1903-05-28

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 184) further to amend the Patent Act. He said : In introducing this Bill, I think that perhaps a short explanation is due to the House. The immediate necessity for the passage of an Act of this character is due to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last December in the case of Power vs. Griffin, the effect of which decision has been to alter materially the practice of the department, and in some cases to throw a doubt upon the validity of certain acts of the department in the past. The Bill provides for various other amendments to the Patent Act which have been asked for by the applicants for patents and by those who are practising as patent solicitors in Canada. The Bill provides first of all, to remove doubts raised by the decision of the Supreme Court as to the powers of the deputy commissioner of patents or the acting deputy commissioner of patents. While the decision of the court itself did not involve any question as to the powers of these two officials, still there was an expression of opinion by some of the judges that the deputy commissioner and the acting deputy commissioner had been performing certain acts which they considered to be only within the purview of the commissioner himself.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What are these acts ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The granting of extension of time for manufacture in the country, and extension of time for importation under the Patent Act. The Bill also makes an important amendment as to the duration of the existing Canadian patents. At present, under our patent law, all Canadian patents cease, determine and are void whenever a similar patent in a foreign country becomes void for any reason whatever. That is a relic of by-gone patent legislation. It has already been removed from the law of Great Britain and the United States and other foreign countries, and those who are connected with the administration of the patent law in Canada believe that Canadian patents ought not to become void simply because of the voiding of the same patents in a foreign country. This amendment will make the existence of the Canadian patents entirely independent of the life of the same patents in foreign countries. We have found in the administration of the patent law that certain difficulties have arisen in the way of the voiding of patents because of non-manufacture
114}

in this country- There is a pretty large class of patents, the manufacture of which is practically impossible until a demand arises for them. A patent for a graving dock is an example. There might be no necessity for the building of a graving dock in Canada for many years after the period of the patent had expired because of nonusage. There are other patents for processes, the manufacture of which is not necessary unless the article, the use of which the process is required for, is manufactured in the country. It seems to be an injustice to the patentee that because of the non-use of the patent in this country the patent should become null and void. In Great Britain they have adopted a system of licensing, and this Bill proposes to apply the British license system to this class of patent when the owner of the patent applies for it, and when, in the judgment of the commissioner of patents, it is a proper patent to allow that licensing system to prevail in regard to, instead of the patents becoming null and void because of the non-use or nonmanufacture of the article in this country. Then, as the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has shown that certain acts of the deputy commissioner of patents and the acting deputy commissioner of patents were beyond their powers, this Act will render valid acts which have been so performed by these officers. We further propose to revive certain patents which were void, either through failure to manufacture in the country, or by reason of the permission not to manufacture having been given by the officers of the department in a way which this decision of the Supreme Court says was illegal and ineffective.
Hon. Mr. HAGGAllT. How far do you make your ex post facto legislation valid, and to what cases does It apply 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will explain that further in detail. I was going over the Bill first. Then we propose another radical amendment in the administration of the office, which has really not occasioned any great trouble, but might do so at any time. The present patent law provides that all papers in connection with patents should be open to public inspection. That provision applies to applications for patents before the patent has been granted. There is no doubt that under that interpretation of the law there is a danger that a person who has filed an application for a patent, a paper which ought to be confidential, might have his patent stolen from him by reason of that fact. We remove the applications for patents from the operation of that section of the law, and make them confidential just as caviats are. until the application has been dealt with and passed upon by the department There is also a provision, not to change, but to make clear the tariff in regard to the fees on the re-issue of a patent. These have been a subject of dispute, and patent solicitors who Hon. Mr. FISHER.
appear before the office have generally considered that the ruling of the office was not indicated clearly by the wording of the Act, and I wish to make the wording of the Act so as to indicate more clearly the ruling of the office, which has been sustained and upheld. There is also a clause to extend the time within which the Commissioner of Patents, under certain circumstances, may be able to give a permit for an extension of time to import. We have clauses conserving the rights of people who may have acquired rights through the decision of the Supreme Court, the results of which by this Act are to be modified to a certain extent. We propose to retroactively maintain and make valid certain patents which at the present time are null and void. We conserve the rights which were acquired during the period in which those patents were not valid. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has asked me particularly in what way we make the Act retroactive. I think the first clause, which deals with that is clause 9 :
The validity of any extension heretofore granted or assumed to be granted under subsection 2 of section 37 of the said Act, of the period of two years limited by that section, or by that section as heretofore amended, for the commencement of the construction or manufacture of a patented invention, or of the period of twelve months thereby limited for the importation of the patented invention, shall not be open to impeachment, because-
(a.) Such extension was so granted or assumed to be granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, or, as acting Deputy Commissioner of Patents, by a person performing the duties of Deputy Minister of Agriculture under the provisions of the Civil Service Act in that behalf, instead of by the Commissioner of Patents; or because
(b.) In the case of the invention to which such extension relates, there had been granted or assumed to be granted a previous ^extension or previous extensions of the period of two years or the period of twelve months, as the case may be, so limited.
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that while one extension of time may be permitted, no more can be granted by the Commissioner of Patents. It had been the practice of the department to grant more than one extension. This Act will make valid the extensions which have been granted. but, of course, the practice of the department will now change, and only one extension will be granted in each case.


John Graham Haggart: ' How about rights acquired by the voiding of a patent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a general provision carefully preserving all acquired rights under the law.


Mr INGRAM.: Suppose a patent lapsed this year, could that be revived in two years from now ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. The Bill only makes valid the patents which have lapsed up to the period when


Mr. INGRAM.: Are you changing the old Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. the reading of the old Act is entirely different because the decision of the Supreme Court completely controverts and overrides Dr. Taclie's decision of 1877. And liecnuse the Supreme Court holds that the decision upon which the patent law has been administered ever since was erroneous and incorrect. This section provides that the patents still in existence, the holders of which have complied with Dr. Taclie's decision, shall be rendered valid, provided that within a fixed time they do what the new reading of the law requires. It is only right that those patents which have become void through the patentee following Dr. Tache's decision should be given an opportunity of lining made valid again.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: How will you give the patentees notice ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That would be a matter of administration. But I should think that the passage of the law and its appearance in the statutes would give most people sufficient notice.


Robert Laird Borden: It gives technical notice, but I mean actual notice.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We could undertake, though it would be
great labour, to send notices to the patentees, whose addresses we have, but there are a great many with whom we have had no communications and whose addresses we do not know.


