will suit the convenience of the commissioners of the United States.
dhe progress we had made in the consideration of the subjects of the protocol at the date of our adjournment gives warrant for the hope that we can determine many if not all of them.
I have the honour to be,
My dear Sir Wilfrid,
Very sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa,
the High Commissioner had been entrusted. I i am sorry to say that, as far as we are concerned on this side of the line, it would not be possible to reassemble the commission before the end of next summer. The session of congress will close on the 4th of March, but our own session will not commence before the 12th of the same month, and it is expected to last at least four months, and as three members of the commission on the Canadian side are also members of our parliament, it is a fatal objection to the early summoning of it.
Moreover, I think it would bo unadvisable to have the commission to meet officiallv, unUrss we are pretty sure in advance of being able to come to some conclusion on some important points. If you will permit me a suggestion [DOT] as soop as our parliament has been prorogued'
| 1 yiU take an^ opportunity of asking you for a ; private interview, where we could survey the | ground again and fix a date for the commission | to meet again.
|	Believe me, my dear Senator,
|	' Yours very sincerely,
j	(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER.
The Hon. Senator Fairbanks,
Washington, D.C.
The next communication from Senator Fairbanks was as follows :
Washington, D.C., March 4, 1903.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-I observe that the next session of your parliament is near at hand and that it will not be prorogued early enough to enable us to reconvene the Joint High Commission before the close of the summer.
It is quite well enough that we should arrange for a private interview, after your parliament is prorogued, and, as you suggest, so that we may consider the work before us 'and agree upon a date for reassembling.
The Senate is called to meet in extra session to-morrow. When it adjourns I shall return to Indianapolis, to remain indefinitely.
I have the honour to remain,
My dear Sir Wilfrid,
Very respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) CHARLES W. FAIRBANKS. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa.
To this the Prime Minister replied :
Ottawa, 17th February, 1903.
My dear Senator,-I duly appreciate your thoughtfulness, und I hcisten to give you my reply. It is a great satisfaction that, at last, the Alaska boundary is in a fair way to be honourably settled. This makes the course clear for the settlement of the other questions with which Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
As the correspondence indicates, we are not in a position to form any decided opinion as to what may be the outcome of the proposed negotiations. The letter of the Prime Minister to Mr. Fairbanks points out that it Us hardly worth while to summon the High Commission if we are to meet with the same difficulties as before; and I am sure I am right in interpreting the Prime Minister's letter to mean that, unless a preliminary discussion gives us s .me reasonable hope that the outcome of another meeting will be fairly satisfactory, there will be no desire on the part of this government.-, to have the High Commission resume its sittings. -But, Sir, while we should assume . a dignified and proper attitude, while we could not again approach our American-friends] with a request for reciprocity, yet, if they are disposed, in the light of recent* events, to take a more liberal view of the trade relations between the two countries, and manifest a desire to have the Hig'h Com-

mission reconvene lor the purpose of trying, in good faith, to bring about a better state of affairs in this respect, it is due to them as well as to our own self-respect that we should meet them in a fair and generous spirit, and join in any reasonable effort to bring about such readjustment of the relations between Canada and the United States as will be honourable to both countries and advantageous to the interests of the people. While not too confident as to the results which may flow, either from our application to the imperial government with regard to preferential trade, or from the possible negotiations with the United States in respect to reciprocity, I think it is not too much to say that in both these matters there is enough to require us to stay our hands and to see what will be done as respects these two important matters before we enter upon any extensive change in our tariff. .
Throughout this whole tariff question we have endeavoured to avoid extremes. The policy of the government on the tariff has been a policy of moderation and stability. There are extreme views held on questions of this character. There are extreme protectionist views, there are those who seem to insist that we should make things at home, and who do not always stop to consider what the cost will be. Sometimes, if you endeavour to ascertain from the gentlemen who advocate these views what are the duties which they wish us to impose in order that we may make these things at home, we discover that they are not very frank ; sometimes they are only willing to give us their views on that matter in confidence, and not always then. I think, Sir, I may say that while there Is a widespread, a universal sympathy for home industries, while every man in this Dominion ought to be proud of our home industries and desirous of giving a preference to our home manufactured goods, still there is in all these matters a question of cost ; and when the manufacturers come to us, as they sometimes do, and desire to have duties which will go up as high as 50 per cent, 60 per cent, and even 70 per cent, on the cost of the goods, then I say there will be many in this country to question whether or not we can afford to carry protection as far as that. There are extremes of that kind to be avoided. Then there are extremes on the other side. There are people who, relying upon the sound principles of free trade, sound enough in their proper place, are disposed to carry them to a point which takes no account of the conditions. They seem to adopt a theory, and they say : You must carry out that theory regardless of what may be done elsewhere :	Fix your own
tariff policy, and never mind what is done elsewhere. Well, Sir, I am sure we cannot go as far as that. Commercial questions are every day occupying more attention in the field of public affairs. There is great rivalry among the nations ; nay, there 45
is commercial war, and in a contest of that character it is not enough to have a good old theory ; you must understand the methods whereby your opponent plays the game, so that you may be able, if necessary, to modify your views.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACLEAN.: You are coming to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am delighted to have my views endorsed by my hon. friends opposite. It is not only necessary that we should take account of the way our opponent plays the game, but once in a while it may even be necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to meet him with his own tactics. If that doctrine meets with the approval of my hon. friends opposite I am not disposed to complain. In a country of such vast extent as ours, a country of great territory, it is inevitable that there shall be wide differences of opinion on questions of this character. There will be conflicts of opinion, and there will be conflicts of interests. There will be the extreme view on the one side, and the extreme view on the other. We hold that it is the duty of the government not to yield to these extreme views on either side, but to endeavour to reconcile these views, in the hope that we may bring about a common action which the whole country can accept- a compromise, if you care to call it such. We appeal to the people of the different sections, each one to yield up something in order that we may reach a ground upon which all can act in harmony.
Our manufacturing friends have expressed a desire that the tariff should be kept out of politics. Sir, how are you going to keep the tariff out of politics if some of our manufacturing friends insist upon duties so high that they are sure to antagonize great masses of the people ? Especially should we consider these things when we observe what is happening in our great west. The seed that has been sown in the last few years is bearing fruit. When we see immigrants flowing into that country from all parts of the world, we cannot fail to observe the signs of the times. The power of control is passing from the east to the west. Great as is the prosperity of eastern and central Canada, greater still is the prosperity of the vast region lying west of Lake Superior. Ontario and the maritime provinces are losing members, the west is gaining members. That great population in the west is going to be a greater power in the future than it is at present. These western people, producing articles that depend for their value on the open markets of the world, would chafe under a system of high protective duties, and would unquestionably organize against it. Is it not better to meet these people in a spirit of compromise, and ask them to join us in a moderate tariff, rather than, by the adoption of a high



tariff policy, array them against the manufacturing interests of the east ? I say it would be in the interests of the manufacturers themselves to take account of these things. The best way you can help the manufacturers of Canada is to fill up the prairie regions of Manitoba and the Northwest with a prosperous and contented people, who will be consumers of the manufactured goods of the east. But if, through the adoption of an extreme policy of protection which they would regard as burdensome to themselves, you were to undertake to impose rates of duties so excessive as to challenge the hostility of these people, then I say there will be an antagonism between the east and the west, and the result will be unfavourable to the upbuilding of Canada. Let us rather hold out the hand of encouragement to these people who come in and open up new homes in that land, let us adopt a policy under which the expenses of living will not be excessive, under which, in fact, living shall be as cheap as possible. As I have said, there have been extreme views on both sides, and we have tried to avoid them. We have endeavoured to give the country a tariff of stability, a tariff which, in so far as a tariff has any relation to prosperity, has been an important factor in the development of Canada the last few years. The efforts we have made to compromise conflicting interests, the willingness we have manifested to meet opposing interests and endeavour to reconcile them, affords the best guarantee that, in any future changes which may have to be made, the question will be approached in the same spirit and, let us hope, with the same happy results.
I suppose, Sir, that next to Great Britain and the United States, the countries in which we naturally feel the most interest, both in trade matters and in other respects, are France and Germany. With regard to France, we have a treaty existing for a number of years which covers, unfortunately, only a small list of articles, and which is not quite satisfactory to us in its terms ; we think it is perhaps a little one-sided. However, if it has not been very successful in the development of business, that treaty has done something, and we hope it will prepare the way for better things. During the past year, when several ministers of the Crown were in Europe, we availed ourselves of the opportunity of going into this question of trade with France, and with the approval of His Majesty's government, we entered into negotiations with the French government at the Foreign Office in Paris.
I am glad to be able to say, though I am sure it is not necessary to say it, that the French authorities met us with every possible courtesy and consideration, and" manifested a very warm desire to extend their trade relations with Canada. Unfortunately the time would not permit us to follow up the negotiations to a conclusion ; but X feel Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
very hopeful, from the encouragement that we then received, that at no distant date we shall be able to extend very considerably the scope of our present commercial treaty with France.
I come now to Germany. Prior to July 31, 1S9S, we had a treaty with Germany, or to be more exact, we were participating in a treaty between Great Britain and Germany under which we, as well as the mother country, received the benefit of what is called the favoured nation treatment. That was the condition of affairs for many years. But that treaty, while satisfactory as far as favoured nation treatment was concerned, contained one clause that was very obnoxious to the people, not only of Canada but of the colonies generally. That treaty contained a clause that the duties imposed upon goods coming from Germany should not be* higher, not only in Canada but throughout the empire, should not be higher in any case than the duties imposed on goods coming from Great Britain. Favoured nation treatment deals with the giving to one nation of as favourable treatment as you give to any other nation. This treaty went beyond that. It required that we should give Germany not only favoured nation treatment but the same treatment we were giving the mother country. This clause in the old, treaty was a very objectionable one and was frequently the subject of comment and protest on the part of the colonies. But, all our protests were unavailing. However, in 1897 Canada rather forced the issue by asserting in her tariff of that year her right to grant a preference to the goods of the mother country over the goods of any foreign nation. That right was questioned and after a legal argument that right was denied. It was held that we were bound by the terms of the treaty, that we must give to the products of Germany the same tretatment that we gave to the products of the mother country, and it followed that if we gave it to Germany then the so called favoured nation treaties with other countries came in and we had to give it to the other countries as well ; so that practically the preference to the mother country was for the moment cancelled. But, while the imperial government felt bound to take that view, they immediately realized that that was a condition of affairs that should not continue and they gave notice that after the 31st of July, 1898. the treaty would cease and determine, and it did. Then, a new question arose. Shortly before the expiry of the treaty negotiations were opened by the imperial government for a new treaty. It was explained that the German government were not prepared to make a permanent treaty with any country at that time, but that they were making provisional treaties to tide over a few years, and they made a provisional treaty with Great Britain whereby Great Britain was to continue

to have the benefits of favoured nation treatment, but they specifically excluded Canada from the benefits of that treaty.


Robert Laird Borden: Great Britain and the colonies.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, they extended it to Great Britain and the colonies generally but they particularly excluded Canada. So soon as that became known we entered a protest against it. Communications passed between our government and the High Commissioner in London. The treaty did not expire until the end of the month of July, 1898, and on the 11th of July, 1S98, shortly before the treaty actually expired, Lord Stratlicoua addressed a letter to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. We shall lay on the Table of the House all the correspondence on the subject, but for the purpose of my speech I will read one or two letters which will put the House in possession of the essential facts.



RELATIONS WITH GERMANY-LORD STRATHCONA'S LETTER.

