1903-06-18

Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants) moved :: That the petition of Mr. B. Russell and others presented this day, praying that leave may be granted to John F. Stairs and others to present a petition for an Act of incorporation to do a general banking business, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for receiving petitions for Private Bills, be read and received forthwith and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we had better suspend the rule entirely with regard to the reception of these petitions and the introduction of private Bills, we have violated it so often. The rule is so seldom observed that we might as well not have it.


Benjamin Russell: I second the motion.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: No, I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule). I think the rule a useful one, and one that serves a good purpose ; and I think he will agree with me that this year we have had fewer suspensions of the rule than ever before- certainly than any year that I can now recall to mind. Of course, we must admit that all rules have their exceptions, and there are cases where exceptions should be allowed to this one.


Mr. TAYLOR asked :: Has Joseph Haycock. ex-M.P.P., for Fron-tenac, Ontario, been appointed inspector of binder twine ? If so. what salary is he to receive. and what are his duties ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: The first part of the question I have already answered. As respects the rest, his duties are to see that the requirements of the General Inspection Act in so far as regards binder twine, are carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister has said that we have violated the rule less this year than ever before. Why, we have been violating it every week for weeks past.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But not several times a week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked ;
1.	What are the regulations concerning the demurrage on cars loading and unloading at intercolonial Railway stations ?
2.	What amount of demurrage has been collected at each station during six months of the present fiscal year, from July 1, 1902, to January 1. 1903?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: When the question was asked the other day, I said that it was altogether too voluminous to be replied to in the form of an answer to a question.
McPherson & schell-supply of goods


TO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Is J.   T.@: Schell, member of the House of Commons. for the electoral district of Glengarry, a partner in the firm of McPherson & Schell, who supplied goods to the Department of Agriculture, as appears by the Auditor General's Report, 1901-1902. page D-22 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The government has no information as to the personnel of the firm of Macpherson and Schell which is mentioned in the Auditor General's Report in connection with an item of five dollars and fifty cents.


COUNTY COURT JUDGES.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	What are the names of all persons appointed within the last twenty-five years as county court judges ; together in each case with the date of appointment, age at time of appointment. and county for which appointment made ?
2.	What are the names of such of these judges who have since retired, been retired, have died, or for any other cause have ceased to exercise the office of county court judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I would ask my hon. friend to bear in mind that to get the information which he seeks will entail a considerable amount of labour, but I hope to be able to give it to him within the next few days.


ADULTERATION OF BUTTER.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved :: That the House do to-morrow resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to take into consideration the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to pass an Act to prevent the improper marking of butter ; to prevent the manufacture or sale of renovated, adulterated, or process butter, or of oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream ; providing for the examination of stock or packages ; and providing that one-half of the pecuniary penalties for contraventions of the Act shall be payable to the informant.


Mr. SPEAKER.: This is not a motion to grant any subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It will be moved in the regular way to go into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILSON asked :: Has Joseph Haycock been appointed an inspector of binder twine ? If so, when was he appointed, and what is his salary ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Yes. On the 2nd June instant. $1,200 per annum.


Benjamin Russell: 


TRANSPORTATION AND YUKON COMMISSIONS.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked me for some information with regard to the commission on transportation and the commission on the Yukon. I will be able to give my hon. friend the information which he desires on Monday.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-GUARANTEE OF SECURITIES.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on the proposed resolutions (page 4,363) regarding aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. .
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Biair).: 
Mr. CLARKE.: What estimate has the hon. gentleman just been giving ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimate of the government engineer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the date ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Does Mr. Seh-reiber's estimates give us the average quantities ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It gives all the quantities.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Does it include equipment and rolling stock ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It includes $3,000 per mile for rolling stock, which is fairly up to the average, the number of acres of land estimated to be required to be taken by expropriation or otherwise, with the estimate of the quantities of rock, hard-pan and earth excavation, and the quantities in all classes. I may repeat, if I did not make the statement fully the other day, that I have the estimates of the engineers, including those of the engineers of the railway company.


John Graham Haggart: You have the estimates of the engineers of the railway company too ?


The MJNHSTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, they were made up without any connection whatever with the government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it be possible for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to have these estimates placed on ' Hansard ' ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it would be very easy to do that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: We will have no record whatever of these documents if they do not go on * Hansard.'
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. I can lay them on. the Table of the House.


Mr CLARKE.: In that case I suppose it would be well to get them printed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no objection to having them printed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the bon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) will look at them and confer with the bon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) I think the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals will suggest that there will be no necessity for having them printed.


John Graham Haggart: I was not here the other day and perhaps the hon. minister has explained why it is that in the second resolution the mortgage shall be a first charge only to the extent of $10,000 a mile.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I explained that on three different occasions and if the hon. gentleman will look at ' Hansard ' he will find there the explanation.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not quite clear as
to the information the hon. minister gave us respecting the lien or security that the government will have on the rolling stock on these two branches.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The government will have a lien on the whole of the property of every kind and description.


Edward Frederick Clarke: On the rolling stock as well as everything else ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The rolling stock will be owned and not leased by the company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. undoubtedly. They own this rolling stock. They are not getting it under any lease. It is included in the estimate.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) whether it would not be possible for this House to have laid on the Table before we decide upon this question the documents which the government propose to execute as the agreement between the Dominion and this railway company. I think it is of the utmost importance to the country that before we enter into this guarantee we should have full knowledge what the terms of the bargain may be. It is quite obvious to anybody that the resolution laid before us gives most meagre par-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
ticulars of what is contemplated. The hon. gentleman assures us that rolling stock to the extent of $3,000 per mile shall be acquired by this company, and, I Piesumi. placed upon the railway and maintained there, and that the country shall have a first mortgage upon the rolling stock. l mention that here simply for the purpose of pointing out that no person would gather from this resolution that any such provision is intended to be put into the contract. The hon. minister tells us that it is the intention and no doubt it is the intention that this shall be done, but from the resolution that we have here, nobody would know that anything of the kind was contemplated. There is no word in this resolution about rolling stock. There is the one word 'property ' and everybody knows that no person taking a mortgage on a railway would consider that under the word ' property he had acquired rolling stock or any particulai amount of rolling stock. One car would cover the word 'property' if this one car were necessary to comply with the conditions of this resolution. Those who are at all familiar with the present methods or railway companies know that while tliej may have a large amount of rolling stock upon any given concern not one locomotive or car may be the property of the railway company. There may be a certain amount of rolling stock to begin with and within twelve months there may not be a car left.
I do not think it is right that we should be asked to pass a resolution committing this country to a very large guarantee without knowing really what we are doing. Me have to receive an assurance from the hon. minister that certain things that are proper and reasonable in such a transaction aie intended, but there is nothing in this resolution to indicate that they must be included in the terms of the contract. I do not suppose that the hon. minister has got to this stage of the transaction without having very carefullv considered and negotiated the whole of the'terms of this contract, and before we are asked to commit ourselves to a vote in favour of the transaction we ought to be as fully informed of it as the hon. minister is. Then, I would like to ask. supposing that this company goes into default, and the country is called upon to pay a large sum year after year upon the guai-antee, and we may be called upon to pay a million dollars in four or five years upon the guarantee, in what position do we stand in regard; to the indebtedness of the company to the country ? Are we to have interest upon our advances ? What are the terms in that respect ? If we pay $1 000,000 or $2,000,000 upon these bonds to the bondholders, is that to be a loan without interest, or has the company to pay us interest upon the advances ? Surely that is a matter in regard to which men looking after the interests of the country are entitled to know what the terms of the con-

tract are in that respect ; yet from the terms of this resolution they are completely in the dark. These are details, but most important details, and I do not think it is right that we should be asked to enter into a bargain of this kind and pledge the credit of the country to such a large extent without knowing more than the mere terms of this resolution.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am unable to see that these resolutions are wanting in clearness in any respect, and I would not have supposed, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) had not assured the committee of the fact that they left one in any doubt as to the main principles involved in this proposition and that they did not as fully cover the ground as is necessary at this stage. I am not prepared to say, but that when the Bill is introduced it may not be found necessary to enter into fuller detail, but even if the Bill is in more detail it will be quite open for any member of the House who thinks that some conditions ought to be introduced, to move that they shall be included in the measure. These resolutions are simply introductory features so as to enable a Bill covering all proper and necessary ground to be laid before parliament. If when the Bill is introduced, the hon. gentleman has any views to suggest to the committee looking towards some additional clauses or amendments to clauses, it will be very proper for him to move them, and I am sure the committee will be disposed to give any suggestion of his the fullest consideration. The request that we should lay the contract on the Table, or the documents which it will be necessary to have executed after legislation is passed, is not a request that I am afraid I could accede to. We have not advanced to that stage and could not have advanced to that stage. The necessary drafting of the technical work which is required to be done by the Justice Department and the legal fraternity will be done when we have passed the Bill, and until the Bill is passed it will be inexpedient and I would submit to my hon. friend quite unnecessary for us to enter upon the drafting of the necessary agreements, contracts, and securities. Parliament is informed by these resolutions of the main conditions upon which we think that this guarantee could properly be given, and it must rest upon the responsibility of the government after the Bill has passed to see that the papers necessary to be executed between the parties are properly drawn. We will have to ask the House, as is customary in such cases, to treat us upon that basis. We have not the time to give to the necessary consideration to the working out these features. Having regard to the immense work which devolves upon us, we cannot expect the government to drop other necessary work and delay parliament while we are having 156$
these securities drawn up in technical legal shape and form.


Samuel Barker: The minister tells us that these resolutions contain all the information he is able to give us at this moment. He says we can obtain further information when the Bill is introduced; and almost in the same voice he tells us that the government will not be able to settle the terms of the contract until after the Bill has been passed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think the hon. gentleman would misquote me; but that is not just what I said. I said that when the Bill comes down, then, if my hon. friend thinks that there is not sufficient protection provided in the public interest, it is quite open to him to move any amendment he wishes to the Bill, and everything he suggests would receive a proper measure of consideration.


Samuel Barker: I certainly understood the minister to say clearly, that it could not be expected that the government would settle the terms of these contracts until after the Bill was passed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said :	Would draft the contracts and have them drawn up.


Samuel Barker: It will not be much satisfaction to this House and the country after we have passed the Bill, to know that the terms of the contracts are objectionable. It will be too late then. I do not see why in such a matter as this the House should not be placed as far as possible in possession of everything that is material to the consideration of whether we should give this guarantee or not. It is useless to say that negotiations have not been going on for some time with a view of the settlement of the terms of this guarantee. If it is not so, then the position we are in is this : that when the Bill is ^introduced the government will have no more knowledge than we have at the present time, and we will be asked to pass a Bill authorizing this guarantee and leaving it entirely to the minister to settle with the company what the terms and details shall be. I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that when the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway was entered into it formed part of the Bill. It was a complete contract signed and sealed between Her Majesty and the railway company. It was introduced to this House, and parliament had the opportunity of seeing every word of that contract before they passed upon it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: Practically we are going it blind in this case, and I think it is most unfair to the House and to the country that we should be asked to vote on matters of this

importance when the minister tells us that after the Bill has passed the government will settle the terms of the contract. I would like now to refer to clause 7. It is a very simple clause which might have been introduced, not by the government but by the railway compnay. It is a way not unknown to introduce a clause that looks to he in favour of the country while it is really perhaps in favour of the company. It says :
Resolved, that the Governor in Council or any authority created by parliament for the purpose may also grant running powers over any portion of the lines hereby aided to any other line of railway upon terras considered equitable.
That is a very nice clause. Supposing that next year or three or four years hence, the government choose to grant running powers upon this line or upon some short distance of it to another railway upon terms that the government may consider equitable-why the terms the government may consider equitable may be the releasing of a large portion of the security that the country is now stipulating for. We are practically leaving the whole of this subject to be settled by Order in Council. I mention it as showing that it is of the utmost consequence to the interests of Canada that we should know every word and every detail of it before we commit ourselves to the guarantee. I am not endeavouring to obstruct the government in what they are proposing to do, but I do say tbat before we enter into an enormous contract of this kind we ought to know what we are contracting about.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) is indulging in very strong adjectives in connection with a proposition that certainly on the face of it does not warrant him in so doing. I surely do not understand my hon. frien<4 when he discovers anything like a reasonable analogy between the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway original contract and the Canadian Northern Railway guarantee. There is not to my mind the least similarity between the two. In the one case this country was giving without competition or tender, an immense amount of money, a large quantity of land, and other privileges, properties, and rights, of the most extensive character. We were giving all these things to the company, whereas this is an offer of the guarantee of the government, by way of security, to enable this company in the public market to raise money for the purpose of building the road, which guarantee is covered and secured by the property which is thereby created, and which every one believes will be well able to recoup the country for every farthing that is advanced or paid. If the hon. gentleman can discover any analogy between these two cases, be succeeds in doing what I think very few Mr. BARKER.
members of this committee will feel able to do. We afe providing here, I think in the amplest manner, that the property which is being created by the use of this guarantee, shall be subject to the liability to repay the loan contracted under the guarantee. I am not saying that these resolutions contain all that a Bill will contain or ought to contain. I have not yet got down to framing the Bill in its entirety, or dealing with it. When that comes before parliament, if it seems wanting in any respect, it will be quite open to parliament to make good any omission in it. The hon. gentleman refers to clause 7. That seems to me to be plain and clear. The hon. gentleman discovers under that clause a possibility of the government throwing away a large portion of its claim. My hon. friend might just as well say that we ought to introduce a provision in the Bill to say that the members of the government shall not steal the whole of the bonds, and dispose of them for their private advantage. What just reason or cause is there for assuming that under a clause which is manifestly a proper clause, providing for the granting of running rights, a government could absolutely wipe out the security that is given, or any part of it ? My hon. friend ought not, it seems to me, to discuss the resolutions from any such point of view. He is not approaching this question with the usual judgment that he applies to the matters which he considers. I would like to know what other language could be employed in clause 7. We cannot put in this resolution the terms it might be necessary to impose. What would be equitable terms must depend altogether upon the circumstances at the moment. What would be equitable under one set of conditions might be inadequate under another. Ought there not to be somebody vested with the authority to grant these running powers ? And if the Governor in Council ought not to be vested with that authority, who ought ? Is it necessary that we should wait until parliament meets before giving to any other company the right to run over the lines of this railway, and get the sanction of parliament to the express terms on which that right is granted ? That is not done in any ordinary case. At present the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has power to decide on what terms one railway shall have running powers over another. Why is it necessary in this case to introduce suspicions which do not attach to ordinary cases ? If this government is not entitled to the confidence of the House sufficiently to enable it to determine what are equitable terms, it is not entitled to the confidence of the House at all. My hon. friend, of course, has not any confidence in us ; but his suggestion, I apprehend, is not made from that point of view. He would, I suppose, make the same criticism and expect the same advantage to be taken, ev*n if his own friends were in power.


Samuel Barker: Certainly. It is not the present government that is referred to here, but whatever government may be in power at the moment.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, whatever government commands the confidence of parliament must have that power. You cannot legislate in any other way. You must give somebody the authority to say what frill be equitable terms on which these rights may be exercised.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the minister would contend that it would be quite proper that the government of the day, whatever political party might be in power, could impair the terms of this guarantee in order to give running powers over this railway. That may be done under this clause.


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


Samuel Barker: It is quite possible. The government of the day may determine the equitable terms under which another company shall have running powers. They may alter the whole conditions, reduce the rate of interest, or do anything else they like in consideration of the company conceding certain running powers. I say that any arrangement of this kind ought to be made with the approval of parliament ; and further than that, I say that the government of thp. (inv olinnM Iiotta-*

 J [DOT]
-s wtmo alii lue iruiiiracTing party wliicU would impair in any way the security of the country under the contract originally entered into. I think that ought to be a part of the agreement. I do not say this with reference to the present government. I sincerely believe that this government is not going to be in power many years ; but whatever government is in power-when there is a Conservative government in power four or five years hence-it ought not to have the power to dicker with this railway company for running powTers on terms which would impair the security of the country. Suppose the country has to pay to bondholders .$1,000,000 in the next four or five years, what position do we stand in with reference to the interest on that advance ? There is not a word hinted at here with regard to that. It is simply an advance for the use and benefit of this company, without interest. so far as we know.


David Tisdale: There is one point in this connection which I think has not yet been mentioned. This is not likely to be the last case in which we are to be asked for a guarantee ; and therefore it is reasonable to ask the minister to consider this case very seriously. Then, we must not forgot that these securities will go into the hands of investors, and then it will be too late for us to change the arrangement, because these
investors will have got vested rights which we shall have to respect. So far as this parliament is concerned, this is a new style of security. Ordinarily, I grant, the minister's position is sound-we adopt a resolution, and put the responsibility on the government of carrying it out. No one contends that all the details should be in this resolution. As an opposition, our duty is to assist the government as well as criticise, and in a matter of this importance, which, if reports be true, we will be asked to implement by still another transaction before this session is over, we cannot take too many precautions. We are assuming an obligation of $11,000,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A little over $9,000,000.


David Tisdale: This resolution simply relegates the country to the position of a surety. If the surety pays a part of the debt, he is to that extent in the position of a bondholder. I do not think that the country ought to be satisfied with that. I think that the government ought to take some additional security, as for instance, a second mortgage from the company, and thus be empowered to act of their own violation and not have to go through the ordinary routine imposed on a bondholder. I think that, the bon. minister should endeavour to meet us half way and give us an opportunity to pass upon the contemplated contract before we are bound by it.

^STER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. There is no disposition on the part of myself or my colleagues not to profit by any suggestion which hon. gentlemen opposite may have to make, which would facilitate the carrying out of what we have in contemplation. But I do not feel free to give the committee any definite assurance that we will furnish the committee with the prepared documents-the mortgage and security and contract. In an important matter of this kind, it is very necessary that calm and careful thought be given to the working out of the proposition, and if we were to draft the documents "too hurriedly, there would be danger of error or oversight. I do not think that any interest will be served by hurrying this matter and adding it to the work at present before parliament. We lay down the conditions in our resolution, and in the Bill we will state any further conditions which we may think it well to submit to parliament, but we must ask parliament to allow us the time and opportunity to work them into shape in any agreement to be entered into between the company and the government. I do not think that it would be of advantage to the country and the undertaking, that we should depart from the rule in the present instance.


Mr. COCHRANE.: When was the rule laid down ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it was never laid down before, I am laying it down now. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is very much exercised concerning what would happen if the interest were not paid by the company and the government had to pay it. I would say to my hon. friend that the government would then be in a position to enforce the payment of that interest under its mortgage on the property. The government would be entitled to force a sale of the property or take it over. *


Samuel Barker: Do you propose to collect interest on your advances ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will come to that in a moment. That is the power we would have ordinarily under these resolutions. Well, it is a question which the government must take into their serious consideration what would be equitable and fair treatment of a new enterprise and one which, admittedly, it is in the public interest to encourage, aid and promote in every way. Now, how should we treat a company having in hand a laudable enterprise of such great public interest and importance ? What would the people of Canada justify the government in doing with them ? Would they justify the government, in the initial stages of the enterprise, when the road is hardly in full operation, coming down and demanding the pound of flesh and telling the company they must forfeit their property unless they could pay the interest at once ?


John Graham Haggart: But you intend to . take the power to do that if you like ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: That is the point.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no question about that. And the people who own this property and are making it subject to this mortgage realize that they will be in the hands of the government. Now, I am not going to suggest- nor do I believe-that the government would be warranted in pursuing their remedy in any other than a reasonable, moderate, thoughtful and deliberate way-give them time ; let them get their road in operation. We propose to have the right to know just what they are earning, how they are spending their money and what should properly come to the government from these proceeds. We propose to keep ourselves informed on these matters. We should deal- I am not now speaking for the government, for I know my colleagues have not considered this question-I am giving my individual, personal view, and I do not want to be understood as binding anybody else-we should deal with the company on the whole undertaking with a proper measure of consideration, after ascertaining what they have Mr. COCHRANE.
been able to do. If they have done all that they could reasonably be expected to do, the government should have leave to deal with them reasonably ; and I think parliament would sustain the government in dealing with them in a reasonable, lenient spirit.
Now, the question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) is whether we should impose interest upon that interest. I have not considered it ; I do not know whether any of my colleagues have considered it. But I would remind my hon. friend that we are departing from a policy which has been followed ever since before he entered public life. Formerly money was given to the railway companies ; we have given away absolutely almost untold millions, and with the full approbation of my hon. friend. Now, when the government is starting out with the intention of adopting a new system as respects this undertaking, my hon. friend has discovered that there might possibly be interest paid by this government for a short period, and he would insist that we shall collect interest upon that interest.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: He did not.


