1903-06-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMSON (North Grey)-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What is the commercial agency of the government of Canada ?
2.	When and how was it inaugurated ?
3.	Who are Its officers ?
4.	What are their duties ; and what remuneration do they receive ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: The phraseology may be open to question- ' What is the commercial agency of the government of Canada ? ' Assuming, however, that I understand what the hon. gentleman means, the answer to his questions are as follows :
1.	Commercial agencies were established by Order in Council of the 21st November,
1891.
2.	The Order in Council of the 16th March,
1892.	Various appointments throughout the West Indies were made at that time to date from the 1st April, 1892. Since then others have been appointed.
3.	The present officers are :
J. S. Larke. Sydney, Australia.
D. H. Ross. Melbourne, Australia.

J. G. Jardine, Cape Town, South Africa.


Peter B.: Ball. Birmingham, England.
A. E. Poindron, Paris, France.
G. E. Burke. Kingston, Jamaica.
R.	Bryson, St. John, Antigua.
S.	L. Horsford. St. Kitts, British West Indies.
Edgar Tripp, Port of Spain, Trinidad.
C. E. Sontum, Christiania, Norway.
4. Their duties are to promote trade between Canada and the countries in which they are located. Their remuneration depends upon the duties performed, and runs from $250 to $3,000 per annum. The minor officers are paid at the rate of $250 ; those in Australia and South Africa, who devote their whole time, at the rate of $3,000 per annum.


STATION AGENTS. PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: What are the names of the agents, or caretakers. at the following small stations on the Prince Edward Island Railway, viz.: St. Louis, Elmsdale, Coleman, and Conway ? And the amount of wages, or salary, per month, or year, paid each respectively ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AN1) CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair). The names and amount paid the caretakers of the following small stations on the Prince Edward Island Railway are :
Stations.	Names of	AmountCaretakers.	paid	each.
per month.
St. Louis..	..	John Perry	
$10	50Elmsdale..	..	James Forsythe	
8	33Coleman	N. McKay	
12	50Conway	A. M. Palmer	
8	33


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CARS AND LOCOMOTIVES PURCHASED.
Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	How many cars of the various classes, which had been contracted for, or purchased for the Intercolonial Railway previous to the 1st July, 1902, have been received into stock since that date ?
2.	How many cars of the various classes, contracted for, or purchased for the Intercolonial Railway cn or after 1st July, 1902, have been received into stock since that date" ?
3.	How many additional locomotives have been received into stock for the Intercolonial Railway since 1st July, 1902, inclusive, and what is the total number now in service ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	No cars have been received on capital account since July 1st, 1902.
2.	Two hundred platform cars, twenty-cue stock cars and two snowploughs have been received since July 1st, 1902, on revenue account.
3.	Eight locomotives have been received since July 1st, 1902, on capital account, and two locomotives on revenue account, making the total number now in service 287.


VENTILATION OF THE CHAMBER.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to what I consider a poor arrangement with reference to this Chamber. I think we are suffering more here this year than ever before, when we had the windows on both sides and at the west end open. I understand that the engineer says that if the windows are open it will interfere with the fans now running, which fans make such a noise that lion, members on the hack benches can hardly hear themselves speak when they address the Chair. These fans may he good for ventilation, hut it would lie better to have them running when the House was not sitting. I see by the thermometer that the temperature here is 74. It was about the same yesterday, though I venture to say it was nothing like that outside in the shade. It appears to me that we are in a sweat box here.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The other side are.


George Taylor: I think members on both sides are. In other years when the windows at the sides and end of the Chamber were open, we had a better atmosphere than we have this session, and I would recommend the Minister of Public Works to have that plan tried. It would he no trouble to open tile windows ; we could try it for a day and stop the fans while the House is sitting.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: At least, my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) cannot complain, as many others are doing, that he is being frozen out. I have noticed the noise of the fans, and have given instructions that they should be stopped during the sittings of the House. As to opening the windows, I spoke to the architect about it, and he says that if this were done, the fresh air would escape through the windows instead of circulating through the building. I will try to have the difficulty remedied. It is a difficulty that has existed, apparently ever since the Chamber was built. A great deal of money has been spent to remedy it, but. I am sorry to say, without as good an effect as we could desire.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON PULP WOOD.
Mr. R. H. POPE (Compton).: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the recent imposition of a duty by the United States on pulp wood imported from Canada into the United States. The regulations of the duty have been changed,
| and we find now imposed upon peeled wood,

that is, wood that has been peeled either by hand or by machinery, a duty amounting to something like $1.25 to $1.50 per cord. I would like to know it the government have been notified about that, and what action the government propose to take in the matter.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am not aware that this matter has been brought officially to the notice of the government, but I will make inquiry and let the hon. gentleman know to-morrow.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I would like to draw the attention of the acting Minister of the Interior to a return that I moved for on May 4th, in reference to the acquisition by the Saskatchewan Land Company of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company's land grant. The hon. the acting minister said it would only take a few days to prepare this return. I also moved for another return on March 30th, in reference to the disposal of the school lands. I would like to have the acting minister bring these returns down very soon.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-GUARANTEE OF SECURITIES.
[Stage Direction]
House went in committee on the following proposed resolutions :
1.	Resolved, that the government may aid the extension of the line of the Canadian Northern Railway Company from Grandview, the point where what is known as the Gilbert Plains branch of the said railway ends, to a point at or near Edmonton, a distance of about 620 miles, and also of the Prince Albert branch of the said railway from a point 100 miles east of Prince Albert to Prince Albert, a distance of about 100 miles, by guaranteeing the principal and interest of the first mortgage bonds, debentures or other securities of the company to the extent of $13,000 per mile of the line, interest on the said bonds to be at the rate of three per cent per annum payable half-yearly, and the principal to be payable in 50 years.
2.	Resolved, that the said bonds, debentures or other securities shall be secured by mortgage forming a first charge upon the lines of railway so aided, and all property and franchises in connection therewith, and all revenues derived therefrom by the company ; provided that with respect to that portion of the said line from the end of the Gilbert Plains branch to the westerly boundary of Manitoba, a distance not exceeding sixty-five miles, tile said mortgage shall be a first charge to the extent of only $10,000 per mile, but shall also rank on the said portion next after the charges heretofore created ; provided also that the said mortgage shall be a charge next after a first charge of $13,000 per mile (to be created by the company) on that part of said Prince Albert branch.
3.	Resolved, that the said mortgage shall also form a charge next after the charges existing thereon upon all the lines and branch lines of
Rufus Henry Pope: railway of the company now In operation, and all property and franchises connected therewith, and all revenues derived therefrom by the company.
1. Resolved, that the kind of securities to he guaranteed as aforesaid, and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the mortgage securing them, and the form and manner of guarantee, sfiall be such as the Governor in Council approves of.
5.	Resolved, that upon the said guarantee being signed on behalf of the government, the government shall become liable for the payment of the principal and interest of the securities guaranteed, and the said payment shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
6.	Resolved, that the rates and tolls to be charged for the transfer and carriage of freight and passengers upon the lines of railway 30 aided and upon the lines owned by the Canadian Northern Railway shall be under the control of the Governor In Council or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
7.	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 terms considered equitable.
8.	Resolved, that it shall he 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 ; hut this provision shall not extend to traffic or running arrangements made with the assent of the Governor in Council.
9.	Resolved, that any money paid by the government of Canada under the guarantee herein provided for shall be held to be paid In discharge of the liability of the government, hut not in discharge of the liability of the mortgage securing them ; and the money so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and mortgage, and the government shall be subrogated in all the rights of the holders of the securities, the interest upon or the principal of which has been paid by the government, and the government shall in respect of all the moneys so paid be in all respects in the position of security holders in respect of whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the government.-(The Minister of Railways).


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: These resolutions, it will be observed, contain the proposals of the government in the way of granting aid towards the construction of certain portions of the line of the Canadian Northern Railway. I apprehend that there is no railway which could be projected in Canada to-day which would have stronger claims upon the favourable consideration of the government and of parliament for assistance to any necessary extent than the line of railway which is mentioned in these resolutions. The main portion of the line of this road, that is to say, that portion extending from Grandview, in the province of Manitoba, to Edmonton, has not only been
JUNE tO, 1903
located, but its location lias been approved as required by law. Therefore, we know whereof we speak when we say that the country through which this railway passes is one of exceptional fertility, and one which will, without any reasonable doubt, afford, in a very short time, not only a substantial amount of traffic, but a paying traffic, to the railway. It will be noted that the mileage for which aid is to be authorized in these resolutions aggregates about 720 miles.
One portion of the line has not yet been finally located, or at all events, the location has not been approved of. That is the portion east of Prince Albert not exceeding 100 miles. The main line, as I may describe it, because it will be the main line of the Canadian Northern which extends from Grandview to Edmonton, passing through Battle-ford, will not exceed 620 miles. As to the quality of land in this district, we are informed by the officers of the Interior Department. that the raiway is tributary to a fertile soil aud a country SO per cent of which is capable of yielding the best quality of wheat the North-west Territories can produce.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: You are speaking of the 100 miles ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am speaking of the 620 miles from Grandview to Edmonton. The same may be said in refrence to the other section as well, as I am advised. Perhaps, not quite the same percentage, but very nearly so, and the section of the country through which the 100 mile branch of the railway passes east of Prince Albert, is pretty well filled up by settlers. People have been settled there for very many years, they have flocked in within the last few years in increasing numbers and they have been expecting that a railway would be constructed through the district for many years past, until, as I am advised, they have become almost hopeless in. regard to it and the disposition is believed to exist in many of them to throw up their hands and abandon the country altogether if railway construction does not take place at an early day. Taking into account the class of country through which the 620 mile section from Grandview to Edmonton, runs, it will be fair to assume that no reasonable amount of obligation, no reasonable amount in the way of bonded indebtedness which may lx? placed upon that undertaking in order to ensure its construction will not in the course of time be fully paid, not only the interest paid, but tlie principal amount returned. There is, I think, no doubt in the mind of any person who has made himself acquainted with the result of the operation of the lines of the Canadian Northern Railway in portions of the province of Manitoba and the west, that the business which-will be created upon that line of railway will not only suffice to pay the working expenses almost at
the outset, but will suffice to pay at a very early day the interest charges upon its bonded indebtedness as well. No one, I think, will question but that in view of the magnificent country through which that railway passes, and in view of the rapidity with which people from other lands as well as from some portions of our own country are flocking into the North-west Territories and settling in the district, that the obligation rests upon the government to see to it that no time is lost in ensuring the early construction of a railway through that territory. I think there is no more imperative obligation resting upon the parliament of this country than to bring railway conveniences and railway accommodation at the earliest possible moment to the settlers who have gone in there with the expectation of making their homes there and in the further expectation of finding these facilities afforded them. If that be a fact, and I think it will not be disputed by this committee, the question which rested upon the government was this : Was it reasonable to suppose that the company which has been chartered to construct this line would be able to as speedily as the necessities of the country required lay out and construct and put that line into operation of its own means and relying upon its own financial strength and relying in addition to that only upon the character of the credit which would attach to the undertaking among financiers abroad ? I think it would be a disappointment to the country, I think it would be expecting too much of the company, and that we would be likely to retard aud injuriously affect the interests of the people who have settled in that territory if we were to wait until conditions exist which would enable the company to carry that work through itself without assistance. Time would be lost and it appears to me and to the government time is the very essence of the whole question in connection with the construction of this railway. Well, having decided in our minds that the obligation rests upon the government to give all the assistance to this company that was possible1. and that we could not afford to wait until the company of its own means and with the resources which it had in its own hands should be able to build the railway, and having come to the conclusion that the duty rests upon the government to assist this company in carrying out its undertaking. the question then arose as to what form assistance would take. It is well known to this committee that for years past there has been a genera] and uniform policy on the part of both the present and preceding governments to make grants by way of bonus to such companies as the government felt were entitled to be assisted, giving out of the public exchequer for ever very substantial sums of money for the purpose of enabling these enterprises to be carried through. But, it appeared to us

that iu a work of this magnitude, in an undertaking which would involve such a very large amount of money if we were to pursue the policy which lias hitherto obtained and having regard to the fact that we could make the necessary advances, or afford the necessary assistance without any question or doubt in such a manner as would not involve in the carrying cut of the scheme one dollar of charge ultimately upon the treasury of the country, we felt that it was a venture, that the proper policy to pursue was to give assistance seasonably necessary to carry the enterprise through without any loss to the Exchequer of the country. We have come to the conclusion, upon negotiation with the gentlemen who are promoting the carrying out of the Canadian Northern schemes	that	this sum	of$13,000 per mile,	which	Is	named	inthe resolutions, would be ample for the purpose, not an	excessive	sum	byany means, but	that	it	would	be
reasonably ample for the purpose. And we come to the further conclusion, that it would be a wise course for us to take and less burdensome upon the country; a course which would ensure the return of every dollar that might be directly or indirectly secured by the government assistance; relieve the government ultimately of all obligation in respect to it; if we were to incumber it to the amount of $13,000 per mile. It will be of course for the committee to say whether or not our conclusions in this regard have been wisely arrived at, or whether any more favourabe plan could have been devised by which the aim which I think we all desire to attain should be attained, and attained within the shortest possible period. We propose therefore to ask parliament by these resolutions to authorize us to endorse as it were, the obligations of this company to the extent of $13,000 per mile. We guarantee the interest upon these bonds at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. The company are able to make their loan upon these securities at a low rate of interest. They avail themselves of the credit of the government; they profit by the fact that with our endorsation-particularly as the credit of Canada stands to-day in the great financial centres-they will be able at a very much less annual charge than could possibly be achieved in any other way to secure the money which is required from government to complete the undertaking at the smallest possible cost and to afford every possible reasonable guarantee that the results would be the best which it would be possible to obtain. In my remarks I propose to pass over the minor details of the resolution


Mr. BELL.: Is it expected that the company will be able to sell their three per cent bonds at par, with the government endorsation ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are very hopeful about it.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: The committee will observe that the resolutions provide for a first charge of the $13,000 per mile bond issue upon all the lines which we are here aiding, with a single exception. I will state what that exception is. There are about sixty-three miles between Grandview in Manitoba and the western boundary of that province which are not subject to a first lien to the extent of the $13,000 per mile. With the exception of that sixty-three miles about, the balance of all the mileage bears from the outset a mortgage to secure these bonds, a first charge upon the railway for the $13,000 per mile. As to the sixty-tliree miles the committee will observe that the mortgages will only get a mortgage endorsed by the government as a second charge upon these sixty-three miles, because in the arrangements which were made by the Canadian Northern Railway with the government of Manitoba there was a clause under which they were entitled to encumber all their railways within the limits of the province of Manitoba to the extent of a first charge of $10,000 per mile. And there were some miles of their railway in that province, among others this sixty-three miles, upon which that charge had not been executed.


Mr. CLARKE.: Did they not get the aid of the province of Manitoba to build that sixty-three miles ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know that they did; I think not. They gave the province of Manitoba a general mortgage, the particulars of which I will briefly state to the committee, so that they will see just what the character of our securities are. The first lien for the $13,000 per mile, with the exception of the whole of the line built under these arrangements, in the province of Manitoba and in the province of Ontario, and throughout the whole system of the Canadian Northern Railway we take and obtain a mortgage of a second charge on top of the existing mortgage which has been given to the Manitoba government, or if not given to them, given under the arrangement they have made.


Mr. LENNOX.: Are we right in understanding that on the whole of the Canadian Northern system including Ontario we will have a second mortgage ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. We have a blanket mortgage over their whole enterprise from Port Arthur through to the west.


Mr. BARKER.: Then I misread the second clause. I understand you that on sixty-tliree miles we have a second mortgage for $10,000 a mile, but as I read this you have a first mortgage of $10,000 per mile.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A first mortgage.


Samuel Barker: lrou said a second mortgage.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I failed to make myself clear to the hon. gentleman. We get a $13,000 per mile mortgage upon all except the mileage between Grandview and the Manitoba western boundary. On that we only get a $10,000 mortgage. The clause that I refer to in the contract with the Manitoba government reserved to the company the right to encumber any of their lines in that province which they had not previously encumbered, to the extent of $10,000 per mile before the mortgage to the Manitoba government could take effect and become a charge.


John William Bell: In that case, how can this government secure a first mortgage to the extent of $10,000 a mile upon that section ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because this company have never issued the mortgage.


John William Bell: They have not used it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have not used their power to encumber it and they are using it now. We fall short there to the extent of $3,000 per mile in getting a security by a first mortgage in respect to this sixty odd miles.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: Does the security include rolling stock and equipment ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. The mortgage will be given upon the property of the Canadian Northern Railway, will cover its whole line, its branches, its undertaking, and property of every kind and description without exception of any kind or nature whatsoever.
The position of the encumbrances now existing on the Canadian Northern Railway line, is, as I am advised, as follows :	On
the main line from Port Arthur to the Rainy river there is a first charge of $20,000 per mile.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Who owns that mortgage-the public ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I presume the public; yes. On all lines in Manitoba there is a first charge of $10,000 per mile. This first charge of $10,000 consists of two charges, one of $8,000 and one of $2,000, aggregating $10,000. That is the position as between Port Arthur and the Rainy river, and all the lines in Manitoba. The $20,000 per mile from Port Arthur to Rainy river is collaterally secured by a charge on the lines in Manitoba next after the $10,000 per mile above mentioned. So that in point of fact, our position as guarantor of these bonds, so far as the lines from Port Arthur to Rainy river and the lines in the Manitoba district as well are concerned, would be this : We would have before us encumbrances to the extent of $20,000, which we would have to
retire or answer for, with the single exception of the $10,000 mortgage on the sixty odd miles between Grandview and the western boundary of Manitoba.