[Stage Direction]
17 Victoria Street,
London, 11th July, 1898.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge Mr. Cox's letter of the 5th instant with a copy of the note from the German ambassador to the Marquess of Salisbury, communicating the decision of the Bundesrath on the question of provisional commercial relations between the German empire and Great Britain and the colonies, on the expiry of the present treaty.
The Dominion government, I am advised, have observed with much regret that Canada is to be excluded from the grant of the most favoured nation treatment which is to be extended by Germany after the 31st instant to imports from the United Kingdom, the British colonies and the foreign possessions of the empire.
It is true that the Dominion is granting to the United Kingdom and to certain British possessions a preferential tariff after the 31st instant, but that is a matter of purely domestic policy as distinct from foreign policy. And in this connection I may state that Canada proposes to extend to Germany the same privileges that are accorded to all other foreign powers. It will be gratifying to the Dominion government if it is possible to continue this policy so far as Germany is concerned. And all that Canada asks in return is the same treatment that is being extended to Germany. No suggestion has ever been put forward that the exports from the Dominion should be placed in Germany on the same footing as goods exchanged between the different states that form the German empire.
There is one other point I may mention. It is that though in the French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies preferential rates of duty are conceded to imports from the metropolitan countries, I believe I am correct in stating that imports into Germany from these colonies are not refused most favoured nation treatment.
I have been requested by the government of Canada to ask Her Majesty's government to represent the matter to the German government. and with all respect, I venture to express the hope that the German government will find It possible to reconsider its decision and thus 454
prevent a disturbance of the commercial relations between Germany and Canada which must otherwise result to the disadvantage of both countries.
I am Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) STRATHCONA. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Colonial Office.
Downing Street, S.W
We have been criticised in this House for not having adopted retaliatory legislation towards Germany. I admit that there was very much in the circumstances to tempt parliament to take such a course. However, the view which we took was that in matters of an international character we should not adopt any hasty or ill advised legislation, but that we should endeavour by patient representations to impress our views on the German government, in the hope that a better understanding would be brought about, and so, from the beginning, as shown by Lord Strathcona's letters under instructions from the government, we made these representations. Unfortunately, all our efforts in this direction have proved unsuccessful. Representations were made through the diplomatic channels of the British government, but without sucess. In the fall of the year 1901, and particularly in November, we concluded that as the usual form of diplomatic negotiations through the imperial authorities had not proved successful, we would avail ourselves of opportunities to discuss the subject with the gentleman who holds the very honourable position of Imperial German Consul in Montreal, Mr. Bopp. He was good enough to meet us in a friendly spirit and gave us the use of his official channel of communication to express our views. Of course, representing the German government, in our conversations with him, he was by no means ready to accept our views, but we thought that we should press the matter upon the German government through him, as well as through the more official channels of the colonial office. Thereupon, in the month of November. 1901, after a conference held by the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and myself with Mr. Bopp we prepared the following memorandum :-

[Stage Direction]
The undersigned Minister of Finance, having in conjunction with the Right Honourable the Prime Minister and the Honourable the Minister of Customs, had an interview at Ottawa with Herr Franz Bopp, His Imperial German Majesty's Consul at Montreal, on the subject of the trade relations between the German empire and the Dominion of Canada, submits for the consideration of council the following observations thereon.
Prior to 31st July, 1898, Canada, as a portion of the British empire, received the most favour-
1415.
[Stage Direction]
able tariff treatment in Germany, under the terms of the treaty which had long existed between that country and Great Britain. On the date named, that treaty, having been denounced by the British government, ceased to have effect. Provisional agreements have since been entered into from time to time between Great Britain and Germany. Canada, however, has been excluded from the benefit of such agreements. The products of Canada are no longer admitted into Germany on the favoured terms known in the German tariff as ' conventional duties,' but are specially excluded therefrom and made subject to the higher duties of the general tariff. The reason assigned by the German government for this discrimination against Canada is the enactment by the Dominion of legislation granting preferential tariff rates to the products of Great Britain. The undersigned desires to point out that the policy of the Canadian government was not designed to give any foreign nation more favoured treatment than was to be allowed to Germany. The Canadian policy has been confined to a readjustment of the commercial relations of the Dominion with the British empire of which it is a part, a domestic affair which could hardly be open to reasonable objection by any foreign government. It would, therefore, seem that the action of Canada afforded no just ground for complaint by Germany. The undersigned is of opinion that there has been some misconception of the Canadian policy in this respect, and hopes that upon further consideration the German government will see that Canada, in taking the step referred to, did not forfeit her claim to the advantages accorded by Germany to the most favoured nations.
Apart, however, from the purpose of the Canadian policy in question, the undersigned invites attention to the fact that the trade between the two countries, which was largely in favour of Germany under the treaty, has continued to be equally favourable since the treaty ceased to exist. Canada was and still is a large purchaser of German goods, while Germany was and still is but a small purchaser of the products of Canada. The following statistics will clearly show how largely the balance of trade is in favour of Germany :

[Stage Direction]
1896		$5,931,459
1897		 6,493,368
1898		 5,584,014
1899		  7,393,456
1900		 8,383,498
1901		 7,021,405
These imports it is believed have been substantially all of German origin.

[Stage Direction]
1896		$ 757,531
1897		 1,045,432
189S	 1,837,448
1899		 2,219,569
1900		 1,715,903
1901		* 2,141,552
A portion of these exports was not Canadian but merely passed through Canada in transit. The following statement shows more accurately to what extent Germany is a buyer of Canadian goods
William Stevens Fielding: 



EXPORTS OF THE PRODUCTS OF CANADA TO GERMANY DURING THE FISCAL Y'EARS ENDING JUNE 30.

[Stage Direction]
1896		$ -606,919
1897		 764,589
1898		 1,419,096
1S99	 1,310,373
1900		 1,128,163
1901		 1,374,616
In view of this evidence that the trade between the two countries continues to be very largely in favour of Germany, the purchases from that country being more than five times greater than Germany's purchases from Canada, the undersigned thinks that the German government may be fairly asked to give the products of the Dominion the most favoured treatment in the German markets.
The fact that Canada, while so largely a purchaser of the goods of Germany, is treated unfavourably by the tariff laws of that country, is regarded by many in the Dominion as evidence of unfriendliness and has led to demands for retaliatory tariff legislation. The Canadian government have not yielded to such demands, deeming it better to place the facts before the German government in the hope that the present discrimination against the products of Canada may be removed.
The Canadian government would at a convenient moment be prepared to consider the general question of trade relations between Germany and the Dominion. The undersigned understands, however, that it is not the policy of the German government at present to make any commercial treaties extending beyond the year 1903, it being desired that at that time all commercial arrangements with foreign nations shall be subject to revision. It would therefore be inexpedient for the Canadian government to enter into negotiations at this moment with a view to a general treaty with Germany. Negotiations of that character necessarily occupy considerable time and it is probable that before any arrangement satisfactory to both countries could be reached the period for which the German government are disposed to agree would almost have expired.
The undersigned therefore submits that, reserving for further consideration the question of a treaty to take effect after the year 1903, it is desirable that a friendly temporary arrangement be made with Germany. In view of the figures already presented, showing how largely the balance of trade is in favour of Germany, it would not be unreasonable to ask the German government to take that important fact into consideration and extend to Canada the tariff advantages from which the Dominion is at present excluded.
The only matters in which the products of Germany are at any disadvantage in the Canadian markets as compared with the products of other foreign countries are those which arise out of the arrangements made between France and Canada by the commercial treaty of 1894. The advantages of that treaty were extended to Germany and were only withdrawn after the adoption by the German government of the adverse policy which is the subject of this memorandum. In the event of Germany agreeing to allow favoured nation treatment to the products of Canada the benefits which are granted to France under the treaty of 1894. should, of course, be extended to Germany, thus placing German goods in every respect on equal terms with the goods of other foreign countries.
[Stage Direction]
The making of a formal treaty would require the appointment of plenipotentiaries by His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and His Majesty the King of Great Britain on behalf of Canada. But while recognizing this fact, the undersigned is of opinion that a friendly exchange of views between members of the Canadian government and Herr Bopp, representing the government of Germany, may he very useful in bringing about a better understanding, and therefore it is recommended that a copy of this memorandum be furnished confidentially to Herr Bopp. If Herr Bopp should be able to intimate at an early date that the suggestions herein made are received with favour steps could then be taken to have the matter dealt with more formally through the proper treatymaking channels.
(Sd.) W. S. FIELDING,
Minister of Finance.
Department of Finance,
Ottawa, November IS, 1901.
The figures in this memorandum are brought down to the end of the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1901. The figures for the following year sustain the position taken as to the large balance of trade favourable to Germany. In that year, 1902, our imports from Germany for home consumption were $10,823,169, while our exports to Germany of the produce of Canada were only $1,298,654. Sir, I regret to have to say that unfortunately all these efforts to bring about a better understanding with Germany have failed. We have patiently, as it will be acknowledged, for the long period of five years endeavoured to bring about such an understanding-a longer period than some lion, gentlemen opposite were willing to wait, for they criticised us, and perhaps with reason, because we did not make some hostile movement in previous years. However, Sir, we do not think that we can afford to let the matter stand in its present position any longer.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: After these five years of careful, patient negotiation, we think it is our duty to place all the facts before the parliament of Canada and to take such steps as will assert the right of the people of Canada to make arrangements, either as respects their trade [DOT]or any other matters, with the mother country or any part of the British empire, without admitting the right of any foreign nation to interfere in the matter in any shape or form.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Our German friends have given us some idea of how we may deal with a matter of that sort. We have not any legislation in our tariff at present which would enable us to deal with such an exceptional condition. Our German friends have shown us, however, how the thing may be done if we care to follow them. I have in my hands an extract from the new German tariff. This is
the tariff, law which was recently passed but which I tliiuk is not in operation at the present time. It is to be brought into operation by order later on. But it is the latest German tariff law. It says :
Dutiable goods proceeding from states that treat German ships or products less favourably than those of other nations may without prejudice to the tariff duties, be burdened with a surtax ranging up to 100 per cent of the tariff duty imposed on such goods, or even with a surtax equivalent to the total value of the goods themselves. Goods free of duty in virtue of the tariff may under the same conditions be taxed with a duty not exceeding 50 per cent ad valorem.
Germany would hardly be able to complain if we should copy that clause into our tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Put it there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But still with that policy of moderation which has always to be observed-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We may learn a useful lesson from foreign countries without going too far in the matter. We do not propose to interfere, as the German tariff proposes to do, with free imports. In their proposal and the power they take in their tariff, they can impose a duty on free go::ds ; goods which would otherwise be free but which in this particular case would be dutiable. We do not propose to do that. But we do propose that as respects tlie dutiable goods we shall insert in our tariff a clause to the effect that when any foreign country treats the imports from Canada on less favourable terms than the imports from other countries ; then in such a case there may be imposed on tlie goods of such foreign country, a surtax over and above the duties expressed in schedule A of our tariff, which is commonly known as the general tariff, such surtax to be one-third of the duty so expressed in schedule A of tlie general tariff. This clause tlie House will observe is general in its terms and may be applied at any time to any foreign country which treats Canadian products unfavourably. But we propose to apply it immediately to the case of Germany and it will take effect as respects all German goods in all the customs-houses of Canada to-morrow morning