Samuel Barker: I merely wanted to know what the government intended to do about it. We want to know what the bargain is to be.


The MINISTER OF RAILAWYS AND CANALS.: I am glad to know that my hon. friend does not insist, because it seems to me that, having regard to all that has taken place in years past, it would be unwise, in dealing with a meritorious railway that is being constructed for the benefit of the great country that we have in the west, an enterprise that is doing its best to realize the hopes and expectations of the people in every way, to treat them in a niggardly manner.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I wish to say that no one on this side of the House talks in any such strain.


The MINISTER OF RAILAWYS AND CANALS.: No.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then, why does the hon. minister imagine that sort of thing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) would not do it, I know.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Nor any other gentleman on this side.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will acquit my hon. friend, and he ought to be satisfied with that.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I do not want to be acquitted by the hon. minister ; I am not on trial before him. I would not like to depend upon his mercy, if he thought he could wipe me out. I do not see any reason for so much talk about this matter. The question was asked simply whether the government

intended to put themselves in a position to collect interest on the interest, if it were found necessary to do so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I know that my hon. friend has a great aversion to talk. I hold his views and wishes in profound respect, and I do not wish to do any more talking than is necessary. Let me say, as he refuses to be acquitted, that I must convict him of wishing to treat this enterprise harshly.


Mr. LENNOX.: No one on this side, I am sure, has any desire to obstruct the resolutions proposed By the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). But I think we are bound to have reasonable information with regard to the bargain upon which we are about to enter. We are bound to know, in the first place, that the hon. minister who proposes the resolutions understands exactly the position he will occupy with regard to this railway company. It hardly seems to me, after following what the hon. gentleman said the other day, and endeavouring to follow what he said to-day, that the hon. minister himself has any clear conception of the bargain which he proposes that this country shall enter into with the railway company. The first essential is that the administration or department should know what they propose ; and the second essential is a consequence of the first-that when they know, they should make full disclosure to the House. Now, if hon. members of this House, having agreed to these resolutions, go to their constituents and are asked what is the bargain between the government and the railway company, I think there is not an hon. gentleman on either side of the House who would be able to tell definitely what the proposition was. It is not at all a question of confidence ; it is not a question of suspicion, as the hon. minister suggests ; it is a question of business principles to which we are directing the attention of the minister. It is a question whether the members of this House, they having but a delegated authority, shall further delegate that authority to the government, or shall determine the matter themselves as representatives of the people. Speaking for myself, I propose in every case, as far as I possibly can, to represent the people who sent me here, and to have a voice, so far as I can. in the affairs which concern them ; and not to delegate these matters to the decision of any other body. I believe it is the duty of this opposition, and it is the duty of hon. gentlemen who sit behind the ministry, to say that before we go any further we must know exactly what it is that is proposed. The hon. minister says : You must not have delay ; this will mean great delay, and the members of parliament, forsooth, will be sitting here idle until these documents are drawn up and laid upon the Table of the House. I propose nothing of the kind, Sir. I do not
propose, as a member of parliament, to sit idle and wait for this railway company, or any other railway company, to lay before this House the propositions they have to make in order to get assistance from this parliament. Whatever propositions they have to make should have been outlined in writing and should have been laid before the committee before now. So when you talk about delay, I say to the Minister of Railways that there should be no occasion for delay. These resolutions were introduced the other day, and it was then stated,
I understand, that the matter would be delayed for a few days in order that more information might be obtained. An hon. gentleman supporting the government suggested some of the information that we desired. None of that information is before the committee to-day. The Minister of Railways says that there is no similarity between the cases of the Canadian Pacific Railway and this railway. I admit that, to a large extent, he is right. In the one case we were supposed to be making a bargain by which we got in every instance dollar for dollar for our money ; and even then, when we were getting value for every dollar we invested, we had a bargain outlined and laid before parliament before we sanctioned the expenditure.


Mr. SCOTT.: Did we get it V


Haughton Lennox: Yes, my hon. friend got it. A member from the west should be the last man to raise the question whether we got value for building the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, my hon. friend got value. A member from the west should be the last to assail the contract that made the west. A good many hon. members supporting the present government, a good many members of the government, too. do not like to be reminded of the value received from the Canadian Pacific Railway-men who condemned the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if allowed their way, would have prevented its construction. Not one of those members in parliament to-day from the west and supporting the administration, would be here to have a voice in the affairs of the country. We did get value in opening up that country- In the development of that country we got value over and over again for the investments made. But when I contrast that bargain with the proposition before us today-without saying that we should not perhaps aid this railway to some extent-and the minister saying that the two cases are not similar, I agree with him. In this case the railway company asks for a favour at tbe hands of the government, a favour which should be granted of course if it is in the interest of the country. But before we make that grant, it is the duty of members on both sides to see that it is a fair business

transaction, and safe in the interests of Canada.
Now, let me say with regard to the general question of assisting railways that I am unalterably opposed to giving money or lands for the purpose ; and when resolutions of this nature are brought before us, I regard it as my paramount duty to see that we are not giving the railway a subsidy under the guise of guaranteeing its bonds. I want to have the proposition so elear.y lfiid before parliament that we shall know that in no event will this country hereafter be called upon to expend money on this or on any other railway. If a proposition can be brought before parliament so clear, and definite, and so safe-guarded ' as that we can give assistance by way of a guarantee without it costing the people an expenditure of money, then I am willing to assist. But I want the Minister of Railways and Canals to make his bargain so clear that we shall not have to take anything on trust, I want him to outline a fair business transaction, so that we shall know that, in voting for the resolutions, we are not voting for anythng that will involve an expenditure later on.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I do not think there will be any disagreement with the Minister of Railways with reference to so fair a proposition as the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) made, and the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) fell in with, that when we have fixed by Act the terms of the guarantee and the security upon which that guarantee shall be held, it is only fair that the Bill should contain a clause that these securities shall not be impaired except by the same authority that created them, that is this parliament.
I do not think that the power to impair would be a safe power to place in the hands of the government. Perhaps it might be a safe power to place in the hands of this government, but some Tory government might follow, and then there would be trouble. I think therefore .that if we create these securities by Act of parliament, the proposition made by the member for Hamilton, namely, that they should not be impaired or lessened except by consent of parliament, is eminently fair, and I think the Minister of Railways as a lawyer would agree to that. But there are many more important questions even than that. It is clear that we are here entering upon a new policy with reference to the building of railways. So far as I am concerned, I have been for some time meditating the introduction of a resolution for the purpose of discussing the question of bonuses to railways, and I am prepared to take a position perhaps different from that which I see advocated in some quarters. The only question I am concerned about is whether the policy propounded in the resolutions is the wisest policy that can be


Haughton Lennox: adopted. I undertake to say that when the Bill is brought down to parliament there are enough lawyers in this House to see that it contains every safeguard, both for the interest of the company and for the interest of the country. For I want to make a fail-bargain. I want the company that obtains our sanction to build a railway to have a fair mercantile chance to profit by it. I also want the interests of this country to be safeguarded, I want a fair and honourable bargain. I want it understood that in endorsing these resolutions we are not laying down a general statement of policy. In these resolutions, as I understand them, we are called upon to endorse a new policy, with reference to the building of railways, in general terms, but I am not bound to every proposition when the Bill is brought down. All I agree to is that if I vote for these resolutions I assent to the general lines of the policy, reserving to myself the right to object to every, de tail when we come to settle the clauses.
But, Mr. Chairman, there are many features that are far and away more important than the general question of whether we shall build railways by a direct gift of money or by a gift of land or by a guarantee of securities. The whole question of building railways in this country is one that we must discuss before the people. I undertake to say that the discussion that has been going on in some of the papers in Ontario for some time past completely misrepresents the public opinion of Canada. Why, some papers in Ontario say that the time has come when we should not bonus railways, when we should not lend the influence of the credit of Canada toward building railways. I say that doctrine is most narrow and unworthy of the people of Canada. We are just on the threshold of railway building in Canada. We have no railways in Canada. The country is almost as barren of them as it was upon the day when Jacques Cartier arrived, and I hope his spirit is not looking down upon the people of Canada to-day. I believe that if the French people had held Canada it would not have been so backward as it is to-day. There never was a greater heritage given to a people than that which has been given to the people of Canada and no people ever dealt with a great heritage in so unappreciative and miserable a manner as the people of Canada have done. I am bound to say that I think the people of Ontario are more responsible for the backward state of Canada than the people of any other province.
I say that kindly, because I am a true Canadian and I would vote for an improvement in the province of Ontario to-morrow with the sincerest friendship and with as much good-will as I would vote an improvement in the county of Colchester. But, I repeat, that the people of Ontario, have been a brake upon Canada, down to this time.

But, Sir, we will forgive the past. I believe that there is a uew breed of men growing up in the province of Ontario, who will help to carry Canada up to the great destiny which she should achieve in this century. I want the young men of this country to be impressed with the fact that we possess the better half of this continent. I am a geographical student of this country and if you give me twelve students, or twelve educated men accustomed to reasoning, accustomed to following the processes of logic to their conclusions, I will convince them from the physical geography of Canada that we possess the most dominant portion of the continent of America, and that if we play the game as men, we are destined to become the dominant, political and material power of this continent. We have a lot of men in this country who have been crippling public opinion, who have been crippling the ambition of the people, and I say that it is the duty of public men, instead of belittling the country, instead of crippling the great ambitions of the people, to stimulate them upon all occasions and to impress upon them that we possess the greater portion of the geographical surface of this continent, that we possess the greater lumbering interests, the greater water powers, the greater mineral resources of this continent and by far the greater agricultural resources and if we but be true to ourselves, we can in twenty-five years bid defiance to any power on this continent or anywhere else. But, in order to accomplish that high purpose we must plav the game of men and not the game of children. I said a minute ago that if Jacques Cartier came back here he would be ashamed of the progress that these six millions of people have made.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: What about the hon. member for Jacques Cartier- (Mr. Monk) ?
Mr. GOURLEY'. And our friend Champlain. I am a great admirer of those magnificent French explorers who came out to this country, and I am certain that if power-had not passed away from them we would have been much farther ahead in the race of progress than we are. I have said that Jacques Cartier would be surprised if he came back here to find that we had not made more progress. And I say more ; if the great Indian chiefs came back they would not have much respect for the white men of this country. They would say : We had a pathway-of course it was only a pathway- from the great lakes down to Montreal and the maritime provinces along the shores! of the lakes and River St. Lawrence. What more have we to-day than a railway, a mere white man's pathway down the lakes and down the St. Lawrence ? The whole country beyond the mere border of the St. Lawrence and the great lakes is as sileut and undeveloped as it was at the time when
the Indian chiefs travelled those- pathways. They had also a pathway from the lakes down the Ottawa river. We have the same. We have the Canadian Pacific Railway stretching up through the country, but as far as any development is concerned the country is about in as undeveloped a state as it was when the Indian chiefs sang then-war songs on the banks of the Ottawa. Look at the great inland sea up there-Hudson's bay. That is one of the greatest seas in the world and if you will study the geography of this country and the situation of that sea, you will observe that it is in the centre of this continent. It was placed there to modify the climate of this continent, the climate is modified by it, and it makes the 60th parallel of latitude no colder than the 45th parallel which passes through the province of Nova Scotia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. gentleman mean Hudson's bay ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Hudson's bay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought the hon. gentleman meant a Canadian sea.
Mr. GOURLEY'. It is a Canadian sea four times as big as the Mediterranean. People in Europe talk about the Baltic sea. Why, you could take the Baltic sea and drop it into Hudson's bay, and it would scarcely cause a ripple on the surface. In regard to the Mediterranean sea. and we remember that the Latin and Greek books were filled w-ith references to this historic sea, this middle sea of the world, Hudson's bay would make four or five Mediterranean seas. If we play the game correctly, we will find that Hudson's bay will be one of the greatest seas of commerce of this continent. However, some persons may say, perhaps, that this is an unwarrantable prediction. I say no. To the student who sits down and studies the geography of this country, this is no exaggeration ; this is a fact. But we have to play the game. We must build railways in spite of what the papers of Ontario say. Who on earth edits the papers of Ontario ?
I never could find out. They say that we must stop building railways. I submit that, the necessity for building railways is now greater than ever it was before, if we are to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that are lying before us and everywhere around. We have a country which is far larger than the United States. We have 18,000 miles of railway, and the people on the other side of the line have 200,000 miles of railway. Divide 18,000 into 200,000 and you will find that it gives almost the exact proportion that 6.000.000 bears to 70,000,000. Just in proportion as the United States built railways they gained population and power. We have contented ourselves in this country with building 18.000 miles of railway. Having

18.000	miles of railway and 0,000,000 of people, we must adopt the logical conclusion that if we had 200,000 miles of railway, we would have 70,000,000 of people i'n this country. If we are to have thirty or forty millions of people in this country in the next twenty-five or thirty years, we must have 50,000 or 100,000 miles of railway constructed during that time. If we want to take our proper place in the march of progress, and challenge the admiration of the world, we must play the game and build
50.000	miles Of railway in the next ten years.
I will give the House an object lesson. The United States between 1860 and 1865 went through a great war. They had very few railways compared with their immense territory, and they met enormous difficulties and cost in moving their armies. When the war was over the public men said : We must girdle this country by railways if we hope ever to be able to dominate it as a political entity, and what happened ? From 1870 to 1880 in ten years, they built 60,000 miles of railway. Therefore, when I ask the people of Canada to stand up and be men and build 50,000 miles, I am not asking that which is unreasonable or has not already been accomplished under more adverse circumstances. I am a great imperialist and admirer of the English race, but I limit my admiration to the race of forty or fifty years ago. They went on and dominated the earth, but there was a little breed that grew up in' England forty-years ago that almost threw away the whole achievements of the Saxon race. That little breed known as ' Little Englanders,' I exclude from my admiration ; but fortunately. to-day there is a more dominant breed growing up ; owing to the genius of Joseph Chamberlain and two or three other leading men, who are again infusing into the people of England the ancient spirit that in the elder years conquered and dominated and civilized the earth. But while England hesitated a moment, during these forty or fifty years, they are girding themselves again for greater achievements, and now I hope some day to see the flag of England floating over the entire globe.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Sixteen to one.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 
Seymour Eugene Gourley: the public men of Canada in a great measure for that, because if the public men of this country' had gone upon the platform, pointing out that we had the best half of this continent, telling the people to stand by the flag and not cringe before the United States, we would have attracted a large share of that money, and in some measure won the attention of the world. If the United States in reply had attempted to take our territory we bad three or four millions of men tiiat could have beaten them back at any' time if we had had the men to lead and inspire them. [DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But our leaders were craven, and if the leaders are craven the people will be craven. When Napoleon led the armies of France he chased the Germans and the Russians and the Austrians like sheep all over Europe. These same Germans who afterwards invaded Paris were scattered like autumn leaves by Napoleon, because Napoleon was a demi-god and he spoke to his men and he went up and down his lines before the battle and inspired Ins soldiers and they became demi-gods as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Splendid order. Mr. Chairman. That is the greatest compliment that could be paid me, because I have aroused the enthusiasm of the House. On one occasion Napoleon liad 60,000 Frenchmen whom he had deified by his own personality, and he said at ten in the morning :	' There are 150,000 Germans :
in the afternoon at six o'clock the whole lot of them were prisoners of war. But later on when France had no leader to inspire her people ; and when the Germans, Bismarck and YonMoltke, the whole circumstances changed. Therefore, I say that the people are just as big as their leaders, and the people of Canada unfortunately have not had national results in the true sense because they were without leaders who could arouse the national feeling of Canada. That has been the destruction of Canada. They had great leaders in the United States like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster who exalted the nation. I was out west one time in Illinois. It is a very level state, and has no hills higher than that table yonder. I was there on the 4tli of July and went to hear one of the 4th of July orators.


Mr. BENNETT.: What did lie say ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There was a little rise in the land, scarcely perceptible to a Nova Scotian, who is accustomed to beautiful hills and mountains, and that man described that hill as infinitely grander than the historic and renowned Alps, and the little brook 'that ran through his community rivalled in his mind the fabled Nile or the castellated Rhine. Sir, that is the teaching

that has helped the citizens of the United States to become great. Their leaders told them freely that they were the greatest people on earth and by and through the inspiration created by that teaching they achieved more than any other people, and 1 give them that credit, while detesting their very existence.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Now, gentlemen, you must get away from all this narrow and provincial feeling and imitate the people of the United States in that respect. We must believe and declare that Canada is the greatest country on earth. '


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We must recollect that by the new census-and that is the only thing we have to thank the Minister of Agriculture for-our territory according to the latest calculations of our geographical officers includes 3,745,574 square miles,while the United States, including Alaska, has
350,000	square miles less. We could put the United States into Canada and have a great province like Ontario and half of Quebec to spare. I was amazed the other day at the hon. member from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) underrating Canada ; if 1 had my way, a man like that would not sit in this parliament five minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I believe that in a British parliament there is a constitutional rule that a member ought to defend the interests of the empire, and in this House there is an implied rule that every word that is said should be in the interest of Canada. Whef! a member violates that rule he should be at once promptly expelled from the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If we did that two or three times we would not have men getting up here to belittle Canada. The hon. member from North Norfolk said that Canada was an annex of the United States, and that Ontario belonged to the Mississippi valley and things of that kind. I expected to see a dozen men from Ontario resent the insult, but apparently they have become so accustomed to insult that they passed over the matter without the slightest protest. So far as I am concerned if a man maligns Canada in this House, I will get up and stop him if I have to act alone. If that had been done for the last thirty or forty years the right hon. knight from Oxford would have been stopped on many occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There is a great national feeling growing up in Canada, that will not deal lightly with the public man who defames his country. We used to have
men in Nova Scotia who sometimes indulged in talk about annexation. They were few and far between and they never represented a particle of the sentiment of Nova Scotia, because the great body of our people were United Empire Loyalists, and we have no kindly recollections of the men who stripped our grandmothers and our grandfathers of every possession they bad and sent them down bare handed to the shores of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We would be unworthy descendents of a great race, did we not resent such treatment, and if ever I were to say a word in praise of the United States, I should expect my ancestors to leap up from their graves to avenge me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If that had always been the feeling in Canada, do you think we would be only 6,000,000 of people today. If we had had undaunted and dominant leaders, it would be to their eternal glory that Canada would now be far and beyond any other land on the face of God's earth. The public men of the United States were eternally vaunting their constitution ; this was a cruel misrepresentation, b'ut that did not deter them. In fact they have the most unworkable constitution on earth-a perfect jumble of tyrannies. If you asked me to say, what was the worst constitution in the world, I would say that it was either the tyranny of Algiers or the tyranny of the United States. An eminent man in the United States has recently declared that the constitution of that country is absolutely unworkable. It would have been found unworkable many years ago if any attention had been paid to it; but when the people were busily engaged in honest industry, they needed no government, for every man and woman governed themselves. But to-day, when they want a government, what have they got ? A Senate-a tyrant for six years; a House of Representatives- a tyrant for three years; a President-a tyrant for four years; and a Supreme Court, which bosses them all, eternally and for ever. The result is that a man who lives in the United States has four tyrants to deal with, whereas in Algiers you have only one, and if you get rid of him, you get rid of them all. Yet we had men in Canada willing to listen to these Yankees vaunting their constitution, when every man knows that the only constitution under which men are free to roam the world and win their way is the British constitution, and we have that constitution in the most perfect and refined form in Canada. Here the British race has the finest exemplification of British government in the whole world. We have improved on the English constitution as it is administered at the court of St. James. Yet for one hundred years we have permitted the