John William Bell: There is a first mortgage for $10,000, and a second collateral for $20,000. Would it not be correct to say that there is $30,000 of prior charges ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly the $20,000 which was given in respect to the Ontario lines and collaterally charged on the Manitoba lines would add $20,000 to the existing $10,000 charges; but, stating the matter broadly, there would not be obligations for1 $30,000 over the whole line.


John William Bell: Oh, no; just on the Manitoba lines. |


William Findlay Maclean: Might I ask the hon. minister what is the obligation of the road to the government of Manitoba on the Manitoba section at the present time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The obligations of the company, whether to the government or the bondholders, are all included. I am not speaking with absolute confidence when I say that I think the bonds they have issued are held by the public and have the government guarantee.


William Findlay Maclean: To what extent per mile ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $10,000 per mile. The first was for $8,000 and the next for $2,000, both guaranteed by the government. So that they stood subject to $10,000 per mile before this other arrangement was made.


William Findlay Maclean: Could the minister tell us the total amount approximately guaranteed by the government of Manitoba on that road?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not furnished to me here; but I take it that it is very easily ascertained, because if you add up the present obligations, the mortgage of $20,000 in the Ontario district and the $10,000 in the other district, you will have the total.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What information has the government obtained as to the cost of construction of this road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Our information is that the road will cost to build and equip more than the $13,000.


William Findlay Maclean: A standard railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, a first class standard railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have liad varying estimates from $1(5,000 to $17,000.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Will the hon. minister lay on the Table the information he has obtained from competent persons as to the cost, so that we shall have an opportunity of examining it ?
' The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I will send and get the information, and will bring it down at one of the later stages.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the government were willing to guarantee the bonds to that extent after having received information as to the cost of construction. The hon. gentleman has not given us as full information as we would like to have in regard to the cost of construction and equipment.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I procured through my chief engineer a statement of the estimated cost of construction, and equipment. Then we had estimates from the company's engineers showing what they were basing their calculations upon.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Would it not be reasonable to lay all the information on the Table?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think there would be no difficulty in doing that.


William Findlay Maclean: In the district through which this railway passes, west of the Manitoba boundary, how much of the country on each side of the railway, say forty miles wide, is still owned by the Dominion? Have we a large interest in the land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We must have a considerable interest; but to what extent I do not know.


Mr. DAVIS.: I may inform the hon. gentleman that we have an interest in nearly all the homestead lands. The odd numbered sections mostly belong to different railway corporations; but all the even numbered sections which have not been taken up are the property of the government.


William Findlay Maclean: The other sections belong to railway corporations ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: Some of them belong to the government, I fancy, but a good many of them to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: With a good deal of what the hon. minister says in regard to this matter I am sure we all agree. There is no doubt about the urgent need of railway extension in the western part of Canada, and particularly in the vicinity of Edmonton, which I am sure merits all the encomiums which the hon. minister has bestowed upon it. In visiting that part of the country during the past year, I was Mr. CLARKE.
particularly struck with the possibilities of the town of Edmonton and the country around it, and I am sure there is not a man in this House who would bo disposed to hamper in any way the development of railways in that country. At the same time, this is a project which involves on the part of this government a guarantee to the extent of <$9,3(50,000, which, during a period of fifty years after the date of the subsidy, will be considered, I suppose, for certain financial purposes at least, as part of the public debt of this country, because we shall be under obligation for that amount in certain contingencies. Therefore it seems to me that we ought to consider in the first place, whether or not this project is part of any comprehensive scheme which the government have in hand for the development of transportation facilities in this country. It seems to me that we ought to know from the government whether or not it is part of a scheme for railway extension to the Pacific coast; whether or not it is part of a scheme which looks to the development and the utilization of our great national ports and harbours and the development of our ports on the great lakes ; and generally port of a scheme for transporting the products of the west, not only to the Atlantic coast, but to the markets of Europe. This matter was brought to the attention of the House last year, and the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, in the closing days of the session, stated that the conclusion of the government with regard to aid to a line in the west, would be arrived at very shortly. Apparently the decision of the government was somewhat delayed, and putting aside other considerations for the moment, I regret that delay, because I think that the development of railway communication in the west would probably have been advanced much more rapidly if the government had come sooner to a conclusion. We have had in the western part of this country a very inconvenient state of affairs with regard to a large colony from the mother country and we have had the pe pie from this district complaining, not only during years past, as the hon. gentleman has mentioned, but during the past year of the lack of railway communication.
On previous occasions in this House, I have pressed the view that there should be some definite scheme decided on by the government with regard to transportation. I do not believe that any government is justified, at this stage of the history of transportation in Canada, in dealing with that question from the standpoint of 300 400 or 500 miles of railway, but that it should map out some definite scheme and include in it the navigation of our great lakes and the equipment, as national ports, of those ports in Canada which the government may think best deserving of consideration. I do not believe that

any other scheme of aid to transportation *will produce as good results as a comprehensive and carefully thought out scheme, such as I have suggested. I do not know whether or not the government have considered the question in that light. We know that the gentlemen who are at the back of this undertaking are very enterprising and have done much for railway communication in Canada up to the present, and we believe that any legitimate efforts on their part to aid transportation should receive reasonable assistance. But what does this scheme look to in the end ? Does it look to a transcontinental railway V Does it look to any line from the great lakes to the seaboard, by means of which the company operating this railway as far as Edmonton, or it may be in the future to the Pacific c a st, will have a through line of communication to the Atlantic coast, and thus give the people of this country advantages in tlie way of transportation which they would not perhaps otherwise enjoy ? Has the government any of these matters under consideration ? It has had all the time necessary for reflection and consideration and study, which my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister asked for last night in respect of another matter. This matter has been before the government for more than a year, and it seems to me that the House might reasonably have expected that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, in announcing this scheme to-day, would have been able to give the House some definite policy, which would cover, not only the 600 miles west to Edmonton, but from Edmonton to tlie eastern seaboard and possibly to the Pacific coast. I do not know whether the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is to be regarded as a renunciation by him of the scheme which he propounded in the west some few months ago.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I had only a dream.


Robert Laird Borden: It has been suggested that it might be called a nightmare. I do not think that my hon. friend put it to the western people as a dream.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. I used the language any way.


Robert Laird Borden: That it was a dream V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that my hon. friend, in his persuasive manner, might have used the expression 'dream' and yet made the people of the west regard it as a possible reality in the near future, if the hon. gentleman bad the power to carry cut that policy which he thought best in the
interest of the country. That is what I have to say with regard to the general features of this scheme. With regard to what might be called the details, hon. geutlemen have asked my hon. friend for information as to the cost of the line, and I think that that is a very pertinent inquiry. I think that he ought to furnish the House all the information with regard to the cost of the line, because we are embarking on a pretty large undertaking ; and while we are disposed to do everything necessary and reasonable for the purpose of furnishing railway facilities to that part of the country, still in the public interest we must be careful that we do not do anything more than is reasonable and necessary in that behalf. I am under the impression that lines have been built in tlie province of Manitoba-indeed I think that tlie lion, gentleman lias so announced-I am under tlie impression that enterprises of a somewhat similar character have been successfully floated, upon which the guaranteed bonds amounted, in tlie first instance, to no more than $8,000 per mile. Tlie lion, minister informed me of what I knew, lint what had escaped my memory at the moment, that there was a subsequent guarantee given by the Manitoba government of a further sum of $2,000 per mile.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Seine of those lines got assistance from tlie provincial government and municipalities. This line gets no more assistance than we are giving it.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman should place before tlie House all the information of that kind in order that the House may form the conclusion whether or not the sum of $13,000 is no more than a reasonable sum for the purpose of furnishing these railway facilities to which people of tlie west are no doubt entitled. There is another subject on which we should-have a little information and possibly some discussion, and tliat is the question of capitalization. I do not know what the capitalization of this c mpany in respect of this line will am :unt to, but I think the majority of members will agree that we cannot be too careful in seeing that it is not put at so high an am unt that it may be used afterwards as an argument against the control of rates by the government, which is so essential and especially so important to the people of the west. I think therefore that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals should give us a little more information. I have already adverted to the comparison between the subsidy to this line and other similar lines in Manitoba. The hon. minister forestalled another question which I was about to ask by stating that this is the only assistance which this company is receiving from any government or municipality. I think that I am correct in this.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a further question I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman before going into the details of the measure, and that is whether or not the government are to have any supervision over the construction of this railway, not only as regards the mode but the cost as well ? Is that provided for in this resolution ? If not, does not my hon. friend think that there should be at least such government supervision over the construction of that line, as is usually to be found in the subsidy agreements entered into by the government during the past fifteen or twenty years. I do not know that any further suggestions occur to me at this moment, except that I would like to say to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that while we may go on and, with profit, discuss this afternoon some of the details of this matter, I would like the final discussion of it to be postponed until we get a little more information on the questions involved, and also until the return of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who is out of town to-day. I presume there will be no objection to the delay of a day for this latter reason. The announcement made at the close of the sitting last evening did not include, so far as ' Hansard ' shows, the announcement that this matter would be brought up to-day. Otherwise I am sure my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) would have allowed his other engagement to stand and would have remained for the purpose of dealing with this subject to-day. As it is, he has gone away without any knowledge that this matter would be brought up. I do not know that he has anything to remark upon it, but still, as he is very conversant with matters concerning transportation, I should like to have him present before the matter is finally passed in committee.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quits sure the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) has no intention of conveying a wrong impression, but I think that the rather urgent and pressing way in which he spoke of the production of these papers after what I had said to my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) would tend to convey the Impresison that there was some hesitation on my part in acceding-


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all. 1 beg my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) to acquit me at once of any suggestion of the kind. I assure him that I had not that in mind, because I knew that he has accepted the suggestion at once. I merely mentioned it by way of reiteration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I shall be very glad indeed to produce the information the hon. gentleman Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
desires, and will do so, if possible, on the next occasion when the resolutions are taken up. And I see no objection at all to the final passing of these resolutions being deferred until these papers are forthcoming. The hon. member has passed some criticism, not upon the resolutions themselves, but upon what he considers the unsatisfactory attitude of the government with respect to the general question of transportation. And the hon. gentleman seems to be under the impression that it would have been very proper for the government, on the occasion of introducing these resolutions, to have stated to the House just what the general idea of the government was ns to the proper methods of thoroughly and adequately dealing with the question of transportation as a whole. While I can understand my hon. friend's impatience and anxiety to know at what conclusions the government have arrived, or may arrive, upon this question, still, I cannot for myself, perceive that it was at all necessary that we should make the introduction of these resolutions the occasion for any such declaration of general policy. This railway enterprise stands by itself. We know that it has been in the public mind for some time and that the railway has been progressing by degrees, adding to its general plan, reaching out and extending year by year. As it has made progress under the charters it has received, it has been asking for further charter power. I do not know whether, when the Canadian Northern was started in the Rainy River District, it was in the minds of the promoters of that undertaking to continue westward until they reached the Pacific coast. But, if it was not in their minds, their ideas became enlarged, for they have obtained from parliament power to construct all the way to the Pacific. We are not now offering any proposals to parliament beyond Edmonton; we do not ask that asistance be rendered to this railway beyond that point. And we are perfectly safe in asking parliament to assist the undertaking to that point, because, unquestionably, whatever is done in any other direction will not conflict in the remotest degree with this undertaking. If this undertaking stood alone, it would justify the asistance which we are asking parliament to give it, and it is not such a project as might be altered, changed or varied in its character in any degree by any general scheme which the government might find itself able, later on, to suggest to parliament. The government has not yet matured its views with regard to the question of railway policy concerning a transcontinental line. We may be able, before the close of the present session, to give parliament some knowledge on that point, or we may not. But, what I wish to impress upon the committee is that, whether we do or not. it would not affect in the slightest degree the measure which we are now submitting to parliament for assist-

ance to the Canadian Northern between these. points mentioned in the resolution.
I note what the hon. gentleman has said on the subject of capitalization of this railway and


Robert Laird Borden: I was not speaking of this railway in particular, but. of all railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, what applies to all railways, would, of course, apply to this. 1 am speaking within the knowledge of many of the members of the committee when 1 say that my views on this subject have been expressed upon previous occasions, and generally they are quite in accord with what the hon. member has stated. I think we ought to keep a very watchful eye on the question of capitalization ; and I think that in the Railway Committee, where these powers are conferred, we do the best wo can. When, before this project of the Canadian Northern had fully assumed its present shape, but when it was apparent that they were going to extend their lines over a very considerable portion of our northwestern territory, I called the attention of the Railway Committee, which was very largely constituted at the time-many hon. members now in my eye must have been present on that occasion-to the capitalization, and said : This railway is asking for powers to capitalize at a very large sum, and I think it would be proper for us to have in our minds the absolute certainty that, in some form or other, this company is likely to be aided, directly or indirectly, from the treasury of the country. A result of what took place was that the amount of total capitalization which the company asked authority to issue was very much reduced.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was about cut in two.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend reminds me it was about cut in two. I think it was in the neighbourhood of $46,000,000 or $50,000,000. Speaking from memory, we cut it down to $24,000,000 ; so we made a very substantial reduction, and entirely in view of the thought which the hon. member has expressed to-day. Now, as to supervision during the construction of this work, I may say to my hon. friend that many provisions will be found in the contract when it is entered into which it would not be necessary to include in the resolutions now before the committee. The government will feel it to be its duty to see that it is abundantly satisfied as to the character of the road which is to be constructed, as to the quality of the work done, as to the standard, as to the expenditure, so that the bonds which are issued may be well within, certainly not in excess of, the amount which they would be earning during the progress of the work.
I omitted to say that the road will be a first class road in its character generally, its alignment, its grades, its curves, &c. It is possible to lay down a railway along the route-we have seen the plans and profiles, it has nearly all been surveyed instrumental-ly-and we know that a road from Edmonson to Port Arthur will not exceed at any point a higher grade than one-half of one per cent, or twenty-six feet to the mile. Imagine such a length of railway as this constructed through that country, and only showing a grade of one-half of one per cent per mile. Certainly this is an element of immense value, because they will be able to earn a dollar where another road, with one and a half or two per cent grades to combat, could not earn half a dollar.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that that is the grade on the Rainy River section ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Twenty-six feet to the mile.


Samuel Hughes: Going east ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not stated so by these gentlemen to me. The statement is a general one, as it was handed to me. I suppose, perhaps, it was an oversight. The quality of the line, we will see, is very superior. In connection with the question of cost, I may make this remark : This railway will bridge across the Saskatchewan river twice.


Samuel Hughes: Four times- once across the South Saskatchewan and three times across the North Saskatchewan.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, then, the cost of bridge construction will be larger than I imagined.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That shows the necessity of having the fullest possible information.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Speaking of the estimate of $13,000, I think it will occur to anybody who has had any experience in railroad construction that $13,000 is a very low estimate indeed for a first class railway properly equipped.


Mr. OSLER.: What amount of equipment is covered by the government guarantee ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We stipulate for an ordinary equipment when the line is first built, to be included in the first cost. It would not be reasonable to require such an amount of rolling stock as they would require when the business grew and became very heavy. We treat them upon the same basis as we treat all other railways in their initial stages.


Mr. FOWLER.: Does this mortgage cover simply the roadbed or the roadbed and equipment ?

43 SO


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It covers all, the terminals and all the property of the railway company. When It was suggested a moment ago that in the province of Manitoba the company was able to construct its line with a smaller subsidy, with guaranteed bonds of $S.000 per mile at first, and then Increased to .$10,-000, it must be borne in mind that that was very far from covering all the assistance which the railway company received. In the first place, over a good many miles of their system they had 0,400 acres per mile ; then from Port Arthur through to the Rainy River district and a portion of the Rainy River district, covering 120 miles, they had from this parliament double the usual subsidy, viz. 6,400 dollars per mile. So the amount of assistance which was given by the Manitoba government was largely supplemented in these various ways.