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE-Subject, however, to this reasonable qualification that it shall not apply to any goods which have been actually purchased by any corporation, firm or person in Canada prior to this moment for immediate transportation to Canada. With that qualification, at every custom-house in Canada to-morrow the surtax will be imposed on German gords. One

effect of this X suppose will naturally be to diminish our imports from Germany and to lead our importers to send their orders to countries which are more disposed to buy from us, and I suppose one effect will be to give a further encouragement to the trade with the British AVest Indies. If that should happen that also would be of some advantage.
There are two or three other tariff matters to which I wish to invite the attention of the House. While we have desired to meddle as little as possible with the tariff schedules, there are a few items which stand in peculiar circumstances. For the past year the manufacture of rails has been carried on to some extent in connection with the great enterprises at Sault Ste Marie. Tne government, recognizing that industry as one deserving of encouragement, gave the company a large order for rails, which it was only able in part to fill. We have not been unwilling to view with favour a proposal to extend to this manufacture the same degree of tariff encouragement which is enjoyed by most of our industries. But we have hesitated to do that in this case, because we were not satisfied that the mill at Sault Ste. Marie was in a position to supply either the quantity or the quality of rails required by the Canadian railways. It has seemed to us that the imposition of a duty under such conditions would not serve its purpose. We have decided that while we should not be justified in imposing a duty now, we may reasonably ask the House to agree to a duty, to take effect when there are rail mills, either at Sault Ste. Marie or elsewhere, in a position to turn out rails of proper quality and in reasonable quantity. We, therefore, ask that power be given to the Governor in Council to impose by Order in Council a duty of $7 per ton on steel rails, provided, however, that such order shall not be passed until the government are satisfied that there are rail mills in Canada making the best quality of rails, and in a sufficient quantity to meet the reasonable demands of the market. This duty, when imposed, will, of course, be subject to the British preference as usual.
Another industry on whose behalf urgent representations have been made to us, is the lead industry of British Columbia. We find, however, that the duties which the people interested in that industry desired to see imposed would necessitate a readjustment of other duties, involving considerable increases which we are not prepared to entertain. Therefore, so far as tariff changes are concerned, we find ourselves unable to agree to the proposals. Nevertheless, we appreciate the importance of the lead industry and realize the desirability of encouraging it, and we are willing to consider whether the situation may be met by some readjustment of the law respecting bounties on lead. Further than this we are unable to go at present.


William Stevens Fielding: Another industry which occupies a peculiar position is that of binder twine. In 1897 we placed binder twine on the free list. It was said by many people that that was the death blow of the binder twine industry. Strange to say, however, there are more binder twine factories in Canada to-day without a duty, than there were with a duty-another instance showing that theories and facts do not always come together.


William Findlay Maclean: We have seen a lot of those theories to-day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am looking at my hon. friend. I see the whole World when I look at him.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not a bad looking world either.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, the world looks very pleasant. With a good government and a good tariff, it is not such a bad world. With respect to the binder twine industry, up to a certain point it seemed to flourish on a free trade basis ; but a peculiar position has arisen owing to the legislation of the American government with respect to the Philippine Islands. That government has imposed an export duty of three-eighths of a cent per pound on manilla exported to all countries, with the proviso that where the manilla goes to the United States and is used in manufactures, the manufacturer shall be allowed a rebate equalling the amount of the export duty. This practically amounts to a bounty to the American manufacturer to the extent of that duty. In the case of the binder twine manufacturer in Canada, this works a particular hardship. While he has no advantage whatever in our tariff, his American competitor, besides being aided by this bounty, lias free access to our market. This is a condition of affairs which we admit calls for some action ; and though we are not dealing with it in the tariff resolutions, the government will introduce, before the session closes, some legislation whereby the binder twine manufacturers of Canada will be compensated for the disadvantage under which they suffer as respects the export duty on manilla imposed by the American government.
There is an item in the tariff which imposes a duty upon foreign-built ships when entered for registration in Canada. We found that some persons evaded the provisions of that law by taking foreign-built ships to Newfoundland, registering them as British ships, and then bringing them as such into Canada. To prevent this evasion, we provided by legislation last session for the imposition of a license fee upon all foreign-built ships engaging in our coasting trade. That Bill did not at once become law, but was reserved for the consideration of the imperial government. It has since been confirmed by His Majesty's government, and is now in force. We did not repeal the duty on ships last session, so that as the

matter stands at present we have both the duty and the license fee, which, of course, was not the intention of parliament. We therefore propose to repeal the tariff item which imposes the duty, and leave the matter to be regulated by the license fee.
We have for some time past granted exemption of duty on machinery imported for the manufacture of beet-root sugar. That exemption expired on the 1st of April. We propose to renew it for another year up to the 1st of July, 1904.
With a view of encouraging alluvial gold mining in the Yukon district, we propose to ask the House to place on the free list until the 30th of June, 1904, machinery and appliances of a kind not made in Canada for exclusive use in alluvial gold mining.
I think 1 have no\v stated all the changes to be made in the tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: Woollens.


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: There is one_ other change which is not included in my resolutions, but which will come later. There is a provision in the Customs Act that we may admit free of duty certain articles for the use of manufacturers. I suppose the principle should bold that the greater includes the less ; and if we could take the duty off altogether, it would seem to be a sensible inference that we could take off part of it. However, the Act is not so interpreted. If we want to give the manufacturer absolute freedom of duty, we can do it; but if we think that this is too much and want to give him something less it is held that under the present Act we have not power to do it. There are some curious things in connection with the administration of our tariff laws. There are cases in which it is found that the raw materials which have to be imported from a foreign country are charged a higher duty than the manufactured article made from such materials which comes in from Great Britain under the preferential tariff. With the view of meeting such a case, we propose to amend the Customs Act so that we shall not only have the power in such a case to abolish the duty, but to reduce it.
There is another matter, perhaps somewhat outside the line of the budget, but nevertheless of much importance, as to which I desire to make a short statement.
The Dominion has spent a vast sum of money in the construction of canals and in the improvement of our waterway from the great lakes to the ocean, by way of the St. Lawrence river. Some years ago, these canals had but little depth of water. It was deemed wise to enlarge and deepeu them, at a very heavy cost to the Canadian treasury. The canal system is now! about complete, and we are looking to it, as well as to our railways, to carry the great volume of traffic which must pass between the western and eastern portions of Canada. Those who are most closely associated with the
operation of the waterways are naturally anxious that every possible obstacle may be removed and every reasonable encouragement given for the transportation of our products through these channels to Montreal and other ocean ports. A large deputation of gentlemen interested in the traffic recently waited upon the government and urged that, with a view to giving greater encouragement to the business, canal tolls should be abolished, and the inland waters made as free to ships as the ocean is. The. government have given the subject very careful consideration. There is room for some doubt whether the tolls that are charged are large enough to be a serious obstacle to the traffic.
But while these doubts exist, we do not feel that they are such as should prevent us giving the proposal a trial. The revenue involved, though considerable, is not large enough to prove a disturbing factor in these days of prosperous Canadian finances; and we would gladly yield up this item of our receipts if we could feel assured that it would have the great effect anticipated by the gentlemen who comprised the deputation. We desire to reserve our right as to future action, which may depend upon the results of the experiment which we intend to make. Subject to that reservation, I now announce that the government have determined for a period of two yearg to suspend the charges for tolls and make the entire canal system of Canada absolutely free to all.
This, as I have said, we will try as an experiment. We hope it may be justified, and we', reserve our right as to what may be done at the end of the two years. We think that a trial of that kind will be all that these more particularly interested in this matter can ask us to do, and we do it with the desire that our great waterways shall carry the traffic which nature has destined they should carry.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that every member of this House and every good citizen of Canada will rejoice over the happy conditions which enable me to make such a gratifying statement of the affairs of the Dominion. We have every reason to view the progress of our country in the past with pleasure. We have even more reason for looking forward with hope and confidence to the great future that is before those whose privilege it is to dwell on this northern half of the American continent. We may differ in many respects, but not in our gratification that prosperity in a large degree has visited our country. Never in any previous period in our history was the future so full of promise. Never before in her history did our country loom so largely in the eyes of the world. We have ourselves long been aware of the magnificent resources of our vast territories, but our efforts to make these resources known and appreciated abroad have some-

times been less successful than could have been wished. But whatever may he said of the past in that respect, we have nothing to complain of now. In the mother country, on the continent of Europe, and even in the republic to the south of us, the story of Canada's advancement, Canada's wealth of resources, and Canada's splendid future is engaging the attention of the people, and many thousands of immigrants of the best class' are crowding the steamships and the railway trains in their haste to reach the new country. We have every reason to welcome these people. We are glad to know that they are casting in their lot with us. Let us, to whom, as members of parliament, is given the high privilege of directing the affairs of this Dominion, fail not in anything that is within our power to give assurance to our new citizens that the land to which they have come is one that will reward intelligent and faithful labour with the blessings of peace, happiness and prosperity. I beg to give notice of the following resolutions :
That it is expedient to further amend ' The Customs Tariff, 1897,' to the following effect
That the following sections be added to the said Act
The Governor in Council may by Order in Council direct that a duty of seven dollars per ton shall be imposed in Schedule A on all iron and steel railway bars, or rails in any form for railways, imported into Canada ; and from and after the publication of such Order in the ' Canada Gazette ' such duties shall be levied, collected and paid on all such rails ; and thereafter item 238 in Schedule A and item 585 in Schedule B shall be repealed.
Provided, however, that such Order shall not be passed until the Governor in Council is satisfied that steel rails of the best quality, suitable for the use of Canadian railways, are being manufactured in Canada, from steel made in Canada, in sufficient quantity to meet the ordinary requirements of the market.
Articles which are the growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country which treats imports from Canada less favourably than those from other countries may be subject to a surtax over and above the duties of Schedule A, such surtax in every case to be one-third of the duty as fixed by such Schedule A.
Such surtax shall apply to any article, the chief value of which was produced in such foreign country, although it may have been improved or advanced in value by the labour of another country, notwithstanding the provisions of the British preferential tariff and regulations thereunder.
Any question arising as to any foreign country or goods coming under the operation of this section shall be decided by the Minister of Customs, whose decision shall be final.
The Minister of Customs, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of this section.
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.


William Stevens Fielding: That the period of exemption from duty of machinery of every kind and structural iron and steel for use in the construction and equipment of factories for the manufacture of sugar from beet root be extended to the 30th day of June, 1904.
That item 409 in Schedule A, respecting duty on ships and other vessels built in foreign countries and applying for Canadian register, be repealed.
That machinery and appliances of a kind not made in Canada for exclusive use in alluvial gold mining be added to the free list until June 30, 1904.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) moved the adjournment of the debate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I can have no objection to the request of my hon. friend, but have to tell him that if we do not proceed with this debate at present, he will have a little difficulty to settle with his neighbour (Mr. Sproule) because that lion, gentleman objected yesterday that we had nothing to go on with but the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: On occasions of this kind it is usual to adjourn the debate, and my chief reason for not wanting to go oil to-day is that I am suffering from severe hoarseness and am afraid that I shall not be able to make myself heard by the House. I may also state to my hon. friend that we extended a similar courtesy to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, as we are always glad to do, by waiting a half hour in our seats for the House to open.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was worth waiting for.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be two opinions about that. The hon. gentleman is quite sure of it, other hon. gentlemen may not share in his opinion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I apologize to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Public works-chargeable to Income-harbours and rivers-Ontario-Port Elgin, dredging and repairs to landing pier, $4,000.
['My kon. friend is mistaken in saying that it stopped years ago. He will see from the papers which I have laid on the Table that it extended down to a very recent date. It began years ago, but did not stop years ago.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.', 'Fbiday, April 17, 1903.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This is to complete these works. The dredging will give a depth of fourteen feet at low water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the Minister of Public Works please furnish the statement

which he promised to give us showing the blocks owned by private individuals on which we are spending public money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not been able to have that statement prepared yet. There is a good deal *of labour connected with it. There is no list in this form in the department, and all the items have to be gone over and the facts looked up. I hope to lay the statement on the Table to-morrow.
Port Hope-repairs to pier and dredging, $7,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was stated that the amount appropriated last year would complete this work, but I see we are now asked this large sum in addition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the renewal of the superstructure of the east pier, for a length of one hundred feet by thirty-four feet and six feet high. I imagine that when they came to do the work, they found the pier in much worse *condition than had been anticipated. It is an old pier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this a private dock or a government dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A government dock.