United States to claim that the only government on this continent, worth living under, is that of the stars and stripes. I am going to devote my time for the next few years to demonstrating that the only government that is worth living under is that of the old red-cross flag of England ; and I undertake to assert that the people of the United States will be the first to recognize the fact, because, having experienced the tyranny of their own government, they will be only too glad to get back under the old flag which they tossed aside 150 years ago, under the leadership of misguided and ruined men. If every man in Canada were inbued with a high natural spoix-it, in a short time this country would fill the eye of the world to the exclusion of the United States, and a vast population would be flowing into Canada. Then the building of 500 miles of railway would be the easiest task in the world. I desire to say to the people of Ontario that I hope they will stop talking about not subsidizing the building of railways. This is a new country, with only a few people in it. So far. the railways, are built only through those portions of the country that can yield them a revenue; they are built only along the rivers and in the settled portions of the country. The people of the United States felt that their country could not develop so long as its rear line was the Missouri river. They therefore said, we have to girdle this continent with railways, because otherwise we cannot expect to get population; and they built the railroads long before the population came. That is how the Englishmen lost their money. The railroads were built; the population did not come at once ; the railroads failed to pay in the first few years ; then the Goulds, the t anderbilts, and the Fisks got possession of these railroads, unforeclosure, and their fortunes were built up on that basis. What I am up for now, is to say to this government, and this parliament, that I am a railroad man ; I believe in the policy of building railroads rapidly, but what we want to do is to adapt the wisest method of accomplishing that purpose. The government must for many years be behind the railways. I am strongly in favour of the Trans-Canada; our railroads must be built much farther to the north; but how can we expect the capitalists to build these railroads without assistance from the government? Every one who studies the map of this country knows that neither the Grand Trunk nor the Canadian Pacific Railway can ever be of much value to us in the maritime provinces. They take the wheat from a country 500 or 600 miles to the north, carry it down to the lakes, and then proceed to carry it again to the north to Halifax or St. John, making the route a quarter longer than nature intended it to be. Therefore I am persuaded, from the study of the map, that these railways are Mr. GOURLEY.
too far south to yield us the greatest advantage due our geographical position. I do not say that they should not have been built. I admit that the southern routes were the only ones possible at the time. So eminent a man as Edward Blake, whom some on the other side of the House may still worship, though I think they are very foolish if they do, did Canada more injury than any other man of his time. He defamed Canada by endeavouring to make the people of England and the people of the United States believe, when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built, that we had a country of no value. We had the greatest difficulty, when we were offering immense sums to induce capitalists to build that railway to get them to undertake it because gentlemen on the other side of the House did not give the government of that day, the fair play which I am giving to the government at the present time, and which I hope every Liberal Conservative will give them. They did not hold up the hands of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper, the two most distinguished men that God ever gave to this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: God sent those men, as
he sent the great prophets of old to lead the people of this country to a high destiny. But when these men appeared, they were treated like John the Baptist in the wilderness, whom the priests and Rabbis went throughout the land and reviled and said, this man is preaching heresy, when in reality he was preaching those truths which, if they had accepted, would have given them eternal life. And if Sir Richard Cartwright and Edward Blake and the other men who led the Liberal party at that time, instead of imitating the Rabbis and the Jews, had aided Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper to develop Canada, as I am now trying to aid this government to settle up on the best policy, they would have been more worthy of honour. I have not a word to say against this enterprise. I want to see the Canadian Northern completed and the Grand Trunk Pacific built. I want to see three or four transcontinental railways built in the next three or four years. The country is ripe for them; and if we play our game well, there will be plenty of business to make every one of these transcontinental lines a paying concern. With reference to guaranteeing the bonds of the railway, 1 am not so sure, whether that is the wisest policy on the part of Canada or not. I am not so sure that the best policy is not to give a lump sum to the railway company and be done with it. I am with the government with reference to giving no land. I think that is a wise policy. If the government would adopt the policy of giving every alternate block away for homestead purposes, but reserving every other block to reimburse the

government for the cost of building the railway, in the case of every transcontinental line, they would not only provide for every financial risk the government might assume, but would throw large sums of money into the treasury of this country.
Look at the lands which the Canadian Pacific Railway have sold, and you will find an answer to those timorous, faint-hearted creatures who figure out millions of loss with their little pencils and predict all sorts of blue ruin wherever any great enterprise is projected in the interests of Canada. The experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway has shown how unfounded are these predictions. What you require is faith and confidence, and you will find that there is nothing in the way of railway building which you can undertake which will not pay for itself in from five to fifteen years. Whatever assistance the government intends to give, let them give it in cash. In my opinion a cash bonus would be best in the interests of the country. We should not allow ourselves to be carried away by the idea that the giving of $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 is something tremendous. What we should consider is whether the building of the railway is fairly justified, and once we have decided that it is, let us not be niggardly in our assistance. We will perhaps be asked to bonus the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Well I have no objection to bonusing the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway. I want our country developed, and it will pay to develop it ; because until railways are built there are large sections which must remain unproductive. When the United States built their
60,000	miles of railway, the whole world rushed out to that country. Placards were posted all over England, telling the English people to go to the United States and there they would be paid from $2 to $4 per day. When these people went out to the new world, they found these enormous railways under construction. In ten years the American republic spent nine billion pounds sterling, or $45,000,000,000 on railway construction, which it filled the country with gold, and the Irishman who said that he could pick up sovereigns in the streets of New York was not so wide of the mark. For to be able to earn from $3 to $4 per day was tantamount to the mind of the Irish labourer to picking up gold in the streets. The United States played a winning game. They started every emigrant in the world writing:	' Go to the United States,' and they borrowed English money and fooled the Englishman and got their railways for nothing. But I want Canada to be honest, I want the men who put their money into railways in this country to get a fair reward. Circumstances are different in that part of our country, which has not yet been pierced by railways, from what they are elsewhere, and we therefore should I
be generous in our treatment of pioneer railway builders. And should we give them the assistance we ought, we will be amply repaid ten or fifteen years hence. From Ottawa to the Hudson's bay, the distance is in the vicinity of 500 miles, and there is scarcely a mile of railway built in that direction, and because of that lack of railway facilities, our country is sneered at as a little fringe of territory along the St. Lawrence and the lakes down to the maritime provinces. Had this transcontinental railway been built ten or twenty years ago, as it should have been, there would to-day be a different story to tell. A railway makes its own market. When you build a railway, you find towns and villages and settlements of all kinds, springing up, along its route, population flow-in, and the enterprise a paying undertaking in a short time. You give a new value to the land which repays a hundredfold the money expended in the undertaking. I am instructed to urge on behalf of the maritime provinces the building of the Trans-Canada Railway. From every board of trade, chamber of commerce and town council, resolutions have been sent me, as no doubt they have been sent to other hon. members, asking me to urge on parliament the building of this line. I hope that every hon. member from the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces, irrespective of party, will give his support to this project. Let us build thet Trans-Canada Railway and thus secure to Canadian ports the great traffic of the Northwest. By our present railway system, we are bound to lose a large share of that traffic. You bring the wheat down to the lakes, and you find the ports of Duluth and Buffalo waiting with hungry mouths to seize it, and once they can get hold of it, nobody else will have any show. If that is satisfactory to the people of Ontario, it is not to the people of the maritime provinces. We want the Trans-Canada, which will run away north four hundred miles, and from which branch lines will be built to those other lines running to the Great Lakes. The Trans-Canada will come out at the Saguenay river, just in the direction of England, whereas these other lines go to the lakes and there the trade is diverted to American ports. Having its outlet on the River St. Lawrence, the Trans-Canada will be directly on the line towards Halifax and St. John, or Country Harbour, which my hon. friend from Guysborough desires to see developed into a great port. If he succeeds in doing so, I shall not be envious. Wbat I desire is that the traffic should be brought to the maritime provinces, and then let the best port win, whether that be Halifax, St. John or Truro, or any other. If the government would propose a general measure of subsidizing all these transcontinental railways, that would be a policy which would appeal for my support. Instead of this being the

time to cease bonusing railways, it is tlie very time when we should begin. AVe should make it our policy to build 50,000 miles In the next ten years. If we should undertake this, money would come pouring in from all over the world, and it would then be said of us, as it has been said of the United States, that you could pick up sovereigns in the streets. The adjoining republic would send us in its people by the hundred thousands. I have heard it said that they would not make good loyal British subjects, but let me tell you, Sir, that any man who has lived in the states any length of time and then comes to Canada,' could not possibly be persuaded to go back, the contrast is too attractive. You could not drive him out of Canada with hounds. Such people would become the best citizens of this country, and these little Englishmen, on the other side, who are predicting the contrary, had better hold their peace until they learn something and form correct opinions of Canada.
With reference to this proposed guarantee of bonds, I would prefer, since the policy of giving land grants has been abandoned, giving a cash subsidy. I am not concerned about a subsidy of ten or twenty million dollars. I had rather give Mackenzie & Mann their subsidy in cash and be done with it. They are business men and would make the enterprise pay much better than if it were in the hands of the government. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had been dealt with as we are proposing to deal with the Canadian Northern, it would not have become the commercial success it is. If we were to adopt the policy of assisting railway construction by cash bonuses, the hon. Finance Minister would not object. Every year our revenue is leaping up by $8,000,000, $10,000,000 and $15,000,000, owing to the wise policy inaugurated by the late Sir John Macdonald. That great man built the Intercolonial Railway when we only had a revenue of $12,000,000, and the Canadian Pacific Railway when our revenue was but $22,000,000. Hon. gentlemen seem timid and afraid to build a transcontinental railway even at this late date. - Why, in a few years we will have a revenue of $100,000,000. When we built the Canadian Pacific Railway we had but a revenue of $22,000,000, and to-day we have a revenue of $65,000,000, which shows that the increase of our revenue is in direct ratio to the increase in our railway building. Let my hon. friend the Finance Minister set some of the calculators in his department at work, and he will find that there is a mathematical progression in our revenue, in direct proportion, to the increase in railway construction. It must be evident to any one who gives impartial study to the facts, that whatever progress we have made, is due to the wise policy of the late Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper, who inaugurated the national policy
Mr. GO'JRLEY.
and the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was they who left us the magnificent heritage we enjoy to-day, and those hon. gentlemen who seek to have the credit of our present prosperity given to this government, remind me very much of the profligate and reckless heir who, having inherited a noble estate built up by a long line of virtuous and distinguished ancesters, would point to their pictures on the wall, and say : ' These are not the men who built up this heritage.' These fellows had nothing to do with it ; I am the one who alone made this magnificent heritage, and to me the whole credit is due.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we should have a general policy of railway building in this country. This is a new question, and I want the government to consider it. 1 was surprised when the hon. Minister of Railways, who is usually very logical, spoke so jauntily about adopting this new policy of his. He says that in former days we gave away millions to the railway companies, and that we should have taken mortgages on the railways for these millions. But, suppose such a mortgage had been proposed at the time when the m'oney was voted for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the opponents of the project would have said that it was bad enough to give away our millions, but that to take over such a mortgage would be eternal damnation. I am sure that Mr. Blake would have taken that view. And Sir Richard Cartwright, whose luminous mind I respect, when he devotes it to proper subjects of discussion, if it had been proposed to take a mortgage on the Canadian Pacific Railway for the twenty-five millions that was given them. I am persuaded would have wiped the dust of Canada from his feet for ever ; for he would have felt that Canada had better have been swallowed up in the waters under the earth. I say I am surprised that the hon. Minister of Railways treats his new policy in such a jaunty fashion. I am not certain but that the best policy is to make a lump sum of it, pay it out and be done with it-no mortgages, no securities, but let them go their way for "the guarantee may involve us in untold financial difficulties later. Take a good contract, a carefully drawn contract like that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and build the road, reserving the land. If this is done, I will undertake to say that in five years after the railway is completed, we shall sell enough land to pay the subsidy twice over and have millions of people coming into that country whose contributions will swell our national revenue and enable my hon. friend the Finance Minister, to come down in a few years -if he should be alive and well at that time-and announce that we have a surplus of forty or fifty millions for the year. If the government will subsidize the Trans-Canada, we in the maritime provinces will

feel that we are in a position to wish Mac-Ivenzie & Mann, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific God speed on their way.
I am for railways all over Canada. This is an imperial railway. With the Trans-Canada built, should we have a conflict for our territory, we would be able to maintain uninterrupted communication from end to end of our country, far from the border of the United States. I was speaking the other day with an eminent military man, and we were examining the map which the government has recently published. In passing I wish to thank those who have made that map. It is one of the greatest gifts to Canada. It lays our great country before us. Nobody knew what Canada . looked like until they had an opportunity to inspect this splendid-map. And I want the government to let me send thirty or forty copies of that map to the schools in Colchester, for it is. an education in itself. A copy of that map should be sent to every public school in Canada. It is the first map that has ever exhibited to us in its true light this enormous country of Canada. Why, my little boy when we looked at it, said : Pap, the United States are gone ; we are sitting on top of them. Well, that military officer said:	' Give me the trans-Canada
fully equipped and I will guarantee the safety of Canada. Let us build the trans-Canada five hundred miles away from the United States border, so that the British fleet on the Pacific and the British fleet on the St. Lawrence can give us supplies, and send them along that railway. Then, I care not if there were two millions of men against us, the campaign could be only a summer campaign, and we could retreat and retreat and play upon the invader the game that the Russians played upon the astute Napoleon. We could retreat-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes, the Boers have taught us that retreat is very often the prelude of victory.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never retreat.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Then, when the summer-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never retreat.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We could retire


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never retire.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We could retire as a strategical necessity-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never.
Mi-. GOURLEY. Let me put my point. We could retire as a


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never, never.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But, in the end, gentlemen, the snows of winter coming on, the invaders would be compelled to retreat. So,
from a maritime province point of view, that railway should be built, and built at once. Then from the general point of view, we should have a country opened up, five hundred miles in breadth, extending three thousand five hundred miles across the continent. The people would come in to possess the land and this country would spring from six millions of people to fifteen or twenty millions within ten or fifteen years.
If these railways now before parliament are to be subsidized, I urge, as a complement to these undertakings the subsidizing of the Trans-Canada. I speak in the interest of all Canada, for every one who knows me will acquit me of advancing any sectional interests or opinion. I would build a railway in British Columbia as soon as I would build one in the county of Colchester. I tell my people so when I address them. But the people of Ontario and flie people of British Columbia must be equally broad, and must agree to the building of the Trans-Canada, which will be the salvation of the maritime provinces. We can never have a great country unless we can bring our own products to our own ports to be shipped thence to the markets of the world. Is it not a disgrace to us that we have a trans-continental line which is building up Portland ? Every man in this parliament ought to be indicted for allowing such a state of affairs. If we had a proper national spirit in this country not one of us would escape punishment. To think of it-permitting a trans-continental railway that we have subsidized with enormous sums (for a great deal of the debt with which Ontario came into confederation represented money paid to the Grand Trunk, and we are bearing that burden to-day, but I do not complain of that)-permitting this transcontinental railway to build up a foreign port. I say we should give the Grand Trunk two or three years' notice to quit Portland. I do not want to do anything wrong or unfair. Vested rights must be respected, but we should not pay more respect to vested rights than we pay to the national rights of Canada. We should give the Grand Trunk three years' notice that they must leave Portland and establish their Atlantic terminals in Canada. If they could not sell out then-wharfs and other property except at a loss, let us compensate them ; for God's sake, get rid of the disgrace of a trans-continental railway of ours being permitted to build up a foreign port. I am amazed that this has not been debated in every hamlet in the country. But the people begin to understand. When I was at home not long ago. I was met on the street by Liberals and Tories alike who told me : Go back to Ottawa, for Heaven's sake, and put a stop to the Grand Trunk using Portland for ttteir terminus. That is the universal cry there.
' And I want to warn the Prime Minister that Liberals there are thinking for themselves. No longer can you call a man a


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I apologize ; I was only referring to that, because I see that a new arbitrator may be appointed. I desire to say that I hope a Canadian will be appointed that will die in the ditches, that will die in the trenches, before surrendering the rights of Canada ; and if Canada sacrifices this territory, God heip the government that permits the sacrifice, because we know our rights in Canada at the present time. Now, Sir, I have done. I wanted to say many other things. There is a subject I desire to introduce in a day or two with reference to building a few railways in the county of Colchester. We have got no railways there. At the same time, a very little money will give us all the railways we need. I am now advocating the interests of Quebec and the interests of western Canada, and when the trifling matters I refer to come up, I hope all hands will be raised to give us aid.


Some hon. MEMBERS: We will, we will.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I congratulate the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) on the able and eloquent speech that he has given to us this dav. I regret exceedingly that he has been rubbing into his friends on his own side of the Mr. GOURLEY.
House their ignorance and their narrowness. I join him in the suggestion to send these twelve enlightened young men from the county of Colchester to enlighten his friends opposite in geography, and to expand their minds as to what is necessary for the future progress of this country. I do not see why the young men of Colchester should want any maps to be sent to them, because I think they must be as enlightened already as his friends from Ontario on both sides of the House. Now, I think that Canada has made some progress, the province of Nova Scotia has made some progress. Time was when immigrants to Pictou had to come to Truro and carry their burdens on their backs when they wanted to put their seed into the ground. What do we see to-day ? Two pullman cars backwards and forwards every day from Halifax to Sydney, and a railroad to Windsor. There is scarcely an hour in the day or night but there is a train coming in or going out of Truro. The people of Nova Scotia built the road to Truro and Pictou before Sir John A. Macdonald had anything to do with the government of Nova Scotia. He says Sir John A. Macdonald was a great man. I do not want him to detract from the great men we have had in Nova Scotia, greater than any others that ever existed in the Dominion of Canada

Mr. GOURLEY'. I did not intend to.


William Ross: And they will be remembered by their writings and everything else when very little will be said about Sir John A. Macdonald, or Sir Charles Tupper either. Now, the hon. gentleman can go from Truro to Halifax in a pullman car, he can get his dinner in a dining car, ns fine a meal as he would in any hotel in Montreal. I do not thinly it is well to speak slightingly of the progress that has been made in the Dominion of Canada. I have lived long enough to admire the progress made in Canada, both in railways and canals, and I hope that progress will be continued in future-not by leaps and bounds, but gradually, wisely, little by little. That Is the way to grow, that is the way the most permanent progress will be made. When I was listening to the hon. gentleman, to his most eloquent speech, that has created the greatest sensation of any speech that I have heard in this House, and I have been a long time in it, 1 was thinking that our hon. friends opposite made a great mistake in the selection of their leader, that they ought to have selected the hon. member for Colchester as their leader-


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte).
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.)

in place
of my hon. friend from the city of Halifax (Mr. Borden). Perhaps they will correct that mistake when they meet again next session. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, because the sub-

ject of railways will come up again wlien the Minister of Railways submits his Bill. Then we will be able to discuss it and think it over in as enlightened and as logical a manner as we can. Of course, we do not expect to do so with that broadness of mind that characterizes my hon. friend from Colchester, we are not gifted that way. But perhaps when these young men come up here and give us a lesson or two, we may learn a little more than we know now, and be better able to discuss this subject in a proper manner.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would say to the committee now, after this diversion for about an hour, that I earnestly request them to get down to work and consider these resolutions.


John Graham Haggart: Before the resolutions are adopted, I want to know something more about the estimated cost. I had not the pleasure of being in the House when the Minister of Railways introduced the resolutions for the purpose of granting assistance to 620 miles of railway in the direction of Edmonton, and a branch railway to Prince Albert 100 miles further. I do not see in the ' Hansard ' that the Minister of Railways stated whether it was the intention of the government to assist this railway as a transcontinental line, or whether they intended to continue this line from Edmonton to the coast. It is generally considered to be a new transcontinental line from the Pacific to the head of Lake Superior, taking it in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, which they propose to assist in reaching that territory. The grant that the minister proposes to give would virtually build the road, because, according to the estimate of his own engineer, it would take about $17,000 per mile for one section and $18,000 per mile for the other section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Before we had the profiles and plans before us showing the exact quantities.


John Graham Haggart: Before he got the profiles and plans, one was $17,000 and the other nearly $18,000 per mile. That includes $3,000 per mile for rolling stock on each section, according to his engineer. We are virtually, then, giving to the company what would nearly build the road. I notice that there is nothing in the resolution-it may be supplemented, it is true, in the Bill-which requires from the company the placing of $3,000 worth of rolling stock on the road, which would be liable to the lien which the government proposes to place upon it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have that provided for.


John Graham Haggart: What is the policy of the government in aiding another railway to Prince Albert to the extent of $13,000 per mile ? You have one railway run-157
ning there already completed. You have an agreement with another railway company which obliges them to reach that same place within three years. They have built their line from Yorkton and the promise was given to the railway committee by the promoters of the road the other day that they would build to the extent of forty miles a year, which would oblige them, as they are now within 105 or 110 miles of Prince Albert


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are referring to the road running north and south.