William Findlay Maclean: I must take issue with the proposition as laid down by the Minister of Railways to-day. He says this is for a local branch, for a small portion of the road, that it is not a part of any general plan. I say we should have a statement here to-day giving us a general plan, showing how the government propose to deal with the transcontinental railway proposition. He has opened wide the door for assistance, and every railroad running through a new country where there are settlers desiring railroad facilities, is bound to be assisted by the government. His statement went that far. He said : Here is a new country, available for settlement, there are settlers in it, and the government feel bound to assist this road. Welt, if they say that in this case, they must say it in all cases ; and they should have been prepared to say today whether this proposition to aid a transcontinental road is to be followed next week by another proposition to aid the Grand Trunk Pacific road. We have no statement whatever in that respect. Now, when the government came down to the House with this proposition, they were bound to come prepared to state their general policy on the transcontinental railway question. They have not done it. I cannot vote for a proposition of this kind. For what has happened ? This railway running from Port Arthur to Winnipeg in the west heretofore has been very largely bonused by the people of this country. When the first portion of this railway was considered in thiq House, I took the position then that if public money was to be put into a road, it should be a government owned' railway, for the only way to solve the railway problem is for the government to own a road from one ocean to the other, a road controlled by the people, and its ratios regulated by the people in such a way that every other road will have to live up to that standard. They should have done that long ago, they should have done that with the Rainy River road, and the minister said Mr. FOWLER.
he had some idea of it in his mind, but he said at the time : This is only a small section, let this go through. Now comes along another section, and he says : We must take this as part of a proposition, let it go through. The country expects something very different from the government. They expect that the government should outline its policy in regard to transcontinetal railways. The only thing to do if they are putting in public money is to build a government road. Hon. gentlemen have heard a good deal in this House about a government owned railway, and they have heard a great deal from their supporters. Some years ago only a few of us took that view, but now there is a growing demand in the country for a government owned railway. This is one of the signs of the times. There are hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who said that free trade was bound to live for ever, and that the protectionist proposition was not a policy which would last. To-day


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: I am only mentioning the point in illustration-England is in a ferment over the trade question, and the bulk of the leading English statesmen in England are beginning to see that the time has come for revision of their policy and are becoming protectionists.
ill-. COWAN. You have not read this morning's papers.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I have. The same thing is happening in connection with the railway question. The people are coming rapidly to the opinion that if the national credit is to be given towards the building of a trans-continental railway the government should build a road which should be owned and controlled by the people. Instead of that, we are giving our money for a railway controlled by private parties. This is not good policy, and it is not in line with what the people expect. What follows V It follows as sure as night follows day that next week or the week after, another proposition will be introduced into the House providing for an immense bonus, probably a land grant, or an immense guarantee to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Where is all this to end ? The door is open wide and the policy has been set forth as the policy of tlie government that if there is a new country with settlers in it and a railway is desired the country must build that railway.
I cannot vote for a proposition based upon that principle. The hon. minister says : We are committing ourselves to nothing. We are committing ourselves to a great deal. In the first place we are guaranteeing over $9,000,000 of money. It is a commitment which will affect the credit of the country more or less, and if there is to be a commitment to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway of the same kind that will affect the

credit of tlie country also. We are rapidly dissipating tlie credit of tlie country in building railways for private corporations. 1 do not think the feeling of this country to-day is in favour of any such policy. The feeling of the country to-day, and lion, gentlemen will find it out when the voice of the people is heard, is against this system of bouusing railways owned by private individuals. I have not the slightest objection to that country having a railway. 1 believe the men who are seeking aid under this proposition are enterprising men and that they are opening up the country, but they are opening up the country for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the country. The hon. minister says that we are practically giving nothing away. Do you know what backing this note of the Canadian Northern Railway Company is worth V We are told that it will enable them to borrow money for 3 per cent. If they had to go upon the open market and borrow it tliey would probably have to pay 6 per cent, so that it is worth $30,000 a year on each million, or $270,000 a year. It is practically a perpetual bonus to this enterprise. We are giving this road a quarter of a million annually and there is no prospect of getting anything in return. The hon. minister says that we are going to control the rates. How far have we controlled rates up to the present time 7 It is true something lias been secured by the bargain which the province of Manitoba made with this railway company. They have reduced the rates in a measure, but not in such a way ns they should have been reduced. For one thing there should have; been a maximum freight rate provided for" in this agreement, and most of all a maximum passenger rate should have been put in. That is where you get control of railways. We have to deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway, we may have to deal with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and other roads may grow up. The Canadian Northern is one of them. Every one of these roads could be absolutely controlled by the competition of a government railway or by stipulating with these roads the passenger and freight rates which should be charged upon them. Is anything of that kind proposed in these resolutions V Nothing of the kind. We have had no great results from what was promised in the past in the way of taking control of these railways and their rates. We have had no satisfactory results from the amount of money we have expended and we are going on and spending millions and millions on our terminals, on improving lake and river navigation, on improving the seaports, because they say the nation must do this work. What is the good of spending all that money on lake navigation, on the canals, and oil' ocean terminals if we have no control over railways ? The only way to have complete control is by having at least one government owned railway. We are spending enough money on all of these different propositions to build a government road from one ocean to the other. Why should we not have it ? Why should not the Intercolonial Railway be extended to the Pacific ocean ? Why should not all this money that the people are putting up be put into a proposition in support of a railway owned and controlled by the people ? The money is being frittered away. The problem is not being solved, but it is being complicated by such a proposition as the one which we have before us now. It makes it harder to control these railways and eventually to settle the transportation problem. I stand in my place in this House and I tell the government that the people of this country are opposed to this system of bouusing railways. This bonusing proposition which is presented here to-day is very much milder than similar propositions in the past, as there is no land grant, there is no grant of money, and there is some regulation in regard to freight rates, but I submit that though the proposition is presented in a modified form to-day, the sentiment of the people is against the bonusing of private owned railways in this country and lion, gentlemen will find it out. 1 am willing to take my risk, whatever it may be, in standing by that policy and of saying that any money that we put into a trans continental line ought to be put into a railway owned and controlled by the government and made the complement of the lake and river navigation system that we are supposed to be building up. What is the use of paying immense sums in improving mu-seaports, in lighting the St. Lawrence, in the canals, in improving river navigation and lake navigation and in providing terminals on the lakes, if we cannot substantially control the railways that feed these ports ? I will allow the hon. members from the North-west Territories to deal with that question. They have their constituents to face, and the wish of the people of the North-west Territories agrees altogether with what the people of eastern Canada think, that the time has come to stop the bonusing of railways and to put all this money into a government railway. I do not: wish to go into the details of this measure. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) pointed out, here, to-day, that the greatest care ought to be taken as to the standard of the road and as to the way in which it is built. The road can be overcapitalized. It might be constructed in a way that would interfere with its working afterwards. These minor details and everything of that character should be do seiy looked into, but I shall not speak of that now so much as in regard to the fact that the government are building a railway which they are not going to control, and they are doing it in such a way that they are not working out a trans-continental

system, in such a way that it does not justify the national expenditure on lake terminals, sea terminals and lake and river navigation, and they are doing it in spite of the well expressed opinion of the people that the day has come to end this subsidizing of private owned railways.


Mr. BOURASSA.: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter into a general discussion of this measure, but I wish to say that when the final discussion takes place on the Bill I hope that the government will be prepared to make a clear explanation as to tlveir policy in regard to a trans-continental line. There is no doubt that public opinion, in the province of Quebec at least, and indeed in the whole of Canada-until the moment that notice of these resolutions was given-lay in the direction, that if tjie money of the people of Canada was required to aid any large railway enterprise in the west, it was to include a through transcontinental railway which would not only develop the grain traffic of the west, but would connect the east and the west and develop the general traffic of Canada. 1 fear that the passage of these resolutions and the Bill which will be based upon them, will tend to prevent the adoption of a general scheme for a transcontinental line.


William Findlay Maclean: A government line.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not say a government line. I fear, though I hope it will not, that it will render more difficult the early construction of any transcontinental line such as the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other scheme that may be favoured by parliament. The moment this line is being operated it will cover the more profitable trade of the country for the present, because there is no doubt that the transportation of grain from the North-west to Lake Superior is the most profitable part of the business now, and therefore when a new line comes and finds itself deprived of a good share of that traffic it will be less disposed to build a line from Lake Superior to Quebec and the maritime provinces. 1 trust that the government have studied the situation in this light, and that when this Bill is brought before the House they will make a declaration of thein policy and assure us of the eastern provinces, that the building of the road from Winnipeg to Quebec and the maritime provinces through the northern portions of Ontario and Quebec will not be jeopardized by this scheme.
On the general question of our railway policy, although I do not go so far as my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) there is no doubt there is a growing feeling in Canada that it is time to put an end to our railway policy of the past. No country in the world is so greatly in need of railways as Canada. There is no country in the world where railways mean so much for the future of the country both from a commercial and from a political point of Mr. MACLEAN.
view, and at the same time there is no country in the world where railways have been built with so little care as to their future consequences to the people. We have spent more money on our railways, in proportion to our population, than the people of any other nation, and there is less probability that we shall have a return from them, than is the case with any other nation. I had hoped from the declaration made byi the Minister of Finance last session, when I brought the subject before the House in the debate on the address, that the government would be able to advise us this session, and give us some hope that there would be a change in our railway policy. I admit that in these resolutions there is a change, and a change for the better. This way of dealing with the Canadian Northern Railway is far better than the system of the past under which we simply squandered the money of the jmople without any expectation of a return from it. But at the same time this change is not sufficient. We should go more fully into the matter and we should study the railway policy of other nations which have better solved the problem than we have, or that the people in England and the United States have. In continental Europe they are greatly in advance of England and the United States and Canada so far as their railway policy is concerned. , With the exception of Germany they do not go so far as ownership and operation by the government, and I think that is wise because where they have tried it they have found it a failure. But they have adopted a mixed system by which the state retains the ownership of the railway, the right of property in the railway, but gives the operation of it for a certain number of years to private companies under the control of the state. The title which is given to the company is only a lease of power, for the operation of the road under the supervision of the government, and the aid given to the railway is only a guarantee of interest.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With what result has that been worked out ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: With splendid results so far as France, Belgium and Holland are concerned.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My information is quite the other way.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In France and Holland especially they have tried different systems, and if the minister studies the question he will find that the mixed system which they have adopted of late has largely succeeded.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend. (Mr. Bourassa) must have observed that the French government had a very large deficit last year,

and tliat the greater part of that was due to the loss on the operation of their railways under the system that he refers to.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. Minister of Railways is strengthening my contention because the deficit was on the state owned and state operated railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Under the system the hon. gentleman refers to.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I may tell the minister that there are two systems; in fact there are three systems going on together in France. At first they gave charters to companies with permanent powers such as we are doing, and there are only a few small lines which remain under that system. Under the second system they went to the other extreme as they generally do there, and they had state owned and state controlled railways, and a certain number of railways remain in that condition at the present day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You mean state operated.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. Then they constituted the six great companies with which they entered into an agreement in 1857. Of course political events in France had some effect on the railway policj- and created some disturbance. For example, after the revolution of 1848 sonde of the smaller companies having failed, the government extended their state operated system. They took the Charente $nd Vendee systems and after that, during the empire, they more or less balanced the three systems together. After the war of 1870, there was, of course, a great disturbance in the operation of their railways, primarily because of the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, which deprived some of the railway companies of a part of their system. After more or less dis turbance, in 1879, the French government under Mr. d6 Freycinet, tried to extend the state operated system and they changed their agreements with the six great companies. They took over a part of their system and it is upon that state owned and operated system that the deficits have occurred every year. But upon the system belonging to the six great companies which are operated under the dual system there has been no deficit.


Mr. RUSSELL.: May it not be, that the reason the state operated railways do not pay is that the best railways were taken by the companies, and the worst left to the state ? It has been stated by some writers on the subject in the magazines, that where there is a mixed system of state owned and company owned railways, the state always get the heavy end of the plank.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In theory that is right, but the-state owned system of France was born before the agreement with the six companies Under the arrangement of
1879, made by Mr. De Freycinet, part of the system of these great companies was annexed to the state system, but that went on for only four years, and in the general revision of 1883, the state deprived itself of these lines which it had annexed in 1879, and concluded an arrangement with the six great companies by which they handed back these parts that they had taken in 1879.
Now, I am ready to admit with the Minister of Railways and Canals that over some Parts of the railway system of France the arrangement has not worked so well as over other parts. But if you go into a careful analysis of the system you will find-That wherever there is a large deficit it is due to the fact that the government forced the companies to build certain lines that were entirely unprofitable. That was done through political pressure, and the deficit is due to causes entirely apart from the system itself. They also adopted a very peculiar policy-and it is not a policy I would recommend-but at that time they had reason to do it. They classified the railways into two systems, the old system and the new system. They guaranteed the interest on the new system, and, in order to make it up, they forced a part of the profits of the old system to be applied on the new system. This caused some disturbance, and they have now done away with that part of the system, because it' is no mbre needed. If the hon. minister would go into a study of the French state operated railways, he would find that everywhere there is a deficit upon them. That system is not a success, and the people of France know that it is not, though they probably continue it for the same reason that we continue the Intercolonial Railway. But leaving aside the state-operated railways, which consist of only about 2,500 kilometers, while the systems of the great companies consist of 26,000 kilometres, the hon. gentleman will find that the general system, as it was adopted in 1857, and renewed by the last agreement of 1883, is not only successful, but is the one feature of French politics which is the most hopeful, so far as finance is concerned. The prospects of the railways, after an experience of forty-three years, are such that when the leases expire in 1956, instead of being a burden on the French people and increasing their debt, they will probably be the means of reducing the debt of the French people by an immense figure. In fact, independent of the state operated railways, and independent of those parts of the lines which have been built and operated under special circumstances, the amount of interest paid by the French government on what we may call the ideal system is diminishing every year ; and, after ninety-nine years, that is in 1956, the whole system will go back to the French government. But their intention is not to operate the railways at the end of the leases, but to lease them over again on such conditions as they will be abld to impose,



which at tliat time will probably be more favourable than the present conditions, because of the increase of population and trade and the better management of the system.
There is no general railway law in France. The railways are operated under a kind of agreement, a model schedule, which is modified according to special circumstances. There are dispositions of the schedule giving the same powers of control to the government as we have here, and .power to revise the rates at different periods. There are other powers also. For example, the government would have the right to take possession of the railways at any time during the lease, and put an end to the lease.
On the state-owned and state-operated railways of Germany, there were at first decreases of the rates, and that is one of the dangers of state operated railways. These decreases were too great. At first they were pleasing to the people, but the government came to the conclusion that they were going to bankrupt the system, and they had to impose higher rates, which, of course, caused a great deal of discussion. Holland formerly operated its own railways, but finally adopted the French system, and now has state owned railways operated by chartered companies under special agreement. Germany has kept state owned and state operated railways to a large extent, in spite of the inconvenience of the system, for purely military reasons, which do not exist here. I did not intend to go so fully into this *question ; but I have given these explanations because I think the time lias come when we should study seriously our railway policy. We shall not effect any improvement by putting off the question from year to year! Every charter and every aid we grant to a railway company to-day is so much of the national wealth of the country being given away to private individuals without any hope of return ; and the time has certainly come when we should have a more intelligent and conservative policy for the people of Canada in railway matters.


Mr. SCOTT.: On the general question of providing for an extension of railway accommodation in the particular parts of the country through which these proposed lines are to'run, I think there can be, and there Is actually and practically, no contrary opinion. Upon that general question I do not intend at the present time to add anything to what I have said to this House on previous occasions. I think, too, with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, that the present proposition is very far in advance of any other railway proposition ever presented to this House, and upon this fact I sincerely congratulate the hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches. 1 do not know, however, whether these resolutions are as good as they possibly might be made. X think this parliament is in duty
bound at the present time to make for the people the very best possible bargain with these railway promoters and contractors, the Canadian Northern Railway Company. A number of very good suggestions have been made to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals by the hon. leader of the opposition and other members of the House this afternoon. There is one, however, wbicli has not been made, and which I am going to make. Personally I favour the principle so consistently and enthusiastically championed by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean)-the principle of government ownership and operation of railways. Still, I do not feel that at present I can go with him the full length of demanding that the government shall at once commence to apply that principle in this country. I know, and I think lie knows and recognizes, that to-day there is not in this House a majority of members in favour of the immediate application of that principle ; and I very much question whether there will be found throughout the country a majority of the people in favour of its immediate application. At the same time. I agree with him that the feeling in favour of the principle Is growing, and growing with considerable rapidity, and I think it would be well to have in the proposed contract a clause which would enable the government at some future time, when the majority of the people of the country believe in the application of that principle, and when they will elect to this House a majority of members in favour of its immediate application, to take over on fair and reasonable terms the lines which we are at present proposing to aid and have constructed. There was another suggestion, which I consider a very good and very essential one, made by the hon. member for East York ; that is, that there should be put in this contract a provision for maximum rates, so that the people along the lines to be constructed shall know definitely and distinctly what advantage they are to receive in return for what the public is doing for this company. For these reasons, to allow of time to frame some further provisions, and to further perfect the bargain which has been already agreed upon to some extent between the government and the railway company, I would concur in the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition. that the question should not be pressed to a conclusion at the present time, but that further time be given for consideration.


Mr. McCREARY.: I understand that it is not the intention of the hon. minister to conclude the discussion on this subject to-day, but that in probably a week or ten days the matter will be again before the House. I think that the hon. minister should then bring down at least a rough draught of the actual contract to be entered into with this company and also a copy of the mortgage to be given by it to the gov-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: ernment. In the transaction which took place between this company and the Manitoba government, 1 think that the mortgage was actually brought before the House and discussed. However, these are matters which can be discussed later on as well as the rates of freight and the question of government ownership. I may say, however, that the majority of the people of the west are rather sorry that the dream of the hon. minister did not come true, and that when he woke up, he did not go on and carry that beautiful dream into practical effect.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think he is awake yet.