Robert Laird Borden: How many patents are voided by this decision of the Supreme Court ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are so many patents voided on one ground or another that I could not tell off hand.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the case of a patent, the manufacture of which has not begun at the expiration of the two years, does this extend the time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It gives them six months to comply with the new reading of the law. This Bill also makes valid patents which have expired through the expiry of foreign patents. That is another way in which it is retroactive, of course providing the safeguard of acquired rights. There is a general clause in the Bill giving protection to acquired rights under every provision of this measure, and the Department of Justice and my own deputy minister, who is a lawyer, considers that the clause, as it is drawn, will preserve any acquired rights under any retroactive provisions of this Bill. I may say that this decision of the Supreme Court was quite unexpected, that the jurisprudence of the Patent Law had been maintained on the lines I have beeil discussing some 26 years, and it was only last December that a change was made. I may say that the Department of Justice and my own deputy minister concur fully in the ruling of the Supreme Court, but at the same time I think that the continuous existence of a condition of affairs based on a wrong reading of the law in the department, proves that it was high time that an experienced lawyer was made deputy minister, and I am very glad that I was able to secure the services of an experienced and sound lawyer for the position. I am satisfied that such an appointment will conduce to the more satisfactory administration of these branches - in which legal knowledge is required.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will it be necessary to come forward with a private Bill in order to renew lapsed patents ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Most of the private Bills which come lie-fore the House to make valid lapsed patents owe their existence to the neglect of the patentees themselves. This Bill does not deal with any ease in which the patentee has been simply neglectful, but we are trying to remedy a condition of affairs, the existence of which is due to the action of the department and not to the negligence of the patentees. The House will still have the power to pass a private Bill in order to make valid any patent, but this Bill only

affects certain classes of patents which have become void owing to the action of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he had appointed a lawyer as Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Does not the work of the patent officer devolve almost entirely on the chief clerk ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, the work of the patent branch is directly under the deputy commissioner of patents, who is also the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. True the chief clerk has charge there just as chief clerks have in other branches, but at the same time it is first of all the minister acting through his deputy, the commissioner of patents, who has direct responsibility and control over the work. One of the chief parts of the work of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture,- as now constituted and for a long time back, is to deal with these non-agricultural portions of the work of the department. As my hon. friend knows very well, experts and specialists have charge of the various agricultural branches of the Department of Agriculture, but there has not been anybody of that character in the non-agricultural parts of the department. Therefore it is necessary that somebody should be able to deal with these things as a deputy minister.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Is Mr. George Roy, of Quebec, in the service of the government as inspector of leather and hides ?
2.	If so. when was he so appointed ?
3.	What is his salary ?
4.	Is it a new position
5.	What are the places in which he performs the duties of his office 1
6.	Since his appointment, has he done any inspecting in connection with his office ?
7.	If so, when, how often, and where was such inspection done by him ?
8.	Is he allowed, over and above his salary, any travelling expenses when moving about on inspection ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	Mr. George Roy, of Quebec, is in the service of the government as chief inspector of hides.
2.	He was appointed under authority of subsection three of section two of the General Inspection Act on the 12th July, 1897.
3.	$1,500.
4.	It was a new position.
5.	Under his letter of instruction, he was to supervise the inspectors of hides at Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, London and other points, as occasion might require.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 6.	Since his appointment he has supervised the inspectors at various places.
7.	Whenever occasion required, or whenever he was specially instructed so to do from the department.
8.	He is allowed actual travelling expenses when absent on duty.


SALARIES OF COUNTY COURT JUDGES, MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1.	Has the honourable the Minister of Justice received from the County Court judges of Manitoba a memorial or petition asking that their salaries be increased by one thousand dollars ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce at this session such legislation as will provide for a more adequate salary to the Judges of our high and county courts of Manitoba and the Territories ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	I have received such a memorial.
2.	The matter is now under the consideration of the government, but nothing so far lias been finally decided.


CONCILIATION BOARDS.
Mr. BELL asked :: 1.	How many ' conciliation boards ' have been
registered under section three of the Conciliation Act, 1900 ?	(b) How many of such conciliation boards are still in existence ?	(c) In
how many instances have the services of such conciliation boards been invoked for the settlement of labour disputes ? (d) In how many instances have such services been invoked successfully ?
2.	In how many instances have inquiries as to labour disputes been instituted by the Minister of Labour, under subsection ' a,' clause 1, of section 4 of the said Act ?
3.	How many applications have been made for the appointment by the Minister of Labour of conciliators, under subsection ' c,' clause 1, of section 4 of said Act ? 1. By employers ; 2. By workmen ? (b) In how many instances have such applications been acted upon ?
4.	In how many instances has application been made to the Minister of Labour for the appointment of arbitrators, under subsection 'd,' clause 1, of section 4 of the said Act ? (b) In how many instances have such applications been acted upon ?
5.	In how many instances has a memorandum of the settlement of a labour dispute, as a result of the appointment of such conciliators or arbitrators, been filed with the Minister of Labour, under clause three of section four of the said Act ?
6.	In how many instances has the Governor in Council, under section seven of the said Act, appointed a commission to take evidence under o-ath respecting labour disputes ? (b) In how many instances has application been made for the appointment of such a commission ?
7.	In how many instances has the Minister of Labour appointed a person to promote the establishment of conciliation boards, under section nine of the said Act ? (b) How many conciliation boards have been established as the result of such action ? (c) How many of the conciliation boards so established are still in existence ?

8.	What has been the cost of administering the Conciliation Act, 1900, in each year since the said Act has been in force ?


The FOSTM ASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mnlock) :: 1.	There have been no conciliation boards registered under section three of the Conciliation Act, 1900. This will answer all the subdivisions of question one.
2.	The Minister of Labour has never had occasion to institute inquiries into labour disputes under the subsection of the Act in question.
3.	Since the establishment of the Department of Labour twenty-four applications have been made to the Minister of Labour for the appointment of a person to act as conciliator in case of industrial disputes. (1). Of these, two applications were made by employers or their representatives, and twenty-two by employees, (b). The department has taken action in all of these applications.
4.	There has been no case of application
by both parties to a trade dispute for the appointment of an arbitrator under subsection ' d,' clause one, of section four, of said Act.	[DOT]
5.	In no case has a memorandum of the settlement of a labour dispute, under the Conciliation Act, been tiled with the Minister of Labour, other than in the form of an official report of the action of the conciliator, published in the 1 Labour Gazette ' for the month following.
6.	There have been no instances of the appointment of a commission under section seven of the Conciliation Act and no application has been made to the department for the appointment of such a commission.
7.	There have been no instances of the appointment of a person by the Minister of Labour to promote the establishment of conciliation boards under section nine of said Act.
8.	No separate account is kept in the Department of Labour of the cost of administering the conciliation provisions of the Conciliation Act, the only items of disbursements limited exclusively to conciliation proceedings being for travelling expenses of the officers of the department which amounted as follows :-
1900- 1	$ 250.30
1901-	2	
1.010.331902-	3, to May 1st	
496.20


COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BATHURST, N.B.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: Is the Customs Department aware that P. I. Veniot, collector at the port of Bathurst, N.B., absented himself from his office forty-nine days, at various dates, commencing June 12, 1902, and ending March 28, 1903 ? Had the collector leave of absence for the above time ? Is the department aware that Venio-t'is an active political partisan ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	The Customs Department is not aware that P. I. Yeniot, collector of customs at Bathurst N.B., absented himself from his office forty-nine days, at various dates, commencing .Tune 12th, 1902, and ending March 28th, 1903.
2.	The collector had only the usual three weeks leave of absence from duty from the department during the above time.
3.	The department is not aware that Veniot is an active political partisan.


METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Has Dr. Mehan been removed from the meteorological service at Bathurst, N.B. ?
2.	If so, for what cause ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Discontinuance of the station. HARBOUR MASTER, BATHURST, N.B.


Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Has Michael Daly been dismissed from the position of harbour master of the port of Bathurst, N.B. ?
2.	If bo, for what reason ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	In the interest of the public.


PILOT NAZAIRE HATCHERY.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Has Pilot Nazaire Hatchey been appointed harbour master ?
2.	If so, is he legally eligible as pilot to hold such position ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	He is not disqualified by being a pilot-BUOYS IN BATHURST HARBOUR, N.S.


Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Why was contract for placing buoys in Bathurst Harbour taken from P. J. Burns ?
2.	Has this contract been given to Nazaire Hatchey without tender ?
3.	If so, why were tenders not called for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	The contract was not taken from Mr. Burns, it terminated on the 12th of March last.
2.	Mr. Nazaire Hatchey was appointed harbour master of Bathurst harbour in the early part of April, and he was instructed as an officer of this department to take charge of the buoy service, the cost not to exceed the former contract price, and to provide vouchers for the work.
3.	Tenders were not called for because the work was put in the hands of a government officer who is also a pilot and understands where the buoys should be placed in the

interests of navigation. An improved system of inspection of the buoy service on the north side of New Brunswick] has been introduced. by sending a steamer specially from harbour to harbour to see that the work is properly done and to prevent complaints about the service. This system will admit of changes in the number of buoys from time to time if necessary without interfering with contract prices, as would be the case if a contract was made.


LIGHT-KEEPER AT MISCOU, N.B.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Was Robert Rivers dismissed from the position of light-keeper at Miscou, N.B. ?
2.	If so, is he receiving superannuation allowance ? What is the amount ?
3.	And has any one been authorized to receive any portion of such allowance by Rivers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	He was not dismissed.
2.	He was superannuated and is receiving $250 a year.
3.	Not so far as this department is aware.


GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OP LAND IN TOWN OP LEVIS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Pope-asked :
1.	Did the government, in the year 1900, or thereabouts, purchase from A. H. Murphy, or from Miss Murphy, a certain lot of land situate in the town of Levis, for the purpose of ex tending the land already owned at the said place by the government, for the use of the Intercolonial Railway, or for other purposes ?
2.	What was the price per foot paid for said lot of land so purchased from A. H. Murphy, or Miss Murphy ?
3.	How many cheques were made out in payment of the price paid by the government for the said lot of land ? To whom were same made payable, and what was the amount of each cheque ?
4.	What was the total price paid by the government for and in connection with the said purchase ?
Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	$1.75 per foot was paid for the land taken.
3.	Two cheques. One in favour of Laura Murphy and E. Lemieux, agent of tlie Department of Justice, for $7,336.40; and tlie other in favour of the estate of the late Sir .T. A. Chapleau and E. Lemieux, agent of tlie Department of Justice, for $8,252.60.
4.	The total price paid for the land taken was, $15,589.
USE OF GOVERNMENT STEAMER * MINTO.'


Mr. BELL asked :: 1.	Was the government steamer ' Minto ' sent from Pictou to Magdalen Islands, on May 18, to convey certain passengers ?
2.	Were the passengers in question engaged in any matter for the government ?


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: 3.	Did the regular mail boat leave on same day? If so, why was the government steamer ' Minto ' used to convey the persons in question ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	I don't know.


APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette)-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	How many members of the House of Commons, or ex-members of the House of Commons, have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown since 13th July, 1896 ; (b) what are the names of such members, or ex-members, of the House of Commons ; (c) to what offices were they so appointed ?
2.	How many members of the Senate, or exmembers of the Senate, have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown since 13th July, 1896; (b) what are the names of such members, or ex-members, of the Senate ; (c) to what offices were they so appointed ?
3.	How many members, or ex-members, of the House of Commons have been appointed to the Senate since 13th July, 1896 ; (b) what are the names of such members, or ex-members, of the House of Commons ?
Tlie PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would ask tlie lion, gentleman to move for a return.


REPORT OF COLONIAL CONFERENCE.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to mention to the Prime Minister a fact that I have already brought to his attention. So far as this House is concerned, no documents whatever relating to the colonial conference have ever been brought down. It is true that a few members of parliament have been able to procure a copy of the documents which were laid on the Table of the Imperial House, but so far as this House is concerned, it is in absolute ignorance of any of the results of that colonial conference, unless the documents have been brought down some time during my absence. I mentioned this to the right lion, gentleman some time ago, and I understood from him at that time that there was no objection to bringing down the documents so that every one of them1 might be available and in the hands of every member of this House. It seems to me that is a very reasonable proposition. I would like, therefore, to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, there is any objection to that. Also I would be glad if he would bring down any such documents that have not been laid on the Table of the imperial parliament and that may particularly concern the interest of this country as represented at the colonial conference. I would also ask that when the documents are brought down they should be printed with as much expedition as

possible, so that they may be in the hands of lion, members on both sides of the House before the conclusion of the session.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that there are no other documents to be brought down or In existence than those contained in the Imperial Blue-book. With regard to the advisability of having the blue-book printed for the information of the members of the House, that is a reasonable request, and steps shall be taken immediately with that object in view.



SUPPLY-THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
["I am speaking of what occurred in the committee. In one or two cases we found that after parliament bad authorized the government to spend a certain sum of money at a particular place the government spent twice that sum, without any authority whatever, and 1 asked the Auditor General how it happened that lie had passed those accounts. He said that they were all paid before he knew anything about them. Out of that arose a discussion on the question whether there was a sufficient audit. There is a departmental auditor at Moncton, but that gentleman is precisely in the position of a staff officer on a railway who can be dismissed at any time by the manager. He simply look's after the details between the departments. Such an audit is no protection to the proprietors of the railway, nor would such an audit be a protection to the people of this country. We want somebody to audit the accounts as between the public and the railway department, not a gentleman who will object to a particular item at the peril of the loss of his situation. The hon. gentleman knows that the Auditor General cannot be dismissed by the government, and for that reason matters such as I have alluded to should be audited by him. We should have the protection of such an officer's endorsement of the expenditure, not the endorsement of Hon. Mr. BLAIR.\nsome gentleman down at Moncton, who knows that he must do exactly as he is told, who will audit a particular account, but who will not criticise the government if it is spending two or three times what it is authorized to spend. That was what led to the discussion in the Public Accounts Committee, as the minister knows perfectly well.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Postmaster General, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Friday."]
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I propose, with the permission of the House, before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, to make a general statement, as has been customary, respecting the Intercolonial Railway. In doing so, let me first make reference to the operations of the railway for the past year. The earnings of the road for the year ending 30th June, 1902, were as follows :



[Stage Direction]
Passengers	 $1,770,941
Freight	 3,644,513
Mails and express	 255,921
Total	 5,671,385
For the purpose of comparison I give the receipts for the year ending 30th June 1901 :

[Stage Direction]
Passengers	 $1,607,166
Freight	 3,121,006
Mails and express	 244,063
Total	 4,972,235
This shows an increase for the year ending 30th June, 1902, over the year previous, of $699,150. There were in operation 1,314 miles of railway in both years. The earnings per mile were, for the year 1902, $4,313, and for the year 1901, $3,782, or an increase in the earnings per mile of $531. The gross earnings per train mile for 1902 were $93.46, as against $79.39 for 1901. You will observe from this statement that the increase in the passenger traffic in 1902 over 1901 amounted to $164,000, while the increase in the freight receipts over the year 1901 were $523,500, making a total increase of about $700,000 in the results of the business for the year.
I have here a comparison between the receipts for the year 1902 and those in the year 1896, which was the year preceding that in which I took charge of the department :

[Stage Direction]
Increase
1896.	1902. for 1902.
Passengers ..: 