John Graham Haggart: I am referring to the extension of the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway. It is at present, within 115 miles of Prince Albert and they intend to reach that place in 1906.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a distance of about 120 miles from the end of their present line to build.


John Graham Haggart: I understood from the statement in the committee the other day that they had put the rails on thirty-two miles of road last year, and that there was a contract made to have forty miles more graded and finished this year. That would bring them within 100 or 115 miles of Prince Albert. So, you have two roads going to Prince Albert, one of them finished and one of them to be completed in 1906, and you are supplementing this by a third road and giving nearly the whole price necessary to complete it to the same point. Prince Albert ought to be very well satisfied with the generosity of this and other governments in having three roads run to that particular place. I do not know whether the hon. minister explained the particular reasons that influenced the government in regard to the building of that particular branch, and I would like the hon. minister to state when the Bill comes down, the policy of the government in reference to this particular road as a whole. Surely the hon. minister does not intend to assist this company in building a road from Gilbert Plains to Edmonton unless he contemplates this being a transcontinental road. The hon. minister should also furnish us with a statement of the kind of property that the railway company at present own. that is ' all the lines and branch lines of railway of the company now in operation and all property and franchises connected therewith.' Surely the committee is entitled to a statement showing what the security will amount to. I notice, although it may be supplemented afterwards in the Bill, that the resolution does not propose to give any security on the rolling stock at all. It would be impossible to give any security on the road as already completed, because the company do not own the rolling stock. If I understand correctly the rolling stock belongs to another company which has loaned



it to the Canadian Northern and which receives a rental for the nse of it. I notice that the resolution carefully guards against any promise of giving any security upon that, showing that it has evidently, passed through the hands of the company's solicitor. I notice that there is no provision to meet the case of a default in payment. There is no provision, if there is a default in any of the payments against the whole of the amount of money becoming due. I think we should carefully guard against such a contingency. I remember a case of a railway in Nova Scotia which had received assistance from the government down there, in which it was maintained that default in the payment of any portion of the interest or principal did not deprive the railway company of its franchise or right of running the road until the whole of the aid had been given. There is a new phase in which it is said ' the government shall be subrogated in all the rights of the holders of the securities.' I do not know that the word ' in ' is a proper preposition to follow the word ' subrogated.' It may be a perfectly legal term and may be all right, but my information upon grammatical construction and the meaning of words suggests to me that it is all wrong. After the word * subrogated ' it should read ' to all the rights of the holders of the securities.' But, if it were ' to ' all the rights of the holders, it would not convey the rights of the holders of the securities over to the government. However, that is a technical point. What I want to impress upon the hon. minister is that if there is a default in any of the payments by the railway company on any of the securities, which securities perhaps had been taken over by the government or paid by the government, the government should be in a position to exercise the right of taking over the railway or exercising such control as they see fit and not be obliged to wait until the whole payment is due in reference to the matter. The whole policy of the government in reference to railways in the North-west and the assistance given to them ought to be fully stated. We have the right, on the introduction of a resolution like this, which must pledge an enormous sum of money for the building of 750 miles of railway and contemplates, as I should judge, a very large future obligation for the extension of the road to the Pacific, to have a full statement of the policy of the government. We should have a statement of the policy of the government as to the location of the line, where it approaches the Canadian Pacific Railway, how far distant it is from terminal points, the points which the line intends to pass, where the line is to be located in comparison with the proposed Grand Trunk Railway extension to the Pacific, and if the government have determined upon having two more continental lines we ought to know the location of these lines and the contracts they are entering into with the different Hon. Mr. HAGG.ART.
companies should be laid on the Table of the House. I have not the slightest doubt in the world that before this resolution was brought down to the House there was an agreement made with this company. It seems extraordinary that there should not have been some kind of an agreement with the company, upon which these resolutions are founded. Surely there must have -been some verbal communication at least. We are entitled to the fullest information in reference to all that, and when" the Bill is being considered the Minister of Railways and Canals must have that information to submit to the House, as well as the policy of the government in respect to the Grand Trunk Railway.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: I call the attention of the minister to clause 8 :
Resolved, that it shall be unlawful for the Canadian .Northern Railway to lease or sell any of its lines or any portion thereof to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or to amalgamate with the said company or enter into any agreement with the said company whereby rates upon freight or passengers shall be pooled ; bui this provision shall not extend to traffic or running arrangements made with the assent of the Governor in Council.
Why is that prohibition limited to amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific Railway ? I presume it is because the Canadian Pacific Railway is the only line in operation at the present time, but the Grand Trunk Pacific will undoubtedly receive a charter this session and the people of that country are desirous that this separate trunk line should not fall into the possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific any more than the Canadian Pacific Railway. This road has received aid from the Dominion government and from the provincial governments of Ontario and Manitoba, and I tliink this resolution should be amended so as to read that the line shall not amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other company that may be chartered in the future.


Mr. OLIVER.: Before the resolutions are adopted, I would ask the minister if it will be possible to introduce into the Bill when it comes before the House other important provisions not contained in the resolutions ? I want to ask particularly if it would be possible to introduce a resolution in regard to the acquirement of the road, in regard to the maximum rates and in regard to the date of completion ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) means simply to get my view as to whether it would be open to the committee to add to or take from the Bill or any clause of it when it is laid before the House, I answer him that it is quite open to do so. If his question is as to whether I would be in a position to approve of any proposal, of course I could not say that until I know what it is.


Frank Oliver: Without it being necessary for a motion to re-commit the Bill 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When the Bill is In committee, or on second reading.


Frank Oliver: Without requiring it to be sent back ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is just the same as any other Bill before parliament.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. I asked the Minister of Railways what induced the government to decide to subsidize, or virtually to give nearly enough money to build another branch to Prince Albert. My hon. friend (Mr. Roche) asked him why it was that this railway was only prohibited from amalgamating with the Canadian Pacific Railway and not with any other company. The Minister of Railways lias not deigned to give us a reply.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understood that my hon. friend was to bring up that matter when the Bill was brought up before the committee. 1 heard him state that over and over again.


John Graham Haggart: That is in reference to other matters.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite prepared to answer both questions as far as I can. My hon. friend asks why it is that these resolutions cover a grant in aid, or rather a proposed guarantee for a portion of what is called tlie Prince Albert branch. The hon. gentleman mentioned that there was provision already made by legislation for the building of the Manitoba and North-Western from a point north to Prince Albert and that there were therefore two lines of railways converging upon the one point.
afford to, and will sustain handsomely a railway along this route. If my memory serves me, the distance is something like 180 miles. It is proposed to aid to the extent of 100 miles east of Prince Albert. The company intend to build the other eighty miles, and this resolution contemplates that they should have the right to place a first mortgage for .$13,000 a mile upon the difference of mileage between the easterly point of the 100 miles and Erwood, and that the mortgage to the government will take its rank as a second mortgage to that, being on the same footing as the other securities.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Will that be $26,000 a mile altogether ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, no. The second mortgage will, as a matter of fact, be a $26,000 mortgage on that portion of the line; that is because we are taking a second mortgage, not because we are giving any more money. Let me repeat, condensing the statement I have made. These three lines of railway are all passing through different sections, serving different settlements. One of them is to the west of the Saskatchewan, and therefore will not serve the district to the east of it. The district to the east of the Saskatchewan will be served by the line which is under construction by the Canadian Pacific Railway,-and which I believe they are to have completed under their statutory arrangements in the course of three or four years. That line runs practically due north and south. The line from Erwood to Prince Albert runs practically east and west, serving the same district until it gets to within a short distance of Prince Albert.


Bennett Rosamond: Will the hon. gentleman say why he singles out the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


John Graham Haggart: I said there was one built and running into Prince Albert.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That would be three. One of these roads is on the western side of the Saskatchewan, and it would not serve the people who are settling south of Prince Albert and to the east of the Saskatchewan. This other running from Prince Albert east, and through the Carrot Valley, is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that there is a very large settlement and has been a very large settlement there for some years. That valley is a rich and fertile belt, and I am told on creditable authority that the people have been unable to get their grain out and that two or three years' accumulation of grain has been stacked in that district. The people are getting very disheartened and discouraged because they have been promised a railway and have not got it. There is no question at all, from the information we have been aide to gather, that that section of the country can well 157*
The MINISTER CfF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. My hon. friend has in his mind the idea that there will no doubt be chartered during the present session a railway called the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I apprehend that he is somewhat curious to know why we do not mention that road in this resolution. In the first place, there is no Grand Trunk Pacific actually there; there may never be. It would scarcely be worth our while to name a non-existing road, and say that the Canadian Northern should have no right to connect with that. But my hon. friend will say that it could be as well stated that this railway should not connect with any other main line. If that suggestion should be made by the hon. gentleman, I would say this, that we know of no other road that it would be so prejudicial to the public interest that this line should amalgamate with, as the Canadian Pacific, which, is the other great competitor serving that district. This will be, I think, a very great and very important line. We hear a good

deal and see in the newspapers a good deal about ah amalgamation or purchase of the Canadian Northern line by the Grand Trunk Pacific. Supposing that should take place, it would not, I think, be very prejudicial to the public interest-I am speaking my own view; but I think it would be a very serious thing if, by any combination which could be made, it became permissive to the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific to amalgamate and become one line. We know that the tendency of these great through lines is to acquire every other line within possible reaching distance. The tendency is to absorb everything in sight; so that if you have two competing powerful transcontinental'lines, you guarantee to the people a measure of competition, and give them an additional security which would be wanting if there was a combination of all the lines.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not understand that bon. gentleman's distinction-why he thinks it would be injurious to the public interest that this road should amalgamate will the Canadian Pacific, and why lie thinks it would not be injurious to the public interest that it should amalgamate with the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will tell the hon. gentleman what I have in my mind. We know that the Grand Trunk system is a great system. We know that it drains the older portions of Canada, at all events the province of Ontario, in almost every direction, and the province of Quebec in part, and I think there is a very general feeling that if there is any one railroad which in the interest of Canada should project itself into the western country and to the Pacific coast, it is the Grand Trunk; and I see no reason why, if that were to take place, another railroad should be built.* . The Canadian Northern would be the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we would have the two powerful railway corporations in competition for the protection of the public.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: According to that, we are helping to build the Grand Trunk Pacific with this bonus.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know. I am merely throwing that out as a possibility.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It appears to me that the minister should know. The premier laughs. Perhaps it may be funny to him, but it is a serious matter to the men who are paying the taxes, if we are aiding the Grand Trunk Pacific under the guise of aiding another railroad, when to my mind the minister has put it pretty plainly that it is going to be the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific. And I suppose that resolutions will be brought down to grant aid to


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: the Grand Trunk Pacific, although the Canadian Northern is now being aided as part of that line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said nothing of the kind.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then I do not know what he did say, or I must be very obtuse.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am bound to say that I think my hon. friend must be.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Perhaps I am, but I think I can see a nigger on that fence. I would like to ask the minister if he does not know, down deep in his heart, whether exactly that is not arranged now. I have heard a good deal from the premier about robbing the country to build railroads that would never pay the grease on the axles; and yet he has the audacity, if I may say so, when a gentleman in this House asks for information, to smile because he thinks his question is not pertinent. I think it is no smiling matter that I am asked to vote millions of money which the electors of my riding have to pay their proportion of, especially when we are called on to make such a new departure as to aid branch lines. I would like to ask the minister if that is not a new departure.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I hope my hon. friend will acquit me of any intention to be discourteous to him if I laughed,* because it was far from my intention. 1 laughed simply because of the fiery way in which my hon. friend objected to the answer given, which was not accepted by an hon. gentleman on the other side. The question was asked by the hon. member for Marquette why provision had been taken in this Bill to prevent the amalgamation of the Canadian Northern with the Canadian Pacific, and why a similar provision had not been made with regard to the projected Grand Trunk Pacific. The reason has been given by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. I am simply repeating the idea already conveyed to the committee. The Canadian Pacific Railway is already an entity; it is built and in operation. It must be evident that if the Canadian Northern Railway were to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the two were to come under the same management, the people of the North-west would lose the benefit of the competition, and therefore we insert this provision to prevent such an amalgamation. I do not understand that the wisdom of this provision is challenged by anybody opposite. I think my hon. friend admits its desirability, but he asks why a similar provision is not made with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ? For this reason, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is not an entity, it is a mere project in the air, which may or may not take place. What is important is that a rail-

way should be built, not only in that section of the country which this subsidy would cover, the valley of the Saskatchewan, but also that it should extend southward and eastward towards the tidal water. Then it is a matter of no consequence whether we have an extension to the sea by the Grand Trunk Railway alone as well as the existing line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or by an amalgamation of the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. It is only one railway which it is contemplated to subsidize-if it is to be subsidized-and one line to be put in operation. The two cases therefore cannot be put in the same category. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the wisdom of the provision is obvious, but there is no reason to apply the same treatment to the other projected railway which goes by the name of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Railways and the right hon. the Prime Minister is of the utmost possible importance. It seems remarkable that this announcement should have been made only incidentaly after two days discussion. Here is a clause providing that this railway shall not amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways, in very vague terms, attempted to draw some distinction between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the reason he gave, which has just been repeated by the right hon. gentleman, is that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is not an entity at xiresent, and we need not guard against it. But it will be an entity very soon, and it is obvious that some similar provision must be made either in this or in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway charter. My right hon. friend shakes his head. I would like to understand 1f it is undesirable to amalgamate the Canadian Northern Railway, with the Canadian Pacific Railway, what reason does my hon. friend give for amalgamating it with the Grand Trunk Railway or how in the public interest can it be right to amalgamate it with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The reason he Jias suggested is that that there is no entity to provide against and the danger is not existent. But if the intention of the promoter be carried out and if the intention of the government be proceeded with, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be an entity and the danger which these hon. gentlemen say will be caused by an amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific Railway will exist equally in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, except for another important announcement which the Minister of Railways made, and rvhicli is practically this, that the line which we are asked to subsidize


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I made no announcement.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) -is to be the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. If the hon. Minister of Railways did not make that announcement, I do not understand the English language. He made it as distinctly as he could. He said that there rvas no doubt that if this project went on, it would be the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for a transcontinental line. Apparently therefore the government are asking us to guarantee these bonds for a line which the hon. Minister of Railways said the other day stood alone by itself, which we are not to deal with in connection with a transcontinental line, and yet the intention in the mind of the hon. Minister of Railways and the government is that we are really doing this as part of a proposed transcontinental line, the charter for which is going through the House at present.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said nothing to warrant such a statement. What I did say was that I had seen in the newspaper press-as other hon. gentlemen have, no doubt-that there was some talk of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway coming to an understanding and combining their interests. That is a matter of common rumour, and I can only say that I am in no position to make any announcement that anything of the kind is either probable or possible, nor did I do so. If we were to express an opinion, I would say that it is neither possible nor probable, but it is stated in the press, and I was giving that rumour by way of explanation to show hon. gentlemen how impossible it would be, if a thing of that kind were to occur, for us to insist that it should not take place. I think it would be an eminently proper thing to happen, but it is not likely to happen and I did not announce that it was going to happen.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House in Committee of Supply.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
['Oh, yes, we can.\nSome resolutions reported.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I desire to invite the [DOT]attention of the committee to several items of urgency in the supplementary estimates for the current year, which the hon. leader of the opposition has been good enough to say that he would, so far as might be reasonable, co-operate with us in having passed. As hon. members are aware, we are approaching the

end of the fiscal year. Some of our appropriations are insufficient, and it is very desirable, while reserving the right of full discussion at later stages, that we should have the co-operation of hon. members on both sides in obtaining the passage of these urgent items, so that we may have a special supply Bill. The first item to which I invite the attention of the committee is the vote for the North-west Mounted Police. This is one of several items submitted to the House some weeks ago. I think it likely that hon. gentlemen have not a copy of that estimate, as it was on a single sheet. The amount is for the services in the Yukon, $150,000. My right hon. friend the premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will explain the circumstances.
North-west Mounted Police-amount required for services in the Yukon $150,000.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier).: I can give an explanation of the circumstances which would make it necessary for ns to ask for the amount of money here proposed, or if it would be more agreeable for hon. gentlemen to take up the main estimates for this service, page 08, items 190-191, I could give the explanation for the whole estimate, and then, the supplementary estimate for this year will, perhaps, come up more naturally. I will proceed in that way, or, if more agreeable, I will confine myself to the single item now proposed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps it would be better to confine the discussion for the present, to the item before the House, as the other has not been considered on this side.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Last year our expenditure in the Yukon Territory was, in round numbers, $199,000. The expenses for previous years are as follows :
1895- 6	$ 27,000
1896-	7	
22,0001897-	8	
495,0001898-	9	
890,0001899-	1900	
492,0001900-	1901	
498,0001901-	2	
499,000
We have been unable to confine our expenditure within * this appropriation this year. For the coming year, we shall ask an appropriation of $500,000. But, in order to balance accounts and make up arrears that have accumulated, we are obliged to ask this amount of money. The estimate for the current year was based upon a force of 250 men, but the force now in the Yukon numbers 300 men. About.eighteen months ago, we discovered a conspiracy which had its origin in Skagway-perhaps it was not serious, or it may have been serious ; at all events it existed-the outcome of which it was said, would be an attempt on the part of American desperados to take the country. AVe quietly sent into the country fifty more men. But, since then, we have


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: found it impossible to reduce the force to 250 men as we did before, but have been obliged to maintain the force at 300 men. The whole territory is patrolled at present and we have the 300 men distributed at thirty-five different posts. There are two main stations, one at Dawson and one at White Horse, and other stations are distributed all along the creeks, the river and the Dalton trail. The stations are as follows :
Dawson, Minto, Selkirk, Selwyn, Halfway, Stewart River, Ogilvy, Indian River, Forty Mile, Grand Forks, Sulphur, Dominon, Eureka, Gold Run, McQuestion, Hunker, Stewart River Crossing, Duncan Landing, Glacier, White Horse, Dalton Trail, Wells, White Pass, Summit, Cariboo, Upper Laberge, Livingston Creek, Hoota-linqua, Kynock. Braeburn, Montague, Tantalus, McKays, Takhini River.
The men are employed not only in police duty, but in many kinds of- service. They act as collectors of gold-dust in the collection of tlie royalty for the Gold Commissioner, they do service at the court-house, they accompany the bush rangers and wood inspectors, they serve as customs collectors and inland revenue collectors, and in many other capacities. Therefore, it is not extraordinary that we have found it indispensably necessary to keep that force. But it may be asked, what is the reason for this $150,000 which we feel bound to ask for. I may say that the men have to establish their own buildings and look after their own establishments. Some time ago the trails followed the sinuosities of the Yukon river from AA'liite Horse to Dawson. We have cut a trail now which is used summer and winter. The winter trail is used now also in summer time, but in winter time we use exclusively the winter trail. This new trail cost us $30,000. With these general explanations, let me give the details of this estimate of $150,000 : '
Pay of 50 men not provided for .. .. $ 27,000
Rations	 ,.	27,000
Uniform and clothing	 5,000
Transport and billeting	 15,000
Establishment of new posts	 30,000
Cost of murder case Labelle and Fournier	  12,000
Accounts of previous years caused by
emergency of providing	men .. ..	30,000
Total, say	$150,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these men supplied by tender or by ordinary purchase ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: All the supplies are provided by tender to the extent of 75 per cent. As to the remainder, they are supplied generally by the local firms or by the men boarding themselves. We may have at some stations only one man and at some others, two, three, four or five men. In these places, the men who can afford it, pay their board, or, if not, they are provided by local tradesmen. For the general provisions of the force, however, we have tenders for 75 per cent of the supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it contemplated to keep that same number of men continuously in the Yukon in tlie future ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, but we do not contemplate to increase the force for some time.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do these fifty-two men that are selected have to undergo any examination ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: First of all, they have to undergo a physical examination for constables, either at Ottawa or at some other post. They have to undergo also an examination as to their mental capacity.