William Forsythe McCreary: But the giving of assistance to this road need not prevent the government front constructing at any time a road of its own. I do not believe that there is one mile of the road aided by this Bill which will not pay from the start. From Lake Superior to Edmonton, it will be a paying road every day it runs. But there are some things we ought to carefully see to, judging by our experience in the past. In my opinion the government should employ an engineer and some assistants, whose duty it would be to keep continually going over the road and look after the manner of construction. The Canadian Pacific Railway, although it has been built over twenty years, was so imperfectly constructed that this year, as is pointed out in the Winnipeg papers, in addition to the ordinary section men employed by the company, Messrs. Foley-Larson Company have three thousand men actually at work putting that line into shape between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. It is a well-known fact also that the Crow's Nest road, which was assisted by this government, will practically have to be rebuilt from Lethbridge into the Mountains. The cuts through the mud hills are in such a shape that it will cost as much to build a new road as to repair the old one. Therefore, I would urge on the government and the hon. minister that competent men should be employed to supervise the construction of the road and see that the grading and bridges and terminals are properly constructed. This company say that they will only have 5 per cent of a grade, but how they can cross the Saskatchewan river five times, how they can lay five bridges across the Saskatchewan and go up and down the hills leading to and from those bridges, without a steeper gradient than .5 per cent, is an engineering problem I would not like to have to solve. There is another phase of the question to which I would call attention. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was built-its main line as well as its branches-and when the Crow's Nest road was built, the treatment of the men was such as to bring disgrace on the Dominion. Every one must recollect that when in 1897 the Crow's Nest road was under construction, telegrams were sent abroad of such a nature as forced 1381
the right hon. the First Minister to take action. Government officers should be put on the road to see that the men are paid proper wages and fairly treated. Of course if there should be such a crop in Manitoba and the west as we had last year, there will be no difficulty on the point of wages paid, except this : In the case of the Crow's Nest road, the men were not givan proper food, the camps were not properly constructed, the bedding was not what it should be, there was not sufficient accommodation for the men, but worse than that, the men who were hired at Winnipeg to go to the work, were charged a high rate of transport to get there and another high rate to get back, and were charged besides other excessive charges, so that all a man could, earn was about $13 per month net. I sent out myself on this very road a large number of Doukhobors, Galicians and others, who had worked full time, and the poor men, when they had paid the charges for transport, and the fees of a doctor, whom they never saw, at the rate of $1 per month, and $3 per sack for flour, had their pay reduced down to the minimum. Thirteen dollars or thirteen fifty per month was about all they could make.
The construction of this road should be made the means of colonizing the prairie. By the construction of the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern railways, the states of Minnesota and Dakota were settled, but unfortunately the manner in which the Canadian Pacific Railway was built and its branches, the Manitoba and South-western and the Deloraine, so disgusted the men employed that they left the country. It is the duty of the government to see that the men employed are properly fed and housed, and not overcharged for their supplies or transport; and if that were done, I believe that we would get many good, hardy settlers in there to earn a few dollars, who would afterwards settle along the prairie. But the company should not be allowed to go to Minneapolis, Duluth and Chicago and hire a lot of Italians under the Padrone system, at perhaps ninety cents per day, for this would do the country harm instead of good. Now is the time, whpu we are putting the company under certain obligations, to insist on fixing the conditions.
With regard to the equipment of the road, the hon. minister should state exactly what equipment it shall have per mile-what box cars, passenger and flat cars and engines, and the style of engines. It is well known that notwithstanding the fact that there are less engines per mile on the American roads to-day, they haul more than was hauled five or six years ago, because the engines are larger. We should have a statement as to what the equipment will be at the end of two, three or five years. The hon. minister says that it is not customary to have a road up to proper equipment during construction, but from the time the first

hundred miles on this road are built and in operation, there will be enough freight to yield a handsome profit. You cannot compare it to a new. road constructed over new territory, because the country will be settled just as quickly as the road is constructed. In fact, there are settlers in there now.
Another question is whether or not this is to be a great national highway. X do not think tliat it is necessary to decide that question just now. If the government should undertake to construct a great national highway, this road will not stand in the way, and they may use this road or not as they choose. They are given running power over it in one of the clauses. Any road may have running powers over it, but unfortunately I do not think that the terms on which running powers may be given to other roads are sufficiently well stated. The clause says they shall be given running powers on an equitable basis, but I believe that basis should be defined. If the Grand Trunk Railway or any other road wants to run over this road, the terms should be stated. I will not discuss that Manitoba bargain, nor another question which I think the minister probably overlooked, and that is the condition of that part of the Canadian Northern system which is merely leased, as I may say, from the Northern Pacific Railway. Three hundred and fifty-seven miles in the province of Manitoba were taken over .from the Northern Pacific Railway Company at $7,000,000, which calls for $210,000 to be paid annually. I do not know whether the minister had a copy of that deed before him in framing this mortgage. It is as well that he should have. They have not the fee of the road ; it is merely a leasehold, and it can be closed out in sixty days or ninety days, I am not sure which. I got the exact particulars from the president of the road. I think that this is a matter which should be looked into. As I said, I shall defer any further discussion of the matter until the contract itself is brought before the House.


Mr. OLIVER.: As this seems to be an occasion for giving advice to the government, I prop se to offer such suggestions as occur to my mind. I would ask for some indulgence from the House in the matter, as I happen to represent a part of the country served by the railway proposed to be constructed. I would like to rather emphasize the importance of the proposition now before the House. There seems to me a tendency to belittle it as not being of the importance of a great transcontinental scheme. It is true, this is not as important as if it were part of a transcontinental scheme ; but allow me to say that it is of stupendous importance, not merely to the handful of people who are now in the country proposed to be served, nor merely to the thousands or hundreds of thousands who Mr. McCreary.
are shortly to occupy that country, but to the whole Dominion of Canada. The road is for the development of the Saskatchewan valley, and the Saskatchewan valley is the coming grainary of Canada, of North America and, possibly, of the world.


William Forsythe McCreary: What about the Red River valley ?


Frank Oliver: The Red River valley is part of the great country of which the Saskatchewan valley is very much the larger part. The part of that great wheat growing area of the North-west which, long ago, was called the fertile belt, and which includes the valleys of the Red River and the Saskatchewan, is the part of the country to which Canada must look for its future development in wealth and population. There, and there only, have we the area of fertility suitable for the growth of population and the production of wealth that will ever constitute this Canada a great country. So, I say, it is of the very highest importance, looked at from a national standpoint, first that such a road as this should be constructed, and. second that it should be constructed under proper conditions. I shall say nothing with regard to the amount of aid to be given, the manner in which that aid is to be given nor the security to be taken. I do not think we need quarrel about any or all of these three particulars. It does not matter so much to this country whether we guarantee the bonds to the amount of $10,000 a mile or $13,000 a mile ; it does not matter so much even if we have to pay the interest on these bonds. What does matter to us is the amount we shall have to pay for the service we get from the road. I have troubled the House and some of the committees on some other occasions on this subject, and I propose to trespass again and to emphasize the point that the rates to be charged on this railway for the service of the country through which it runs, and, even more, for the service of the whole country, is the important question in this connection. There seems to be an idea that the transportation question of Canada begins at Fort William and extends to Quebec. Allow me to say that Canada has no serious transportation question over that distance. Nature and what we have done in the past has, in very large measure, solved the transportation question over that distance, so that when grain comes east, once it reaches Fort William, there is then no question as to the transportation or the rates from that point to its ultimate market. Neither is there any serious question as to the transportation of manufactured articles going westward until Fort William is reached. The lake navigation and the railroads fulfil in great part the requirements. I do not say that improvement cannot still be made ; of course we admit that it can. We do not say that it is not

desirable ; of c urse it is. But wliat 1 say is that it is not of the stupendous importance of the transportation question over the distance from Fort William westward. I do not think 1 need dwell on the importance to the wheat producers of the west of the lowest possible rate for the hauling of their grain to the ultimate market which, as I said before, means the lowest possible rate for their grain from the wheat fields to Fort William-Beyond that point we need not concern ourselves very seriously. But, from the wheat fields to Fort William is where the toll is taken that keeps the Northwest settler poor and keeps this country back, and, in the legislation which this parliament passes and in the aid it chooses to give, that is the point we need to emphasize and keep in mind. Just let me say, for the purpose of emphasis that a difference of a cent a bushel on the grain rate from the wheat fields to Fort William makes a difference of half a million dollars on every 50,000,000 bushels of wheat exported.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do you expect to have many crops of fifty millions of bushels for export?


Frank Oliver: We do, certainly. I am thankful to have my attention called to that point. AVe expect many times fifty million bushels, and we need, and we expect, a number of reductions in freight rates to the amount of one cent per bushel each. The fifty millions of bushels which we speak of as the export product last year was produced very largely-in fact it was altogether produced-in what we still call the RedRiver-Valley-Section of the North-west, that is the drainage area of the Red, Assiniboine and Q'Appelle rivers. That is the area which produce the 50,000,000 bushels. When you consider the sparse settlement throughout the greater part of that area, and take the total area from Grandview to Edmonton and beyond, I think you will agree that our present production is not a quarter, is not a fifth of the production that necessarily will occur when the country is settled all the way to Edmonton and beyond Ihrough the Saskatchewan valley.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The export quantity


Mr. BOYD.: I wish to protest against the manner in which questions are being asked by members on the other side of the House. Questions have been asked by the Minister of Railways and Canals and by other members, but not a man on this side of the House knows what is being said. I think a little respect should be shown to the gentlemen on this side of the Hou.se, and when a question is asked it should be asked in such a manner that we can hear it and know what the answer is.


Frank Oliver: I was speaking-


Nathaniel Boyd: Tell us what the minister asked you, and what your answer is.


Frank Oliver: I was speaking of the prospective increase in exports, and suggested that, taking the comparative areas and the prospects, our exports would certainly be increased five fold when the Saskatchewan valley was settled up as the Red river valley is now. The minister suggested that our exports would not increase proportionately. I would be very glad to believe that the population of Canada would increase to such an extent that our exports would not increase proportionately. But I for one do not see that there is anything in our present prospects to indicate that our exports will not be in proportion to our production. At any rate the question of transportation from the wheat fields to Fort William would remain the same, because our great increase of consuming population, aside from our producing population, would be naturally in eastern Canada. So the question of rates on grain would be just the same then as now, except that we would be paying out at both ends, that is, the eastern consumer would be paying as well as the western producer; whereas now it is the western producer and the consumer in the old country. But I do not want to dwell on that point, everybody understands that feature of the case.
The point I want to emphasize is that this is not a question which concerns alone the producers of wheat in the North-west, but that the eastern manufacturer, the eastern commercial man, is just as deeply interested in a low freight rate to the wheat fields of the west as the producer of wheat in the west is interested in a low freight rate to reach the markets of the world. The ultimate market for the manufacturers and commerce of eastern Canada is necessarily these wheat fields. It is there or it is nowhere. Either you are going to have increased manufactures because of your increased market there, or you are not going to have increased manufactures. Now, it is of just as much importance to you that you should have the lowest possible rate to place your manufactures in these wheat fields as it is that the western farmer should get his grain out at a low rate. The difference between a high rate and a low rate to the western farmer means a difference in his profits; but if you cannot get a rate that will enable you to get your manufactures into the west, you cannot manufacture at all, your throat is cut, you cannot do business.
Now, let me point out just how and where your throat is cut. It is a matter of notoriety that in western Canada the importations of United States machinery for agricultural purposes has increased in recent years far beyond the increase of our population. Your manufacturers of eastern Canada are not keeping pace with the increased

population of the west in their sales. Now, why is this ? There is no difference in the protective duty, and there is no difference in the freight rate over our eastern lines. The difference is because the manufacturing centres of the United States which supply those articles are situated so close to the Canadian boundary enjoy the lowest possible freight rates from the Atlantic coast; they are therefore able to put their products into our wheat fields at a rate that you in this end of the country cannot compete with under present circumstances. Not only is that so in heavy manufactures, but it is also so in heavy groceries. I have visited the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and it must be borne in upon any Canadian who visits those cities that the trade of the Canadian North-west is one of the principal reasons for the great prosperity of those cities. This is recognized by the people there, they look upon the North-west of Canada as their meat. They are growing with its growth, they are prospering with its prosperity, and they expect to continue to do so. And unless you can improve the freight rates which at present keep you .out of the North-west market, they are going to continue to prosper and grow, and you are going to continue to stand still, as you have done to a very large extent in the past.
What is true of St. Paul and Minneapolis in regard to our North-west is just as true in regard to Spokane in connection with the Kootenay mining district in British Columbia. Spokane papers are published with that in view, the commercial houses are run with that end in view, for the reason that Spokane gets a low freight rate by reason of railway competition. It is close to the Canadian border, and the Canadian Pacific Railway charges a high freight rate from the east. No matter how high you put your duty it is calculated into the freight rates, and you get no benefit from it. I say the cities of Spokane and St. Paul have grown within the past few years as no cities in Canada have done, and their growth has been principally, within very recent years, because of the growth and development of the adjoining North-west of Canada. The reason of that is because they have had the benefit of freight rates which our eastern manufacturers have not got, and when this parliament and this government propose to do anything in the way of increasing railway facilities in that country, it is their first duty to meet that case and see that railroad rates are cut, and cut to the bone. And why not V If we are guaranteeing the bonds of a railroad company to the amount that will be required to build and equip that railroad, as I understand we are doing on this occasion-and very properly I believe-then there is every reason why we should take into consideration the necessities of our trade in the development of our country, and place Mr. OLIVER.
the rates on such a basis as will ensure our own markets for our own people.
It has been suggested, when I have mentioned this matter before, that provision is made in these resolutions for a control of rates over this proposed railway. I read :
6. Resolved. That the rates and tolls to be charged tor the transfer and carriage of freight and passengers upon the lines of railway so aided and upon the lines owned by the Canadian Northern Railway shall he under the control of the Governor in Council or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
We are referred to the Railway Commission Bill which is now before the House as the authority which shall control the rates over the Canadian Northern Railway. I have every confidence that it would be possible to provide a Bill that would control these rates, but I have looked at the provision contained in section 2G0 which. I presume, is the provision relating to the control of tariffs, and I do not find that, in my estimation, it meets the case or that it is intended to meet the case. If I understand the general purposes of the Railway Commission Bill it is that it shall prevent discrimination in rates, that it shall tend to the equalization of rates, that it shall provide against the conditions which prevail throughout Canada where one town is discriminated against in favour of another, or where certain differences are made by one railway from another. It is not the equalization of rates that we want. It is not equalization that we need. As I said a few moments ago, we need that the rates shall be cut to the bone, that we shall get the lowest rate which it is possible to get in order to transact our trade. The Railway Commission Bill does not contemplate any such action and under its provisions as they stand, it -would be impossible to take such action because it would be distinctly contrary to the spirit, and even to the letter of the Bill. Therefore, I say the Railway Commission Bill does not meet the case as w7e understand it. Our claim is that in consideration of special aid given, a special arrangement should be made in regard to rates. Such a condition is not contemplated in the railway commission. The position which I take is that at the time we are making this bargain with this company is the time when we shall agree upon the maximum rates which that company shall charge upon freight going out and coming in. That is the time to make the bargain and it is the only time to make it. We are giving them a definite amount of assistance for a definite purpose. It appears that we can hedge them around with conditions in regard to this, that and the other thing of minor importance, and now is the time to impose the conditions which are of the importance of life and death to the

country served and to this whole country.
It is not enough to say that the government even would control the rates. The government has control of rates over many railways in Canada, but I have never heard yet that the government exercised that control with regard to the amount of aid which was given to the railway in order to ensure its construction. I do not know' that it would he justified in doing so under the conditions under which aid was given. The only effective reduction of rates which we have had in the North-west Territories has been the reduction that was brought about by the Crow's Nest bargain when, in consideration of a sum of money paid, a specilic reduction of rates was given. That was a plain business proposition, and it was satisfactory as far as it went. I believe, still, that the railway company got a good deal the best of the bargain, but this country got something that it never would have got otherwise, and that is the only thing it has ever got out of the aid that it has given to railways. I do not wish to be unpleasant, but I will just draw the attention of the committee to a little incident in connection with the Crow's Nest Railway which would indicate why some of us have not the fullest confidence in the mere general control of rates by the government. Under the Crow's Nest bargain the government has the right to regulate the rates from point to point upon that piece of railway. After that road was put in operation a schedule of rates was put in force which was most unsatisfactory to the towns and villages along the railway. The people complained against that schedule. The complaint was voiced here in this House.
I am looking at the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) now, and he will remember that he told us that he had examined that schedule of rates and was satisfied that it was a fair schedule of rates. Not very many months after that the railway company reduced the rates so as to make them fairly satisfactory to the points served ? We looked to the government on that occasion to compel the railway company to reduce its rates and we were put in the position of having agreed to a bargain which as far as the public could see meant nothing as to the control of rates on an occasion when, that control should most certainly have been exercised. The fact that the company afterwards did reduce the rates shows that the rates were unreasonable. I do not wish to press the matter further at the present time, but as the representative of a part of the North-west Territories, and as the representative of a part of the country to be served by this proposed railway, I must say to the government and to this House that as far as the people there are concerned they will look with very great dissatisfaction upon the fact of large government assistance being given even to this
railway unless satisfactory conditions are made as to definite maximum rates along its line, so that it shall be apparent to the country at large that value in rates is being secured at the time the aid is being given.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Mr. Chairman, I do-not wish to say anything in reference to this Bill at present, but the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has made a statement with which I do not coincide in saying that Spokane was built up at the expense of British Columbia on account of high freight rates. I am going to ask him the distance between Spokane and the Kootenay, and the coast cities and the Kootenay. I may say that Spokane is fifty miles from the Kootenay country whereas the coast cities are 425 miles from it. Hon. gentlemen can easily see that it could not be on account of the difference in freight rates that Spokane has been built up at the expense of our country for the simple reason that there is no comparison to be made in that regard. It is rather because the people on the American side were more progressive and took possession of the land.


Frank Oliver: May I ask the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson) if he admits that Spokane has been built up largely by the trade of the Kootenay ?


Robert George Macpherson: No, I do not admit that at all. I say that Spokane has been built up largely on account of the gold and copper mines of the Kootenay. The people from the American side came over possessed themselves of the land which was there and built up Spokane from the profits of the mines. It was entirely because of the gold they took out of the country.