Haughton Lennox: Is the work being done by day labour, or by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By day labour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
RiviSre aux Puces-repairs to pilework, $1,S00.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has had this money for two years. How is it that no work was done last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have received a petition lately showing that this is a very necessary work. It is to renew 200 feet of piling work on the west side and 130 feet on the east side. The total estimate is $1,800, so that this will *complete the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Essex county.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, only piling.
River Ottawa-improvement of narrows at Petewawa, above Pembroke, $4,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this part of the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose it is.


Haughton Lennox: This appears to be a revote. When was the appropriation first made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some work seems to have been undertaken there some years ago. There is a rocky shoal which obstructs the steamboat channel through the narrows above Pembroke, and this money is to be expended in making a channel 100 feet wide, with a depth of eight feet at low water. I have not the information at hand to show when the appropriation was first made. But this is a very necessary work, as this shoal is an obstruction to navigation.


Haughton Lennox: Has there been a considerable amount of money spent up to the present time on this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three thousand dollars.


Haughton Lennox: Why was not this money spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not able to give my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) that information. The information furnished to the department is that about 4,000 feet of this rocky shoal has to be removed.


Haughton Lennox: How long has it been under contract '1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say.


Haughton Lennox: I consider that the principle of these revotes is a very bad one. It is not right to apply for an appropriation in advance, before there is any definite scheme proposed, or any contemplation of an immediate expenditure. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that appropriations of this kind are, in some instances and by some governments, held dangling before the eyes of the electors for the purpose of influencing votes. I think I may say that in some cases that has been done by the present government. I protest against the principle as a bad one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There might be such instances, but this is not one of them. It does not affect any constituency or any vote.


Haughton Lennox: I can tell the hon. gentleman that there are some.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There may be. But this is for the purpose of removing a rocky shoal in the Ottawa river, for the benefit of boats that ply north of Pembroke.


Haughton Lennox: When I say that appropriations are frequently put in the estimates for the purpose of influencing votes, I do not mean to say that the present one may be wholly improper. No doubt it is intended to kill two1 birds with one stone. It may

be intended both to serve a public purpose and to influence votes at the same time. This may be also for a proper purpose, or it may not be; but generally there is an ulterior purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why was the money voted last year not expended ? It could not have been for the want of dredging.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given all the information at my disposal with regard to this item, and if any further information is required, I will ask that the item stand until further information is brought down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We had better let it stand. We voted the money last year and none of it was expended. If the work was required at all, and we furnished the money, the government should have expended it.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I think this item had better stand until we find out in what position the work is.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the work to be done by day labour ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is let by contract. My impression at present is, speaking from memory, that this contract was let at the time the Hon. Mr. White represented that constituency. Lot the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
River St. Lawrence-dredging steamboat channel through shoal at foot of Wolfe Island, $3,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The information I have from the chief engineer is that $3,000 will complete a channel 300 feet wide and 10 feet deep. It will complete the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that being done by government dredge ?
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS By a hired dredge. Randolph & McDonald are the contractors.
Rondeau harbour-improvements to piers and dredging at entrance, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision for protecting the west side of the west pier for 1,000 feet in length, also the east pier around its northern end for a distance of 100 feet. The estimated expenditure is $2,100. Nineteen thousand cubic yards of dredging require to be done to make a channel through the bar 1,000 feet long and 10 feet in depth. The chief engineer reports that this amount will be required. There has been already an expenditure of $6,308.35.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be done with the $10,000 ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: We ask for a revote of $6,000.


Haughton Lennox: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not marked here a revote; it is a fresh vote in addition to the $10,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The $10,000 will be all spent before the end of the year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this work done by contract ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: By the government dredge ' Ontario.' The piling is done by day labour.
Southampton-improvement of harbour, $10,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been a good deal of money spent at Southampton. This revote of $10,000 is to be applied to extending the present landing pier in a northern direction for 560 feet, leaving an opening between it and the land for a breakwater of 210 feet, dredging the area thus inclosed to a depth of 17J feet at low water. The depth is 13 feet. Work does not seem to have been carried on there last year. 'Ten thousand dollars was voted and I do not know why the work did not go on last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much money altogether has been spent in the Southampton harbour ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Since confederation $47,000 have been spent, and previous to that period, about $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say with reference to this work, that I have always noticed, whenever there is an election up there, that it is considered very important that there should be some work done at that harbour. The local member, who lives there, is always a very active canvasser, and he assures the people of the importance of sending to Ottawa a supporter of the government in order that money may be spent on that important work. There is nearly always money in the estimates or money on the tapis somewhere or other. If it is necessary to make an expenditure there it should be done. We have had this hanging on year after year. There is no election just now but if there should be one next year it will be a very valuable item to have in the estimates, because it will be made use of- not that I am suggesting that an improper use of it will be made by the department in the way of spending the money-but it will be made use of in the way of influencing the people as to the man they should send down to parliament, because it is desirable to have money spent in this place. Has the government any reasonable expectation of spending the money this year ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: As far as I am concerned I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that if the money is not spent this year and if there is not a sufficient excuse to satisfy every hon.

member of this House I will not ask the House to l'evote it. For the want of this pier this harbour has been filling up all the time and boats drawing thirteen or fourteen feet of water cannot get in. It is reported by the chief engineer that if this work is done there will not be the danger of filling up that there has been in the past.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why was the money not spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot answer that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard it said that even if this pier were placed there the harbour will always fill up. I do not know j if that is correct or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tiie engineer is satisfied that this will prevent it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you propose to do this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to be done by contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What dredges have you in the Georgian Bay between Parry Harbour and Wiarton, or Southampton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Speaking from memory I think there are three or four firms that have dredges there. There is the firm of Porter & Bowman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But these are not government dredges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, they are not government dredges. We have no government dredges up there just


Haughton Lennox: Before that item passes I would like to say that I quite appreciate the fact that the lion. Minister of Public Works is somewhat handicapped by not having been very long" in the position he is now in, but all the same I think there must be some means of getting a sufficient amount of information to reasonably satisfy this committee. I do not think it will be any excuse to our constituents to go back and tell them that we have not got the information that we should get merely by reason of the fact that there has been a change of portfolios. I am not casting any reflection upon the hon. minister, but speaking in the interest of my own constituents and speaking upon the lines from which the people of the country will judge us, I do say with every confidence, although I have not had a long parliamentary experience, that we of the opposition are bound to get more information than we have been getting before we proceed with these estimates. What position are we in ? The hon. minister tells us candidly night after night virtually that he does not understand the position of these matters that come up for us to pass upon. We ought to have the information. It is true there has been a change of portfolio, but the staff is the same. There is a chief engineer, and if I understand it all correctly, that chief engineer knows a great deal as to the details of the office and as to what is transpiring from time to time. In reference to the matter that is now before us the chief engineer, or some one in the department, surely can tell why it is that it has been delayed. This is of the same class of items as 1 was speaking of a few moments ago. The hon. minister comes to us and tells us that there was a vote last year that was supposed to be for the immediate requirements of the country then, that the money lias not been expended and if there is nothing done I submit to the good sense of the committee on both sides, that it is not sufficient to tell us that it is not known to the department why the money was not expended. The money must be expended because it must not be appropriated unless it is required in the interests of the country. It must be expended or the hon. minister must be prepared to give us some reasonable ground why it has not been expended or to present some exceptional circumstance that has arisen which could not have been foreseen and which has prevented this expenditure. I speak of this item but I could speak of many of the same class and I submit that we of the opposition, who are supposed to be on the alert, who are supposed to watch the expenditure of the administration-and it requires a good deal of watching are bound, whatever courtesy we wish to extend, to require fuller information than we have been afforded in reference to this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to be excused because I have not been long in the department from furnishing all proper and necessary information. I wish that to be clearly understood. It may he possible that a question may be unexpectedly asked in regard to any work that even the officers of the department could not answer without referring to the papers and books. No minister would be expected to know every possible detail, but as to the general information in reference to this and other votes I think it is unfair to say that I have not furnished the information with the greatest possible detail and if I have not been supplied with all the details by the department T have been willing either to furnish any further information afterwards or to allow the item to stand, as I did in the case of the previous one when I was not satisfied myself that the fullest information had been given. One who has been only a few weeks in the department cannot be as familiar with all these works as a minister who has had them before him on a great many occasions, but

at the same time, no matter how long a minister may have been in the department, he could not be familiar with every detail without reference to the papers and books. I do not think there have been any questions in reference to this item which have not been fully answered excepting the one as to why the money was not spent last year. The officials of the department have too much to do to go on with all the works they have under their care. In some cases it lias been explained that they could not procure the necessary appliances, especially in the case of dredges, to go on with the work. In other cases the reason for delay is that at certain seasons of the year they cannot get people to enter into contracts and they cannot get timber out. I have no desire that any lion, member of the opposition should allow an item to pass without receiving an answer to every reasonable question put to me because it is the duty of the department to furnish ail the information. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) has any questions to ask in connection with the item, other than the one he has referred to. I will be pleased to answer it. I think it is fair to say that I have given the fullest possible information why this vote is asked, what is intended to be done with the money and what object is to be gained by building this pier and continuing the dredging at that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is good cause for complaint because I notice, looking back over the estimates, that this money was voted in 1901-2 and was not spent, and that it was voted in 1902-3 and not spent. Now, we are voting money for 1903-4 and up to the present there has been no expenditure. There seems to be something wrong there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since I took office a complaint has been made by the municipal council of the district, but it would appear that the department was not able to cope with all the work it had on hand. This work is undertaken on the report of the engineer that it is urgently necessary, and I pledge myself that it will be proceeded with as quickly ns possible.
Sturgeon Falls-wharf, $4,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. .: Lhis wharf is under contract, the contract price being $2,S00 and the contractor is Robert Grant, of Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the Grant that is figuring m the Stratton case ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think this Mr. Grant is a contractor and an honest man.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the town provided the site?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The right of way was purchased by the Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
municipality and transferred to the Crown free.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the value of
the land ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know what] they paid for it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this on the river or on the lake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is on Sturgeon river and quite a business is done there.


Haughton Lennox: Does this wharf serve a local purpose only; is there any navigation up and down the river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It must be largely for local shipping. The information furnished me is that twelve or thirteen steamboats use this wharf, the largest having a draft of eight feet and Sturgeon river is navigable for vessels of that size a distance of four miles to Lake Nipissiug.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the ordinary line of business which Mr. Grant is engaged in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not a personal acquaintance with Mr. Grant, but perhaps the hon. member for Toronto knows him. I understand he is a contractor of considerable experience.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought he was a lawyer.