Richard Blain: From what part of Canada were they selected ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The fifty that were selected and sent to the Yukon were drawn from the mounted police force at Regina. [DOT]
Annual drill, clothing and stores-further amount required, $100,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Militia, I think, had some conversation with hon. gentlemen opposite about this item. This is to pay for the camp which is being held this week, and the vote is very urgent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you come to require such a large sum beyond what you estimated for ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand this is owing to the change in the date of the camp. These camps are held about midsummer. If they are held immediately before or after the 1st of July, it makes quite a difference. There is a change of a few days in the date of holding the camp, and this money becomes necessary for the present fiscal year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year were the camps held in the present fiscal year ? It would be doubling it up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be possible there would be two camps within one fiscal year, yet only one camp in each season. I am not able to give at this moment any further information. My impression was that there would be no discussion over this item, because the Minister of Militia informed me that he had a conversation with some hon. gentlemen opposite, and he understood the matter would go through pro forma. If there is any serious objection, I must hold it over until the minister is present. I think the explanation 1 gave is the correct one.
Intercolonial Railway-steel rails and fastenings, $275,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Railways has occasion to be absent, but if it is necessary I will send for him.
In the meantime, I may say this is grouped with a number of other items, and I ask the committee to approve of this one. I would move that it be expressed in this form :
That a sum not exceeding $275,000 he granted to His Majesty on account of the item 285, steel rails and fastenings.
285 is the official number, though it is not the number as it appears in the printed volume, but it will be the number in the Supply Bill. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways informs me that this is necessary in order that they may pay for some rails which have been ordered, and are either delivered or are on the way. The item is almost 'wholly covered by one contract for 11,000 tons of steel rails purchased in England at the price of $22.25. That will take up nearly the whole sum, there is a small balance, which I presume the minister requires for some other account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To be delivered there or here ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid to answer that question, lest I may make a mistake. I imagine that would be free on board in England, but I would not like to be positive. I understand these rails were purchased by tender in England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that all the steel rails the minister has purchased lately ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not in a position to give the information that I should give. If he desires it, I will send for the minister. But there will be other opportunities, the same item will be discussed later on.
Item voted.
Rideau Hall, including grounds-renewals, Improvements. furniture and maintenance, &c., $12,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is one of several items the Minister of Public Works has desired me to ask the committee to approve. If hon. gentlemen opposite desire some information upon them, I will send for the minister, who is attending a committee in another part of the building.


Uriah Wilson: Is this an addition to the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, this is not for the coming year. The main estimates deal with the year beginning next July, these estimates deal with sums necessary to be expended in the current year, and which are now falling due, over and above the sums authorized last session. I will have to separate this item from the rest, as I did before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that he required these items to pay some employees.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a general vote, and will be largely for employees.


Uriah Wilson: Can he tell us the whole amount that was spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. These are proper questions, and if my hon. friend wishes for the information now, I will send for the Minister of Public Works.


Uriah Wilson: You can give us that a little later. I suppose the Minister of Public Works is attending a very important committee ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman will let these items 'go, 1 will guarantee there will be the fullest opportunity for discussing them at a later stage.
Ottawa public buildings repairs, material, furniture, &c., $36,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That also is a general vote, and I imagine includes largely moneys due for wages.
Working expenses and maintenance-lines on north shore of the St. Lawrence and cable ss. 'Tyrian'-additional amouat, $30,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for the telegraph service.


Uriah Wilson: Is it understood that these items may be discussed again ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can promise lion, gentlemen that if they are good enough to pass these items there will be no reservation whatever. They can discuss all of these items at a later stage.
Quarantine-organized districts and public health. $60,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the need of this
$00,000 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I require this supplementary vote this year for the purpose of guarding the frontier of the United States against incursions of small-pox. Last year and the year before there was a great deal of small-pox all over the continent. I am happy to say that the Dominion of Canada has apparently been free from it for some time, but in the United States there has been a good deal of this disease and requests have been made from the local authorities, municipalities and others, that we should guard the frontier against incursions of small-pox. Last year, when I made out my estimates for this current year, we hoped that smali-pox had disappeared and that we would not be required to continue the expenditure for this service. Unfortunately it has continued and at present it is perhaps as active as it was last year or the year before, and we have to continue this expenditure all along the frontier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


George Taylor: How much did the hou. gentleman ask for this service in the main estimates last year !


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One hundred and ten thousand dollars. This makes the vote $170,000.


George Taylor: Was that not big enough V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would have been enough if the epidemic had ceased, but unfortunately it continued. In the year before we had $170,000.
Mr. TAYLOR, What is the hon. gentleman asking for next year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One hundred and seventy thousand dollars.


George Taylor: Then, the hon. gentleman intends keeping on this army of doctors along the frontier who are practically doing nothing except drawing their salaries. Surely the small-pox has abated sufficiently to enable the hon. gentleman to drop this $170,000. If we>
grant this $00,000 to pay them for last year the hon. gentleman is' surely not going to keep on this staff of M.D.s, paying them large salaries for doing nothing. WTe can look at the Auditor General's Report and see the names of a great many doctors that we know in different localities who are doing nothing except drawing this money.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has misrepresented the facts, without knowledge, of course. The epidemic is still continuing in the United States. I am asking $170,000 for next year because of our experience this year. If I had asked for $170,000 this year I would not have been obliged to have asked for a supplementary vote. If the epidemic ceases and there is no need of the maintenance of the watch along the frontier, certainly, that watch will cease at once. But, if this condition of affairs continues as it lias continued for a year back, it would be necessary to keep up that watch. The hon. gentleman says that these doctors are doing nothing. That is not correct. Wherever doctors are appointed they are appointed because of the actual danger existing in the locality making it requisite that we should watch the frontier and guard against the incrusion of this disease. If the disease were to come in at any place through lack of watching on our part, we would be open to the gravest censure by the community into which (lie disease had been introduced. Wherever there has been an abatement of the disease the doctors are laid off. Sometimes they are laid off for several months and when there is an outbreak of the disease on the other side of the line, there is a reinstatement of these doctors.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many doctors has the hou. gentleman employed, where are they, and what are their duties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can give a list of them. Does the hon. gentleman wish me to read the list ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be well to have the list read.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the province of Nova Scotia : Yarmouth, Dr. A. .T. Fuller, $100 a month; Louisbourg, Dr. F. O'Neil, $100 a month; Canso, Dr. P. A. McGarry, $50 a month. In the province of New Brunswick :	McAdam Junction,


Is J.   T.@: Ryan, $100 a month. In the province of Ontario :	Thessalon, Dr. J.
Baxter. $100 a month; Bruce Mines, Dr. F. Parker, $100 a month; Port Arthur, Dr. G. W. Brown, $100 a month; Fort William, Dr. W. H. Hamilton, $100 a month; Owen Sound, Dr. J. A. Hershey, $100 a month; Sault Ste. Marie, Dr. R. J. Gibson, $100 a month: Sarnia, Dr. Wm. Logie, $100 a month, and Dr. E. Oliver, $10 a day for part of the time, and Dr. W. Henderson, $10 a day: Mr. W. Henderson, of Sarnia, $1.50 a day as guardian; Dr. A. A. McCrim-mon, Rainy River, $100 a month. In the province of Manitoba :	J. W. Caldwell.
Sprague. $2.50 a day, and part of the time $2 per day, as guardian; Dr. D. Henderson, Emmerson, $100 a month; Dr. F. D. Me-Keuty, Gretna, $100 per month; Dr. C. T. Sharpe, Morden, $100 per month, as guardian; F. R. Beatie, Morden, $2 per day; William Bottrell, Morden, $2 per day; J. S. Gilles, Morden, $2 per day; B. O. Hole. Morden, $2 per day; C. Wriger, Morden, $2 per day; Dr. G. Riddell, Crystal City, $100 per month: Wm. Maxwell, Crystal City, $2 per day, as guardian; Hy. Kittrick, Crystal City, $2 per day, as guardian; Jas. Sinker, Crystal City, $2 per day, as guardian; Thos. Robinson, Crystal City, $2 per day, as guardian. In the North-west Territories :	Dr.
D. R. Davies, North Portal, $100 per month: A. J. Valens, North Portal, $2 per day; Dr. T. A. M. Hughes, Coutts, $100 per month ; and a part of the time, $200 per month; Dr. W. G. V. Forbes. Macleod, $100 per month. In British Columbia :	Dr. R. H. Port,
Huntingdon, $100 per month; Dr. A. Kendall, Blaine, $100 per month; Jas. Harris. Blaine, $3 per day; Bion Smith, Blaine, $3 per day: J. MacDonald, Blaine, $3 per day: Harry Smith, Blaine, $3 per day; Naboth Allan, Blaine, $3 per day; Wm. Chantrell, Blaine, $3 per day; Neil Johnstone, Blaine, $3 per day; T. Forster, Blaine, $3 per dav; Thos. Harris, Blaine, $3 per day; Dr. J. E. Spankie, Greenwood, $100 per month; E. B. McMynn, Myers Creek, $2.50 per day; .T. S. Harrison, Midway, $2.50 per day; C. J. Kingsley, Sidley's, $2.50 per day; Dr. .T. Westwood, Grand Forks, $100 per month; J. K. Dunlop, Carson, $2.50 per day; Wm. J. Cook, Cascade, $2.50 per day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there any stationed at Sarnia or Windsor ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. We were informed that Detroit is
very well organized to combat the disease and there being no danger, there was no necessity for an appointment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do these officers perform their duties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They meet the trains generally on the American side and board the train and examine the passengers as they are coming into Canada. If they find a diseased person they stop him.


Richard Blain: Do they report to the department yearly or half yearly ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They give monthly reports.


Richard Blain: How many cases did they detect last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that they have not actually found a single case. The fact that they were there, prevented anybody having the disease from coming in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I personally attended one man that came across the line last winter who had it when he crossed the line. To say that diseased persons are prevented from coming in is to say what is not a fact. I am told that the work is performed so perfunctorily that dozens of cases might come across without ever being detected.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have had one or two cases reported to us as having come across the line. In some cases the municipalities have made a demand upon us, but when most of these cases were investigated it was found that the persons did not cross the line having the disease. I wonder that the case mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) was not brought to my attention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man came from Dakota, and I attended him myself and he told me he had the disease crossing the line and that it was apparent then as it was when I saw him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At what point did he enter Canada ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not have officers on every railway that enters Canada. We get reports from the United States officials as to the amount of small-pox in the different states and whether it is active or whether it has decreased. If in the judgment of the superintendent general of public health there is no danger there is no appointment made. If the local health officer or other local officers represent that there is danger and if their demand is founded on reason we make an appointment. The case mentioned by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) may have come across where there was no officer.


George Taylor: Who made the demand for a medical officer at Bruce Mines and what railway comes in there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no railway hut there are ships coming across the lake. I am informed that there is considerable traffic from Michigan to that port and that there is small-pox in the Michigan lumber camps. Dr. Parker was appointed at $100 per month.


George Taylor: Why is it necessary to have an officer at Thessalon ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For very much the same reason as at Bruce .Mines.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: We have the statement from the minister that no cases of small-pox have ..been detected by these officers. Those who live at places where these doctors are appointed look upon it more as being a political job than as being of any public utility. We have a large amount of money paid out to these officers who have not detected a single case of the disease and it seems to me that it is high time that these appointments should be cancelled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The disease has been imported several times without detection.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The doctor who formerly acted in the Owen Sound district, has left there during the past year, and the department has appointed Dr. Hershey. I wish to ask the minister on whose recommendation Dr. Hershey was appointed ? I know that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists owing to the fact that medical men who have had a great experience and who have been in the town for years have been overlooked, while a man who is practically a new comer has been appointed over their heads. A great deal of dissatisfaction exists, and there is no necessity for this official. I would like the minister to say who it was recommended Dr. Hershey for this position in Owen Sound?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say on whose recommendation Dr. Hershey was appointed. His predecessor was appointed on the recommendation of the late Dr. Horsey, but he went away not very long ago. I take for granted that Dr. Hershey was recommended by the Liberal candidate in the last election, or by some other leading Liberal in the constituency.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Then I understand that the appointment was made on the recommendation of the Liberal candidate in the late by-election ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that this appointment was made while the minister was away, and while I was acting for him. In that case, I am Hon. Mr. FISHER.
responsible for the appointment. I have no doubt I obtained the recommendation from one of my colleagues from Ontario in the administration, and 1 have no doubt that he received it in the way the hon. gentleman suggests. That is the usual way.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I would like to know how these officers are paid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One hundred dollars a month for the time their services are required.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: As you have not succeeded in detecting one case of contagious disease through these officials, what is the necessity of continuing the service ? It is not popular in the country and why the government should insist on making these appointments when no service is given to the people is more than I can understand.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work connected with the quarantine is all preventive. I appreciate fully what the hon. gentleman says about the people not appreciating the necessity of the service so long as no glaring case occurs ; but every now and then there is a case of disease entering the country and loss of life occurring, and a large expenditure of money being required to combat the disease. The whole quarantine system is for the purpose of preventing that, and if it succeeds in doing so, there is nothing to show actually the effect of the work except that there is the negative advantage of disease not coming into the country. We might dispense with the service in a certain county to-morrow, and in a few weeks we might have a case of disease entering that county. On the other hand, we might continue the service for a year and have no case of disease coming in. But the quarantine system is acknowledged in the country, it has been in existence for many years, and the people have demanded over and over again that they be protected from the incursion of disease. I may say that before this system of quarantine against the incursions of small-pox from the United States was adopted, there were representations by the dozen from the municipalities and individuals, protesting against the exposure of certain localities to that incursion of infectious diseases from the United States. It was in consequence of these representations that the system was adopted, and it has been carried on in the same way ever since. It is well understood by the local health authorities that we are doing this work, and occasionally representations come to us from particular places, setting forth their danger and requesting us to make an appointment. As a rule, our officers examine the condition of affairs, and if there appears to be danger, the representations of the local authorities are carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Tlie lion, minister says tliat if the disease is found on the American side, an officer is always appointed to prevent it coming in. I am credibly informed that a case of small-pox came into Collingwood from Dakota, where the disease had been in existence for a year or two back. Another case came from Wisconsin. At different times different cases have been brought over in the last few years to my certain knowledge, and not a single one has been detected by these medical health officers. It seems to me that though they are appointed to receive a salary, they do not do the work very effectively, or these cases would not be imported. X could understand a case not being detected when the disease has not developed ; but in these cases the disease was developed when the men crossed the line, and was as apparent then as it was afterwards when it was brought to the attention of the medical men ; and yet they passed in without any interference whatever.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman says he knows these cases of his own knowledge, and I accept his statement. Then that individual must have passed through a place where there was no physician watching the trains. I cannot believe that if one of these physicians was watching the train, a case of that kind could pass without detection. I stated a few minutes ago that the provincial health authorities in many instances made demands for this protection. I have just been informed that within the past two weeks we have had urgent representations from the provincial'health authorities of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, that we should not cease this protection on the frontier against infectious diseases coming in from the United States, and I may say that only to-day a statement was made to me that in the state of Montana, south of the boundary line of Alberta, there is a great deal of this perambulatory small-pox going about.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the officer at Colling wood board every boat that comes in V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It happens that we have no officer at Collingwood.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I may say that the service of these officers at lake ports is not at all satisfactory. Boats come in like the Canadian Pacific Railway liners, carrying 200 or 300 passengers. The doctor may be at his practice or anywhere else when a boat comes in, and by the time he reaches the wharf, if he reaches it at all. a great many of the passengers have left.
I do not think there is a satisfactory inspection. We have not been free from smallpox in Owen Sound, and yet not a single case of infectious disease has been detected by these officers. As nothing has been done
by them, I think it would be well to dispense with their services. I do not think this service is of any advantage to the town of Owen Sound, and the present appointment is very unpopular.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will certainly try to find out, and if the provincial health authorities and the local health authorities consider it quite safe to dispense with the service in Owen Sound, I will be happy to do so. I have given strict instructions that whenever possible the services of any of these physicians should be immediately dispensed with. In reply to the hon. member for East Grey, the duty of these physicians is to board every train and boat and examine the passengers. If a passenger comes from what is called an infected district in the United States, and has not been recently vaccinated, it is the duty of the physician to vaccinate him. If a passenger does not come from an infected district and shows no signs of the disease, he is allowed to pass, but if he shows any sign he is detained.


George Taylor: Is there an officer at Niagara ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


George Taylor: Why ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because in New York state and Buffalo and that neighbourhood, there is a very thoroughly organized system of combating the disease and keeping it under control.


George Taylor: Why has the hon. gentleman an officer at Chippewa, a few miles above Niagara Falls, where they cross in row boats ? It is evident that physicians are only employed who have political pull. At Kingston, Gananoque, Brockville, and Prescott, whicli have a ferry service, there,are no officers, but at Chippewa, and Cornwall, where the people cross in boats, there are officers. At important points such as Niagara Falls and Kingston, where we have railways and ferries crossing every hour of the day, there are no officers; but at Thessalon and Bruce Mines, Beaver Mills, Cedar Springs and other places, where there is practically no traffic, we find an officer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the state of New York there is a very efficient health organization which looks after the disease, but in Northern Michigan, from wljich point people come to Thessalon and Bruce mines, there is no such organization and a great deal of disease, and consequently much more danger of its being carried to Cana da from there than from New York. At Chippewa there was an officer a very short time in consequence of the fact that there was an outbreak of small-pox in Buffalo or somewhere in that neighbourhood, which occasioned momentary alarm.


George Taylor: At Chippewa, Mr. Grey drew a salary of $493.35 last year.


John Dowsley Reid: Where a physician is engaged permanently by the year, is he allowed to continue in general practice'?
I was surprised when the hon. member for Grey told us that this doctor was probably attending to his other practice. I remember when the Conservatives were in power, that there were strong arguments put up against Dr. Hickey practising in Morris-burgh while he was superintending tlie canal. He was compelled, owing to the opposition put up in the House by the opponents of the government, to discontinue his practice. I see that the doctor at Beaver Mills received twelve months salary and in addition he inspected four vessels for which he made an additional charge of $4 per vessel. If this gentleman was appointed permanently, I would like to know why he charges for inspecting these vessels ? Are these men who are thus bonused to be allowed to practice in opposition to other physicians in the same town. Where is Beaver Mills ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Somewhere in the neighbourhood of Rainy river. I do not know how this doctor came to charge a fee.


John Dowsley Reid: On page D-97 of the Auditor General's Report, Doctor A. A. MeCrimmon is down for salary from May 30th, 1901, to .Tune 30th, 1902, at $100-$1,-306.45 ; inspecting four vessels at $4 ; vaccine tubes, 300 at six cents-$1,340.45.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot explain the fee. He had no right to charge any fee, if he worked at $100 per month. The hon. gentleman asked if these physicians are allowed to practice. They are, provided they do the work which they are instructed to do, namely, meet every train and boat and examine the passengers.


George Taylor: Where is Mine Centre located ?


Mr. DYMENT.: It is fifty or sixty miles above Fort Francis on Rainy lake. Beaver Hill is near the mouth of the Rainy river where the Canadian Northern Railway crosses from Minnesota.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no post office there ?


Albert Edward Dyment: Yes, the Rainy river post office.	[DOT]


George Taylor: Who is the doctor at Mine Centre 1 There is a Mine Centre on the Canadian Pacific Railway between the ' Soo ' and Sudbury.


Albert Edward Dyment: I do not think that there is any station called Mine Centre on the Canadian Pacific Railway at all, certainly not between the Soo and Sudbury.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 


Richard Blain: Is there any regulation in the department which will cause these gentlemen to refrain from attending to their ordinary practice every day


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister lay on the Table one of the monthly reports sent in by these officers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can lay that on the Table another day.