Frank Oliver: I would like to say in regard to freight rates that Spokane is not an originator of traffic. It is not a manufacturing city nor a city built on commerce. Its supplies have to be brought by rail from ocean ports and from manufacturing centres. It is within, I believe, 150 miles of Nelson, which is the commercial centre of the Kootenay country. Nelson is just as close to the manufacturing centres from which Spokane draws its supplies as Spokane is, and if Spokane draws the trade rather than Nelson, it is because Spokane has better freight rates than Nelson, and we are here to see that Nelson gets as good freight rates as Spokane when the opportunity arises.
On the second resolution,


Robert Laird Borden: What is the scheme of the second clause of the resolution ? Is it intended that there shall be a mortgage to a trustee which shall be security to the debenture holders as well as the guarantee of the government, or is it intended that there shall be a mortgage to the government, securing the govern-

ment against any loss consequent upon its guarantee of the bonds ? The resolution is rather indefinite as to that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The proposal was that bonds should issue with a mortgage to a trustee, the bonds being endorsed by the government. Also there should be an additional mortgage upon the other portion of the company's system which are already encumbered to some extent, that would be a separate and independent instrument.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two distinct things. One is a series of bonds guaranteed by the Crown. In passing, I may say that there should be some definition of the word ' government ' which is not a word known to the law, and in the Manitoba Act the word ' government,' although used in the statute, was defined in the first instance as meaning the Crown represented by the executive government in Manitoba, and I suppose that course will be pursued in this case. Now, you may have bonds guaranteed by the government and also secured by a mortgage to the trustee. That is one proposition. I would not suppose that very much additional value would be given to the bonds by mortgage over the line of railway, provided they are secured by a guarantee of the government, because in that way the credit of the whole country, including the railway and everything else, is pledged to the holders of the bonds for the time being. If we are to give the guarantee of the government, one would suppose the best course would be a mortgage to the government securing the government against any loss consequent upon the guarantee which it had given for the purpose of securing these bonds. There are two distinct methods of procedure, and I cannot quite understand from the second clause of the resolution which of those modes is proposed, though I would supppose, looking on it from a practical standpoint, that the latter one would be preferred by the government. What is really intended by the second clause ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I stated that what was in the mind of the drafter of the resolution was that bonds should issue in the ordinary way, bearing the government guarantee, and that a mortgage should issue to the trustee or trustees, which should cover all the assets and property of the railway company as mentioned to secure these bonds.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize that a mortgage of that kind could be drawn in such a way as to be a security to the Crown, but it would require to contain provisions very different from those which are usually contained in a mortgage given to a trustee for the purpose of securing bonds on a railway.


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course it would.


Robert Laird Borden: It must not only be for the benefit of the bondholders, but there must be elaborate provisions in it for the purpose of enabling the government to take advantage of any provisions of the mortgage upon default being made by the company, and upon the government paying any sums the company would otherwise be obliged to pay. May I ask the minister, whether or not the mortgage proposed to be taken has been drafted V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not yet.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have, perhaps, been more satisfactory to us if that had been before the House, so that we might understand the remedies which the government would have in such a case. The result of a default might be that the government might acquire the right to enter into possession of this railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what we would contemplate.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the ordinary form of mortgage would not at ail cover that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me it might make some difference in the consideration of this proposition if the House knew exactly what the terms of the proposal were in that regard. The mortgage is one of the all important features in this connection. For example, to what extent must the company be in default in the payment of interest before the government can enter and take possession and operate the road as its own ? What remedies will the government have in that regard V What right would the company have in such a case to come in and redeem its property from the possession of the government. There are a great many interesting questions which would arise upon the consideration of the terms of the proposed mortgage, and if the Minister does not present to the [DOT] House a draft of the mortgage, he ought to be in a position to give us some outline of the provisions in that respect which the mortgage will contain when this transaction is carried through to a conclusion. Suppose the company should be in default of its interest for a number of years, during which the government is paying interest upon these bonds, when would the time come at which the government could take some proceedings for the purpose of enforcing against the railway repayment of the money which it has been obliged to advance on behalf of the company ; when do you reach the stage at which the govern-

ment shall have the power to enter into possession of the road and to operate it in such a way as to relieve itself from any such burden in the future ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All these are matters of detail and they will have, of course, to be covered by any documents that are executed between the parties. We have fully in our minds that all these points and others must necessarily arise, when we are proceeding to draft the security which is to be given and held by the government, and which it would be perhaps unnecessary to anticipate at this stage. The resolutions are clear, we are providing that aid Shall be given in such a way, and shall be carried out by such instruments as will fully secure the government. At the same time, if the government should make any advances in respect of the interest defaulted by the company, or make any payment on account of the principal, we would necessarily step into the position of the original creditors or bondholders for the full amount we had paid. All these things have to be thought out very carefully, and I think it would not be wise for us hastily to draft the document in order to lay them before parliament. There need be no great hurry in framing the instrument. We will take all the time necessary in order that the public interests shall be fully safeguarded. I can quite understand that my hon. friend would wish it to be very carefully prepared ; but in order to this careful preparation, it is not essential that it should be done now. In fact, it would be difficult to have it prepared now with the care and deliberation with which a transaction of this kind ought to be managed. It must rest on the responsibility of the government entirely to see that the conditions under which parliament has granted the aid shall be observed. I think this a reasonable view to present to the committee, and I certainlv would be very loath to think that the committee or the House would desire to have all these minute details laid on the Table, and action with respect to the matter precipitated.


Mr. SCHELL.: The hon. minister made some interesting remarks when viewed in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), who said that no doubt this $13,000 a mile would cover the entire cost of this road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not expressed that opinion.


Jacob Thomas Schell: The hon. member for Alberta did so. The minister said that the government must take precautions to have a thorough security. I do not know that a security on your own property would be a good security ; I do not know that any money-lender would consider that good security for the money he was lending. This clause reads :
The said mortgage shall also form a charge next after the charges existing thereon.
You take a mortgage for part of the money only, and a second mortgage at that. We do not know how many preferred bonds may be on the property under the $10,000 agreement. Before we go any further, I think the contract and the map should be in the hands of the members of this House, if a proper contract is to be made. One reason for the strong feeling which is abroad in the country to-day against subsidies being given to railroads is that for a number of years past the subsidies given, with the small amount of bonded indebtedness added, have been sufficient to build all the roads that have been built, and the railway promoters have put in little or nothing. It is very easy for people to become millionaires if the money is put into their hands. I hope the minister will take the House into his confidence and let us have this contract before the matter is further gone into.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that his supposition that we were without knowledge of either the character or the amount of the prior securities on the other portion of the Northern system, is not well founded. Perhaps the hon. member was not present when I stated to the committee the facts in regard to that. If not, he will see them in 'Hansard ' to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister says that these are matters of detail. They are in one sense ; but they are matters of detail that depend on principle. For example, all that this clause provides is that the government shall have a first charge. The method of enforcing that charge, the time at which it shall be enforced. the consequences of enforcing it. are not dealt with. The provisions in that regard are not as definite as they were in the case of the Drummond Counties Railway, where the document itself was brought down, or in the case of the agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We were purchasing a property, and we had come to an agreement, and we submitted to this House the agreement which had been arrived at.


Robert Laird Borden: In the case of the Grand Trunk you were acquiring terminals. and were providing for some aid for the Victoria bridge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did not provide the aid in that document, but by a separate vote, as a separate proposition.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there not an agreement submitted to the House in regard to that as well?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CABALS.: No, that was not part of the agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that it was not part of the agreement as to the terminals ; but was it not in an agreement by itself ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is that one seems hardly to be able fully to grasp the proposition when the clause is couched in such general terms as this. How is the House to judge accurately as to the future relations between the government and the company ? You have a clause which simply provides that there shall be a first charge, and the committee have nothing before it to show the conditions under which that charge can be enforced, or under which the government might be obliged at some future time to operate the railway. If the minister cannot place the mortgage before the House, can he not give us an outline of the policy or the scope of the proposed mortgage ? If any clause of the agreement is to stand. I would suggest that it Should be this one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no objection to that if the hon. gentleman desires it; but I do not accede to the suggestion with any intention of conveying the impression to the mind of mv hon. friend that I think it would be desirable that precise statements should be made in respect to the matters he alludes to.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of an outline.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If I attempted to give an outline. it would be necessary for me to indicate with some definiteness what the proposals are to be. We think parliament ought to be willing to leave the working out of these proposals in our hands, on our responsibility. Of course, the question of responsibility arises anyway. We bring the proposals here on our responsibility, and the responsibility remains. Parliament has said, you may do so and so, you may make such and such arrangements with this company, safeguarding the public interests. After parliament has settled on this, we shall proceed to examine the question in all its bearings. It then becomes a matter of negotiation and discussion as to how and with what particular restrictions and regulations this arrangement is to be worked out. Take the question, which I have not been able to think about very much yet, as to when the government would be justified in exercising its power of retaking this property on default in the payment of interest, it is a very proper thing to consider in all its bearings as to whether a reasonable time might not be allowed to elapse before taking over Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the road, and it would not be wise to say that such time shall be one, two or three years or more. Conditions might arise that would make it contrary to public interest to enforce this power and take possession. It must be for the government, with a knowledge of all the facts, to say, when a default takes place, whether it should enforce its power or not-whether it should or not allow the interest to accumulate and the company to operate the road. All these things are matters concerning which it would not be wise to make any definite statement because our future course must be guided by the circumstances.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 190) respecting Queen's College, Kingston.-Mr. Harty.
Bill (No. 195) for the relief of James Reid Steele.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 196) for the relief of William Allen.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 197). respecting the Rocky Mountains Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Costigan.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['It is in the annual report of the Department of Agriculture, which has been laid on the Table.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.', '\nThubsday, June 11, 1903.']
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House, and particularly of the government, to a matter of long standing, which seems to me has been now put off long enough, and should be settled for the sake of the good name of Canada. With the indulgence of the House, I shall speak for a few moments upon a matter which I can only class as a debt of honour. I can quite understand that the matter of the Chignecto Marine Transport Railway has become rather hackneyed in the last ten or fifteen years. But, while it may be hackneyed, so long as it is not settled, it remains a stain upon the honour of this country and an impediment in the way of those who desire to secure the investment of capital, particularly of British capital in this Dominion. The promoters of the Chignecto Marine Transport Railway have abandoned the construction of that railway. Therefore, I am not here to-night urging upon the government that they should vote a subsidy to this company, or that they should allow this company to proceed and complete the works, but I am

here to appeal to the government to settle with these people and so-to repeat the expression I have already used-wipe off a debt of honour of the Dominion of Canada. 1 do not propose to take up more time than is absolutely necessary in explaining this matter. In the first place, I wish to contend that the connecting of the waters of the Bay of Fundy and Northumberland straits was a matter decided not by one government alone, but by two governments at least. Away back as early as 1S25-to trace the history of this matter for a few moments- a survey of the Baie Verte canal to connect the waters of the St. Lawrence at Baie Yerte with the Bay of Fundy by cutting across the isthmus uniting Nova Scotia with New Brunswick was made by Mr. F. Hall. At a later date, about 1840. Mr. Thomas Telford, a civil engineer, revised the report of Mr. Hall upon the subject, and afterwards another report upon the same project was prepared by a royal engineer, Captain Crawley. I will not go into all the surveys and reports made upon this subject, but will come to the year 1870, when an Order in Council was passed by the government of that day, the government of Sir John Macdonald, appointing certain eminent engineers and others as a committee to investigate and report upon the proposed transportation facilities of the Dominion of Canada. That commission consisted of Mr. C. S. Gzowski, of Toronto ; Mr. D. D. Calvin, of Kingston ; Mr. George Laldlaw, of Toronto ; Sir Hugh Allan, of Montreal; Mr. Pierre Garneau, of Quebec ; Hon. William Stairs, of Halifax, and Mr. Alexander Jardine, of St. John. In the Order in Council, they were instructed to institute a thorough inquiry into the whole subject with all its bearings both in a commercial and engineering point of view, with the object of obtaining such reliable information as might furnish the necessary data on which to base a plan for the improvement of the canal system of the Dominion of a comprehensive character, and such as would enable Canada to compete with success for the transit trade of the great west ; and further to inquire with regard to a number of works and improvements, and among those works enumerated was the construction of the Baie Yerte canal across the isthmus dividing the Bay of Fundy from the gulf of St. Lawrence. And the commissioners were further instructed by this Order in Council to report as to the works and improvements which ought to, in their judgment, be constructed. On the 24th February, 1871, the commission submitted their report, which stated the following with reference to the Baie Verte canal :
Inseparably connected with the growth of the intercolonial trade is the construction of the Bay Verte canal, across the isthmus connecting the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The advantages that must accrue, not merely to the Dominion as a whole, hut to the commerce cf the maritime provinces, are so
clearly pointed out by the Boards of Trade of all the leading cities of Canada and by men interested in the development of our commercial interests, not simply the merchants of St. John and other places in the locality of the proposed canal, but merchants of Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Quebec, that it is superfluous for the commissioners to do more than briefly refer to a few salient features of the scheme.
A steamer laden with flour for St. John, N.B., now goes down the gulf as far as Shediac where the cargo is transported by rail to its destination. The total distance by water from Shediae through the gut of Canso and around the coast of Nova Scotia to the Bay of Fundy as far as the commercial capital of New Brunswick is about 600 miles, and the consequence is that there is little or no direct communication between the Bay of Fundy ports and those of the River St. Lawrence. By a canal through the isthmus the distance from Shediac to St. John will not be much more than 100 miles.
This fact will show the insuperable obstacle that now exists to anything like extensive commerce between Montreal and the Bay of Fundy ports of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the great impulse which must be necessarily given to trade by the opening up of a route which will shorten distance so considerably, furnish an inland navigation from the lakes to Boston, and consequently lessen freight between these points at least 25 per cent.
The report then goes on to show all the interests of the maritime provinces that would be benefited, particularly In the matter of the coal trade. The freight to Boston, they say, would be reduced at least $1 per ton. The lumber and fishery interests of the gulf of St. Lawrence, both of Prince Edward Island and what is generally known as the north shore of New Brunswick, will also be benefited equally with the coal trade of Pictou, by their being afforded a safer and shorter route, not only to the ports of the Bay of Fundy, but also to those of the north-western coast of the United States.
These distinguished men discussed the benefits of the construction of the Bay of Fundy canal. They referred to the great importance it would be, not only to the provinces down by the sea, but to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. They then conclude by referring to the great impulse it will give to the ship-building and carrying trade of the Dominion generally. In their report they classify the relative importance of the several public works which are under their eye, and the proposed improvements to which their attention has been directed, and they recommended these works in the order in which they should be proceeded with. In this plan they divided the works into four separate classes, and in the first class they placed the construction of the Bay Verte canal. In the report on the engineering aspects, I find the following :
The evidence submitted points out with remarkable force and unanimity the necessity of opening a highway for commerce between the gulf of the St. Lawrence and the head waters of the Bay of Fundy through the Isthmus of Chigneeto, dividing them.

And submitting a report of Mr. Keefer, C. E., endorsed 'by Mr. Gzowski, they said :
We think this will remove all doubt as to the practicability of the proposed undertaking.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after that report had been submitted, the then government of the day voted certain sums of money for the construction of this work, as they classed it, of first class importance. The Mackenzie government coming into power, took this up and voted in one year the sum of $1,000,000 to connect the waters of Northumberland Straits with the Bay of Fundy. They had an engineer make more exhaustive reports. Mr. Mackenzie stated in the House that if that canal could be built for $5,000,000 he was quite willing to expend that amount of money, and towards that purpose he voted $1,000,000. It was found afterwards by a more careful examination by engineers that the work would cost, not $5,000,000, but probably between $9,000,000 and $10,000,000, and that amount rather staggered the project. They said they could not afford to spend so large a sum of money even upon so important a work-.
Now I want to point out that the government of Canada at that time was quite willing to expend $5,000,000 to connect the waters of the Northumberland Straits and those of the Bay of Fundy. The matter then lay quiescent until a Canadian engineer named Ketchum, eminent in his profession, came forward and said to the government of Canada :	You want to connect
these waters, you are willing to pay $5,000,000, you say, but you cannot afford to pay $10,000,000. I will build a ship railway across this Isthmus connecting these two waters, and it will cost you very much less than to construct a canal. Mr. Ketehuln's scheme was submitted to the government, it was endorsed and approved by the chief engineer of Railways and Canals in his report dated February 4, 1882. A company of Canadians was incorporated; and I am going to try to show that this scheme was concocted by Canadians, that Canadians went to London with the charter granted by the parliament of Canada, and secured the money which was spent upon this undertaking, and that money was lost by the British investors through what I consider the fault of the government and parliament of Canada. This company of Canadians, then, was incorporated. They did not have any money to spend upon the ship railway, and it was never supposed they would spend money upon a ship railway, they were simply a legal entity. They approached the parliament of Canada for certain legislation. Now, Sir, in 1882 the parliament of Canada passed two Acts, one incorporating this Canadian company and another granting a subsidy of $150,000 per year for twenty-five years. I want to call your attention to the words in the subsidy Act :
In consideration of the great advantages which would accrue to the maritime provinces Mr. LOGAN.
and the intercolonial trade of Canada generally from the construction of a ship railway across
the Isthmus of Chigneeto


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: What was the subsection ?


Hance James Logan: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What year was that in ?