Freight	 1,788,800 3,644,513 1,855,700
This shows that the freight receipts in 1902 amounted to about $200,000, more than double those of 1896, while the passenger receipts fell only $174,000 short of being double those of 1896. Now, in order that the comparison of the volume of receipts between the two years may be absolutely fair, I have added the percentage of increased mileage so as to place up the receipts of 1896 on the same basis as those of 1902. The increased mileage was fifteen per cent ; and allowing for that. I find that the increase of 1902 over 1896 was, for passengers $653,822, and for freight $1,587,379. The receipts from mail and passenger express services, of course, are relatively small, and the difference in favour of 1902 is $28,921. If you allow for the fifteen per cent mileage, showing in favour of 1902 under this head would be something less than that amount.
Now, let me turn to the statement of the gross earnings and working expenses and compare these. As you have heard, the gross earnings for 1902 were $5,671,385. The working expenses for that year were $5,574.563, leaving net earnings for the year ending 30th June, 1902, of $96,822. A comparison of the working expenses of 1902 with 5896, making the addition for the mileage of 1896 to bring it up to that of 1902, produces the following results :
Working expenses, 1902 .. $5,574,563 02
. do	do 1896 ..	3,464,751 00
Increase, 1902 over 1896 ..	2,069,812 00


Mr. CLANCY.: Would that include the rentals ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That includes rentals in all calculations. I will give you later the figures showing the items of working expenses, particularly that portion which goes to the maintenance and betterment of the road. However, the details which I am now about to furnish will answer the purposes of my present statement. The chief items in this general branch of expenses include all moneys expended in the maintenance of the roadway and the works connected therewith, repairs to locomotives and cars, their renewal, and all other expenses which maintain and improve the character of the road and its equipment. These expenses in 1902 amounted to $2,030,930, while in 1896. adding the fifteen per cent mileage to make the comparison absolutely fair, the total amount expended for these purposes was $1,532,077, or a difference in round figures of $500,000. That is to say, in the year 1902 we spent out of the earnings of the road in the betterment of the road, in the improvement of its equipment and in those directions which go towards enhancing the value and capacity of a railway, half a million more money

than was expended in 1856 for the satne purposes upon an equal amount of mileage. And we did that and at the same time, at the end of the year, we came out with a surplus of $96,000 and upwards.
Now, let me depart for one moment from a further examination of the conditions and operation of the railway for the past year, to give you a statement, so far as, and down to as late a period as, it is possible to make it out, of the operations for the current year. The statement which I am about to furnish brings us down to the end of the month of March. We have not yet received a statement of the results down to the end of April. I give them to the House as far as they are available. Our earnings for the nine months just past of the current year run up to $4,745,000. The receipts for the corresponding period of last year were $4,184,000, an increase of $561,000 in the gross earnings for the nine months of the current year. For the same period this year the working expenses were $4,775,000, as compared with $4,187,500 for the corresponding period of last year, an increase of $570,000. The earnings for the nine months were $4,745,000, the working expenses for the nine months were $4,775,500. The excess of working expenses over earnings was $30,500. On the 31st March last year, we had a deficit of $60,000, while on the 31st March, 1901 we had a deficit of $130,000, and yet at the end of the fiscal year 1902, we had the surplus which I have stated of $96,800. Now, I may, perhaps, take a moment to furnish the House with a little explanation as to why this ordinarily occurs.


John Graham Haggart: Before passing from that would the hon. gentleman say what was the amount expended upon capital account up to March 31st ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I must beg my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) not to interrupt me on the question of capital at this stage. The question of capital does not alter this statement nor its bearing to the extent of a hair's breadth.


John Graham Haggart: It was just for my own information.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not taking into account one copper of capital outlay in any particular.


John Graham Haggart: It was for my own information, and not for the purpose of affecting the hon. gentleman's argument at all. If the hon. gentleman has it. I would like to have it, but if he has not, I do not wish it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not hesitate to give it to the hon. gentleman now, but it would be very inconvenient to break into the statement and speak about the amount expended Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
upon capital account. I will give the hon. gentleman the information in due course.


John Graham Haggart: I wish to apologise to the hon. gentleman. He was giving the amount expended and the receipts, and I thought perhaps, in the same table from which he got the information, the officers of the department would have given the total amount of the expenditure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am endeavouring to give a statement of the amount which goes into consolidated revenue account, or in other words, the gross earnings of the road on one side and the expenditure incurred in the operating of the railway on the other, and so far as the question of capital expenditure is concerned, it does not in the remotest degree affect the matter one way or the other. If we had spent less money in maintaining the railway, and if a comparison had been made between previous years and this past year, and it appeared from that comparison that I had expended less money in the maintenance of the road, and that I had taken money from capital account and spent it for the purpose of keeping up the road, then I could understand the relevancy of my hon. friend's desire to get this information. It does not bear upon it in any particular at all. I have shown that we spent upon the actual operation of the railway out of earnings, not out of capital, $500,000 more than was expended in 1896, which is a fair average year under the hon. gentleman's administration. I claim the benefit of the comparison. I have shown that we were in a much better position in operating the railway in 1902 than my hon. friend was in 1896.
When my hon. friend interrupted me. I was about to offer an explanation. There is a portion of the year in which the road is more expensively operated than in other portions of the year, and when the business is not as flourishing as during other months. It happens that during the winter months, December, January. February and running into March, it costs more to maintain and operate the line, and that the business is not usually so large: so that every year you make a poorer showing to the end of March than you are able to make when the year closes, because, after that, your expenses for maintenance are less and your receipts are larger. We were able in 1902 to convert what had been a deficit of $60,000. on the 31st March, into a surplus of $96,800 on the 30th June. My estimate is that at the end of the present fiscal year we will be able to show, everything going well, and from present indications I think I can speak with some confidence, a surplus of at least $125,000. It is fair to call the attention of the House to the important and significant fact to which I have just pointed, that out of the earnings which came from the traffic of the

railway in the year 1902, we spent in the same proportion which had been spent under the previous administration, aud we had out of these earnings $500,000 more which we were able to spend in the same direction for the betterment and improvement of the road. If we had spent no more, and 1 want to impress that fact, because it is a significant fact, upon the attention of the House-if we had spent no more in the maintenance and in improvements upon the road and its equipment than had been spent by our predecessors, I would have been able to come down to parliament and say that instead of having a surplus of .$90,800 I had a surplus of $596,000.
My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) laughs at that, but there is no ground upon which he can ridicule that statement. Where did the money come from ? It did not come from the skies. It did not come from capital; it did not come from the issue of bonds; it was not given to us-it was earned; earned by the carriage of the traffic upon the road. We earned $500,000 more or we would not have been able to expend $500,000 more. That is a significant fact, therefore, because the road is better by $500,000. Mark you, when I speak of the $500,000, I am not speaking of money that has been spent in earning the receipts which come from the carriage of traffic; I am speaking of money that has been spent upon the equipment and the betterment of the road. And if we bad the money to spend it must come out of the earnings, and if it came out of earnings, as it undoubtedly did come, then we must have been able to manage the road and carry the traffic upon the road under more favourable conditions than my hon. friend (Hon. John Haggart) was able to do. If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. 'Haggart) had spent $500,000 upon betterments and improvements in 1896, he would have had a deficit of $555,000 instead of a deficit of $55,000. There is no getting away from that; the fact is too clear to need elaborate argument to support it.
If there were no other fact to which I could call the attention of this House and of the country in pointing to our efficient administration of the Intercolonial Railway, I would be able to claim from this fact alone that the Intercolonial Railway had certainly come under an improved management, and is showing greatly improved results. But. before I conclude, Sir. I hope to be able to point to a number of other convincing facts which will serve to impress upon the mind of parliament and upon the mind of the people of the country, the fact that the condition of the Intercolonial Railway has been, under our management, improved year after year until it presents a more favourable spectacle to-day than ever before in its history. Let me give some of the details which go to make up this item of working expenses and which are entirely included within that class of working expenses which mean the improvement
of the roadbed and the improved equipment of the railway. I have calculated these upon the basis of the same number of miles operated as in 1896, because I want to be absolutely fair to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart). I want to treat him as though he had been handling a railway of exactly the same mileage as I am handling. Any other comparison would not be fair, and I do not want any comparison which is not fair, because being unfair it would militate against the value and force of the statement which I shall make. I take the actual expenditures which the hon. gentleman made in 1896 for the purpose of improving and maintaining the railway, and I add to that expenditure 15 per cent, which is [DOT] the difference between the mileage then and now. Taking the different items of these accounts which I will read to the House, and comparing them with my own, I will be able to show where the improvement comes in.


COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURES, 1896 AND 1902.
[Stage Direction]
1896	1902
Repairs and renewals of engines, tenders, &c	$265,000	$375,000
Repairs of water tanks, pumps,
&c	
35,000	40,000Renewals and repairs to passenger oars	
74,750	117,400Postal and baggage cars	
22,000	31,200Freight cars, &e	
235,000	304,000Maintenance of the road	
406,000 492,000Rails and fastenings	
62,100	69,500Ties	
110,000	192,500Timber, lumber, bridges, cattle-guards, &c	94,870	181,000Buildings and platforms	
71,000	100,000Tools	
9,500	17,500
Under these different headings I have given the amounts chargeable in 1896 and chargeable in identically the same way in 1902, and they show that there was $526,000 more expended in 1902 than was expended in 1896.
Mr. BELL.: How much more in 1902.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $526,800 to be accurate. That is out of earnings, outside of what may have been expended out of capital. Out of the money that was earned on the Intercolonial Railway in the carriage of freight and the doing of business, there was $526,000 more expended in 1902 than in 1896. But that is not the case for the year ending the 30th of June, alone. That has been done year after year. We are improving the character of the road. I do not care who the man is who uses that road he will say that it never was before in the condition that it lias been in for the last few< years, and it is improving every year.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I claim that the Intercolonial Railway is improving year after year, and without making an unfounded boast. I can claim that the road is a credit to the gov-

eminent of the country, and to the people of Canada.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a credit to us, both in respect to its roadway and in respect to its equipment, and for the information of lion, friends opposite, I will say that it is going to be better still.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. I have been surprised to hear one hon. gentleman opposite who is a keen critic of the Intercolonial Railway, and of the railway administration of the government, and who has had, as I am informed, a good deal of experience with regard to railway administration in some form or other; I was surprised to hear him state that in his opinion it cost $1.10 -to earn every dollar that is earned on the Intercolonial Railway. Perhaps that statement was not made seriously and perhaps the hon. gentleman did not intend it to be taken seriously, but he made the statement with all seriousness in appearance, and I think he was not unwilling that the impression should be entertained in the country this government railway was in the lamentable condition that the more business it did the worse it was off, and that for every dollar we earned on the road we were actually laying out $1.10. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can throw some light upon that matter now. But, if the statement be true, let us see what is the result of it. In 1896 with $3,000,000 worth of business, there was a deficit of $55,000, and his conclusion would be that with the same amount of money expended in proportion upon the road, and upon equipment, and in various other ways in connection with the operating of the railway, we might properly show, without being subject to criticism, a deficit of $110,000 on $6,000,000 worth of business, figuring on the results obtained on the Intercolonial Railway during the last year of the Conservative administration. If with $3,000,000 of business there is a deficit of $55,000, with $6,000,000 of business there should be a deficit of $110,000. But what was the actual result ? It was not, as my hon. friend, with his $1.10 theory, would have us believe. If his theory was correct, and if on $3,000,000 of business, $55,000 was a proper deficit, then on $3,000,000 more business, you would have to add $300,000 more deficit-a total deficit of $355,000. My h'on. friend would have us believe that that might have been the result of the administration of this railway by the government. The actual result, however, for the year ending the 30th of June last, was $96,000 of a surplus, after $520,000 odd had been expended for betterments and improvements over and beyond what was laid out by my predecessor, and $55,000 to he added as representing the deficit which


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: the hon. gentleman had in 1896. You can , thus see, without going into any further figures or making any closer inspection of the situation, what the difference was between the two administrations. $670,000 is the difference between the operation of the railway under existing conditions, and its operation under the conditions which my hon. friend experienced.
Now, it is only fair to say that it may be held while it costs you a certain amount of money to operate the railway with gross earnings of $3,000,000, it ought not to cost you relatively as much when you are earning $G,000,000, because the fixed charges would be only. very slightly increased in earning the additional $3,000,000. I want to put the case quite fairly, as my hon. friend would put it. While some allowance would have to be made for that consideration, in the case of an ordinary corporation railway, it is not time to any considerable extent with respect to the Intercolonial, and I will tell you why. A corporation railway has its bonds and its stock dividends to pay; its bonded obligation is a fixed charge, which does not increase with the increase of business. Therefore, it would not be fair to expect such a railway to show equally favourable results on a small business as on a large. But In the case of the Intercolonial, we have no bonded obligations.


John Graham Haggart: No interest to pay.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no interest to pay ; there are no fixed charges or, if there are any, they are very trifling. The general head pffce expenses are the only fixiedl charges which would remain whether the business increased or diminished. But these would amount to a very trifling sum and would not be sufficient to vary or alter the calculation in any material degree. But I maintain that I am entitled, in the judgment of any person who is at all disposed to consider this question with a fair mind, to have him ask, To what is it due that these larger results have been achieved ? Why is it that these large expenditures out of earnings have been possible ? To what is it due ? That is the question. I have pointed out that it is not due to any sum of money which the government have borrowed on the public credit and handed over to the officers of the Intercolonial to be expended.
I have shown you that there was but one source from which the money came-the surplus earnings over the cost of carrying and handling the goods ; and I am entitled,
I think, to claim some credit for that, and I will show you where and how and why these improved results have been achieved.
One of the reasons is, I frankly confess it, because we have made a connection with Montreal. That the connection has been made is, I think, due to the more favourable view which the government have taken of the Intercolonial Railway than was taken