Haughton Lennox: All the better if he were.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is a gentleman Robert Grant, a contractor in Toronto. There used to be a gentleman of that name having contracts with the city. I do not know much about him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we have painters and newspaper men and lawyers turning up as government contractors it looks rather suspicious. They often farm out the business and have a rake off. I thought perhaps that might be so in this case. Was there more than one tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think there were seven. There is a good deal of competition in these small works. Mr. Grant was the lowest tenderer. I am informed this vote will complete the work.
Thornbury-repairs to harbour works, $1,500. Mr. SPROULE. Are you doing any dredging here? I understand that some dredging is required, but if you have to repair the pier out of this vote as well, there will not be much left for dredging. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The department did some dredging there last year.


Mr. SPROULE  I.@: am informed that some dredging is required there yet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. .: 1 expect there will be and if so I will have to get another vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may say with regard to this vote and the vote for Meaford that a much larger expenditure is necessary than you have provided for in the estimates. Do you intend to ask a further sum in the supplementary estimates ? I know that you can expend money to good advantage there and the people would not be displeased if there was a much larger expenditure than you apparently contemplated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The mayor and the municipal council of Meaford have made strong representations to me by petiton and the chief engineer is now up there examining the place. I will be governed by his report as to what further work shall be done there this year.
Toronto harbour-works at eastern entrance, $14,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: The' Postmaster General is probably much interested in this work, aud if it is -agreeable to the minister I would ask that this vote be deferred until Sir William Mulock is in the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work has no connection with the matters to which the Toronto deputation made reference recently. I had a communication from the council this week pointing out that this work is very pressing.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will there be another item for Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope so.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then we could discuss that question on that other item. If that is understood I will not object.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the matter can be discussed on any item for public works. I am furnished with the following information with regard to this particular work. This is for the construction of two groynes to protect the island shore at an estimated cost of some $3,000; rebuilding and stone ballasting breakwater, $3,500; repairs to superstructure of eastern channel piers, $4,000. My hon. friend will notice that these are small works which if' neglected would cost a great deal more a few months from now.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is this work being done by contract or by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All by contract.


Albert Edward Kemp: I notice by the Auditor General's Report for 1901-2, at page Y-273, that one of the foremen on this work is Frank J. Sullivan. Is this the Sullivan who is under suspicion at the present time in
connection with the Stratton-Gamey investigation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no information as to that, but I shall be pleased to make inquiries and let the hon. gentleman know.


Albert Edward Kemp: The entry is :	' Frank J.
Sullivan, foreman, and nine men, one half day, putting government derrick scow in water, $15.' I am informed it is the same man who was in the employ of the government and recently resigned.
Trenton dredging-Trent river, $5,000.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would like to ask the minister where this dredging is to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote for the purpose of removing small stones and gravel and providing a channel of sufficient depth. The reason of the delay was that the department could not secure a dredge to go on with the work.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How is it that the public works of this country are so delayed for the want of dredges ? There was a time in the history of Ontario not long ago when there were plenty of dredges. Is it because there are some parties the government do not want to employ to do the dredging ? I know that it used to be said that shoemakers got contracts for dredging, and then hired somebody to do the work and made a rake-off. I never knew that there were not dredges "enough to do the work, yet we have thousands of dollars voted and not expended because we are told there are not enough dredges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say as a matter of fact there are no dredges procurable, though at some points there may be too many. We have a dredge almost completed which will, I hope, early this season be placed on this section to complete this work.
Wendover wharf, $t,000.


Haughton Lennox: The minister is asking for $1,000 this year, and last year we voted $3,000. I would ask him if the contract has been let, and how the work is being done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, this was done by day's labour under the superintendence of one of the engineers of the department.


Haughton Lennox: How much was spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three thousand and eighty dollars has been spent in the current year.


Haughton Lennox: I find at page Y-273 and 274 of the Auditor General's Report that there was expended on the Wendover wharf

last year $6,502.22. Was tills the beginning of tlie expenditure, or was there an expenditure before that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was the first work done.


Haughton Lennox: Where is Wendover ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oil the Ottawa river.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister know anything about the population of the place, or whose riding it is in ?
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This wharf affords landing and shipping facilities to the residents of Wendover and the farmers of the vicinity. The nearest communication by rail is nine miles.


Samuel Barker: I desire to call attention to this subject because it raises a question that was very much discussed last year. The minister last year obtained an appropriation of $3,000, and expended more than double the money authorized by parliament. We were assured that that would not occur again. The subject was discussed in the Public Accounts Committee, and the Auditor General said that he had brought the attention of the government to it, and that it would not occur again. I think parliament is entitled to more consideration from the departments than that. A department brings in an estimate to cover the cost of a particular work, a vote is taken for it, tuid then, utterly regardless of the amount authorized by parliament, the department spends more than double the amount authorized, and then comes back in the following year and asks for more money. I do not think that is treating parliament in the way in which it is entitled to be treated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: T think the hon. gentleman has overlooked the fact that the first vote for this work was taken in 1901-2. The vote for 1902-3 was $3,000. That amount has been spent, and now, to complete the work, $1,000 is required. I do not see anything irregular in the expenditure. I am not aware what estimate was given by the minister at first. There may have been an under estimate, but It is not a very serious one, because according to the report of the engineer this $1,000 will complete the work.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman may not think it is a serious difference when the expenditure is more than 100 per cent above what was authorized, but I do consider it a serious difference. Three thousand dollars was all the minister was authorized to spend at Wendover. He spent $6,500 there, and now he is asking for another $1,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is mistaken as to this vote. He must be referring to the vote of 1901-2.


Haughton Lennox: 


Samuel Barker: I am reading from the hon. gentleman's estimates. He wants a thousand dollars for this year. He states in the other columns that the amount authorized last year was three thousand dollars.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: That is for the expenditure last year. Yet according to the Auditor General's Report, he expended $6,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend has made a slight error. The fiscal year ends the 30th of June next


Samuel Barker: I am aware of that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Auditor General's Report refers to the appropriation expended in the year 1901-2. Tlie $3,000 was voted for the year 1902-3. I have not at my hand just now what the amount voted for 1901-2 was.


Samuel Barker: The Auditor General's Report is for the expenditure of the year ending 30th June, 1902.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was for the appropriation voted for
1901-	2. It does not refer to this $3,000 at all.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We have for the year
1902-	3 the sum of $3,000. If the hon. minister is correct quite a sum will be spent on this work. Where is the village of Wendover and why should such an amount be spent upon a wharf which can only accommodate local traffic. I know of no stretch on the Ottawa so important that we should have that amount spent upon it from year to year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend must see that during the session of 1901-2, parliament must have voted at least $7,000 to begin this work. In the session of 1902-3 parliament voted $3,000 more, making $10,000.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Has that been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and I am asking for $1,000 to complete the work.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How was that $3,000 spent

by contract or by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By day labour.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How many foremen had you there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Only one. It was done under the superintendence of the resident engineer.


Haughton Lennox: As I have already pointed out, there was an expenditure for the year 1901-2, as recorded in the Auditor General's Report, of $6,500. The hon. minister ex-

in seeing that such unauthorized expenditures are not still going on.


Richard Blain: I notice that this item is in three different parts-ice-breakers, storehouse and waiting room. How is it divided? What proportion will be spent on ice-breakers ? What is the size of the waiting room, and what will it cost ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The ice-breakers are for the protection of the wharf. The waiting room is a small part of tlie warehouse partitioned off for the accommodation of the people waiting for the boats.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to have from the Minister of Public Works an expression
plained that that would not touch the $3,000 appropriation which we voted last year; but looking at the estimates for the year 1901-2, there does not appear to be any appropriation at all for Wendover in those estimates. Will the hon. minister tell us that it is in the supplementary estimates, because otherwise there would not appear to be any appropriation at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There must have been a vote at least of $0,500 or the department could not have spent the money in 1901-2, and the Auditor General would not have sanctioned the expenditure.


Samuel Barker: Last year we found over and over again that money was expended away beyond the estimate without the authority of parliament at all.


Haughton Lennox: What the hon. gentleman says is begging the question. He says that as we do not find the item in the general estimates and we do not find an expenditure of $0,500, it must follow that the vote was in the supplementary estimate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. I said that there must have been an appropriation or the department could not have spent the money, and the Auditor General would not have passed upon the expenditure.


Haughton Lennox: We ought to know whether there was a vote for this expenditure or not, especially in view of the fact, to which my hon. friend from Hamilton has drawn attention, that time and again we have found expenditures which have ex-ceded the appropriation.


Samuel Barker: I have here the supplementary and the general estimates for 1901-2 and this place does not appear in either.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will look at the Supply Bill on page 41 he will find a vote of $6,500.


Samuel Barker: Is that in the estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is in the statutes on page 41. I think that I am perfectly right in saying the Auditor General would not account for an expenditure of $6,500 unless the money had been spent and gone through the regular channels.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the hon. minister j is not aware of what has been done in some qf the departments. I can only tell him an actual fact, that last year the Public Accounts Committee investigated a case where $8,000 had been granted to parliament for a particular work and more than double that sum had been expended, and the Auditor General said he would see that It would not occur again. We are justified
of opinion as to the policy of such items as this. Leaving aside, for the moment, the question to which I have directed attention more than once in this committee the undesirability of building local wharfs all over the country. I would like to know if it is the policy of the administration to build not only wharfs but warehouses, and not only warehouses, but waiting rooms for all the hamlets and at the mouths of all the small streams in the country. I understand from the hon. minister that this place is nine miles from a railway station. That may be a reason why the public of that neighbourhood require a wharf and a store house and a waiting room. But there is a great distinction between ascertaining that that is necessary for the accommodation of the people of the locality and coming to the conclusion that it is the duty of the government, of the Dominion, at the expense of the whole of Canada, to supply that local accommodation. If this is the policy of this government, I protest against such a system of spending the public money of the Dominion. It may be a perfectly legitimate expenditure of money for some authority, but it is an unjustifiable expenditure, I submit, of the money of the Dominion of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not customary to build warehouses on these wharfs. I believe. Will the minister please explain the necessity for it in this case ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe that on most of the wharfs the government puts up a warehouse or some kind of shelter for goods. As to the waiting room, it is merely a part of the warehouse partitioned off.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thouglft that the warehouses were usually built by the iocnlitv. On the Georgian Bay at Thornbury, for instance, while the dock was built by the government, the warehouse was built by the municipality. I think the same is true of Meaford.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no rule in the matter. In many cases private individuals have their warehouses alongside the docks, but in small

places like this the government huilds, in connection with the dock a small, cheap frame warehouse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There ought to be some rule that would apply equally to all places. Otherwise, you do too much for one place and not enough for another.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is there a village where this wharf is ? Is there a post office there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a small village. I have not a memorandum of the population. The wharf is quite a little distance from the village.


Andrew B. Ingram: When this item was first introduced, what was this work supposed to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot answer that, as the estimate is not before me. The estimate of what it would cost should have been given three years ago when this vote was first taken.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have examined the records, and I find no account of them.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I confess I cannot see why the Dominion should furnish not only a wharf, but a warehouse and a waiting room at a point where the population is so small that, if we may trust the Postmaster General's Report, there is not even a post office there. It appears to me that there must be something behind this vote that is not honest. I feel convinced of that. I do not think the Minister of Public Works himself feels easy in his conscience in making this expenditure.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who is in charge of this storehouse and waiting room ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Department of Marine and Fisheries always appoint a wharfinger to take charge of these public wharfs.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who owns this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government.


Albert Edward Kemp: How can we find out who is appointed to take charge, for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prfi-fontaine) is not here ?