Hance James Logan: That was in 1894. In October, 1894, Mr. George E. Foster -went to London. A deputation of the Chignecto people waited on him and he made the following statement to them :
The government, however, in this matter is bound to take in other considerations than those of strict and absolute legality, and I caff assure you-and that is as far as I can go in an assurance as a responsible member of the government-that the government will take this matter up as was promised Mr. Provand, and we will

give it our best consideration on the grounds ot' what might be called moral obligations-of how it may affect credit, and also as we are primarily bound to do. in respect to the best interests of our own people, for whom we are trustees, and for whom we are bound to act with great care and prudence.
I think you are perfectly right in asking that you should have a decision upon this question as soon as possible. It has been impossible, and I may say it is impossible, to have a question of this gravity considered without what we call a full meeting of Council, and circumstances during the holidays have rendered it impossible for the government to be assembled in force. As you know, Sir John Thompson is coming to London for a few weeks, and as soon as he returns I have no doubt at all that the government will take the matter up and dispose of it so that you may, I think, confidently look for an answer to this question some where about the middle of December.
That was in 3S94, nine years ago. Shortly after that Sir John Thompson died at Windsor. In May, 1895, Mr. Provand' was summoned to Ottawa by cable from one of the ministers. He received a letter from Mr. Foster, then Minister of Finance at Ottawa, as follows:
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada,
May 29, 1895.
Dear Mr. Provand,-In pursuance of your conversation this morning in reference to the application made by you for an extension of time for the completion of the Chignecto Marine Railway, I beg to write you as follows :-The government has listened carefully to the presentation of the case of the company made by you, and, while disposed to attach all responsible weight to the reasons adduced for an extension of time, find it difficult under the present circumstances when every effort is being made to strengthen the financial position cf Canada by cutting off appropriations and refusing to enter into further obligations, to give a conclusive answer at present. The government will, however, take up your case for final disposition next year, and you may consider that the consequent delay does not in anv way imply an unfavourable view of the company's claims, and is entirely without prejudice to their further consideration.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) GEORGE E. FOSTER.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Wliat year was that in ?	*


Hance James Logan: That was in 1895. Early in 1896 the government of the day agreed, as I understand it, to pass an Act during the approaching session revoting the subsidy. A private Bill was introduced into this House in 1896 to extend the time of the charter. This private Bill was defeated by a snap vote, so-called by one majority, but it was replaced on the order paper by a majority of seventeen. On account of the celebrated debate upon the school question that session, that parliament closed without the question again being taken up, and since that time. Mr. Speaker, to make a long story short, the company have been knocking at the doors of the parliament of
Canada asking for some redress for the condition of affairs in which they have found themselves. They claim that they were led into it to a very large extent by the Dominion government, by the high commissioner of Canada in England, and by the cabinet ministers of the day. I contend that the Canadian government were largely responsible for the promotion of this railway. It was first decided that it was necessary to connect the waters ; secondly, it was decided that it was too expensive to build a canal ; thirdly, Mr. Ketchum came forward with bis Canadian company and asked the government of Canada to give them a charter. That charter was given to them and they went to England, and British investors put their capital into this scheme. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the people of this country know that there has been sunk in that railway, British capital to the extent of over $4,000,000. Sir Richard Cartwright now the Minister of Trade and Commerce, made the following statement in parliament :
. The fact of parliament granting a subsdy of $170,000 a year for twenty years to this railway will imply to the minds of English capitalists, from whose pockets I take it that this money is expected, that the Canadian government have looked into the work, that they believe it to be a valuable work, and that it may fairly be implied that the government believe it to be reasonably profitable to those people whose money we are practically securing in consequence of our having granted a subsidy.
Sir Charles Tupper, Bart, then High Commissioner, when a deputation waited on him in London said :
In the light of all that has occurred, in the light of my thorough knowledge and familiarity with the sections of the country through which this railway is to run, and with my knowledge of the commercial business and shipping trade of Canada, I have no hesitation in saying I believe to-day that all that is required is the capital to be forthcoming to complete this undertaking to make it not only a thorough engineering but an equally great financial success, and that the return the parties supplying th^ capital may confidently look forward to W placed as much, in my judgment, beyond doubt, in connection with the subsidy which is provided by the government of Canada, as an. financial undertaking or business enterprise that was ever presented to the public.
That is what the High Commissioner for Canada, speaking to these investors said: and after they had put $4,000,000 of then money into this enterprise, these people approaching him as the representative of Canada,' were told that it was as good an investment as any financial undertaking or business enterprise that was ever presented to the public. And upon the statements formerly made by the High Commissioner of Canada, representing Canada as he did, the English investors poured their money into this enterprise, and yet, Sir, when they afterwards were caught by the amendment to the Railway Act; when they were not able to issue their debentures at a time


Hance James Logan: 
Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman be kind* enough to give me the year that Sir Richard Cartwright made that speech which has been quoted ?


Hance James Logan: I cannot give the exact date, but I quoted it from ' Hansard.' These investors in the ship railway had another interview with Sir Charles Tupper and replying to them on the 20th of March, 1893, he said :	[DOT]
There is no doubt whatever that the parties who have invested their money in this enterprise are in a position to claim from the government of Canada, in my opinion, the fullest and fairest consideration. They have entered upon this measure upon no imperfect calculations. Every means that were possible that could be taken to warrant the enterprise being presented to capitalists as a sound enterprise were taken.
And as to thq extension of time to complete the railway he said :
Now, it is not necessary to dwell more upon that unfortunate and untoward event that has brought this work to a standstill ; but I am afraid you cannot expect the government of Canada to do more than they have set forth in the Order in Council-that is to say, that when, as you have rightly said, it is not usual for governments or anybody else to expect contractors-especially in connection with very great undertakings-to complete them at the time-and I know of no instance in which any government or any respectable concern of any kind have ever taken advantage of the stoppage of the work, from circumstances altogether beyond the control of the parties, for the purpose of relieving themselves of any responsibility. I do not believe the government of Canada will do so. I do not believe it. I believe not only their sense of right and of justice to the promoters and capitalists connected with the great enterprise, but their regard for the financial standing and character of the country itself, will ensure to you that, if at an early period you are in a position to comply with the terms of the Order in Council, you will find a fair and reasonable extension of the time necessary to complete the work. I have great pleasure in saying that to you, because I feel you are entitled to that consideration, and I am sure it will not be withheld by the government of Canada.
I could quote at considerable length, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of Canadian newspapers on this Chignecto Marine Transport Railway matter, but I shall select only a few. Take the following from the Toronto ' Globe,' which said :
The question more immediately concerning the Canadian people is to what extent the Dominion government is liable. It is true that the promise of a twenty years' subsidy was conditional on the completion of the work, but it is equally obvious that the action of parliament was the bait which caught the British investor, who would not have bitten at a naked hook. The original subsidy promised in 1882 was for $150,000 a year for twenty-five years, but in 1886 this was changed to a subsidy of $170,000 a year for twenty years. If we repudiate all responsibility, as technically we should be warranted in doing, the credit of the Dominion would suffer, for there can be no doubt that we have incurred a considerable degree of moral responsibility in connection with the undertaking.
The following is from the Ottawa Daily ' Free Press,' which says :
But there is an aspect of the ease which is almost painful, as it practically amounts to a rational disgrace. On the strength of the en-dorsation given it by governmental and parliamentary procedure, many people in Britain have been induced to sink money in the project whisk must now be regarded as lost.
Mr. Provand addressed a meeting of senators in Ottawa, and the proceedings were reported in the Ottawa ' Evening Journal ' of the following day, from which I quote. When he had finished his address, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was Prime Minister in the last administration, said :
Mr. Provand did not claim he had any legal right, but put his claim on moral and equitable grounds, and on the ground that all other subsidized enterprises, except this one, had been

given renewals when they failed to carry out their work in the first instance. He knew of no other company than the Ship Railway Company hut had been treated otherwise. Mr. Pro-vand's position was 1 treat us as you have treated others, otherwise give us compensation.' He claimed the investors had looked at the Acts of parliament, and seeing that they were ensured so much, had therefore put their money into the project.
1 will quote what was said by the Hon. Sir John Abbott, then Prime Minister, in the debate which took place on the application for the renewal of this charter :
It seems to me that we are to a great degree bound in good faith to give these contractors the opportunity of completing this work. I do not see very well how we could refuse them. I ihink a refusal to allow men who have spent three millions of dollars to spend $1,500,000 more would work very unfortunately on our enterprises, when we apply to England to borrow money.to finish them with, and I think it would be an extremely hard measure to mete out to these contractors to say that, not having completed their work within the precise time mentioned in the contract, they should be mulct of so large a sum as they have invested in it.
I will not quote any more from newspapers or from the speeches of public men of Canada. The company are asking, as they have been for the last ten years, for compensation. They claim that they are not being fairly treated. They claim that other companies have been given instructions to build certain works in Canada in a semipartnership with the Dominion government, and that these companies have been compensated when they had not an opportunity of completing their contract. This company claim that they were partners of the Dominion government in connecting the waters of the Bay of Fundy with those of the Northumberland straits, and thus carrying out the project of the commission which I had quoted in the first part of my remarks. They come and ask that, as they were led into this undertaking by the action of parliament and its agent, they be compensated to some extent for the loss they have sustained.
Apart from that phase of the subject altogether, the Chignecto Ship Railway bonds and other securities are to-day spread among the whole investing public of Great Britain. I have a list here of about thirty hanking institutions which hold Chignecto Ship Railway bonds and shares, including the London and Westminster Bank; Balli and Sons (Greek bankers); Capital and Counties Bank; Martins Bank, Limited;; Prescotts Bunk; Union Bank; Union Bank of Scotland; Cocks, Biddulph and Company; Manchester and County Bank; Coutts and Company; Lacond, Youall and Company; National Bank, Limited; and so on. Nearly every great financial institution in London hold the bonds and shares of this unfortunate company. Do you not think. Sir, that it is against the best interests of Canada that this matter should remain unsettled ? If the government of Mr. LOGAN.
Canada can see its way clear to come to a reasonable settlement with these people, it will certainly do us good in the financial markets of Great Britain. Those who have visited London know that you meet this matter whenever you talk to financial men over there. They refer to the bad treatment that was meted out to the Chignecto Ship Railway people; and when you place before them a Canadian proposition for the investment of their money, they point you to the history of that company, and say : That is the way you treated one British company; you got our money by representations, and then you refused to extend the time, and afterwards refused to compensate us for the money we expended. Apart from other phases of the subject, do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that it would pay the Dominion of Canada in the long run to settle this matter once and for ail, and remove it as a stain from the financial credit of the country ?
The company have spent, as I said, about $4,000,000. They do not ask for the return of all that'money, by any means. I am told by the representative of the company that they have paid in freights and in customs duties into the treasury of Canada about $500,000. Are we going to keep that money which these people have given us to bring in the machinery for the construction of their railway ? They ask first for reasonable compensation for the large expenditure they have made. They did not default in the payment of their men. The work happens to be in the county of Cumberland, which I represent. It does not make any difference to me politically what is done with this company; but I am here to plead with the government to treat these people in such a way as will remove the difficulties which exist between the company and the government and in the financial markets of England. *
There is one other consideration in this matter. In settling with this company, the government will also be settling a debt of honour to the county of Cumberland. That county, of course, anxious to secure the operation of this railway within its borders, granted the company a free right of way, for which the people bought the land and borrowed the money, taxing themselves to do so. They ask that if any settlement is made between the government and the company, it be arranged that this right of way, which was given for a specific purpose that has not been carried out, and which is not of any value to the railway people, they having abandoned the project, shall be returned to the county of Cumberland. Let me repeat that the company are not asking for any extension of time, as they have abandoned the project altogether; but they are throwing themselves on the mercy of Canada, and are asking the government of Canada to wipe out what we must all regard as a national debt of honour.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Some years ago, wlien I was In London I was asked to meet two gentlemen. I did so, and I found that they were trustees for the Chigneeto Ship Railway bondholders. I knew very little about that project further than what I had seen occasionally in the newspapers; but they explained the position of affairs to me, gave me the history of the company, told me how they had been induced to invest money in it, and asked me if I did not think they had a just and fail-claim on the government for a return of their money or for substantial compensation. The case as they put it before me interested me, and on my return to Canada, and after I became a member of this House, a year afterwards, I looked into the origin of this scheme, and I found that, as far as I could judge, there was a practically unanimous approval of the scheme by the parliament of Canada, not only when the Conservatives were in power, but when the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was at the head of the government. There was a curious unanimity in favour of the scheme by eminent engineers, and it was endorsed apparently by the business men of the country. At all events it was endorsed very strongly 'by the business men of the lower provinces, who ought to have known what its value was commercially. The result was that a company was formed, and parties went to England from this side and pressed on English investors the soundness of the scheme and the substantial aid which the Dominion government were giving to it; and a large amount of capital was raised. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has gone into the details very* fully, giving the dates, and stating the various stages through which the company passed, so that I need not refer to these.
The company spent altogether about $4,000,000. Through a notorious misadventure on their part, they overlooked a clause in the Government Act which provided that they should spend 23 per cent of the capital subscribed before borrowing on the market. This prevented their raising the money. The money, however, required to complete the scheme was practically raised, and but for the financial crash of the Barings and those associated with that large firm, this scheme would have been completed and this government would have been bound to pay 8170,000 per year for twenty or twenty-five years. I told the trustees that in my judgment the scheme was a wild and visionary one, and that X would not advise the government, in any shape or way, to grant a furtherance of that subsidy on their completing the work, but it is clear that the government and these gentlemen who put their money into this scheme were practically in partnership, because these gentlemen were to obtain no return until the work was completed, and the government were under no obligation until the work was done.
Therefore, it was a question of mutual good faith. These men went on in good faith, but because of a financial panic they were unable to complete their scheme when practically three-fourths of the work was done. Had the government extended their charter -and I suppose that no extension is ever refused where substantial work is done- they would have been entitled to the subsidy, and I think that it is clearly a breech of faith on the part of the country to refuse to recognize the obligation the country is under to pay back, to some extent, at all events, to these men the money they have put into this enterprise. Looking at it as business men, we all wonder how it was possible such a scheme could have been inaugurated and backed up by our leading engineers, politicians and business men, still they apparently thought it would be a paying transaction and a substantial advantage to that particular section of the country. The scheme, I believe, would have been a failure, had it been completed.
At this point the electric lights went out, and the hon. member was unable, for a few minutes, to proceed with his remarks.
Mr. OSLE1L Mr. Speaker, if I were personally interested in this matter, and of a superstitious nature, I might take the sudden going out of these lights as rather an ill-augury of the cause which I am now arguing. But I rather take it as an indication that this House, recognizing that the transaction all round has been a bad job for the government and for the people of Canada, and for the men who put their money into it, will return to these bondholders a fair proportion of the money they have spent, will close out the transaction and have no more to do with it, and will try to avoid such transactions in the future.
I do really appeal earnestly to the government to consider this matter. I believe the country is morally bound to meet these bondholders, and, at all events, return them some proportion of the money that they have, in good faith, put into this scheme. This scheme was presented to the British public asking for their money with the practical endorsation of the Dominion of Canada, the endorsation of the engineers of the government, with the endorsation of leading men on both sides of the House, with the assurance of business men that the transaction would be a profitable and paying one. I do not know of any scheme that has been so thoroughly backed up in this manner and has been so thoroughly forced upon the English people as a scheme in which they could invest their money safely. And, I think this government will only be doing their duty and I believe the country will approve too of their action if they deal liberally with these bondholders and give them some compensation for the money they have lost.



Joseph Israël Tarte: I happen to have had the opportunity to study the question now before us when I had the honour of being a member of the government. Mr. Provand has come to Ottawa every year, I think, for the last five or six years. I was a member of the sub-committee to which the question was referred. The facts of the case are very simple. A company was organized to build the Chignecto Marine Railway. They were business men, and they undertook to carry out the work for a subsidy, agreeing that the subsidy should be payable when the work was completed. That is the basis of the whole agreement. X do not know whether my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has given attention to that part of the question.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The company entered upon the work, but they were not very successful. They applied for an extension of time. Extensions were given to them twice. The last time when the government took up the matter was in 1896. I was then a member of the House. . Sir Charles Tupper, who was Prime Minister, was favourable to the undertaking. A private Bill was introduced. However, he did not make it a government measure. I do not remember exactly by whom the Bill was introduced into the House, but Sir Charles Tupper approved of it. However, there was such a strong opposition on the government benches that the Bill had to be given up and the charter was not renewed. Although no subsidy was then asked the opposition I say again, was so strong, that the charter, which was asked to be renewed on a private Bill was not then renewed. When we came into office the question was presented to us as to what should be done. Well, nothing was done, and the matter stands as it stood when Sir Charles Tupper left office. My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) said that these gentlemen from London were entitled to compensation. If the government make up their minds that it is in the interest of the country to pay these bondholders a sum of money, the government, of course, will be held responsible for the position they take. There is no legal ground for the claim. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has quoted from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). I feel sure that if my hon. friend had read a little further down or a little further up in the speech, he would have found that his quotation does not at all render or do justice to the views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There was a strong debate in the House in 1896. There were several debates before that. I remember them very well, because I was then a member of the press. On every occasion, the Liberal party, which


Edmund Boyd Osler: was then in opposition opposed and denounced the scheme. As to that, there can be no doubt; ' Hansard ' is there to be appealed to. There was not a member of the Liberal party in the House that stood for the renewal of the charter. And, in 1896, the opposition on the government benches was so strong that the charter was not renewed. Why was it not renewed ? Because the scheme that, for a time, had been looked upon as a feasible scheme, was in those years looked upon as a fake, an impossible thing. The position in 1896 was exactly what I stated. The government considered that the scheme was not feasible, and that it would be a dangerous thing to renew the charter, as it would encourage men in the attempt to carrying out of a hopeless undertaking. These gentlemen failed in their undertaking. I am very sorry for them. But they were business men. It seems to me that the extension of their charter on two occasions was quite a sufficient measure at the hands of parliament to justify us, at any rate, to have some doubts as to the morality of their claims. They have failed as many other business men have failed in their undertaking. Now, if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance believes it necessary for Canadian credit to compensate these men, why, he is the Minister of Finance and it is for them to decide. But, on the ground of right, I do not think these gentlemen have any claim upon us. Whether the credit of this country can be impaired by our refusal to satisfy the claims presented to us, is another question.