by our predecessors. For the readiness with which the government took up that project and made the effort to bring about better results on the railway, I think we are entitled to credit. That extension has already begun to bear fruit, though not to the full extent which we have a right to expect in the future. But the railway has made progress, and has achieved large results, and one of the means by which this has been brought about has been the extension to Montreal. Another has been the improvement or modernization of the road. That has done perhaps more than any other one thing to produce a larger percentage in the earnings over the cost of carrying and handling the freight. Let me just pause for a moment to show in one particular how much the modernization of the road has done.
The putting of larger locomotives capable of hauling heavier loads upon the railway has cut down enormously the cost of carrying and hauling the freight. I cannot too strongly enforce on the mind of parliament or on the people of the country this conviction, which is founded on absolute verity, that when the Intercolonial was running with little engines of from 45 to 50 tons, capable of hauling only 180 or 200 tons of freight, they required the same staff and practically the same cost of fuel and management that is required to carry from 800 to 1,000 tons. The margin of wages is a large and most important item in the whole account. When I tell you that in the outlay for working expenses, which has been stated to amount to $5,700,000 for last year, labour amounts to $3,500,000, you will see how large an element the question of wages is in this matter ; and when you are able to handle and carry freight in much larger quantities with the same expenditure of labour, you are beginning to achieve results that can be achieved in no other way. When I think over the matter, I become alarmed at the possibilities which lay before the Intercolonial if the condition of things which existed down to 1896 had been suffered to continue.
If the same volume of business we are now carrying had then been forced upon us, and if we had been compelled to handle it with the same kind of equipment and under the same conditions as then existed, our deficit would have been more likely a million per year instead of $55,000. With the extra equipment we have provided, we are able, on the same mileage, to do to-day a larger percentage of business and make a larger profit. My hon. friend was short of cars. In saying this I have no desire to cast any reflection upon his management, for nothing else could have been expected. But he certainly had not sufficient to do the business, because I find that he was paying from $60,000 to $80,000 per year, if my memory does not fail me, on car mileage to other companies. We have
changed that. To-day we pay a little car mileage but very much less. I think we pay $50,000 per year less than the hon. gentleman did. We pay this much less because we have the cars. We had to get them and we bought them very largely on capital account, but it paid us to do so. Calculate three per cent on all the cars we have bought, and you will find that we save in car mileage sufficient to pay the interest on what these cars cost, which I think is very good and defensible business. My hon. friend had a balance of car mileage against him, and I had for some time also a balance against me, of from $60,000 to $72,000 per year. That represents what we had to pay other railway companies for the use of tlieir cars when we had not sufficient of our own. During my hon. friend's administration and during a portion of my own, that amounted to from $60,000 to $72,000 per year. Well, Mr. Speaker, last year we had $16,SOO to our credit on this account, so that we had made enough to wipe out the deficit in respect to car mileage and leave us $16.SOO besides, making a total saving of $82,000.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that there was a balance of $60,000 to $72,000 per year against us ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not say against my hon. friend's administration alone because I had the same experience during some years, but as fast as we were able to get the new cars and put them on the line, the balance was lessened. We had to get the cars or we could not do the business, but the business we did warranted the expenditure, because last year we had a surplus to our credit, on the car mileage account of $16,800. Adding $16,800 to the average balance against us in the years I have referred to. and you get $82,000 as the actual saving effected between the former period and the present, and $82,000 comes very near paying the interest on $3,000,000 on freight cars alone.
Incidental to our putting ourselves in a position to do the business that was offering and to do it without absolute loss, we not only had to get heavier engines, but all the other essentials to placing heavier engines-on the road had to be attended to. We could not begin to economize in our management until we got heavier rails, stronger bridges, longer sidings, larger engine houses, larger turning tables, improved equipment in all respects, and in addition put on a dining service with a better class of cars, which has borne results of a most fruitful character. But all this cost money. The results are the strongest possible proof of the wisdom of the policy we have adopted. They show that had we not pursued that course, we would have covered ourselves with absolute discredit as respects the ownership and the operation of the Intercolonial Railway.

I have by no means exhausted the extent of the showing which I am entitled to claim. I had furnished me by the general manager a carefully prepared statement of the conditions which existed in 1896 ns compared with 1902, in regard to the cost of material, supplies, wages and other items, whicli go to make up working expenses. In 1896 the same number of employees, the same quantity of materia), and all the other matters of expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway cost, compared with 1902, much less, and if I can prove this, I am entitled to all the benefits resulting from such comparison. I show you a surplus for the year ending 1002 of about $96,000, and I am able to do this notwithstanding the fact that we paid in wages last year on the Intercolonial Railway $240,000 more money than was paid in 1896 in respect of precisely the same number and class of employees. I am not seeking to make an unfair comparison, but am comparing the wages of exactly the same number and the same class of employees as the hon. gentleman had in 1896; and I tell this House that, in respect of that same number and that same class we took out of earnings in 1902, $240,000 more than he did in 1896 and distributed it among the employees. If we had not shown better results than my hon. friend was able to show-and this is the point I wish to make-we would have had a deficit of about $140,000 instead of any surplus whatever. The wages we pay are not excessive; no man will say that we pay more than we ought to pay or more than other railways are paying. But, if we paid $240,000 more in 1902 than the hon. gentleman paid for the same number and class of employees in 1896, I am entitled to claim that our showing for last year is $240,000 better than his would have been under the same conditions. Now, I come to the item of coal. On the same quantity of coal that was consumed on the road under my hon. friend's administration, we had to pay $150,000 more than he had to pay. That is so much additional charge on the road. If things were not improved in the administration some way or other, we should have been that much behind. And I would ask you to consider this point in this connection-and perhaps I should have mentioned it before-there has been no increase in the rates. We are earning no more for carrying a ton of freight than we did before; the charge is the same. The business may increase, the cost of material may be enhanced, wages may rise, but the tariff for carriage of traffic on the Intercolonial Railway remains stationery, and we must figure it on that basis-we cannot raise it because our expenses are higher. Hon. gentlemen opposite and their supporters and their press would be the first to raise an outcry against us did we add anything to the tariff of the Intercolonial, and the political consequences, the disadvantages to


Andrew George Blair: us and the advantages to them, would be so important that no government would think of undertaking it.


Adam Carr Bell: Do I understand the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) to say that l'ates are no higher now than they were in 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I do. I state to my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) that the rates are no higher now than they were in 1896. There may be an instance or two, some trifling particular, in which, in view of special circumstances, they are changed; but I am making a general statement with respect to this, and I say without fear of successful contradiction-I think I ought to know if it were otherwise-that the rates are the same practically now as they were in 1896, in fact the same as they have been ever since the Intercolonial was established and put into operation. They may be a little lower in some particulars than they were at first, but they certainly are no higher. I have stated that we spent $151,000 more for coal than did our predecessors. Then, for stores and supplies of the same quantities and kinds that were procured in 1896, the prices in 1902 applied to that quantity would have caused an increased expenditure of $131,000. So, we have these three items- $241,000 for wages, $151,000 for coal and $131,000 for stores. Add these to the $521,000 spent in bettering the road and you have over a million dollars actually paid out in the year 1902 over and above the proportionate expenditure of 1896. And they had a deficit of $55,000 while we, notwithstanding all, have a surplus of $96,000.
Now, it may not, perhaps, be of great interest to the House, but I would like to make the statement that, if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) as head of the department that had to employ on the Intercolonial in 1896 as many men as the increased traffic has made it necessary for us to employ in 1902, the amount he would have had us pay over his actual expenditure would have been not merely $240,000 but far more. Mr. Pot-tinger had a very careful examination made and he tells me that applying the rate of wages of 1896 to the present entire staff of the Intercolonial for the current year, the total amount of our increased payments of wages is $1,075,000-a very significant fact indeed.
Now, there is, no doubt, a very widespread impression with regard to the Intercolonial, that, because it is owned and operated by the government, it must necessarily be a failure so far as financial results are concerned-that no government can hope to make a good financial showing with regard to the operation of any railway it owns. I hold that no such sweeping condemnation is justified by anything that has ever occurred with regard to the management or operation of the Intercolonial Railway. It is unjust to the Intercolonial, and I do not