Richard Blain: Has not the hon. minister one of his reports now, with his officer there ? I am particular about one from Owen Sound.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I have not one at hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does seem to me that this is almost a burlesque in quarantine. The minister says the medical man Is expected to attend every boat, but that he can continue his practice if he does that'! Suppose a medical mail is away in the country several miles distant attending to his practice. As often happens, he is detained away all day. The boats are coming in at the regular hours. How is it possible for him to attend these boats ? Or, say, he does attend the boats, what then ? Take the case of Owen Sound. The boat comes iu with perhaps three or four hundred passengers. If you stand beside the gangway you see these people coming off as quickly as they can rush. The medical officer does not board the vessel before it comes to the dock. The passengers may 'come from Sault Ste. Marie, or Port Arthur, or any of these other ports. So far as I know7, no examination is made of them and it would be impossible for a medical man to make even the most cursory examination of the passengers who get off these boats in the short time at his disposal. I can readily understand how cases come in w7itli smallpox actually developed on their persons and there is no knowledge of it until it comes under the attention of some medical man throughout the country. This has happened more than once, and more than twice, to my own knowledge within the last two years. And, I was going to say, that in every case they have passed where there was a medical quarantine officer standing. I do not know that I should be correct in saying that. But certainly there are cases in which the officers have allowed persons infected with small-pox to come in. The officers are paid so much salary, but I frankly confess that, in most cases, they do very little for it.
Mr. MeCREARY. So far as Manitoba is concerned, in my opinion, the men who are there looking after the quarantine earn their money and earn it w*ell. I believe that had it not been for the quarantine we have on the boundary there would have

been almost an epidemic of small-pox in Manitoba last year. As it is, a number of cases have come across. Some from Sprague, on the Canadian Northern, were held up in the cars at St. Boniface two days before they were taken to the quarantine hospital. Others come in by Gretna, Deloraine and Emerson. I believe that not only are these officials required, but extra officials are required along the boundary line. In fact, the officers could not do the work were it not for the assistance supplied by the mounted police. There is another point concerning which I desire information, either now or when the other items relating to the service are under discussion. In the Committee on Immigration the other day it came out that there had been brought into this country over 300 immigrants suffering from trachoma, and favus, two diseases that are considered contagious and dangerous by the American officials, so much so that the American officials refuse admission to immigrants infected with these diseases. It came out in the committee, in the minister's absence, that these people had passed the officials at Halifax and Quebec and gone on to Winnipeg, and from there had attempted to get into the United States. The United States officials, seeing the danger of immigrants coming through the port of Quebec and Halifax and getting into the United States across the northern boundary into Dakota, have stationed no less than fifteen officials, I believe, along the boundary line, to prevent immigrants from Canada going into the United States. As a consequence, in the month of April or March they deported or refused admission to about 380 people. These people were brought back to Winnipeg and are now in that city. I would like to know if the minister is going to bring down in his estimates an appropriation to look after these people infected with these contagious diseases. They are living in the north end of the citv, in crowded houses. I think it will be the duty of the minister to help the city of Winnipeg to look after these people, or else provide a train and deport them to Europe. The expense of caring for them or deporting them should not fall upon the city of Winnipeg.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to point out that there is a difference between what are known as quarantinable diseases and other diseases commonly called contagious. The disease the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) men- ' tioned, trachoma, has not been held to be a quarantinable disease in any country where quarantine laws are in force. The stopping of these people from entering the United States is not affected by action of quarantine officers in that country, but by the action of the immigration officers. In the same way, in this country, at Halifax, St. John and other places, my colleague, ,the Minister of the Interior, directs a certain examination of immigrants from the immigration bureau standpoint. But that has nothing to do with the quarantine service, which defends the country from certain diseases called quarantinable diseases.


Mr. McCREARY.: The quarantine department has nothing to do with immigrants coming in with trachoma ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Every ship must be passed under examination by quarantine officers for quarantine diseases. Trachoma is not one ot these diseases. My officers in Quebec, St. John or Halifax would not stop any passenger who had trachoma. The immigration officers would stop an immigrant who had trachoma, but they would not stop a first-class passenger if that passenger happened to be suffering from the disease. Now, if people affected with this disease have come into Canada, that is something over which the quarantine department has no control. We have no power under our Act, no authority from parliament, to deal with these people. We could not seize them or stop them. But the immigration authorities, under an Act which was passed last session or the session before, has authority to stop them and deal with them. In reply to the observations of the hon. gentleman opposite,
I would point out that, in the United States, on the 1st of June, there were over 2fi,000 cases of small-pox, and of these no less than 19,000 were in cities contiguous to Canada. The North-west has been referred to. In Minnesota there were 3,553; in Wisconsin, 1,313; in Michigan, 633; in Ohio, 4,390. These figures show that, along the frontier of Manitoba and the lakes, there is a very great prevalence of this disease. I could at once dismiss all these officers and allow the passage of people freely across the boundary. But my department has received the most urgent aud persistent representations from the provincial health boards, the local municipal health boards and officers of various corporations along the frontier on this question. If I were to dismiss all these officers, I should raise a storm of indignation throughout the Dominion of which hon. members, I believe, have no conception, which no minister, government or parliament could ignore, and which they would hardly care to face. The people of the country are desirous of being protected from disease, they are anxious about it, nobody can blame them for it; and we have to take the steps that are necessary, in the opinion of the best medical authorities and the best health officials that we can find, to protect people from the incursion of disease. It is possible that we do not do enough, it is possible we might have an officer on every line of communication from the Atlantic to the Pacific which crosses the American boundary; it is possible we might stop every individual and have him carefully examined before he is allowed

to cross our line. But we have also to take into consideration the necessities of travel, the convenience of travellers and people who are passing across; and we have tried as much as possible to harmonize the safety of the people with the convenience of travellers. That has been our sole aim in the administration of this work. I can assure my hon. friends opposite that not only myself but my officers have in every case dispensed with the services of physicians just, as soon as it seemed to be possible in the interest of the locality that we were watching.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then we ought to have a return showing the number of cases that were either quarantined or turned back at the line. Because if the aim of the minister be to keep out disease-and he has read the number of eases in Ohio, and the number in Michigan, the number in Minnesota-I would like to ask him how it is that there is no quarantine officer stationed at Sarnia, none stationed at Windsor, none stationed at Niagara Falls, while there are officers stationed at small places where not one passenger crosses for every hundred passing at these places that I have named. Now, if there is danger of disease being imported, it will be greater according to the increased number of people who come across, and yet where the people cross iu the largest numbers we have no medical health officers stationed and no work being done. Does it not appear on the face of it to be a burlesque ? The minister says he has urgent demands from the people that this should be done.
I have no doubt of that, the desire of the people is to prevent the importation of disease. But what we complain of is that when we are paying money for this purpose we do not get beneficial results from it. We do not complain of the expense, if disease was kept out of the country, but we know for a fact that from time time it is allowed to come in by the officers who are paid the people's money to keep it out, and then the municipalities are put to great expense to stamp it out. Take the case I referred to, twenty or twenty-five cases of small-pox developing from that one case. Yet that case crossed from Michigan, the officer failed to detect it, and it is only discovered by medical men in the locality away in in the interior of the country, more than a couple of hundred miles from the frontier. Yet that patient says he was infected when he came from Dakota, the disease was out on him when he crossed' the line, and it was then that he should have been inspected by a medical man. Take the immigration department as well. The minister says that trachoma is not a quarantinable disease. We have been told from time to time by the Minister of Agriculture, iu whose department immigration is maintained


The MINISTER OF AGRICULT ORE.: Immigration is under the Minister of the Interior.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Agriculture appoints the quarantine officials. Now, would you not think it natural that a quarantine officer who inspects incoming immigrants would report to the immigration officer the^ number of those immigrants who were infected with trachoma and some of those diseases that are contagious ? [DOT]These cases are allowed to come in iu hundreds, whereas on the American side they are all turned back, as I am informed. I saw a report from an American inspector, who said that a very large number were refused admittance to the United States on account of disease, and were allowed to come in and roam through Canada as they liked. Now, when we are paying money for this purpose we complain that not enough care is exercised to prevent the importation of disease. If these medical men were doing their duty, if the government were compelling them to do it in such a way as to satisfy the people that disease could not be imported unless in exceptional circumstances, for instance, where the infection had occurred but the disease had not developed-I say unless a disease was imported under these conditions, it ought to be prevented. It is because It is not ascertained, because it is not prevented, and because we find it is imported notwithstanding this large amount of money paid out, that we object to the working of the system and ask for a better system. On the other hand, there is no medical mau in the world but will tell you how utterly impossible it is to go to a boat with 400 passengers and inspect them as they are rushing off the gangways as these have done. It is no use sending a medical man on board a boat after it has entered the port and expect him to make an inspection under these circumstances. It may sometimes take place, but I have seen over and over again that these passengers come off in dozens and hundreds, and no medical man in the world could examine them so as to know whether many of them were infected. It is because the department is playing this farce of a quarantine that we object to paying out money without getting the results to which we are entitled.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Would the hon. gentleman who has just spoken tell us when it was these men were allowed to come into Canada over the American boundary ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They came in both in summer and winter. One came in about four months ago, and the other two years ago, the last two that came under my notice.


William Roche: Was it before or after the regulation was made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After the regulation was made, and during the time these men were earning the salary that Is paid them.


Mr. KENDALL.: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he knows to what stage small-pox had developed In the case to which he referred that came across the boundary ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I told the Minister of Agriculture that my information from the patient himself was that the small-pox was developed to the full extent at the time he came across the border, and during all the time he was on the train. He came through Minnesota into Canada.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: No doubt the hon. gentleman knows very Well that in some cases of small-pox you might have a full development, and yet it would not be apparent enough for any medical man to detect unless he made a very accurate examination to tell whether it was small-pox or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that to be a fact, but what I say is that this man had the pustules developed over his face, head and hands and those portions of his body that were plainly visible to inspection in the event of any medical health officer having inspected him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Could the hon. gentleman tell me where the man came from in the United States ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think he came from Dakota.	v


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By what route ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot tell as I did not inquire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is quite true that we have not got an officer at every route coming in. It is possible at any time that a case may come across from the United States where there is no officer. Until we have an officer at every route we cannot absolutely protect the frontier. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is complaining that we are spending too much money and he says that we ought to reduce our expenditure in this respect.


George Taylor: Because it is useless.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Then, I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) to say that we ought not to protect tlie frontier and that we ought not to have these officers along the frontier to prevent the introduction of this disease ?


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman ought to have officers at the important points such as Niagara Falls, Kingston, Sarnia and at points where railways and ferries cross. In place of that the hon. gentleman has officers away up at Beaver Mills, Mine Centre. Bruce Mines. Chippewa. Owen Sound. Tliessalon and all those places where
there is not one person crossing for every thousand that crosses at the points I have named. Therefore I say it is a fraud and a farce to throw away the money of the country in the way it has been done. We have no protection at all. It is simply giving a sop to some of the hon. gentleman's Political supporters who claim that a certain doctor is a good political agent like the hon. gentleman w!ho sits beside him (Mr. Dyment) w'ho has one at Beaver Mills, and one at Mine Centre drawing $100 a month and who are, no doubt, political canvassers in that large country. There is not one person who goes into those parts of the country for every 10,000 who cross at Niagara Falls, or Sarnia, where there is no officer to protect the frontier. What a farce it is !


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend says perfectly truly that there are thousands crossing at Niagara halls and Sarnia for every one crossing at other places, but at the same time my hon. friend chooses for his own purposes to ignore absolutely that in the State of New York and around Detroit and opposite Sarnia and Windsor there are complete and effective organizations on the part of the United States to control and manage that disease.


George Taylor: Then why appoint a man at Chippewa.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was for a short time a flurry of excitement. for which reason an officer was appointed.


George Taylor: Why at Cornwall ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the same way there was a little flurry of excitement and when there is a flurry of excitement it is necessary to allay public alarm and meet the views of the authorities. In the case of Michigan and Minnesota, from which states people come to Thes-snlon, Bruce Mines and Beaver Mills, there is no effective control of the disease by the United States authorities and therefore we have to take precautions that we do not have to take in watching the passage of people from places like the State of New York and in the neighbourhood of Niagara and Buffalo where such a complete control is exercised as it is also exercised in the neighbourhood of Detroit.


George Taylor: Why are Windsor and Sarnia neglected ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because opposite Windsor and Sarnia there is a complete organization.


George Taylor: In Michigan ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE Yes, in that part of Michigan there is an organization. But in the northern lumber woods of Michigan from which people come to Bruce Mines and Tliessalon there is no

organization. There is no use in the hon. gentleman undertaking to misrepresent the state of affairs.


George Taylor: The Auditor General's Report represents it fairly and I take my information from it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not denying one fact in connection with the Auditor General's Report, but I am stating the grounds upon which we make these appointments.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: How do these people get to Bruce Mines without going to the Soo where the hon. minister has a medical officer ?


George Taylor: There are two of them at the Soo.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What is the necessity of having one at Bruce Mines ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that there are vessels that come across from Michigan to Bruce Mines which do not go to the Soo at all.


Albert Edward Dyment: Boats on their up trip go to the Soo and then cross over to Mackinaw and then cross to Bruce Mines which is the first port they call at on the Canadian side after leaving Michigan.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What line of boats ?


Albert Edward Dyment: The Northern Navigation Company's boats sailing from Colling-wood.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The remarks made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) may apply to the country which he represents west of Port Arthur but they do not apply to the portion of country from [DOT]which I come. Why should there be a medical officer appointed at Owen Sound unless for political purposes ? The railways running into Owen Sound do not come from any American port ? It is no part of the duty of the medical officer to attend the incoming trains and pass the people who get off those trains. The only duty he can perform is to visit the boats which may touch at American ports. Now, there are two lines of boats that run to Owen Sound- the Northern Navigation Co. and the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers. You have an officer at Fort William, one at Port Arthur and one at the Soo, and there is no necessity for one at Owen Sound. The boats only touch at the Soo, Port Aruur and Owen Sound. They do not go to Mackinaw or any other port. The only line of boats to which this may apply is the one to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Dyment) has referred, the Mackinaw excursion boats. If it is necessary to have an officer at Owen Sound then is it not equally


Sydney Arthur Fisher: necessary to have one at Collingwood ? Collingwood has no medical officer, nor Midland, nor any of those points, where those boats touch. There is no doubt this appointment in Owen Sound is purely a political one. and if all the officers are appointed with the same amount of wisdom as the one appointed at Owen Sound I think the money of the country is simply being wasted in this service. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he would kindly bring down one of those monthly reports ?
The MINISTER, OF AGRICULTURE. I have not one under my hand at present, but I will bring one down.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman has in the main estimates an item, No. 5Sr:
Salaries and contingencies of organized districts and public health in other districts, $170,222.
That he is asking for this year. When that item comes up, I hope the hon. gentleman will have the monthly reports of all these officers and be able to give us full information. He asked for $110,000 last year, and now toe comes down with a supplementary estimate of $60,000 making the expenditure $170,000 for the present year. We have had a very large amount of this money wasted and I hope the bon. gentleman will be prepared, if we allow this item to go through, to bring down the information when the main estimate is taken up. We must have the names of the men and the work they do.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have given the names.


George Taylor: Yes, but we want the monthly reports of the work they do, so that we may know if they are doing something for their money.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister should carry out the policy he advocated when he was in opposition, and that is that these physicians who receive $100 per month should not be allowed to compete in active practice with other medical men in the locality. That was the principle that the Conservative government went on, and even the present government has appointed a physician in Kingston and prevented him to do private practice. I would like the minister to give me an assurance that these men will not be allowed to continue in active practice, because in addition to its being unfair to other doctors, they may be absent attending patients when these vessels and trains arrive and so neglect their duty to the Dominion. In my constituency there is a boat crossing every day bringing carloads of immigrants, and there is no one to inspect them. Indeed it would be impossible to inspect them here as elsewhere, because the moment the boat arrives they are put upon the waiting train and started off for their destination. But the strange

thing about this whole thing is that while throughout all Ontario, from Glengarry to Port Arthur, we spent $9,677 on this service, $8,166, or nearly the whole of it, was spent in the constituency of Algoma. We need not wonder at the anxiety of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment). who sits behind the minister, trying to get this item through.


Mr. VROOMAN.: When we realize the good that may be done by this service, we should not stop to consider the expense of it. I do not know to what extent this service has been abused for political purposes, but I can easily conceive that even under the most careful scrutiny of a medical man, a case of the disease may come into Canada. If the appointees of this government do not scrutinize the ports of entry very closely, their services had better be dispensed with, because in order to perform their duty with any measure of success they must exercise the greatest care. The explanation of the minister as to the methods employed by these medical officers have not been satisfactory to me. We are not instructed as to whether the trains are held up until the medical officer makes his inspection, and we know that if a train is allowed to stop at a station people get on and get off, and those affected with smallpox may not come under the scrutiny of the medical officer at all. If a case of smallpox is well developed any medical officer can easily detect it, and in that way the service is important and useful, but even under the closest scrutiny certain types of the disease may escape detection. We know that in the frontier towns of the United States there have been numerous cases of small-pox, and if I were assured that these medical officers carefully discharged their duties, I would be more reconciled to this vote. I would not attempt to discourage the service, but X fear there is ground for the complaints made by hon. members on this side of the House that the service has been abused for political purposes.


Mr. MORIN.: It appears to me that the government is taking great care of the United States people, while they are neglecting their own people in the interior of the country. From Cornwall to Uake Superior there are large stretches of water which make it difficult for disease to come into Canada in that territory, and yet all this money is spent there while from Cornwall to the Ste. Croix river, where the- international boundary is on land, the government take no precautions at all. In the county of Dorchester which I have the honour to represent, there were some cases of small-pox last year, and the municipal council passed a resolution preventing people from going within four miles of where the disease existed. This shows what precautions we take in the county of Dorchester, but it would appear that the Min158
ister of Agriculture thinks that it is only necessary to protect the constituency of Algoma, in which he has spent all this money. At St. Johns, Quebec, where many railroads centre and where the people from Montreal and Quebec cross to the New England States, and vice versa, there is no precaution taken, whatever, by the government. Can the minister explain that '?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can explain that very easily. In the first place we are not taking care of the people of the United States, but we are trying to protect the people of Canada by keeping out disease which may come from the United States. The Dominion government has nothing to do with the interior of the country, because that is looked after by the provincial or local health authorities, and our duty is only to protect the frontier. There has been no physician appointed at St. John, Quebec. The reason is that the provincial health authorities have expressed to us their entire satisfaction with the condition of affairs, saying that they have no fear of the introduction of disease along the Quebec frontier. We do not know of any disease in the state of New Hampshire or the state of New York, the state health authorities having it so well under control. We do not appoint these officers anywhere unless there appears to be danger; we do not appoint them unless the local or provincial health authorities have made a demand for their appointment; and we appoint them only after an examination by the medical officers of the department to assure themselves that the fear on the part of our own people seems to be reasonably well founded. The hon. member for South Grenville (Mr. Reid) has asked me to assure him that we will not allow physicians occupying this position to carry on their own practice. I do not think I can give him that assurance. If I were to do so, it would be with the utmost difficulty that I could get medical men to accept these positions. The salary given would be no temptation to them. Even as it is, we have great difficulty in many places in getting doctors. If we were to forbid them engaging in any private practice, we would cut out all the physicians along the frontier who are now in office, because they could not afford to give up their ordinary practice for the purpose of getting a temporary appointment lasting perhaps a few months, though in some instances a year, at $100 a month. The hon. gentleman is a physician, and he knows perfectly well that that salary would not tempt any physician of decent standing to give up his practice and take such an appointment. We would have to fall back entirely upon young physicians who have just passed their examinations. The result would be that we could not get officers to do the work. Therefore, I cannot give the assurance the hon. gentleman desires. But while these officers are allowed to carry on



their private practice, they are not allowed to do it in such a way as to interfere with their duties as officers of the department.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Do not let my hon. friend misunderstand me. There is no one of these appointments for the year.


John Dowsley Reid: But some of them are engaged for twelve months.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They might be dismissed at any time.


John Dowsley Reid: If it is understood that they are for the year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not understood in any case.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the hon. gentleman not asking a grant for the whole year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not asking a grant to pay for the whole yeai\ I am basing my estimates on the expenditures of the last two years; but there are comparatively few of these officers who were on for the whole year. I cannot say how many, but certainly less than half. The amount I am asking would not pay them the whole year round.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that. For instance, this man at Beaver Mills is in active practice. I ask that he and the man at Mine Centre and the man at Sault Ste. Marie be asked to discontinue active practice, or else that the appointments be given to physicians who will take them and give up active practice. I think that is not unfair. I only ask that in places where you are paying the officers for twelve months service, and I ask it in justice to the other physicians of the different localities.