Samuel Barker: I have listened very care'fully to the remarks made on both sides on this question. I know none of the parties, have never heard the names even of the bondholders in this matter. Two years ago I had the papers relating to it placed in my hands and I read them very carefully to form an opinion for myself of what was due from this country, if anything, to the people who had invested money in this unfortunate undertaking. The facts, as I understand them are briefly these :-About thirty years ago many prominent gentlemen in this Dominion conceived the idea that a canal or a ship railway at Chignecto would be a most valuable improvement, of the utmost importance to the provinces down by the sea. It was not a question of one political party or the other taking up that venture. Prominent men on both sides of politics, gentlemen who are in the ministry to-day and gentlemen who were in the ministry that preceded it, all seemed to take a m st favourable view of the propriety and necessity of proceeding with this work. For some reason or other, for several years nothing was done. It appeared that there were doubts about the estimates of the cost of the work. But. ultimately, a charter was obtained and

the work was undertaken. The Dominion parliament subsidized that work, agreeing to grant a very substantial aid to the undertaking. The work proceeded; the directors of the company, assisted by expressions of opinion from the highest men in the land, both in parliament and out of parliament, succeeded in obtaining a large amount of capital in England. There had been delay, the bonds that the company expected to issue were rendered impossible of issue owing to what I think everybody subsequently agreed was a stupid provision put into a clause of the Railway Act with regard to the issuing of bonds. This impeded the financial end of the undertaking for some time but ultimately the money was raised in England, a large sum of several million dollars.
Now there is one material feature in this matter X would like to call attention to. These bonds were not placed in England in the ordinary way, at a discount. I believe that every bond was placed there at par or above par. It was looked upon as a thoroughly legitimate undertaking, fostered and endorsed by the highest men of this Dominion and by parliament. Well, after that the work went on, and as we all know now, the undertaking proved a failure, a most disastrous one for every body connected with it. It was a huge blunder from beginning to end. The people in England who placed several millions of money in it were led to do so by assurances from people on this side, and every dollar that they expended in that way, might as well, and perhaps better have been thrown into the sea. Now as to the subsidy. After we agreed to give aid it was found that this undertaking was going to be a failure, that it would be better for all concerned if it had never been begun, and it was no use to expend another dollar upon it. The people connected with it wished to get an opportunity to go on with the work. The parliament of Canada, very rightly, I think, determined they would not extend the time for its completion. The result of that was that this Dominion saved the whole of the subsidy that we had agreed to give to these people. I do not mean to say that the parliament of Canada in those days refused to extend the time in order to get rid of paying that subsidy. But even if it had, I do not know that it would have been improper. I have only to say it was a reasonable thing for parliament to do. There was no use throwing away all this money. The undertaking had become absolutely hopeless, and, therefore, this Dominion was quite justified in refusing to give the company an extension of time to earn their subsidy.
But there arises another question. By refusing to extend the time for the construction of this work, we happily were able to save a very large sum of money that we otherwise would have lost, while these un-139i
fortunate people who had put up their money lost every dollar of it. Now we were all partners together, as I look upon it. They had been induced to spend their money, and we had agreed to spend ours. By a fortunate bit of luck, the facts became known in time for us to save our money, though too late for them * to save theirs. That is the whole position. We are all in a sense partners together, and whsjt is decent for us to do in these conditions ? As I look upon this question as a representative of the people, I would vote to do here to-day that which I, as an honourable man, would think I ought to do under similar circumstances in a personal transaction. I think it would be discreditable for us to take advantage of the people who were practically our partners in this undertaking. We led them into it. It was not an ordinary undertaking. Public men, ministers of the Crown, gave certificates, gave statements in this House and elsewhere, leading these people to put up their money. They put it up and they lost every dollar of it, not only the principal, but every dollar of interest, and we have not paid out a cent. Now I say under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of legal right, it is a question of what is honourable and decent for this Dominion to do. I say the Dominion should do just what any hon. man in this House would do with a fellow man he was dealing with under like conditions. I do not know how much these gentlemen spent, some $4,000,000 are said to have been spent. I do not know whether that is the amount they expended or not, but the government can easily ascertain.
I say that in my humble judgment it would be a right and proper thing for the government of Canada to give some relief, to look at all these facts, all the circumstances, and to do what is right, to do what is generous, and to do what is even liberal, without ex travagance. For my part, I should be very glad to endorse such a course on the part of a Liberal ministry.


David Tisdale: I think all the circumstances connected with this unfortunate transaction have been fully explained, .so that the members of the House who were not members at the time this transaction was going through, are fully informed of the circumstances. I heartily endorse the proposition that some arrangement should be made with these gentlemen who have put their money into this undertaking and lost it. All those who were in the Llouse and heard these matters discussed on the different occasions when they came up, will remember that it was not only one government, but two governments, the government of Mr. Mackenzie and the succeeding Conservative government, who endorsed this proposition. More than that, the government engineers at these different times also expressed, in writing, and re-

ports to the government, very strong representations that this would certainly be a successful and strong financial enterprise.
I attach more importance to the reports of our own officials than to any other representations that were made. All parties in this House agreed in what was done. I attribute the failure of the undertaking more to the evolution in railways, and their improvement in capacity and in cheapness of rates, than to any other reason. It is evident that the engineers and business and public men of those days were mistaken in their expectations. I go strongly with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who has so well expressed the views I entertain. It was not because we did not wish to extend the time in the usual way, but because the House was so well satisfied that it was useless, that it would be a waste of money. If any hon. gentleman here will turn up the debates on that occasion when the extension of time was refused, he will find the speeches from the members of the lower provinces generally who were better informed, and better capable of judging than those of us from Ontario and Quebec.
The members, especially from the lower provinces generally, who were better informed and better capable of judging than those of us from Ontario and the west, satisfied me, at all events, that it was useless. While I felt that, still, I voted on the principle of the thing to extend it according to the ordinary usage. I did that for the purpose of keeping faith, while perfectly agreeing with the arguments that had "been presented that it would be entirely useless. The members of this House were satisfied that it would be useless to put more money into that unfortunate scheme because the evolution of circumstances and of development satisfied the good sense of the House that what had been done was a mistake. Fortunately for those who were in favour of the government doing something for this company, both political parties were committed to that judgment as to the futility of the work and I think that ought to have a very strong influence in regard to the settlement of this affair. Even the promoters of the scheme themselves who put-up their money are not appealing to us here to say that it would have been well for the country or for themselves if they had been given an opportunity of fully expending the subsidy. They would be better satisfied to make some fair arrangement now than if we had expended more money than we did in assisting them and obliging them to complete the work, and it would be more satisfactory to the country than if the government were obliged to ask parliament'for this large subsidy which the people of this country have to pay. It is not a question of breach of faith on either side, but, under the circumstances, I think it is better, both for the people of this country and for the people who were so un-Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
fortunate as to invest their money in the enterprise and who had good reason to believe from the representations of the government and of the engineers of the government, that it would be a perfectly satisfactory security, that they were not permitted to complete the work and that the government was not called upon to pay the subsidy. I think the government could probably satisfy the claims of these people for less money than it -would have cost if we had extended the time and been called upon to pay the subsidy. That being the case IThink the government would do well to arrange with them. I can add my testimony to that of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) as to the impression that this transaction has created in England in connection with some matters that some friends of mine and myself have been endeavouring to negotiate in the old country. We commenced eight or ten years ago and the first influence we had to encounter was this Chignecto claim. I did not wonder at it when I heard of the list of banks that were interested in this unfortunate transaction. I am, therefore, as one of the representatives of the people of this country, prepared to take my share of the responsibility of asking the government to make some fair and satisfactory arrangement with these people in .respect of the matter and get it out of the way.


John Graham Haggart: I have just a few words to say in reference to this matter. I was in the House when the Bill was introduced for the building of this Chignecto Railway, and we must all remember that this undertaking had the imprimatur of the parliament of Canada, of the engineers connected with the Railway Department as to the feasibility of it, and of the Minister of Railways and Canals responsible to the people who was looked upon as speaking authoritatively and witli knowledge by the financial men in England when, speaking as to the financial position of the undertaking, he stated in the best of good faith that there was every probability of the company being recouped for the money expended on it. We were first to give $150,000 a year, but the subsidy was afterwards increased to $170,000. By an oversight in amending the Railway Act. a provision was introduced which affected this Chignecto Railway when parliament had no intention of applying the amendment 1o that particular undertaking at all, which rendered it impossible for the parties who were interested in this scheme to raise the money for the purpose of building the work. This amendment required the expenditure of 20 per cent of the capital before the company could float their bonds. However, afterwards, when that was remedied by parliament, and when they were in a position to put bonds upon the market, the unfortunate financial crisis occurred which caused J the failure of Baring Bros, and rendered

it impossible for any scheme, no matter how good it was, to obtain money on the English market. Now, are we to take advantage of tiie unfortunate position of the parties who invested their money in this undertaking in good faith ? It has been said that we have no legal obligation. We do not keep ourselves strictly in this House to legal obligation. Time and again we have eliminated the legal responsibility in submitting questions for damages to the court and we have left the court virtually to judge as to the moral obligations of the people of this country. I contend, first, that we have a moral obligation to these people who invested their money in the undertaking. They did it on the faith of parliament, on the statement of lending men of this country, they did it on the statement of the engineers attached to the Department of Railways and Canals, and in addition they submitted the question to the first engineers in Great Britain. The gentleman who was the architect of the bridge across the Frith of Forth, the foremost engineer in Great Britain, reported favourably as to the feasibility of the scheme. It is true we changed our minds afterwards. It is true, as stated by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the opposition at .that time were to a man opposed to the scheme. They opposed the proposal to renew the charter in 1896. Sir Charles Tapper, if he had remained in the government of this country, would have brought down a measure for the purpose, to a certain extent, of indemnifying these people for the money they had put into the undertaking. Whether they are entitled to the whole of it or whether they are entitled to only a share of it I will not say. but the penalty we attach to them is far in excess of their default. Why should they, because they were unable to raise the money, forfeit the whole amount of the money which they expended on the undertaking. We have all agreed now that there is no necessity for the building of this work. We have all agreed on both sides of the House that the undertaking shall not be built.


Mr. CLANCY.: When did we make that discovery ?


John Graham Haggart: The feeling in tlie country, as I judge from public opinion, is that an undertaking of that kind would not be a financial success and that the government would not be justified in the payment of the money necessary to carry it to a conclusion. What I am contending for is the moral obligation of the people to do something for the people who have invested their money on the imprimatur of this parliament, on the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals, on the statement of the department which was responsible for the introduction of the measure providing for an undertaking which they believed would be a financial success. Admitting that they have no legal claim,
yet they come before the parliament of Canada in the same position as dozens of others who have been recouped for expenditures they made on the good faith of the support of the people of this country. I believe that the Minister of Finance would have almost the unanimous support of the people of Canada if he did something to compensate these people for the large sum of money they have expended on this undertaking. I believe that money so expended to show our good faith, would be worth more to us than the cash itself in establishing our good name before the world.


Mr. C. E. KAULBACH (Lunenburg).: I have listened to my hon friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) who gave a detailed history of this unfortunate enterprise. I have also listened to my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) who diagnosed the matter very clearly, and I believe that we, as an honourable body, should look upou this matter as a party to the contract with the English investors who undertook the work. We wisely carried out our part of the contract and it was no fault of ours that the project failed, except that perhaps some may say that we deprived the company of the opportunity of continuing the work owing to a clause in the Railway Act passed subsequently. I hardly like to venture an opinion as to whether this was a proper enterprise or not, but I may say that I have visited the scene of the proposed shiprailway and I could not for the life of me understand how any engineer could ever have recommended such an undertaking. If I had a ship in the Northumberland Straits destined for Boston or New York, I would much prefer to have sent her by sea route rather than to take her over this ship-railway had it been built, even if I could have done so free of tolls. The tortuous waters of the Bay of Fundy would have been the greatest risk in the voyage, to say nothing of the dangers of the railway itself in putting a ship on a contrivance of that kind. However, that may be, it was an unfortunate enterprise, and under all the circumstances I feel satisfied that this parliament should in honour recoup those people for their losses, at least a part, more particularly as quite a number of the English investors were put to great sacrifices by the failure of the party to carry out this scheme. We may not be legally bound to recoup these people, but I certainly think we are morally bound. Even if we put it on the ground of it being a charitable act, but I want it to go to investors who put their money in it, not to stockbrokers, solicitors and adventurers. I, for one, would be prepared to advocate it. If the government does not consider that they should repay the whole of the money expended by them, then I would be in favour of letting them exercise their own discretion as to what they consider would be fair, or equitable, under the circumstances. This is not a party

question for both parties are involved. As I understand it, both the Mackenzie government and the Conservative government endorsed the project. When the company applied to have the charter extended, I felt as a member of this House, that it would be a charitable act to refuse the extension so that they might not he subject to further loss of money by this scheme. I felt that there was no use wasting more money in the continuation of that work. I fully endorse the position taken by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) and others, and I trust that the government will consider the matter and do what is honourable and just in the premises.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (1-Ion. W.
S.	Fielding). I am afraid that I cannot go so far as some lion, gentlemen have in supporting the claims of this company, nor do I think they are quite correct in all the statements that have been made as to the circumstances under which this scheme was promoted. I may be wrong, but I think my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is mistaken when he says that some members of the present administration supported the scheme. I do not remember whether there was a division on it in parliament.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There was in 1801.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I recollect that one member of the present administration took very strong ground against it, and Mr. Mackenzie also spoke in terms of hostility.


Samuel Barker: I have a distinct recollection of reading something signed by Sir Richard Cartwright in the very strongest terms referring to this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In favour of the scheme ?


Samuel Barker: I think so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no ; my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) is entirely mistaken. Sir Richard Cartwright condemned the scheme in the very strongest terms.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think tlie member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is not correct when he says that the scheme was supported by the Mackenzie government generally.


David Tisdale: I think they endorsed it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is mistaken. This particular scheme was not projected during the reign of the Mackenzie government.


David Tisdale: Perhaps not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was a project for the construction of a canal, and when it was found that the cost Mr. KAULBACH.
of this canal was likely to lie very large the project was abandoned. However, I do not attach very much importance to that point. The government of Canada is a continuing body, and if any obligation in the name of Canada is incurred by1 one government the succeeding government is bound to carry out that obligation. I cannot think that there has been anything here to justify the charge of breach of faith. It is not contended that there is any legal obligation; if there were these gentlemen would have availed of the courts long since. Nor can I admit with the member for Cumberland that it is a debt of honour. If anything can be done for these unfortunate stock holders it must be done, not because they have a legal claim, not because they have even a moral claim, but as an act of grace and favour of this parliament irrespective of everything else.
Hon, Mr. TARTE. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There has been some negotiations of late-I suppose it would be light to say there has never been a moment for some years that there have not been negotiations on the subject. It is now some twenty years since this scheme was first promoted, and it is some ten or eleven years since the scheme practically failed. According to the statement of my hon. friend from Cumberland, in 1892 application was made to the government of that day to restore the company to its former position. The government of the day did not do so; and although that Conservative government remained in power down to 1890, they never asked parliament to restore the company to its former position, for the reason stated by the hon. member for South Norfolk, that they and others had made up their minds that the scheme was not a wise one, and that it would not be well to continue it. That was the position when the present government came into power in 1896. This government took the ground that whatever might be said in favour of the scheme in earlier days- and I do not wish to go into tliat-it was now pretty well admitted by business men that the scheme was not a sound one, and therefore we felt that we should not give it a new lease of existence in order that other people might be induced to put money into it, and throw good money after bad. That left the question of compensation, and from that day to this that question has been pressed on the attention of the government; but up to a recent date the sums mentioned by the promoters of what they considered proper compensation were so very large that they did not seem to come within reasonable limits, and we did not feel like presenting the matter to parliament. I suppose this session would not be a constitutional one, if we had uot here our energetic friend who represents the company to press its claims. I do not know

that I can say more at present than that the matter is engaging the consideration of the government. Representations are being made to us by the agent of the English bondholders, and, in the light of the discussion that has taken place to-night, we will give the matter further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Archives. $9,000.
Mr. MONK.: What is the reason of the increase ?


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: This increase is largely in connection with the copying of French documents in Paris.


James Clancy: What is the nature of the increase ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is going on constantly in Paris an investigation into documents connected with early Canadian history. That work has been prosecuted very actively. This year a very large number of documents have been copied, and next year we expect that there will be more. A very long list of documents which have to be copied has been prepared for that purpose.


James Clancy: Is the increase owing entirely to that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Almost entirely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is in charge of the work in Paris ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Edouard Richard.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What do we pay him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: $.1,000 a year, including expenses.
Collection anil compilation of criminal statistics. $1,800.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is the officer in charge of this work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. George Johnson.
Statistical Year-book, $5,000.