Haughton Lennox: The .Minister of Public Works, I must say, is usually pretty candid in telling us wh#t he intends to do in future in regard to these matters. Already during the discussion of these estimates I think he has upon more than one occasion indicated that there will be a substantial improvement in the conduct of the department in the future, that better methods will be adopted. I was in hopes that he would tell us that, whether the larger improvement I have been urging, the total abandonment of this system of local improvements at the expenses of the exchequer, was to be adopt-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: ed or not, at all events, we might look for such an improvement as would prevent, in the future, expenditures for waiting rooms. If the minister will tell us thatL it would be some assurance that matters "would be improved. Now, assuming that it was proposed to put up that little building at the expense of the township in which it is situated, to accommodate people within a range of seven, or eight, or nine miles, could it be contended that it was a proper expenditure of the money of the township or of the money of the county ? I think that could not be contended, much less, then, could it be contended that it is proper to expend the money of the Dominion of Canada for the same purpose. I say it should be observed as a principle that we should not have any longer this system of expending public money. The hon. member for Grey spoke of it as an injustice ; I say it is more than an injustice, I say that this money cannot be expended at Wendover for the purpose of building a warehouse and be an honest expenditure of the money of this country. I contend that when the work is so local in its character as not to justify the expenditure of money by the municipality, it is manifest that an expenditure of money by the Dominion for the same purpose is much less justifiable.


Albert Edward Kemp: This is certainly a surprise to me. I was aware that a great number of new wharfs were being erected in various towns and small villages throughout the country; but I never knew before that either this or any former administration erected storehouses and waiting rooms for the benefit! of private individuals. According to the information before us, this storehouse and waiting room have been erected, and we cannot find out now who is in charge of the property. Property of that kind left without some one being in charge, will soon become useless. It seems to me we should have more information in regard to this particular case. I do not think the minister is prepared to say that he has any precedent for this kind of thing. Certainly, I do not know of a single instance where this or any other administration has expended public money in erecting storehouses and waiting rooms of this character.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are dozens and dozens of precedents for this expenditure, ever since confederation. It is usual to erect warehouses for the accommodation of the produce of people at these wharfs.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who is responsible for the safe keeping of these places, generally ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I explained, when a wharf is built by the Public Works Department it is transferred to the care of the Marine Department, who appoints the wharfinger. But

that cannot affect the expenditure in any way. If my hon. friend wishes to know the name of the wharfinger, he can get it when the Marine estimates are under consideration.


Mr. McCORMICK.: Will the minister inform us who is the gentleman that asked for this work to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This House authorized an expenditure on this work three years ago, and all the information should have been furnished then. A year ago we had a vote of $3,000, and I am now asking, on the advice of the engineer, for $1,000 for the purpose of building this work. If it were a new work, that I was asking for, of course the responsibility that would devolve upon me of giving the information would be very different from what it is now. Parliament has committed itself to this work, and the money has been spent, with the exception of a small amount.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the engineer recommend this work in the first place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Surely parliament did not allow the item to pass three years ago without this information.


Andrew B. Ingram: Questions were asked when this vote was brought down, but no information was given. That is the trouble we have had right along. When there is any reference to the past record we cannot find any information in it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have said on previous occasions that I disapproved of parliament being asked for a vote without full information of the probable cost. I am no more accountable for this than the hon. gentleman, and perhaps not so much. I agree that the officers of the department should furnish the minister and he should furnish parliament with an estimate of the total cost of any work before it is undertaken. Any over estimate or under estimate would have to be accounted for to the satisfaction of parliament. In this case, if that was omitted, I suppose we are all responsible.


Andrew B. Ingram: I draw attention to the fact that we have no record of what the work has cost or any other information about it. The hon. gentleman himself is not in a position to give us the information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman for the first time, probably, has got the information. I have given him now full information as to the cost.


Andrew B. Ingram: The estimated cost of the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the actual cost, what has been spent 46
and what it will take to complete. The hon. gentleman has not been paying attention to the discussion.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister forgets that when this item was brought in at first there was nothing to show what the original estimate was. That is what we are asking the hon. gentleman for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was none.


Andrew B. Ingram: No original estimate for this work ? That is a bad give-away, for the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there no report from an engineer or some official recommending it, showing a public necessity for this work? The minister might give us that information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Michaud, one of the engineers, did make a report in 1901, estimating the cost of this work at $7,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That information, apparently, was not given to the committee at first.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Apparently not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: On what ground was the work recommended ? Was there any clamour for it among the people living down there, any public demand for the construction of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be pleased to look over the files of the department for the past three years and see what applications were made and if there were any petitions from the people there, or other papers, in connection with this work. With the permission of the committee we might go back to the item of $4,000 for the improvement of the Narrows at Pete-wawa above Pembroke. I have the information now that the work costs about $7,000. The work has been done and the money was to be paid under the contract on the completion of the work. The reason it was not paid was that there was a dispute between the contractor, Mr. W. J. Poupore and the department as to the completion of the work. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked me why that item was revoted. There is a dispute between the contractor and the department as to whether the work has been completed according to the contract or not. That accounts for revoting the money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you come to a settlement yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not yet.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the work of dredging along the River St. Lawrence, at Wolfe



Island, and other places is to be done by day's work or by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That work was done by contract. The dredge which did the work was the property of Mr. Macdonald.


John Dowsley Reid: At what rate was it engaged ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At $8 an hour.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that include tugs and scows ?


The MINISTER. OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that a fair charge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is supposed to be a fair charge. It has been the charge for several years in the department. I do not know whether we will be able to continue that. Applications have been made for increased wages and the cost of everything has been increased. That has been the price for a great many years for a dredge of the minimum capacity of 600 cubic yards.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose there is a fair wage officer to look after all these things ?


John Dowsley Reid: That is for a small sized dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report of the department shows that that is a dredge of the capacity of 600 yards a day.


John Dowsley Reid: What rate do you pay for a large sized dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From $10 to $12 per hour and as high as $15.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that the highest price that the department has paid for a dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as the memory of the deputy minister goes he thinks that $15 is the highest.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that for a large sized dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: And that includes scows, tugs and all complete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That includes all the apparatus.


Richard Blain: What was the contract price for that work at the narrows at Pete-wawa ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS $7,000.


John Dowsley Reid: 


Richard Blain: Was there any more money expended on it than the contract price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nothing has been paid by the department yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will that finish the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a dispute between the contractor and the department as to this work. The contractor claims that it cost him a great deal more to do the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How did he do it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By blasting and dredging.


Richard Blain: Was there a signed contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is that work completed now ? I do not think it is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a question in dispute between the contractor and the department as to whether it is completed or not.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The work is not completed. I was there last year. There is no use saying it is. The work is not completed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had been present he would have known that was what I explained.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to know if it is completed or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not according to the contention of the department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There are not two ways of interpreting that contract. The work is not completed. The contractor had made a contract with the late government for a certain sum of money. He has been going on very slowly indeed. I was there last year and I say it again the work is not completed. But of course I may say immediately that the work cannot be completed for the sum for which it was agreed to do it. It is out of the question. The work is worth, I believe, about twice as much as the price of the contract. These are the facts of the case. The work is not done. There is only part of it done.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. minister what it costs per day to run one of his dredges. What does it cost to run one of the large sized dredges like ' J. I. Tarte ' for instance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is an important matter not connected with this work and when the vote for dredg-

mg is up I would rather bring down the figures and furnish all the information. Roughly, I should say about $200 per day.


John Dowsley Reid: In an off-hand statement of that kind I suppose you include tugs, scows, dredges, coal and wages ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think they have any scows with that dredge.


John Dowsley Reid: You must have scows to take away what you dredge ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Take one of your large dredges in connection with which you use scows-do you include scows, tugs, coal and everything connected with it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would not be nearly as much for one of the smaller dredges.	*


John Dowsley Reid: But take one of your chief dipper dredges with which you use scows and tugs-roughly, what would it cost per day to handle a dredge of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not like to speak from memory.


John Dowsley Reid: The officer of the department knows roughly.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps from $100 to $125 per day.


John Dowsley Reid: That would include everything ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Returning to that Pembroke dredging item the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) gives the committee some light by making the statement that it will cost double the amount of the contract. Will the hon. minister tell the committee if it is the intention of the government to go on and complete the work, if they make a settlement with the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I should not be bound by what I say here, because the matter was only brought to my attention a few days ago. The contract was made by the previous government with Mr. Poupore according to the specifications. The officers of the department claim that this work has not been completed under the specifications under which he took that contract. It will cost no doubt a great deal more money to complete this work according to specifications. He has furnished accounts to the department already for some $14,000. If the shoal is so removed as to furnish at low water a sufficient depth for boats to navigate there, I am inclined to think it would be better to make a settlement with Mr. Poupore than to go on spending 46*
money on this work. One of the engineers of the department has recently reported to the effect that there is eight feet of water at the shoal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Which engineer made that report ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Fraser.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When did he make the survey ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Within the last two or three weeks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have no information as to what kind of a contract this was. Was it a contract to give a certain depth of water; was it to take out so many cubic yards, or was it to remove the shoal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The late governmet made a contract with Mr. Poupore to do this work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of a contract?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I understand it, he undertook to remove this shoal for $7,000, There has been a dispute ever since between Mr. Poupore and the department as to whether the work has been done according to contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What were the specifications ? It might take $100,000 to remove a shoal and it might only take $5,000. Surely the contract must have been let in some intelligent way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a plan furnished by the engineer, and the contractor undertook to do the work for $7,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) can move for the papers and get all the information. It was so much money for so much work to give us so many feet of water. The truth of the matter is that the contractor sent in a tender which was far too low, and the contract has been dragging along for eight or ten years. That is the whole thing in two words. The price he tendered at was twice too low, and he cannot complete the work for the money. There is about eight feet of water now, and it is considered by certain parties that that is enough, but nevertheless the contract has not been carried out. It would take $15,000 instead of $7,000. The question came before me, and I had nothing else to do than to tell the contractor to carry out his contract, and when the work was completed I would pay him. The work was not completed when I left office and I did not pay him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, that gives us some additional information, but surely before the department let the contract it had an engineer's estimate, and it would not let a work at less than half the actual cost. There was something wrong about the de-

partment or the engineer, or they would not get into a tangle like that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The contractor claims that when he did tender he did not receive from the department all the information he should have had. He thinks there was a mistake made, but at all events he has acted in good faith.-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that if I want the information I can move for the papers. It is the duty of the minister who is asking us to vote money to provide us with all necessary information which would satisfy us whether it is wise or not to vote the money, and it is not our business to go around the departments looking for information. This item should stand until we get this information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What information does the hon. gentleman want ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to know what kind of a contract was made with Mr. Pou-pore. I have not been able to ascertain yet what kind of a contract it was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I thought I had given all that information, but probably it would be better to strike the item out. This is a disputed account between the department and Mr. Poupore. It arose under the late government, and when the matter came before me some time ago I was inclined to think that it would be better to come to some conclusion on it. Mr. Poupore claims he has done the work as he understood it, (but the engineer reports differently to the department, and the ex-minister says he went on the engineer's report and he would not pay Mr. Poupore. My suggestion under these circumstances is to strike the item out, and I will bring down all the papers in connection with it, and if that is satisfactory to the House we can put another item in the estimates. If there is sufficient water for the boats that navigate the river there we might probably pay Mr. Poupore what the officials think would be fair for the work he has done. I do not suppose that any member of this House wants a contractor to do work for nothing. I think that will be the better way. I move that this item be struck out, and I will bring down a vote in the supplementary estimates for the settlement of this matter, and will then give full particulars to the Committee.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not see why the ,tem should be struck out, because there is certainly more money now due for work done than the amount in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I agree with my'hon. friend, but I think this is the better way to deal with the matter. It is an old claim, the work has been done, but the engineers think not according to the contract.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and item struck out.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Manitoba-harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a general vote for extraordinary repairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One of our members who wished to be here when these items on Manitoba went through is away, and if it would not be interfering with the order of work too much, I would suggest that the hon. minister take some other items and leave one for discussion.