Albert Edward Dyment: The hon. gentleman has particularly mentioned the doctor of Sault Ste. Marie. I am told that he was wanted for that position by almost everybody in Sault Ste. Marie, irrespective of politics. His practice is worth to him at least $5,000 Hen. Mr. FISHER.
a year, if he devoted all his time to it, so that it could hardly be expected that he would give that up to accept $100 a month for an indefinite period, or even for a full year.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman says I mentioned Sault Ste. Marie in particular. He knows I did not. I mentioned every case where a physician is appointed for twelve months. The hon. gentleman knows that the first place I referred to was Beaver Mills. Perhaps he can tell us whether there is another physician at that point ?


Albert Edward Dyment: I do not think there is.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, why not let another physician go in there and do this work 1 I would say the same of Mine Centre. That rule has been followed on both sides of the House, and I think it is only just to the physicians practising in the different localities. If this man at Sault Ste. Marie does not wish to give up his practice, there are just as good men to do the work. Will the hon. member say that if this man is doing a practice of $5,000 a year, he can attend to this work every day ? It would be impossible for him to attend every train and every boat at Sault Ste. Marie. I appeal to the minister to protect the physicians practising in these different localities. He knows that if he sends out and asks for applications for these positions, he will have a thousand applications inside of two weeks from men who will accept them. I appeal on behalf of the interest of these physicians practising in these localities, that the department should insist on these men discontinuing their active practice or else give up their government appointment.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman would be quite right if this were a permanent position, but it would be difficult to get any good men to settle down in these places on a monthly salary with the possibility of their service's being discontinued at any moment. The hon. gentleman says that the practice lie lays down is well understood. I was not aware of that. I can refer him to the port of Halifax where the port physician, under one of my predecessors, carried on his regular practice and drew a salary from the government besides.


John Dowsley Reid: What was his salary ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: $1,800 per year.
air. REID (Grenville). When the hon. gentleman states that he could not get a physician to go out to Beaver Mills with the possibility of being employed only a few months in the year, let me tell him that if he will leave the matter to me, I will get a physician

 .


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Would you go V


John Dowsley Reid: No, but I would get a better man than myself to take the position at $100 per month with the risk of being only employed some months.


George Taylor: Would the hon. gentleman explain what Dr. B.' Gibson's duties are and how he attends to them ?


Albert Edward Dyment: He meets all the trains coming from Michigan. They of course have regular stated times for coming in, within a few minutes every day, and he can arrange his engagements so as to be at the stations when they come.


George Taylor: What about the boats, are they included ?


Albert Edward Dyment: One year there was an assistant to Mr. Gibson to meet the boats. I do not know whether there is one this year. This man spends practically the "whole of his time at the docks looking after the boats.


Uriah Wilson: I would ask the hon. minister whether these inspectors stop people who are infected with trachoma and favus ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, they are not quarantined.


Uriah Wilson: I think that it is time the government took an active part in preventing people infected with these diseases from entering this country. They are not adi mitted to the United States. Forty per cent of the immigrants at Winnipeg, en route to the United States who applied to the American Board of Inspection of the United States were rejected. Two thousand of them at Montreal, destined for the United States were rejected last year who applied for permits to go into the United States were also rejected. Such people are undesirable citizens and we should not allow them to be dumped on us. If they are not fit to be citizens of the United States, they should not be allowed to remain in this country, but be deported altogether. I presume, however, that this discussion will come up better on the item of immigration and I hope that the Minister of the Interior will be here soon.


Richard Blain: I notice an item of $720 for an inspector at Fort William, and the same amount for an inspector at Port Arthur. These two towns are within a mile or two of each other and are connected by a street railway system. Furthermore, on the line of railway which runs through that section, there is not a train which does not touch both towrns. Nor is there a boat that touches Port Arthur which does not go to Fort William as well. Why is it necessary to keep an inspector at each of those places?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are boats from the United States, some of which go to Port Arthur and others 158J
to Fort William, and each of these ports has to be guarded. There is a large number of people continually crossing from the lumber woods on the south shore to the lake and going to work in the lumber woods on the north shore. In the lumber woods in Michig'an and the south shore of Lake Superior, there is a considerable amount of this disease, and it is desirous to guard against it being brought into our country.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. minister say that there is a line of vessels which runs to Port Arthur and does not call at Fort William ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A number of vessels go to Fort William which do not go to Port Arthur.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is evident that smallpox is imported from northern Michigan into Ontario. In the lumber woods of Ontario it has broken out from time to time. Last year away around Sudbury it prevailed most of the year. Almost every month of the year it can be found there. The fact that it is imported from Michigan to that extent shows how imperfectly this work is done. We are not complaining of the act in trying to keep up the quarantine, but we complain about paying out money and getting no benefit in return. If it were necessary to cite any particular case to show that the work is not properly done, the one cited by the hon. member for Algoma might be mentioned. You employ a man by the year at $100 per month, and according to the hon. member for Algoma he has a practice which gives him $5,000 per year. Well, everybody knows that a man with a practice of that kind has all his time taken up and cannot possibly attend to government business. He may be detained in a house hours at a time and therefore cannot possibly fulfil his duty as quarantine officer.


Albert Edward Dyment: I can assure the hon. member for East Grey that the doctor I referred to does attend to his duty, and if he were to leave it, I firmly believe, protest would come from members of his own party rather than friends of my own. His practice is altogether a city practice, and ns these trains come in with great regularity, it is quite possible for him to make arrangements to meet those trains and then attend to his other cases. I know that he has the confidence of the whole town of Sault St. Marie, irrespective of politics. I am sure that my Conservative friends there would be the first to ask to have him retained if the proposal were made to dispense with his services.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not saying a word about the professional ability of the medical man. He may be the best in the world, or he may be the worst. But to say that the medical man who is employed to the

extent spoken of in every day practice can be available to attend trains when they arrive, is to say what to medical men will be manifestly absurd. You do not have sickness when you can attend to it most conveniently; it comes every day and every hour. The medical man may be detained for hours at a time, and he cannot leave a patient just when he pleases.
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says he has no objection to the work if it is done effectively, but that he knows that it is not done effectively. I will not give him any statement of mine, but I may give him a few facts upon which he can form his own opinion. The Ontario provincial authorities have to pay the expense where there are outbreaks of small-pox in the unorganized districts, but the municipal authorities have to pay the expenses of an outbreak in an organized municipality. These people take the ground, and I believe properly, that where they can prove that an outbreak of disease is the result of importation of the disease from across the line, they can make us pay for it. In the last three years, during which this work has been carried on, a demand has been made upon this government for the payment of these expenses in only two cases where those mjaking the demand could establish their complaint. In one case the outbreak was due to a man who crossed the ice on foot above Sault Ste. Marie. It was shown that he had small-pox upon him when he crossed. He escaped the _ vigilance of our officers, but in a way against which it would be practically impossible, in my opinion, to guard. In the other case, a passenger came across at Sault Ste. Marie and got as far as Sudbury. He concealed himself on the train and was not seen until the conductor came across him on the train at Sudbury. In these two cases we had to pay the expenses. If there had been other cases to which the hon. gentleman referred, I have no doubt but that the provincial authorities and the municipal authorities, who are in charge of these matters, would have placed the responsibility upon my department and demanded payment. This rule is true for Manitoba, the Territories, British Columbia and every other province. Yet, these two cases are the only two in which it has been shown that the affected people came from across the line and escaped the vigilance of our officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have given the hon. minister two cases, and in both these cases the municipalities paid the cost of stamping it out.
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. I do not think they could make a good case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is probable that some of these parties do not know that the Do-Mr. SPROULE.
minion can be held responsible. Or, it may be, that they do not care to take the trouble to collect the money. Rather than engage in a troublesome and expensive lawsuit the municipality bears the expense.
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. There is no lawsuit about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think I remember a case that was presented from Winnipeg a few years ago. And, after a great deal of work, the result was that the city got nothing, and the cost, borne by the city, amounted to about $2,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know the case to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refers. But I believe there was a case in which the government did pay. There was no law case about it. The representations were made to the government, the case was made out and the government paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the case I speak of the government refused to pay. I remember the case, because I was one who went to the government on behalf of the city of Winnipeg, and the government declined to be held responsible, because the immigrants were inspected by their quarantine officer, though the disease developed among them in Winnipeg.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: Will the hon. minister say how much the supervision of these eases cost the department ?
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. I am informed that the cost amounted to about $700 or $750. I have not-the exact figures.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. minister has not made it clear on what principle he bases the payment to these officers who keep the small-pox; from coming in from Michigan. It appears that we have medical officers in Port Arthur and Port William, about a mile apart, and others at various points along the North Shore, while there are none at Sarnia and Windsor. The hon. minister says that the authorities in Detroit are well organized. But surely there are other people coming into Sarnia and Windsor besides those coming from Detroit. Men from all parts of the state of Michigan may come in at Sarnia or Windsor just as they come across at Sault Ste. Marie.
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. At Detroit there is a well organized system, but for the northern part of Michigan, where the lumber camps are, there is not.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Why cannot these people from northern Michigan come across at Windsor or Sarnia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They would be stopped by the officials in the southern part of Michigan.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are there people engaged In watching the people of the northern part of Michigan to prevent them from coming into Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The organization is of a municipal character. They would not allow the people with the disease upon them to enter their municipality.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: But how is that carried out ? They cannot stop ,a train coming in from the northern part of Michigan and inspect it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say what precautions they take, but the report is that they watch the disease, and that report is of such a character as to satisfy my principal officer that there is no danger there.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been wondering if this is not a provincial matter. The provincial government have their board of health and they have a provincial health officer. Why does the Dominion government look after these interior ports ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What interior ports ?


John Dowsley Reid: Owen Sound and others in the province' of Ontario. I can understand the quarantining of ports into which immigrants come from European countries, but I do not see why this other work in the interior is not done by the provincial authorities.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That question was submitted to the Department of Justice before we undertook this work, and we were told that we are responsible for the frontier between the United States and Canada just as much as we are for the sea-board.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Does this government have anything to do with supplying of the vaccine ? Have they got a farm where they develop vaccine ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have no vaccine farm. There has been some discussion as to the advisability of the government undertaking the manufacture of vaccine, but we have not yet undertaken it.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-contingencies-further amount required, $1,000.


George Taylor: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: At the end of the fiscal year, 1902, the sum of $878 was carried forward and paid out of the appropriation for the current year. In order to square up the accounts this amount is required to be voted.
Ocean and river service-further amount required for Dominion steamers, $30,000.


Mr. MONK.: Will the hon. gentleman explain that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The appropriation for 1902-3 was 5225,000. That includes the cost of sending a crew to Scotland to bring out the new steamer and repairing damage done to the ' Lady Laurier ' by heavy storm on the ocean. The appropriation was found inadequate, owing to the large expenditure in connection with the Dominion steamers running between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The amount required for the maintenance of all the steamers was $240,569, so that the amount voted was insufficient. The expenditure for the current year is estimated to be $255,000 in all, this will make an extra amount of $5,000 over the estimate of the fiscal year 1903-4. Owing to the damage done to the steamers while caught in the ice during the winter, both steamers have been put on the marine slip. The ' Minto ' had to have her propeller blades renewed, and the ' Stanley ' had also to be placed on the slip to be partially rerivetted on the bottom. This work will necessitate a large expenditure, in addition to this the indentations will be taken out of the sides of the ' Stanley ' and intermediate frames put in to reinforce the plating.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not clearly understand why we have to pay this further amount of $25,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The amount voted was $225,000, instead of $255,000, which has been expended.


George Taylor: Last year the minister said that $225,000 would be sufficient. What is wrong in his estimate ? Why this over expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not make that estimate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister knows he is responsible for it. The statement was made last year that the sum which we voted would be sufficient to carry us through to the end of this current year. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give us some details of the purposes for which this extra sum is required.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman's predecessor asked us for an amount that he could run the business for. But there has been a change in the head of the department, and the hon. gentleman has probably been extravagant in spending this $30,000 more than was voted, and hence this ur-gehcy now. Had his predecessor remained in office, I do not think he would have required this extra amount.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I suppose if my predecessor had remained in office, he would still have required this vote. I entered the office on the llth of November, nearly at the end of
:035

the season of navigation, and I had to take tlie government steamers in the condition in which I found them. There were extensive repairs to be made, as I have explained. The ' Aberdeen,' for instance, had to be repaired and repairs to the extent of $8,304 were done.


George Taylor: Who did the repairs ?
The MINISTER OB' MARINE AND FISHERIES. They were mostly done on the ' Aberdeen ' by day labour.


George Taylor: Where ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In Quebec and Halifax. Then, there were very extensive repairs to the ' Minto ' and ' Stanley ' ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the amount of each 1
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. $15,000 on the ' Stanley ' and $7,000 on the ' Minto.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were not these $15,000 of repairs	foreseen by	the department ?The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. They could not be foreseen.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Therefore, there must have been some accident.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. There was. Everybody is aware that during last winter the ' Minto ' and ' Stanley ' were caught in the ice and that the 1 Minto ' was disabled. W'e had to repair the ' Minto ' in order to put her into service again. We had also to repair the ' Stanley.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were these repairs made at Quebec ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The ' Aberdeen ' was repaired at Quebec, the ' Minto ' at Pictou and Charlottetown and the ' Stanley ' at Charlottetown and Pictou during the fiscal year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What firm carried on the repairs to the 'Minto' and 'Stanley'?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Bruce, Stewart & Co., of Charlottetown, made the repairs to the ' Stanley.' They are the only people able to do such work on the island.
Mr-. MONK. And who made the repairs at Pictou ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. J. & J. Yorston.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were these repairs done by day's work or by contract ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. It is impossible to make a contract for repairs of this kind. We get our own officers to make an investigation and to specify what repairs are necessary, Hon. Mr. FISHER.	,
but it is almost impossible to say in advance by 25, 30, or 50 per cent what will really be required to be done. But, they are always within the estimate and we have very good officers in that part of the maritime provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Still, in the case of repairs amounting to $0,000 and still more in the case of repairs amounting to $15,000 I could scarcely conceive that it is impossible that these repairs can be carried on by contract as they always are in Montreal by steamers that have to be repaired there. At any rate it would be possible to have an estimate made beforehand and to be able to show the committee whether the expense actually incurred tallies with the estimate. I would like to ask my kon. friend if these precautions were taken in these two cases, because, it seems to me, barring the case of accident, that this is a very large extra amount, $30,000 in a sum amounting to a little over $200,000. and I think we are entiitledi to the fullest information. It seems to me that the hon. minister might be able to state the reason of this rather extraordinary expenditure so that the committee will feel fully justified in voting this amount if these precautions have been observed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: All these precautions were taken. All these repairs were made within the estimate of our officer who examined the steamers before the repairs were made and examine them also while the work was going on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall not push my inquiries any further. It seems to me in a case of this kind it would be much simpler if the department had an estimate made before the work began with accounts of the work done and if all this were put in a tabulated statement and laid on the Table of the House an item such as this could be disposed of in two minutes without all these questions being asked and the business of the House could proceed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have no objection to doing that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am just mentioning this to my hon. friend.


George Taylor: The hon. minister stated that he got hold of these vessels in November and that he had to make extensive repairs to the steamer ' Aberdeen.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is one of them.


George Taylor: How much was spent on the ' Aberdeen ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 


George Taylor: How much did Mr. F. X. Drolet, of Quebec, get out of it ?


Tlie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman, hut I will furnish the information.


George Taylor: These repairs have been done and this $8,364 has been spent. To whom was it paid ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have to put the ' Aberdeen ' in commission early in the season to see to the lighthouses, buoys and so on.


George Taylor: Before the hon. gentleman took charge of that steamer on which he spent $8,304 his predecessor had spent $6,000 for repairs with one firm in Quebec.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That was in the year previous.


George Taylor: Certainly it was in the year previous. It appears here in the Auditor General's Report covering the period from July, 1901, to July, 1902.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is nothing extraordinary iu that. The * Aberdeen ' does double service. She does service during the sum-, mer between Quebec and the maritime provinces and when navigation closes between Quebec and the maritime provinces she does winter service below Halifax and around the maritime provinces. Now and then that steamer has to be repaired. It is impossible for a steamer doing the heavy service she Is doing to continue without being repaired, as everybody knows that steamers engaged in ordinary passenger traffic are obliged to undergo repairs.


George Taylor: I do not wonder at the over expenditure because Mr. F. X. Drolet, of Quebec, draws $6,633 for doing some repairs for this steamer and furnishing some supplies. Mr. Drolet supplied tubes, 104 pounds at 60 cents a pound and he charges 3 cents a pound for 5,930 pounds of iron when $1.S5 to $1.90 per 100 would be quite sufficient. He charges for labour on board the steamer 387J hours at fifty cents an hour, and from $3.50 to $5 a day for men to make repairs. That is the way the money is spent. Everything is charged double. Mr. Drolet drew $6,000 out of the money we voted last year, and I have no doubt that he is getting a large share of this $8,000 for doing this work for which $6,000 was paid a few' months before.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If there is anything wrong about these accounts it is very easy to have them scrutinized before the Committee of Public Accounts. Since last my estimates were up, I have made inquiries and I have ascertained from the accounts and from the explanation given by Mr. Gregory, our agent at Quebec, that there does not appear to be anything wrong. Mr. Gregory, who looks after these things, has been in the department for thirty-four years, under all governments, and up to the present time he has done nothing deserving of reprimand. The accounts of Mr. Drolet, or any body else can be examined before the Public Accounts Committee and can be justified to the last cent. Mr. Drolet is one of the best machinists in this country. He is the best machinist in Quebec, and these accounts have been verified by our officials from day to day. After we have taken all these precautions the department cannot be held responsible if there is anything wrong, and before any charge is made against the department, these accounts surely ought to be scrutinized before the Public Accounts Committee. Since the last discussion I have written Mr. Gregory to be ready at any time to come here with all the - facts connected with these repairs, and Mr. Gregory has sent to the department an explanation which seems to me perfectly satisfactory. But if lion, gentlemen are not satisfied, they can have an examination before the Public Accounts Committee.


George Taylor: I am satisfied that the accounts which will be brought down be- . fore the Public Accounts Committee are correct so far as making the calculation goes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What I mean is that the amounts charged are reasonable.


George Taylor: The minister is a business man and he ought to know that $5 a day is too much to pay for a man working on repairing a steamer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am enough of a business man to know that men are worth $5 a day when they are making certain repairs to machinery, and the work is done in a machine shop where steam plant is used as well as mechanical skill and labour. In the city of Montreal at the present time we are paying $4.50 per day to bricklayers, and you cannot compare the work of a bricklayer with the work of a mechanic who repairs very intricate and delicate machinery. I have had experience in Montreal for a long time not only for the public but in connection with enterprises with which I am connected, and I am well aware of what prices are paid. We must take into consideration the use of the expensive tools that these people have to use in this special work.


George Taylor: I am satisfied there is not a machinist working in any machine shop in Montreal who gets any such wage as $4 or $4.50 per day. Let the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) tell the minister what he is paying for machinists in his locomotive works. The hardware men in this House who know their business have pointed out that everything that goes into the repair of these vessels is paid for at

a higher price than you could buy them tor iu any country hardware store. You paid nearly double the usual price for zinc and magnolia metal, and you paid three dollars a hundred pounds for iron that any one can purchase to-day for $2.10 per 100 pounds, and the prices are higher to-day than they were last fall. No wonder the expenditure was exceeded last year, when such prices were paid.


Richard Blain: The minister told us the other day that it was the policy of his department to purchase the supplies for the government steamers by tender. He also told us that last year the cost of these supplies was about $35,000, and I asked him if he would be good enough to furnish the Committee, at its next meeting, with information as to what proportion of that $35,000 was for purchases by tender and what proportion in the other way.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will send over these papers to the hon. gentleman and he will see how the tenders were asked for and how they were dealt with.


Richard Blain: That is not what I want. I want to know what proportion of the $35,000 was for goods purchased by tender.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That would be very difficult to answer. If the hon. gentleman has any idea of business he will know that it would be impossible to give that statement without entering into a very extensive and intricate calculation. It must be remembered that these steamers do not get their supplies all at the same port. When the captains call for instructions they get their supplies in Halifax or St. John or Charlottetown, or wherever they may be. Sometimes they go to ports where we have no contracts and where we have no regular sources of supply, and they have to get necessary supplies at such places. It would be impossible to call for tenders in such cases, and we have to rely on the honesty and intelligence of our officers to purchase under the best conditions. The accounts are examined, and if the officers are satisfied that the prices are fair, the accounts are paid. If the prices are considered unfair, they are discussed and reduced. A business company would do the same thing. This system has been going on for the past fifty or sixty years, and it has not been changed by this government. I do not know where fault can be found. If some of the charges seem to be too high, it is not possible to obtain the explanation simply by reading the Auditor General's Report ; but if an explanation of any item is asked for before the Public Accounts Committee, it will be given.