James Clancy: What is the nature of the increase ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The amount asked for is $1,000 more than last year, to provide for the printing of a larger number of copies, which have been asked for.
General statistics, $3,200.


John William Bell: What is that expenditure for this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some of the officers under Mr. Johnson are paid out of this vote. It is sometimes used
and sometimes not used, according to the exigencies of the work. The officers are sometimes engaged to work up particular statistics which are used in the compilation of the Year-book.


John William Bell: Is all this used in connection with the Year-book ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not always. I do not know of anything last year except in connection with the Year-book.


John William Bell: Has there been any special investigation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None during this current year.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Agriculture if any part of this sum has been paid for an examination of land values ? The hon. gentleman has had a Mr. Washington engaged for some time in connection with what are called general statistics, what has become of Mr. Washington's work ? Has the country the benefit of that long and painful examination he made of land values in the provinces, or has it been cast to one side ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The report is laid on the Table. There is no other publication.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman consider Mr. Washington's report of any value ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: What does the hon. gentleman intend doing with it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It may be utilized when convenient.


James Clancy: It was shrewdly suspected that the hon. gentleman intended it for campaign literature, but after examination by himself and some other members of this House he became somewhat faint-hearted and doubted whether it would serve his purpose. Does he expect to be able to resurrect it in the future and turn it to account ? And what was the expenditure in connection with that report ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The expenditure on the work was closed before the commencement of the current year, and there is no intention of renewing it in the ensuing year. I have not the details of that expenditure of two or three years ago available.


Mix CLANCY.: I presume that Mr. Washington is being provided for in some other way. Is that the case V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of it.


James Clancy: The hon. minister was not aware of his having been employed on

a former occasion. He seemed to be taken by surprise when Mr. Washington made the statement before one of the committees last year that the minister had employed him. Mr. Washington was able to remind the hon. gentleman of some circumstances where there had been a conversation, in consequence of which Mr. Washington went down to the maritime provinces. However, the House has the assurance that his report may be brought into effect some time or other, and that the country is not to experiment in the meantime any more.
Mr., LENNOX. I do not think it is treating the committee or the country fairly for an hon. member of the government to give the reply in reference to a report which was given a while ago. That report is either of some value or it is not. The hou. Minister of Agriculture ought to know, and he ought also to know whether it is the intention of the government to have it printed or not. If that be the intention, the committee have a right to know it in answer to the questions of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Claucy). If it is not the intention of the department to have the report printed, the hon. minister should say so. For my part, I protest against this flippant manner of dealing with public questions just as if none but members of the government had any right to say anything in this House. There is too much of this flippancy and jocularity at the expense of the dignity of the ministers and the pockets of the people.


James Clancy: I want to call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that in the Auditor General's Report for 1902, Mr. Hector Washington is entered for special statistical work from January 1st to April 7th, 1902, eighty-three days at $3 per day, amounting to $259. I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he was in error when he said that Mr. Washington has closed his services before the financial year with which we are dealing. We had paid the sum of $700 or $800 for the fiscal year of 1901, and it will now be in order for the Minister of Agriculture to explain what these payments were for, in view of his statement that Mr. Washington's work had ceased before the present financial year had begun.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The statement I made was absolutely correct. The financial year we are dealing with commenced the 1st of July, 1902, and the payment which the hon. gentleman lias just read was previous to the 1st of July, 1902. That payment was made in the fiscal year of 1901-2, and it completed payment for the work Mr. Washington had been doing.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that that is not an answer. He knows that in dealing with accounts of that Mr. CLANCY.
kind it is the duty of ministers to explain the expenditure for the preceding year. He does not suppose that this House is dealing with accounts for the money which we are voting for this year. He told us very plainly that no work had been done by Mr. Washington in the financial year with which we are dealing. I am referring to the Auditor General's Report, and not to the estimates we are voting.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said that Mr. Washington had done no work in the present financial year, and that there is no arrangement for his doing any work in the coming financial year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is he at present in the employ of the government ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is not in my department, and I do not know that he is any where else.
Aid to agricultural societies, $7,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is paid to the Agricultural Societies of the North-west Territories, and it is paid through the local government. This amount has been in the estimates during many years. It is paid to the individual societies 'who make a return of their membership, and each society gets an amount-based on its membership. The work of making that apportionment is left to the officers of the local government in the territories. The reason for this vote is that, in the provinces, the provincial governments deal with agricultural societies, but in view of the work to be done, this concession was made by the Dominion parliament.


James Clancy: I had occasion last year and on previous occasions to call attention to the very small sum expended fdr this purpose. The hon. gentleman states, that vote has been stationary for many years. Either agricultural societies must be unfairly dealt with or there is very little interest in matters of this kind in that country. In view of the large expenditure of the government, it seems to me that some explanation is due to the House as to why it is that, with such progress and development going on there, there is no greater increasing expenditure under this head.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Agricultural societies in the North-west Territories have not been increasing in number. The policy of the department there has been rather to centralize and amalgamate these societies. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) seems to think that enough money is not spent in the encouragement of agriculture in the North-west Territories. But when this vote was first introduced, this was the only agricultural work done in the Territories by the government. Since that time considerable other work has been undertaken, work in connection with the establishment of creamer-

ies, work in connection with live stock associations and the sending of speakers to farmers' institute meetings all over the Territories. In the opinion of the people there it was better to spend money in that kind of work rather than in agricultural societies. There has been no demand for the increase of this vote.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Are speakers sent from here to the North-west Territories to lecture to farmers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speakers are arranged for to lecture before the institutes of the North-west Territories. Some are sent from here and some are arranged for in the territories.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Who are the parties sent from here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not a list of them at hand. That conies under another vote, and when that vote comes up, if the hon. gentleman wishes it, I will give the list. It will come up under vote for the branch commissioner of agriculture, &c., and also under experimental farms.
Classifying all Canadian patents and preparing drawings for same for classification, to be paid, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $2,500.


James Clancy: What is the meaning of the phrase here :	' Notwithstanding anythink in the Civil Service Act ? '


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This has been characteristic of this vote ever since it was taken. We have to employ some people not under civil service rules, so that this provision is necessary. In explanation of the decrease, the vote this year being $2,500 against $7,0,00 last year, I may say that this work has been going on for some years and, as a large number of the patents in existence have been classified, it is felt that $2,500 will complete it during the next fiscal year, and also carry on the current work for the year.


James Clancy: Is the committee to understand that there are a number of persons engaged in the hon. gentleman's department, as there seems to be in other departments, who are not permanent clerks ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Partly from the reason the non. ger tie-man speaks of and partly from another reason, that there is one payment out of the vote that is made as an extra payment to the patent examiner who had charge of the work and who was specially qualified and who was given charge of it when it commenced. He has a regular salary as a first class clerk in the department, but during this work he was given an extra payment which had to be given him contrary to the regulation of the Civil Service
Act. That covers the point as well as the fact that some employees are not members of the civil service and not under civil service rules.
Fumigating stations, $3,500.


James Clancy: The country will look for some explanation as to the progress that is being made in that work and whether the hon. minister proposes to enlarge the operations.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There has been a slight enlargement of the operations. It was found that the station in British Columbia had to be kept open practically all winter, which involved extra expense. There was a larger number of passengers going through, and we have had to employ extra hands to do the work. I hen, again, I found that this year we were not able to pay all the bills out of the vote of this year. There may be something like $150 in the vote asked for to cover the arrearage, and make the ensuing year's expenditure all right.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain to the committee wliat progress is being made for the purpose of arresting the ravages of the San Jos6 scale, and to prevent infected plants from coming into Canada, which I understand now undergo a process of fumigation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My department has not undertaken in any way to try to stamp out the scale in this country, except that my officers, at the various horticultural and agricultural meetings, have explained the best methods of treating it. In the province of Ontario the local government have taken steps to try to stamp out the pest where it is in existence. The purpose of our government has been to prevent the importation of the pest into the country ; and I venture to say positively that in no case has an instance been found in Canada, since the passage of the Act under which this vote is administered, of the introduction of the San Josd scale from foreign countries. I think, therefore, we may congratulate ourselves that the action of parliament in passing that Act and in arranging for fumigation at certain ports, lias been successful. The work lias been canned out in such a way as to accomplish the object parliament had in passing the Act.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: From what countries does fumigated stock come in ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From the United States chiefly. The United States, Australia, Japan and the Hawaiian Islands are the places mentioned in the regulations and the Order in Council from which plants are prohibited without fumigation. Those are the countries which at present are known to be infested by this scale.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is not tlie stock taken out of tlie boxes at tlie fumigating stations ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, it is unpacked from tlie boxes, put into a tight chamber and fumigated, and then repacked and sent on.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: At what ports is it fumigated ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The ports are Vancouver, Winnipeg, Windsor, Niagara Falls, St. John's, Quebec and St. John, New Brunswick.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Then stock coming into Nova Scotia has to come through St. John to be fumigated ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. There is only one port in the maritime provinces where they are fumigated. As a matter of fact our records show that nearly all the stock that comes into Nova Scotia comes from the United States. It has been suggested that a port should be established also in Nova Scotia, but on investigation into tlie actual facts of the trade, it did not seem to me that it would be justified by the amount of stock imported, which comes just as cheaply through tlie" port of St. John.
For renewing and improving the Canadian exhibit at Imperial Institute, London, $3,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is going to be done in the way of improving those exhibits V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Imperial Institute, I confess, at the present moment, is in rather an uncertain condition. Hon. gentlemen are no doubt aware that the Imperial Institute was organized at tlie time of Her Majesty's jubilee, under tlie leadership and patronage of tlie then Prince of Wales. Tlie Imperial Institute of London is established for the purpose of affording an opportunity of exhibiting colonial products. At that time the Dominion of Canada was invited to subscribe towards establishing an exhibit. This was before the incumbency of the present government. At that time the government declined to take it up, and relegated the matter to tlie provincial governments. Most, if not all, the provincial governments in Canada have taken part in arrangements for the Imperial Institute. They have not, however, maintained their exhibits in that high state of efficiency which seems to be necessary. Over and over again Canadian visitors at London have complained of the condition of Canadian exhibits in that institute. The high eominisisoner, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who is one of the board of directors of that institute, and who was the representative on that board from Canada, has over and over again referred to the condition and the character of the Canadian exhibit as being not at all in consonance Hon. Mr. FISHER.
with tlie dignity and importance of this country, and with its material resources. When in England a few years ago I came to the same conclusion, and discussed the matter with Lord Strathcona. I took upon myself to recommend to my colleagues that this parliament should be asked to vote a sum to aid in the establishment of that institute. Blit just about the time that was done, and soon after tlie first vote was taken here, the Imperial Institute passed into what I might almost term a condition of crisis. It dragged along for a couple of years. We did, however, subscribe a certain amount, and we spent a sum of money in establishing some further exhibits there, and rehabilitating a good many that were already there and making them more attractive. The institute lias now passed under the control of the board of trade of the imperial government. Quite recently I received an official intimation from Lord Strathcona of this fact, and was made acquainted with the methods and management of the institute to be adopted in tlie future. I have not yet had an opportunity of going into the new conditions and the new arrangements, lint I understand that they will tend greatly to increase tlie usefulness of the Imperial Institute from a commercial and trade point of view. I think therefore that it is well that we should continue to try and make the Canadian exhibit a creditable one. and in consonance with the importance of this colony and the importance of representing our products in the centre of the empire. I cannot now give any details as to how this money will be spent.


James Clancy: I think that on two or three other occasions we have had promises from the hon. gentleman that looked quite as rosy as the one he has just made us. He has stated that for years our exhibit there has been anything but creditable to Canada and to those who are connected with it. I understand that the provinces generally have abandoned their support of the imperial institute. I understand that the building is in an out of the way place that its whole surroundings are of a forbidding character and tlie Canadians would not find it a matter of interest to go there at all. Now, after so long a time, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman ought to abandon this. When I say abandon it, 1 am not speaking of any grant of money that we are making because it is a very small sum, but I say abandon it because it is a perfectly useless institution. Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee how that $3,000 has been spent each year; under whose control and for what purpose it has beens spent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
James Clancy: Out of this vote ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Why not do this in connection with immigration work V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has nothing to do with immigration work. The object of the Imperial Institute has been for furthering commercial projects.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. minister removed the exhibit from the Imperial Institute ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Samuel Hughes: What is at the Imperial Institute ? I understand that all the Canadian exhibits have been tiikeu away from the Imperial Institute. Nobody ever goes there.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is a little mistaken in that. There lias been no removal of Canadian exhibits from the Imperial Institute that I am aware of.


Samuel Hughes: Then what does the hon. minister say lias been done V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Provision lias been made in the city to make exhibits of a temporary character. For instance, for a couple of weeks, or three weeks, an exhibit of canned goods will be made and the canned goods trade will be invited to come That will be taken away and then there will be an exhibit of dressed poultry, then an exhibit of Canadian butter and cheese, then an exhibit of Canadian hams and bacon, or whatever there might happen to lie available which could be effectively exhibited for the purpose of attracting attention (o our Canadian products. That lias never been done
in the Imperial Institute at all. It would be ineffective and the institute Would not be suitable for an exhibition of that kind. But, I am satisfied if arrangements can be made in the city such as we are talking of, that effective work of that kind can lie done. In consequence of the transference of the Imperial Institute from the old board of management to the board of trade, delay has taken place. The discussion lasted for two years until recently when -I received a communication from Lord Stratheona that the official transference had been made, but I do not know ns yet what the new arrangements are which have been put in force. Until we know what they are we cannot formulate any plan in regard to making an exhibit.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman any report from Lord Stratheona of the plans adopted by the institute ? The hon. gentleman will see the perfect uselessness of voting money, not because wre are indisposed to vote that money, but it does seem a waste of money and a waste of time to drag a matter of that kind along for the time during which it has been dragging. I would like the hon. gentleman to say what contributions have been made to the Imperial Institute, and from what quarter support has been given. We are paying now the small sum of S3,000. The sum, I may say again, is not worth discussing in that light, but it is important if we are to have an institute of that kind, that it shall perform good work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
James Clancy: What is the nature of the articles of Canadian produce or manufacture ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The exhibits are chiefly in minerals and forestry. The agricultural exhibits were not in sufficiently good condition at the end of these exhibitions to be available, and we propose to prepare and send over specially during this season a number of agricultural exhibits for erection and establishment: in the Imperial Institute. But, I do not feel that I can make any definite plans in regard to our exhibit there until I know what the arrangements are which the new management intend to carry out. I have received information from Lord Stratheona of the official transference and with that infor-

mation he gives me an outline of the management and organization under the board of trade, but no definite information as to any plans that may have been worked out in regard to the exhibits themselves. I will have to communicate with him and get information in regard to that: before I can formulate any definite plans.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman say what contributions have been made other than those made by Canada towards the support of that institution ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULT UltH. The other colonies, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and some of the smaller dependencies have exhibits in the Imperial Institute and they contribute towards its support. Our own provinces have been contributing regularly every year out of which the maintenance of their exhibits is paid for and also the payment of the salary of the Canadian curator, Mr. Harrison Watson with a small contribution additionally which I made last year to Ills salary.


James Clancy: That is not what I asked the hon. gentleman. I was aware, of course, that the colonies have each undertaken that. It has been stated that there has been a gradual falling off in these contributions. We have been contributing a small sum for many years. Can the minister state what sums are being contributed from all the other sources ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The contribution from Canada has been rather smaller than from other colonies in proportion to our wealth and importance. Speaking from memory, the contribution of the provinces amounts to something like $2,500 a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have we to pay this sum each year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are only pledged for this year, and that pledge is a conditional one.
Tracadie Lazaretto, $5,500.


James Clancy: Is this institution doing a useful work which warrants this vote every year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a work of absolute necessity. It was established before confederation, and was taken over by the Dominion government from the province of New Brunswick. The patients are not confined to the province of New Brunswick, and there are at present twenty patients. It is a curious fact that the number has varied very little for many years.


James Clancy: It has been stated in the press that a great number of them were Chinamen.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think that there is a single Chinaman there, or that there has been. There are some in the Lazaretto in British Columbia, but that is not under my department. Most of the patients from Tracadie come from the lower provinces, but on one or two occasions lepers have been sent from the west.


James Clancy: Is it not the duty of the province to look after these lepers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think there is any obligation on the Dominion to take charge of lepers except those in the maritime provinces. I will not speak positively as to the legal aspect of the question.
Public works-Health Act, $4,000.


James Clancy: What is this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some years ago this parliament passed an Act for the purpose of protecting the health of employees on public works, by seeing that the employers provided proper sanitary arrangements for their employees, and especially in cases where there was no municipal organization. An inspector was appointed to see that the provisions of the Act were carried out, and his report appears in the annual report of my department.


James Clancy: Does that apply only to where there is no municipal or provincial organization ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speaking from memory, I think that the Act would cover places where there is a municipal organization, but where the employees are not living in the ordinary way, but are camping on the works.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman say how much was voted last year, how much was expended, and how it was expended V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that $2,150 was expended last j'ear. During the current year, up to the 1st of June, $2,233 was expended.


James Clancy: For what purpose ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The expenditure was entirely the salary and travelling expenses of the inspector, Mr. Charles Fisher, of Montreal. He makes Montreal his headquarters.


James Clancy: Has he made a report '!


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is in the annual report of the Department of Agriculture, which has been laid on the Table.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.


Thubsday, June 11, 1903.