think the people of the country wish to form any unjust opinion, or to condemn the government railway unjustly, but would be glad to welcome facts which would disprove and disabuse their minds of any such erroneous view. It is not fair to condemn the management of the Intercolonial because large financial results have not been achieved in times past-and I include my hon. friend (.Hon. Mr. Haggart) and his party in this general statement-because it is a government railway and is managed under government supervision. I do not think that the general idea prevails now to any extent which did prevail so largely, that political influences and political pressure and all these pulls that were alleged to exist upon the government railway, exist at present. In the first place I deny that they exist, but suppose they do exist, they are not reflected in any material degree in the results of the operation of the road.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend says hear, hear. He knows that so far as it is humanly possible, the Intercolonial is not a political machine, it never has been a political machine to my knowledge within the past six or seven years. The officers of the Intercolonial are not allowed to issue passes and distribute them at election times to one political party, or to any political party. People who want to use the Intercolonial, whether Liberals or Conservatives, during election times are treated precisely upon the same basis, and they have got to pay for their excursion tickets if they want to travel over the road. There is no discrimination, and as regards political influence the operations' of the railway suffer very little harm indeed from that cause. I will tell the House why In nearly all the branches of the management of that railway the staff is organized upon a basis that recognizes seniority and merit for promotion. You have got to start at the bottom. You cannot put one man over the heads of other men who are his seniors in service, or who have more merit. That system exists today in almost the entire service. Therefore, the field for political influence is very limited, except in respect to appointments for the first places, and there it is legitimate and proper. But when recommendations are made to the officials of the road by our friends to fill vacancies that may occur, before any of these people can be appointed they have to submit to .a test to show they are qualified to discharge the duties, and if they are not. I do not think they are retained in the service. So you cannot say that political influences are in operation.
But if political influences are so harmful as they are alleged to be in the government management of railways, how is it that government railways are so frequent in other countries ? Not only are the sweeping inferences which people draw with regard
to the inefficiency of government management not warranted by the facts, but I will prove to a demonstration that even if there were political influences, they are not reflected in the financial results. If government railway management of railways is successful in other countries, why should it not be so in Canada? What is there in the condition of Canada that makes it an exception to all rules 1 Why is it that government railways can be operated in the four corners of the world, in Europe, Asia and Africa, in Italy, in Germany, in the Australian colonies, where governments own roads and operate them successfuly, and they cannot be operated successfully in Canada ? Take Australia ; the government railways show a profit of three and a half or four per cent upon the cost, and their railways as a rule cost twice as much to build as the Intercolonial has cost this country. Why is it that other countries can do this successfully ? Will anybody pretend to argue that there is not as much political pressure brought to bear in the management of government railways in Australia, or South Africa, as there is in Canada ? Why, Sir, there can be no justification for any such statement. There is no reason in the world why Canada should be singled out, why any one should say that while in all other parts of the world government railways are ,operated successfully, they are not operated successfully in Canada. The assertion that here political influence is detrimental to the efficiency and utility of government roads is not founded on fact ; it is a delusion, it is a prejudice. I would like to see that prejudice rooted out, because so long as it exists it is injuring the country, it is injuring our own institutions, and it is calculated to do a great deal of harm to Canada in the future.
Now, somebody may say : Why, in Australia the people were so dissatisfied with the government management that they changed the system and put their railways in the hands of a commission. Well, I believe some of them did so, but not all. There was dissatisfaction, but they did not pro-I)ose to give up control of their railways altogether ; they proposed that the people should continue to hold them. But what occurred in Australia and New Zealand was this-I know it occurred in New Zealand. They found that under government administration they were building more railways than were really needed, they were building them in portions of the country where they were not self-sustaining, where there was not sufficient business to justify their construction. The public decided to try the experiment of putting the management in the hands of a railway commission. They tried the experiment and continued it for a few years, put not finding any better financial results, the consequence was that in 1893 the people came to the conclusion to go back to government management, and that is where they are to-day. All the time, how-

364S
ever, whether the roads were under government management or under a commission, the result was that they paid a substantial return, sometimes larger and sometimes smaller, a substantial percentage of interest upon the outlay. I said that the railways in Australia cost twice as much to build as they do in Canada. In some cases they have cost $75,000 to $80,000 per mile, as compared with about half that cost on our own railways.
Now, when I am told that the Intercolonial does not pay, that as a general thing there is a deficit, that the income hardly ever meets the working expenses, I ask :	Do
you think that is due to the fact that it is a government institution ? If you do, figure out what other roads are paying on the cost. We will say they are paying three or four per cent. Some roads, the Canadian Pacific Railway for instance. I suppose is paying five per cent. Why does not the Intercolonial pay an equal return upon the cost, somebody may ask. Well, three per cent upon the cost of the Intercolonial would amount to something over $2,000,000. Sir, will any sane man suppose, after reflecting a moment, that the difference between operating that road by the government and operating it by a company, maintaining the same rates, would amount to the sum of $2,000,000 in net results ? Is there anybody so intensely prejudiced against the management of the Intercolonial by the government as to suppose that if this road were in the hands of a private corporation, and if that private corporation could not charge any heavier tolls than the Intercolonial does, that instead of having a surplus of $96,000, it would have a surplus of over $2,000,000 ?. In other words, $2,000,000 and upwards a year is wasted by reason of government ownership and because of political pressure. That is what it means. If it does not mean that, what does it mean ?
I am going to ask the House to follow me through an examination of the question because I think it is of such importance as to warrant an examination, and we will see how much more economically other roads are being operated than the government road and what greater results they show than the government not only at present, but in times past as well. I am not going to distinguish against hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House and in my own favour in this statement I am about to make. We paid $5,574,000 last year for working expenses. The political enormity, the devastation which results from government ownership must find itself somewhere within that $5,574,000 of working expenses because the working expenses would have to be reduced by $2,000,000 before you could get any $2,000,000 results. These $2,000,000 must represent the extravagance, 'syaste and mismanagement necessarily incident to the operation of the railway by the government.
Now, let us see where that is going to land us. The earnings of the Intercolonial Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
Railway were in round figures $6,000,000. Ordinarily the railways of this country which are operated successfully by railway companies think that they are doing very well if they get 40 per cent of net earnings out of their gross receipts, and putting our earnings at $6,000,000 we would get around to the $2,000,000 basis I spoke of a moment ago, provided our working expenses were one-third of what they ought to be, and provided that this road was being operated under conditions which would apply if a company were operating it, and under which the government is absolutely unable to operate it according to the criticisms which are passed. The working expenses, as you see, were more than would produce that, and they added up to $5,574,000. Where has this money gone to '! I am going to give you a statement showing precisely where these working expenses have gone. I am going to give you the different classes of expenditure, and I think I can give them to you in such a way that you can see clearly the conclusion to which I am pointing, and I think you will agree with the conclusion at which I shall arrive.
First, we have paid $5,574,000 in working expenses. Let us deduct by the process of elimination. The first item that goes to make up that $5,000,000 and upwards is the item of wages, and the item of wages sums up $3,537,000. I have said, and I repeat that the wages of all the employees on the Intercolonial Railway, except those of two or three at the head and except the clerical staff, amount to $233,000, are scheduled and classified, at a rate according to a year after year increase and length of service, and scheduled by agreements which have been arrived at with the different organizations to which the men belong. I say that we do not pay any more than we ought to pay, taking into consideration the present cost of living. We cannot cut them down. You could not attempt to take any portion of this $3,537,000 and point to any of the items and say there is room for economy there, there is waste here, there is extravagance somewhere else. You will have to go into some other fieid if you are going to find wasteful and extravagant expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway under government ownership as compared with corporation railways. You would not find any field in the item of wages in which to operate in the way of making a reduction. If you take $3,500,000 out of $5,500,000 you have only $2,000,000 remaining. Now, you have to get in all your fine work in the way of this political influence within that $2,000,000. Let us see what is the next big item. The next big item is coal. We pay over $1,000,000 for coal. I say we do not pay one dollar more than we are compelled to pay-not one dollar. We ask for public tenders and competition and we buy our coal at the lowest figure we can get it. for. and there are many members of parliament