Richard Blain: What I say is that these supplies should be purchased by tender.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They are.


Richard Blain: The minister says that there is no difference between this side of the House and himself on that question. He says that the policy of his department is to purchase these supplies by tender. I find that $35,000 was spent for these supplies last year. Is it unreasonable for us to ask what proportion of these were purchased by tender, under the policy which the hon. gentleman says is adopted by his department ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That information could be got, no doubt, but it would require a good deal of calculation and book-keeping to prepare the statement. I suppose that about seven-eighths of the amount are bought by tender. The rest were bought as the occasion may require. These accounts are all in the department, where they can be consulted, or they can be, produced in the Public Accounts Committee.


Richard Blain: Surely the hon. minister is not going to adopt the policy whenever a question is asked along this line, of referring us to the Public Accounts Committee. Does he state that [DOT] seven-eighths of the amount purchased last year was purchased by tender ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is the information the deputy minister gives.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This question of taking tenders for supplies for the government steamers has been discussed here several times. My hon. friend is new in the department and I am sure that with his experience and his information he would say that the taking of tenders for supplies would be of great use.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is mistaken. It is done in his department in the same way as in other departments ; letters are written to a few gentlemen, and they are asked to give prices-sometimes, not always. But we expect great reforms from my hon. friend he is greatly interested in the improvement of the St. Lawrence route; and I am sure that he would save at least thirty per cent in the cost of these supplies if he would adopt the simple method which is followed in other countries. If he will tell the committee this evening that next year he will positively give public notice that tenders will be received for supplies according to certain specifications, and that this notice will be given in the papers so that the public generally will have a chance to tender, I for my part will be ready to give him peace, and this amount will be voted without too much controversy.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am ready to give the assurance that I will take the necessary precautions that supplies will be purchased at the lowest price In the market and in the best manner possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But the hon. gentleman will not give the assurance that he will call for public tenders.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will not, when it is not necessary and when I would have to spend twenty-five per cent or thirty per cent in advertising without getting any reduction in the price. For instance, you have to buy $1,000 or $2,000 worth of goods in a port like Charlottetown. If you advertised for tenders in the public press, you would have to publish your advertisement in all the papers. If I published it in only one paper, I suppose I would be reproached for that in the same way that I am for sending notices to one class of traders. In that case $500 or $000 would be spent perfectly uselessly, whereas, by sending circulars to first-class dealers and comparing their prices with the market prices, we get the supplies at the lowest possible cost. We are supposed to have competent and honest officers. Most of them belong to the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs, and we have sufficient confidence in them to keep them in office. We think they are doing their duty, and that is why we keep them. When a very large quantity of supplies is to be purchased, we call for public tenders; but when ordinary goods are required for a steamer, I do not think there is any necessity of calling for tenders.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very much disappointed in the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries-bitterly disappointed. I do not think there is any question in what we are urging as to the efficiency of the officers. I have no doubt that they are good officers, whatever may be their party. My hon. friend will admit that to put an advertisement in a Montreal paper, a Quebec paper, and a couple of papers in the maritime provinces, stating that tenders for supplies according to specifications which would be furnished by the department, would be received, would not cost twenty-five per cent of what we would spend for these supplies. To call for tenders would, according to the hon. gentleman, cost from $20,000 or $25,000 for advertising. That is quite unreasonable. My hon. friend knows that that is the way we proceed in municipal affairs in Montreal, and the way steamship companies proceed all over the world. Why should not this government adopt that simple method 7 There is no reason, and I am very much disappointed with my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am very sorry.


Richard Blain: On these tenders which the hon. gentleman has submitted to the committee there are one or two notes. At the bottom of one are these words : ' The names have been recommended by Senator Temple-man.' At the bottom of the other are these words : ' All names have been recommended by Colonel Tucker.' If tenders are asked for, the presumption would be that the lowest would be accepted, why then was it necessary that the names should be endorsed by the member representing the county 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Before giving a contract to any firm, we inquire as to its responsibility, as any body would do in his private business. The lowest tenders were accepted.


John Dowsley Reid: Were the supplies for the steamer ' Scout ' purchased by tender 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The * Scout ' is a new steamer which is doing a new service and her supplies were furnished by people who had tendered. We asked for prices in the ordinary way without specifying to what steamer the goods should be delivered.


John Dowsley Reid: What service is the steamer ' Scout ' performing 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Between Laeliine and Kingston, doing for the most part service for the Department in maintaining buoys in the St. Lawrence River and other work. The work will be increased by adding lighthouse attendance.


George Taylor: I find in this list of tenders sent by the hon. minister to the hon. member for Peel, that very few are for supplies to Dominion steamers. They are mostly for lighthouse supplies. In the tenders for supplies for Dominion steamers to be delivered at St. .Tolin, I find that there are live tenders for five different supplies of groceries. The price for granulated sugar is 4} cents, whereas at Halifax the price tendered was 3'75 cents per pound. Yet at Quebec the hon. gentleman paid 54 cents per pound. Has the hou. gentleman the list for Quebec 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not brought down all the lists. It would have been a very paying business, 'if when we wanted fifty pounds of sugar at Quebec, we sent to Halifax for it.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman ought to know how much sugar is consumed on each steamer and if he can get it 3-75 cents per pound in Halifax he can buy a sufficient quantity there to supply each steamer. But here is the secret of the whole business. It is to be found in this endorsation by the

Liberal member. ' I recommend the acceptance of the above tenders. All the names are on the patronage list.' Thus three or four merchants, who are on the patronage list, are asked to tender, each for a different article, so that there is really no competition, yet according to these documents, although the hon. gentleman could have purchased all the sugar he required at Halifax at 34 cents per pound, he preferred paying five and a half cents per pound in Quebec. Is that the way the Richelieu Company do their business V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


George Taylor: I say that no business man would do business in that way. No wonder the hon. gentleman asked for an extra $55,000 to carry on the work.


William Ross: I am a purchaser of sugar and know something about it. Sugar at 3'50 per lb, is Austrian sugar which comes to Halifax in bags and very inferior compared to what you get from our own refineries. People who want a good quality of sugar will not use it. It has been returned to me by some of my customers, and I was obliged to supply the best quality from the refineries in its place. There is as much difference in the quality of sugar as in the quality of tea.


George Taylor: Granulated sugar ?


William Ross: We have inferior granulated sugar, and we have high-class granulated sugar.


Mr. OSLER.: Let us not assume from what the hon. minister has said that supplies are bought by public tender. As I understand it they are not so bought, it is merely a question of dividing the spoils and of the particular government supporter to whom this patronage shall be given. As the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Tucker) is present, I would ask him on what principle he advises the acceptance of the various tenders for supplies ? Are tenders publicly called for and does he recommend the lowest tenderer, or does he recommend the supporters of the government ?


Mr. TUCKER.: I have not the faintest idea what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) is reading, except that it relates to certain tenders for supplies required by the government in the city of St. John. With regard to the amount to be paid with regard to the cost of those various articles, I know practically nothing. What I do know-and possibly this may be what the hon. gentleman requires-is that when I have been asked to recommend firms in our city of St. John to respond to the wishes of the department asking for these goods, I have recommended first class houses. Further than that, I do not think that I or any other hon. member of this House has the faintest Mr. TAYLOR.
right to deal with the almighty dollar-that is altogether foreign to our business. All I have to do is to give the names, and those names I am only too glad to give, selecting, as I do, the best men to carry out the wants and wishes of the government.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that the same policy has been pursued for many years in the past ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Twenty years.


Richard Blain: This policy has been pursued for twenty years, and the hon. minister is pursuing the same policy now ? Let me read this document and perhaps the hon. minister will give attention to it and explain it :
The firms of E. B. Marvin & Co., and Peter McQuade & Son, were recommended to the department to invite tenders from for ship chandlery for the steamer ' Quadra.' The agent has been instructed several times to invite tenders for staple articles only. A tender form including a great many things that may or may not be required was given to each of those firms and they have tendered for nearly all the articles mentioned in the form. It is an old form used when we invited tenders publicly, and a tender for the lowest bulk stun was accepted, thus giving to one firm all the patronage.
Under the system that has been in force for the past three or four years-
That is, since hon. gentlemen opposite
came into power

-we have not invited tenders publicly.
The hon. gentleman tells this committee that the policy adopted thirty years ago is still in force. But this document that the hon. minister now submits to the committee with the old form of public tender attached shows that that form has been abolished and now a new condition of things prevails. Will the hon. gentleman now tell us that they are purchasing supplies in the same way as before ? The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has pointed out that we are only deceiving ourselves if we imagine that we are purchasing supplies by public tender. Would the bon. minister explain this new method of tender, and say if they have abolished altogether the public call for tenders ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Did the document the hon. gentleman read say anything about a public form of tenders ?


Richard Blain: I will read it again :
A tender form including a great many things that may or may not be required was given to each of these firms and they have tendered for nearly all the articles mentioned in the form. It is an old form used when we invited tenders publicly, and a tender for the lowest bulk sum was accepted, thus giving to one firm all the patronage. Under the system that has been in force for the past three or four years we have not invited tenders publicly.
It seems to me that means a change.
.5045

The MINISTER OF MARINE ANI) FISHERIES. The matter is very easy to understand. This is for Victoria, B.C., I think. It may have been found easier, up to a certain time to ask for tenders publicly and to give the contract to only one person for all the goods in the complete list of articles to be furnished. Probably it has been found better to proceed in another way, that is, to buy from each firm the articles which were offered cheaper by that firm, and, in that way, to distribute the furnishing of these supplies to different traders. I know of these two forms of tender, and I know that sometimes although asking for tenders in that manner, the distribution is made to the different firms that have tendered the lowest for the different articles. Sometimes it is more advantageous to do it in that way, because you get the best articles at the lowest prices, and you are sure that tenderers do not control the situation. It might be that a tenderer having inside knowledge would know of certain articles mentioned in the list of which a very small quantity would be taken and these he would offer to furnish at almost nothing, knowing that his actual loss would be very small. Then, if you calculated the prices upon the whole list of articles, and gave the contract to the lowest tenderer, you might be obliged to pay a relatively high price for some staple article of which a considerable quantity is used and which you could have got at a lower price, though you would have low prices for articles of which little or none was used. I do not see much difference in the way of doing it. The principle is the same, except that it may be found more advantageous in certain cases to proceed by apportioning the articles among the different traders at the lowest price, than to give them to the same party.
Mr. OSLER, The fact is clear enough, there is no need of any further explanation from the minister, that originally, up to three or four years ago, tenders were invited publicly and now they are not. I read from a document the hon. gentleman sent over here, a report initialled by W. W. S :
Under the system that has heen in force for the past three or four years we have not invited tenders publicly.
There is the whole secret, and there is no use humbugging ourselves, and there is no use for the minister attempting to make us believe that the system of public tendering is in force now as it was.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, I never said that public tenders were asked for, I said that circulars were sent to those who were on the list of the department.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understood the minister to say that the system he is now following
is the same system that has been in force for the past twenty years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is the information that I have from my department.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This document shows that statement is incorrect. I am reading from the document I have, this is a form of tender, and this is the information that is given by an official of the department. Don't let us make any mistake about this, or go away with an explanation which is no explanation at all. There can be only one reason, and that is that public tendering has been abandoned, and that tenders are only asked from those men who may be recommended by the member for the district. That is not public tendering, it is simply a division of the spoils.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would be unwise for my hon. friend to go away humbugging himself. He should not do that, and he should not try to humbug anybody else. But he is conveying an impression now that there was a general system of public tendering in former years, and that that system has been changed. That is the impression that would be drawn from his remarks. Now, according to the document he has in his hands, he lias shown no foundation whatever for that impression.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am speaking only from what I have before me.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, and I have only the same thing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Under the system that has been in force for the last three or {our years tenders are not invited publicly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That refers to the port of Victoria, B.C.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will the minister say that Victoria is the only port ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, 1 will not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will he say that system does not generally prevail ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will hear my hon. friend, then I will answer.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am reading from this document which the minister has sent over here. I am speaking from knowledge of wihat has been the custom for the past twenty years, and with this document before me on which there is a direct statement by an official of the Crown that the system has been changed within the last three or four years, and that tenders are now asked privately and not publicly. Now, if Victoria is an exception, I would confine my remarks to Victoria only, and say that so far as Victoria is concerned, that so far

as tliis tender is concerned, and tliis particular case, it is not inviting public tenders, it is a mere distribution of patronage as the local member may recommend.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then if my hon. friend's remarks are confined to Victoria, 1 cannot take much exception to them because the document seems to afford a foundation for his view. I asked the question whether the document had reference to public tenders, for this reason, that I was aware from general knowledge that the practice on the Atlantic coast has been for many years to invite tenders in the way described by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Now if any member would say that to his personal knowledge that is not correct, I would not assume the responsibility of denying it. But I am speaking from general information which I think is correct that as respects the Atlantic coast the method of buying supplies under the late government was precisely the same as under the present government. Therefore if the hon. gentleman wishes to point out that there has been a change in Victoria, that is a fair criticism, as the document shows, and I would leave the department to look into that. But I do not think that that change has taken place in the other ports of the Dominion. I know, at all events that the practice of the late government was to order supplies from their own friends on the eastern coast of the Dominion, and I always understood that the practice which now prevails as respects these ports of which I have the most knowledge, is exactly the same practice which has prevailed for many years. I am only taking exception to my hon. friend's remarks if they have a general application.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the Finance Minister will not tell me that this system ai>
plies only to Victoria, because the same form and the same suggestion are carried out here in asking recommedations, or purchasing supplies on the recommedation of some local member. Now the same recommendation is on each of these other forms of tender, the names are recommended by this member or by that member. So I say the inference is clear that the same form and the same system are in vogue in other ports as is clearly shown to be in vogue in Victoria; and I think, unless the minister can absolutely give a statement that Victoria is an exception, and that no change has been made in any other ports, the only inference we can draw is that there has been a general change.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Finance a few evenings ago took issue witli me when I made the statement that the system of purchasing supplies had been changed in some places from the system followed by the former government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know that my hon. friend mentioned any particular place. He was dealing with the practice generally.


John Dowsley Reid: Here is an instance. I say that it occurs all along the St. Lawrence. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if the statements of his crews are correct, must admit that they simply run in now and purchase their supplies at any port they wish, while under the late government they were purchased by tender.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no evidence of that.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister deny the fact ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If they buy a pound of butter at the port where they stop, or a pound of sugar, of course I would not deny it.


John Dowsley Reid: Take the steamer ' Scout ' running between Montreal and Kingston, do they not purchase their supplies at any port they wish ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The officers of steamers have got to buy their staple goods from the people with whom the department has a contract, made by tender.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, they have notices of who they must go and purchase from. There are no tenders.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISEHRIES. Prices are asked in the ordinary way as you see there in St. John, Halifax, Quebec or Montreal and	other
places.


George Taylor: I understood from the hon. gentleman that Mr. J. U. Gregory, the purchasing agent, did all the purchasing at Quebec ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. He is the agent of the department, and if some thing is not provided by tender they have to go to him to get an order to buy it.


George Taylor: I see in the Auditor Generals Report, at page P-61, that Mr. Gregory paid .81,404, and that among other items was $8 for spruce bushes for decorating on St. Patrick's Day. I would like to know how many bushes he got for $S.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh, we had that up before.


George Taylor: 
Tlie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The same quantity.


George Taylor: We can get a load of spruce bushes in Ontario for a dollar, and to pay $8 seems an extravagant price.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he would kindly have a list of the names of the parties from whom he received tenders for supplies for the steamer ' Scout ' for the last year, for the information of the committee, because I am anxious to convince the hon. Minister of Finance that he is wrong in what he said in regard to that latter.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have already given the information to the hon. gentleman. We do not ask for tenders for any particular boat. We ask for tenders generally for a port, and whatever steamer comes to that place is supposed to buy from those who have tendered and at the price of the tenders, whether it is the ' Scout,' the ' Aberdeen,' the ' Quadra,' or any other boat.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister admits that the department did not ask for tenders for the steamer ' Scout ' along the St. Lawrence. I am satisfied that I can produce evidence that previous to this government coming into power tenders were asked for.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have told the committee that we do not ask for tenders for. particular steamers. We ask for tenders generally.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend persist in saying that for the incoming year he will not ask for tenders publicly ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot make any promise one way or the other.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend said a moment ago that he would not ask for tenders publicly. Does he still adhere to that determination ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I never said anything of the sort. I said that we would proceed to the best of our judgment and ask for tenders for staple goods, for articles that can be furnished cheaper by getting prices fixed five or six months in advance at the different ports where supplies are required. I will not undertake to ask for tenders for articles that may be wanted in small quantities at periods we do not know in advance, and which may not be required at all. We will not ask for tenders for these articles, because it would not be in the public interest to do so, but, in future, if it is thought in the public interest to ask for tenders we will proceed to the best of our knowledge as we have been proceeding for the last number of years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee that he will, at the beginning of each year, publicly advertise for tenders for supplies for the Dominion steamers ? Will he say that or will he not ? If he says he will not, I am perfectly satisfied.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If it is thought advantageous to do so we shall do so. But if we think that lay continuing in the way we are proceeding we will serve in a better manner the public interest, we will do it in that way, and leave the matter to be judged by the House and the people.


Mr. EARLE.: The hon. minister has handed us a number of tenders which he claims are the lowest for the goods named in each. He must have received other tenders, and we would like to be furnished with those.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, of course.


Thomas Earle: You will let us have them ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh, yes.


William Ross: A steamer, after receiving supplies at Halifax, leaves Halifax to supply the lighthouses, going from station to station, towards St. Paul Island, and then comes back and goes into the Bras d'Or lakes. By the time she has made this trip other supplies are required. Then, they can buy supplies such as beef, pork, butter, and flours in sufficient quantities to take them back, to Halifax. That is often done, and it is impossible to stand upon tenders in all cases. There are circumstances under which it cannot be done.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he decides to call for tenders by circular, if he 'will have the circulars sent to merchants in each locality other than those who are supporters of the government, and give them an opportunity of tendering also, or will the circulars only be sent to supporters of the government V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I suppose there will be no objection at all to sending circulars out more generally.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, the hon. minister will see that it is done.
Fisheries, further amount required for salaries and disbursements of fishery officers $30 -000. '


George Taylor: We cannot touch that tonight.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You are not going to keep these men out of their money, are you ?


George Taylor: We will pass items Nos. 90 and 91, and that is all you can expect.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is an item of $500 gratuity to the widow of the late Captain Jas. Rood. Surely you will not keep her out of her money.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman insists upon it, I am going to move that this $30,000 be struck out, because I have something in my desk that I want to bring up, and I will not only have a vote in the committee, but I will have a vote when the Speaker is in the Chair. There is no use of getting up a fight to-night, because if we do we will be here till morning.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a fish story.


George Taylor: They do not deserve it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The widow ; oh, yes, she does. I move that the committee rise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We will vote that for the widow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We cannot separate the widow from the others.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, yes, we can.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the business for tomorrow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Railways and Canals will resume consideration of the Canadian Northern guarantee. The Minister of Agriculture intends to proceed with two notices of motion that lie has on the paper, and if there be further time we will resume supply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In what department ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We would wish to have all the supplementary estimates, and if we go into the main estimates it will be the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. BOYD.: I hope we will not go into that contentious item of the census on Friday night when there are few members in tiie House. Every Friday night during almost the whole session business has had to be conducted with half a dozen members present, and these contentious items had better be brought up some other night.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not only had them on Friday night but we have had them on several intermediate nights, which is not our fault. However, if it is the wish that that particular item should be held over we will take other less contentious items.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Take Fisheries for Friday.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would like lion, gentlemen opposite if possible to give us these supplementary estimates as we are getting to the end of the fiscal year, and unless they are disposed of, a number of our public officials will be without their j>ay. I would ask lion, gentlemen to facilitate the disposal of the supplementary estimates with the understanding that there will be ample opportunity on the main estimates and the supplementary estimates for the coming year to discuss any question they wish to raise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, June 19, 1903.