Mr. McCREARY.: Leave the particular item the hon. gentleman refers to, and pass the balance of the estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the suggestion of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is the better one. It is a small vote, and we will pass all the items except one, on which any item can be discussed.
Gull harbour, St. George's bay-extension of wharf, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote to pay for the extension of this wharf 50 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this work done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: No, by day labour.
Hnausa-wharf extension, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete this work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that being done by day labour as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. This is a wharf of considerable size. It was originally built by contract, but these repairs are being done by day labour.
Lake Dauphin-lowering of, $5,000.
Mi'. REID (Grenville). Is this work done by dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no provision made for a dredge there yet. The intention of the department is either to build or acquire a small dredge to go on with this necessary work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much land do you expect to reclaim by lowering the waters of that lake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report of the engineer does not give the quantity of land. It is estimated that the total cost of the work will be $9,000, We have not yet been able to procure a dredge, and the engineer is now building a small one for this-work.


William Forsythe McCreary: The water overflows the land for a distance of six or seven miles from the lake shore. On this account many settlers had to leave there some years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that if this j Jake were dredged, a large acreage of land which is now practically useless, would he reclaimed and made available for agricultural purposes. I have no doubt the money is needed and it is desirable to do the work, but I think the department ought to provide some way of doing it. We do not want tills money to be voted from year to year for a quarter of a century without the work being done.


The MINISTER OF RUBRIC WORKS.: My information from the engineer is that he is going to do the work this season.
Lake Manitoba-additional outlet via Fairford river, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is to be applied to the removal of boulders from the bed of the river in order to regulate the flow from lake Manitoba.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did you do any tvork last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there has been no work done there, owing to the very high water during the summer of 1902 and the want of a suitable dredging plant. The engineer reports that for $3,000 we could build a dredge.
Lake Francis outlet, Manitoba-construction of piers and dredging, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Orders have been given to go on with this work and make provisions for a permanent outlet for Lake Francis on the eastern shore of Lake Manitoba. We expect to do that work between now and the 30th of June.


Samuel Barker: Has the hon. minister obtained any statement from the engineer that this money will complete the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have a report from Mr. Miall, the engineer for the department, that $8,500 will do this work.


Samuel Barker: Complete it fully ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the report of the engineer. Of course in large works covering such an area, the minister must depeud on the report of his engineer. That is the only information that in most cases the minister and parliament can have to depend upon.


Samuel Barker: No doubt the minister must be guided by his engineers and nobody will find fault with a trifling discrepancy between the engineer's estimate and the cost of the work when Anally completed. But we find frequently the department entering on a large work without the slightest idea of where it is going to land them. Thousands of dollars are spent beyond the original estimate when, if parliament knew at the beginning what expenditure was involved, parliament would never have authorized the undertaking. The minister should always be able to show that he has his engineer's written report, stating what the whole work will cost from beginning to end. Whether that report be thoroughly reliable or not is another question, but he ought to have it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with my hon. friend, and my policy is to submit these reports on all occasions before a work is begun.
Selkirk, Manitoba-extension of wharf, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the 300 feet addition to Selkirk wharf. The work was begun in 1902-3, and will cost about $6,000 altogether
Wharf at Lake Winnipeg at Gimli-to complete repairs, $1,250.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete. The total cost is $4,940. It is being done by day's work.
White Mnd river-dredging at mouth of, $3,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you a dredge there?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and the work is going on this season.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the full cost of tlie work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure so far is $29,578, and the report of the engineer is that $3,500 are necessary to continue the work this year.


Samuel Hughes: Where is White Mud river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Macdonald county.


Samuel Hughes: Is this place navigable ? And how many vessels approach that wharf ?


William Forsythe McCreary: There are many vessels plying on Lake Manitoba, and they have great difficulty in finding shelter. By dredging this river, vessels will be able to find a harbour some three miles up from the lake. The Northern Pacific put on a steamer at the foot of the lake, when they completed their road, and both steamer and wharf were entirely washed away.
North-west Territories-harbours, rivers and bridges, including approaches-general repairs and improvements, $5,000.


Samuel Hughes: Surely the minister is going to ask for the appropriation of more money than this for the territories ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is only for extraordinary cases of repairs and so on. There will be separate votes for other works.


Samuel Hughes: This has nothing to do with the territorial vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is a general vote.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Though it does not relate to the item immediately under discussion, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to draw attention to a statement that appears in the Montreal ' Star ' to-night, to the effect that a great many of the colonists going out to the Rev. Mr. Barr's settlement will suffer great hardship in travelling the road from Saskatoon to their settlement. As a matter of fact, the road referred to is better than most of the streets in Ottawa, better than most of roads in England. These settlers will suffer no hardship so far as the roads are concerned over which they must travel to their colony. I think it very unfortunate that erroneous statements such as this to which I refer should appear in the press. Settlers who came into Ontario in the old days suffered greater hardships in two miles of road than these Barr colonists will have to undergo in their whole journey.
British Columbia-Anderson and Kennedy lakes-clearing outlets, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the removal of boulders and other obstructions at the outlets of these lakes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How is this work to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By day labour.
Columbia river, above Revelstoke-removal of obstructions to navigation, $6,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to be applied in continuing the work of removing dangerous points of rocks, reefs and boulders from the bed of the river over a distance of fifty miles between Revelstoke and Death's Rapids.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How is the work to be done, by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to be done under the supervision of the resident engineer for British Columbia.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is he '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Keefer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to draw attention to correspondence which was printed in the ' News Advertiser ' on the 30th of November, 1902, respecting the treatment meted out to Mr. D. Sinclair, who had been in charge of some work in British Columbia under the Public Works Department.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) allow me to say that that was not in connection with the works now under discussion. That will come up under an item later on.


Samuel Hughes: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: I asked the minister how the work under discussion was to be done, and he informed me it would be under the supervision of the resident engineer, Mr. Keefer. I was going to read for the information of the hon. minister and the committee a letter alleged to have been written by the resident engineer to a gentleman named Sinclair.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection, but if Mr. Sinclair was doing work in connection with another vote, perhaps it might be more properly discussed under' that vote.


William Alfred Galliher: That was on the Salmon river, which will come up later. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) will take it up when we reach that item.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is the item for work on the Salmon river ?


William Alfred Galliher: I find that there is no special vote for the Salmon river.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I shall be delighted to defer to the wishes of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gallilier) if he will tell me under what item I shall bring this matter up.


William Alfred Galliher: Right here, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) wishes it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That will be quite satisfactory to me. I bring this forward because I wish to know under what system the public works in British Columbia are being carried on. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statements in the article I refer to, but it is only right that I should let the hon. minister and the representative of the district! have an opportunity of saying whether these statements are correct or not. This is what is represented to have appeared in the * News Advertiser ' on the 30th of November, 1902 :



[Stage Direction]
Abuse of a Bad System.
Kamloops, Nov. 27.-Mr. D. Sinclair, who has been in charge of the Dominion improvement work at Salmon Arm, has been dismissed because, as correspondence shows-not having received any such instructions from his chief. Dominion Resident Engineer Keefer-he did not discharge some of the good workers he had employed and substitute for them nominees of a man named McGuire, who acts as secretary of the Liberal Association at Salmon Arm. The letter of dismissal ran thus :
New Westminster, B.C., October 3, 1902.
Sir,-I regret that, at the request of Mr. W. A. Galliher, M.P., I have to request that you hand over the charge of the work of improvement of Salmon river to Mr. G. McLeod. I do not know what the trouble is, but my instructions from Ottawa are to defer to the wishes of the local member in the appointment of men on the government work in their respective districts, and in the purchase of supplies. As far as I am aware, your work of last year was
[Stage Direction]
well done, so it is not on the score of incompetence that you are superseded.
Yours faithfully,
G. A. KEEFER, Resident Engineer. Mr. D. Sinclair, Salmon Arm, B.C.
I would like to ask the minister whether instructions were issued from the department to Mr. Keefer respecting the discharge and employment of men under the department in British Columbia, whether the statement X have quoted is a truthful one and whether instructions were issued to discharge this gentleman who, as Mr. Keefer himself alleges, had done his work faithfully and in a competent manner and to employ only men nominated by the member for the district? Is it the policy of the government and is it the intention of the minister that work in British Columbia or any other province shall be doue in this way ? I think we should have a statement from the lion, minister on this subject.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This matter has never been brought to my attention. The deputy minister tells me that he knows nothing about it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We might have the correspondence brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it would be better. I have not seen the article that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has quoted, nor do I know anything about it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) who represents the district might explain the matter.


William Alfred Galliher: As the representative of that district, I know the facts. Also, I am responsible, if any one is responsible, for having Mr. Sinclair discontinued as foreman of that work. The circumstances are these : There was an appropriation in 1901 of $2,500 for clearing out this river. I recommended Mr. Sinclair as foreman for 1901, and ho acted as foreman in clearing out that river in 1901. In 1902 there was a further appropriation of $2,500 for clearing that river, and a foreman was appointed for that year. The resident engineer, Mr. Keefer, asked Sinclair to go to work without consulting me-I don't blame him, because I suppose, as there was no kick about Mr. Sinclair's work for the preceding year, he probably thought it would be all right to continue him for the second year. But Mr. Sinclair had no appointment from the government or anybody else for the second year. That letter was written by Mr. Keefer to him. Now, along that river there are a number of settlers, men who are trying to hew out for themselves a home in that valley along the river. It was my desire that the benefit of any moneys expended on that river should be given to these settlers rather than to men whose occupation was loafing around town. I was
informed that Mr. Sinclair was taking charge of that work for the second year, that is for 1902, and that he was not carrying out my wishes in that respect. I telegraphed to Mr. Sinclair asking him to follow my instructions, as it was my desire that the settlers who were there as bona fide settlers should receive the benefit of that money, and I drew no distinction between friends and enemies in that respect. Mr. Sinclair treated my telegram very cavalierly, saying he was not taking instructions from Mr. Galliher. The result was that in two days he was not taking instructions from anybody, somebody else was attending to that work.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: I ask any hon. gentleman on that side to say if he would have acted differently.


Samuel Barker: I would think it was an impertinence to act in that way.


William Alfred Galliher: Well, your ideas and mine differ. Those are the circumstances of the case, the circumstances under which that man was dismissed, because he was not rightly there for the year 1902. He had taken over that work, he was assuming to act there as foreman without having received an appointment from the department. His appointment was not a continuing appointment while that river required clearing, his appointment was only for the year 1901.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. gentleman when the work commenced in 1902 ?


William Alfred Galliher: Some time in the fall.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The letter is dated 2nd of October, I think.


William Alfred Galliher: Some time in the fall. I know I went up on the work myself in November, while it was continuing.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would tell us whom he employed instead of this man, and what he paid him.


William Alfred Galliher: Instead of this man I recommended that a Mr. McLeod be apoint-ed, and his pay was exactly that of Mr. Sinclair's.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that we were told by the minister that the work in British Columbia was done under the directions or instructions of the resident engineer, Mr. Keefer. Now I have presented to the House his letter to Mr. Sinclair. Of course, I am bound to accept the statement of the hon. member from Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) but there seems to be discrepancy between the statement of the minister and that made by the hon. gentleman. 1 was aware of the fact that Mr. Keefer has no authority, unless instructions are received from the department or from the representative of the district, to employ the

men. He makes the statement that Mr. Sinclair's work was satisfactorily done in 1901.


William Alfred Galliher: No dispute about that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And that be was dismissed because instructions had been received from the local member to dismiss him. Is that practice going to prevail in the future in British Columbia or elsewhere ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has always been the practice, when the chief engineer is asking for the appointment of a foreman, to take the recommendation of the member for the riding. I do not think there is anything wrong in that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did he take his instructions direct from the hon. member ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly not. The hon. member explained that he did not recommend this man, and did not consider that the chief engineer had any right to appoint him.


John Dowsley Reid: But the hon. member ordered his dismissal, and he was dismissed within two days.


William Alfred Galliher: If the hon. member will pardon me-I made a distinction when I said that for 1902 he was not appointed foreman by the department. Therefore he was not dismissed as a matter of fact.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member made the statement that Mr. Sinclair was on duty, and he recommended Mr. Sinclair as the man in charge.


William Alfred Galliher: I did not.


John Dowsley Reid: He wrote to Mr. Sinclair giving him instructions what he was to do as concerns the engaging of the men, and Mr. Sinclair replied that he was not taking orders from him, and that within two days he was not taking orders' from anybody. Therefore, I would understand that he issued instructions that this man must be dismissed, and that the department acted accordingly.


William Alfred Galliher: When I received word that Mr. Sinclair was not carrying out my wishes in the matter with regard to the employment of settlers on this work, I then took objection to his being foreman for the year 1902. Mr. Sinclair was not appointed foreman by the department for the year 1902 ; and although, as I say, the resident engineer, presuming perhaps that he was right in doing so, presuming that because his work had been satisfactory in the year before, it would be all right to continue him for 1902, asked him to go to work. Yet l did not consider that as an appointment, it was not an appointment by the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. member overlooks the statement made by the minister a few minutes ago. When asked how this


Edward Frederick Clarke: work was done in British Columbia, he said it was done under the instructions of the resident engineer, who had control of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Under his supervision.


William Alfred Galliher: A very different thing. The work is done under the supervision of the engineer, that is, the engineer has the right to say how, where and when that work should be done. That is what I understand by the supervision of the engineer. I do not think it is the engineer's duty to appoint the foreman, or to hire the men, either.


John Dowsley Reid: I consider this man was an officer of the department and was appointed by the department, since they paid him. Now this man was foreman during 1901, at least, he was paid regularly and monthly by the department. Then he must have been appointed by the department.


William Alfred Galliher: That is true for 1901.


John Dowsley Reid: Then he must have been recognized by the hon. member as the officer in charge.


William Alfred Galliher: For that year and no other.


John Dowsley Reid: The point I am getting at is this : I would like to know from the hon. member the day he was dismissed. The hon. member says the department dismissed him on his telegram, he was dismissed within forty-eight hours.


William Alfred Galliher: I did not say forty-eight hours.


John Dowsley Reid: The bon. member said within two days.


William Alfred Galliher: I should have said a few days.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the minister should tell us how this man was dismissed, because this is a very important matter as regards appointments elsewhere. Here is a man doing his duty, the hon. member admits that he did his work satisfactorily and honestly during 1901 ; and simply because he was not carrying out his instructions, but was carrying out the instructions of the department, he is dismissed promptly by a telegram or a letter from the hon. member. Now the minister should tell us what word he received from the hon. member and why he dismissed this man.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not minister when this happened and I have no information from the department regarding it, but if I had been minister and an hon. member from any riding had made the same complaint


Samuel Hughes: You mean a Liberal member ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, a Liberal member, if my hon. friend
APRIL 16, 1903i
(Mr. Hughes, Victoria) prefers it-that a foreman was acting in the same way as this man was doing in employing unworthy and improper men instead of good men 1 certainly think he would have been asked to give an explanation. In reference to these matters, as far as I am concerned, we always ask for a report from the engineer as to the facts. But on such a request as this I think any hou. gentleman in this Committee will admit that it is worthy of investigation and if the statements are found to be correct, this man ought to be dismissed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably it is not reasonable to expect from the present hon. Minister of Public Works an explanation respecting these matters.. I think the letter which I read to-night was dated before the hon. minister assumed control of the department of Public Works, but we are fortunate in having in the House his predecessor in office and if that hon. gentleman would not be revealing any departmental secrets we would like to know from him if he issued any instructions respecting the dismissal of men in British Columbia.


Joseph Israël Tarte: So many things have passed through my brain since that time that I cannot really remember the details of that story. All I remember is that I heard that name ' Sinclair ' before. There was something that was not agreeable to my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher). The facts I believe are these : Sinclair was appointed in 1901 on the recommendation of my hon. friend. Assuming that he was still persona grata, the resident engineer, Mr. Keefer employed him to continue the work he had been employed upon. Some friction took place. I speak from memory. I asked Mr. Keefer what was the matter and the next thing I heard was that Mr. Keefer had dispensed with the services of Mr. Sinclair, no doubt at the request of my hon. friend here, ns he said. The appointment of foremen gives the minister a lot of trouble and I am very glad to have got rid of that.


Samuel Hughes: I think it is due to the Committee that the hon. member (Mr. Galliher), who claims to have been instrumental in dismissing this officer, should give us the reasons why he was not satisfied with his conduct. Who were the men that Sinclair was employing and who were the men the hon. member wished to have him employ ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I remember aright, I left the whole matter in the hands of the resident engineer which is the only safe way to do. British Columbia is very far away and unless the minister gives the resident engineer as much of his confidence as is possible, trouble will certainly come. If I had any friendly advice to offer the hon. Minister of Public Works I would urge
him to strengthen the hands of the resident engineers as much as he is able to do. Otherwise, improper parties will be forced upon him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, politics are politics, as my hon. friends know. Members of parliament are exposed to a grent deal of pressure and to save them from that pressure the best thing to do is to instruct the resident engineers to employ only safe and honourable men. I have always endeavoured to do so and Mr. Keefer has carried out my orders with great care in the past.


Albert Edward Kemp: He is a very competent officer.


Joseph Israël Tarte: He is a good officer. He was recommended to me by hon. members on both sides of the House.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tnrte) and also the present hon. Minister of Public Works what the custom is in relation to the treatment of these engineers. For instance, if the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) wished to dispense with the services of Mr. Sinclair was it not his bounden duty to communicate with the Minister of Public Works and then let the minister issue his instructions to the resident engineer. I understand from a statement made by the hon. member himself that he simply took the bull by the horns and compelled Mr. Keefer to dismiss this man.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, not by any means.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. exMinister of Public Works is responsible for this dismissal it is not much .wonder that the right hon. Prime Minister asked for his resignation.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would not like to discuss that question again now ; We will see later on. As to the Sinclair business it did not take place as my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) believes it did. There was a complaint made to me


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was that complaint made-recently ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, there was a complaint made before he was dismissed. There was a complaint that something was going wrong, that Sinclair did not act agreeably to my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) in the appointment of men. I simply referred the matter to Mr. Keefer giving him to a very large extent carte blanche, and the next thing I heard was that Mr. Keefer had dispensed with the services of Sinclair and appointed another man in his place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Keefer seems to have placed the responsibility of the dismissal upon the shoulders of the ex-Minister of

Public Works. He had no option apparently if tlie letter I read is correct. I have no doubt it is as Mr. Keefer has just received such a high certificate of character from the former head of the department. Mr. Keefer, in his letter, states that he received instructions from Ottawa that he was to take his instructions from the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo. Did the hon. exminister give those instructions to Mr. Keefer ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: As I remember the facts, speaking of Sinclair alone, I simply referred the complaint of my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) to Mr. Keefer and the next thing I heard was that the services of Sinclair had been dispensed with. I would be very glad indeed to have the whole of the correspondence brought down but I think it will confirm the facts as I state them now. In other words there was an agreement between my hon. friend and Mr. Keefer as to dispensing with the services of Sinclair. I do not believe that I gave an order to dismiss Sinclair. I simply referred the whole thing to Mr. Keefer.


Samuel Hughes: I have asked for an explanation from the hon. member for the riding as to what persons Sinclair was employing that were objectionable, why they were objectionable and what ones were sought to be employed and why they were sought to be employed.


William Alfred Galliher: I have already stated that on that river that is being cleared there were a number of new settlers who had gone in who had taken up homesteads and who were hewing out homes for themselves along that river. I thought, as I believe any fair-minded man in this House would think, that where money was expended the benefit of that money should go to those settlers along the river rather than to men in towns who have no landed interest there and who have no homesteads there.


Samuel Hughes: What town ?


William Alfred Galliher: The town of Salmon Arm.


Samuel Hughes: What is the population of that place ?


William Alfred Galliher: I could not tell the hon. gentleman. He has travelled through there, I have no doubt. It is a very small town in the west around which you cannot find a few hangers on.


Samuel Hughes: A town of four houses ?


William Alfred Galliher: [DOT] My hon. friends need not be so much exercised over this because Sinclair is no friend of theirs. I thought they might be under the impression that some friend of theirs was being very hardly dealt with.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Samuel Hughes: No, it is injustice to a poor Liberal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. member (Mr. Galliher) recommended him ?


William Alfred Galliher: I recommended him myself in 1901. The whole crux of the case is right here; that man was not a foreman for 1902.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The ex-minister suggests that in order to refresh his memory the whole correspondence should be brought down.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not mean that, but if the hon. gentleman wants the correspondence I suppose there is no objection to it, but the item should be carried all the same.
Some resolutions reported.


CORRESPONDENCE ON THE GERMAN TARIFF.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: By command of His Excellency I lay on the Table correspondence in relation to the German tariff.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to make a remark as to certain correspondence that was read to-day by the Finance Minister, and some of which was three or four years old. It seems extraordinary that this correspondence was not brought down to the House before today. I think it was asked for several times, and yet the first we heard of it was when the Minister of Finance read it to-day.
I do not think that Is treating this House with the courtesy to which it is entitled.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no recollection of the correspondence having been asked for. If any motion were made and passed for an Order of the House for that correspondence, it certainly would have been brought down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A motion was not made, but a request was made across the floor of. the House.
The MINISTER OF - FINANCE. It does not always follow as a rule that it is wise to bring down correspondence on matters of that sort. However, I have no recollection of any motion having been passed or of any request even having been made. I expected to be able to lay this correspondence on the Table at 6 o'clock, but I may say that I have sent a copy of it to the leader of the opposition.


Albert Edward Kemp: In 1901 I asked for this correspondence, and last year the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) moved for it in the House and there was quite a debate upon it, but it was refused by the government.
im


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is another matter. If a motion was made and refused, of course it was refused for good reasons. It is not always wise to bring down correspondence, especially in matters of an international character; but I think considering all the circumstances, that it is open to debate whether any good purpose would have been served by bringing down the correspondence. The time was spent in an effort to come to an understanding with the German government, but I am not sure that it would have been promoted by bringing down the papers and broadening the scope of the discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But this correspondence is four years old.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is plenty of correspondence over four years old that has never been brought down.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: And never will.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And never will, as my kon. friend says, for a good and sufficient reason, that the public interest would not be advanced by bringing it down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that reason could be advanced in this case. The correspondence was read to-day, and there is no .*justifiable reason why it should not have been placed before the House. It all stopped years ago.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My kon. friend is mistaken in saying that it stopped years ago. He will see from the papers which I have laid on the Table that it extended down to a very recent date. It began years ago, but did not stop years ago.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Fbiday, April 17, 1903.