who know that to be a fact. If we can we take the coal companies by the throat and make them reduce their price, but if we cannot, we have to pay them what they demand. There is no held within the area of the coal item, for exploiting these economical ideas and explaining where political influence, corruption, pressure and wrongdoing hold high carnival. Therefore, you must take off three and a half millions for wages and you must take off another million for coal, and that makes four and a half millions. That leaves you only a million. Now, you will have to find this waste and extravagance within this million. What goes to make up this million ? We pay for printing and advertising $50,000. We may possibly pay a little too much for advertising. We may possibly advertise a little more freely than we ought to, but it is only a mare's nest after all. It does not go very far towards explaining about this $2,000,000. It does not reach out far in that direction. Fifty thousand dollars at all events is paid, and $50,000 will continue to be paid, or in that ratio, and I want to say right here that other railways are just as much subject to the pressure of their friends and outsiders in the way of advertising as the Intercolonial Kailway is. You ask railway men and they will frankly acknowledge it to you. They are not free from this sort of pressure. They want to accommodate their friends, they want to stand well with the public, they want to stand well with the different great corporate bodies and with parliaments, and they show to those people with whom they want to be on friendly terms a good deal of consideration. They are just as subject, just as open to pressure and influence as the Intercolonial Railway or the officers who may be connected with it. Now, we have rentals amounting to $140,000. There is no field for economy there. We pay $67,000 for our ferries and we pay for land damages some $20,000.
We leave, therefore, for general stores and covering the other outlays $750,000. Now if it were all waste; if the whole $750,000 for stores were not required, and we threw it all away, it would still be a long distance from explaining the difference between the 3 per cent, the earnings on capital of the corporation railways, and the results on the Intercolonial Railway. I have an explanation to make with regard to this item for stores. I venture to say that we buy our stores by public tender and by open and public competition to the extent of nine-tenths of the total quantity. I am hazarding a conjecture there, but I think I am not far astray when I say that nine-tenths of our stores are bought in that way. Now I speak with knowledge on the question, and I say that if the railway companies will allow anybody access to their books, who has curiosity enough to inquire, as to how they conduct this department, I will challenge a comparison between what we 115
pay for our stores and what is paid by other railway companies for their stores, and I hold .that the comparison will be favourable to us. People seem always very anxious to supply the government and the competition is exceedingly keen amongst them, and no tendersi are accepted at a higher rate than the lowest offer provided the articles are up to our specifications. I am proud to say that this branch is managed by officers who are most economical and careful men. I do not think it would be possible to find in the service of any of the railway companies, more competent, more careful, more economical and more cautious men than those gentlemen on the Intercolonial Railway to whom the purchasing of these supplies is largely entrusted. There is no field for any considerable reduction in that respect. There will, of course, always be little things come in, but take it from first to last, I do not think there would be a difference of $100,000, even including such things as additional stations which we give for the accommodation of the public more than would be supplied by private railway companies. I say without fear of successful contradiction, that all this talk about the management of the Intercolonial Railway by the government, being wasteful, is a mere bugaboo and will not bear scrutiny.


James Clancy: Why does the hon. gentleman not show results then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will show a little patience I will show him results which will make a favourable impression on his mind, whether he will acknowledge it or not. There is no more efficient test as to whether the government is managing the railway extravagantly or wastefully, or whether it is managing it as economically as other railway companies, than can be found in the sworn returns which according to law are furnished by the railway companies year after year, and which returns are open to inspection by any one who desires to inspect them. Out of curiosity, I have had a careful abstract made of a comparison of the different items on the Intercolonial Railway with the two great railways, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I will give the House the result of that comparison and let the House judge if these figures are not potential in favour of my argument.
The proportion of the earnings of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway to each one hundred dollars of operating expenses is as follows :
G.T.R. C.P.R. I.C.R. Proportion of earnings to each $100 of operating expenses	$151	$161	$173
Take that into your minds please, and keep it there. For every $100 of operating expenses, the Canadian Pacific Railway gets $01; the Grand Trunk Railway, $54. and the Intercolonial Railway, $73 on the results



of last year. This sworn return gives the cost of operating, and the expenses and charges in the different branches, and the following is the result :

Total operating expenses per train mile	$1 11


G.T.R. $0 93 I.C.R. $0 91
[Stage Direction]
There is a slight fraction to be added to the cents in these figures, but they show that on the Intercolonial Railway it was less than the Grand Trunk Railway per train mile, and a great deal less than the Canadian Pacific Railway. It shows that we have operated the Intercolonial Railway at less cost-and that includes the working expenses; not capital, not interest, not dividends, nothing hut -the actual handling of the trains-we operated the Intercolonial Railway at less cost than the Grand Trunk Railway, and at a good deal less than the
Canadian Pacific Railway.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is there any evidence there that the management of the Intercolonial Railway has been defective or that it does not compare favourably with these other lines i These figures show that we are not wasteful and that we operated our trains with as much economy and indeed with more economy than the other two great railways.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When you come to the maintenance of way works and the buildings per train mile, we find the following results :	The Canadian Pacific Railway spent
twenty-six cents and a fraction; the Grand Trunk Railway spent twenty cents and a faction, and the Intercolonial Railway nineteen cents and a fraction. We were not very wasteful there at all events. We are about on the same standing as the Grand Trunk Railway and quite a little better than the Canadian Pacific Railway. For every mile of railway we compare favourably with these roads in both these directions. Now let us take the working and repairs of engines per train mile, and we find that it cost the Canadian Pacific Railway thirty-five cents and a fraction; the Grand Trunk Railway thirty-two cents and a fraction; and the Intercolonial Railway thirty-three cents and a fraction. The cost of working and repairs of cars per train mile was as follows :	Canadian Pacific Railway seven
cents and a fraction; Grand Trunk Railway eleven cents and a fraction; Intercolonial Railway ten cents and a fraction. The cost of general operating expenses was as follows per train mile :	Canadian Pacific
Railway forty-one cents; Grand Trunk Railway twenty-eight cents and a fraction, Intercolonial Railway twenty-eight cents and a fraction. Linder all these different headings the figures of the other railway com-


Andrew George Blair: panies, given in sworn returns, do not make ail unfavourable comparison with the results on the Intercolonial Railway.


James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman give us the comparison of the earnings per 'train mile ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have given it to you.


James Clancy: You are giving the expenses, I want the earnings.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am furnishing the hon. member with the return as it is required to be handed in by all the railways according to law. I am not picking -one thing out of one place and another out of another and putting them together. I am giving the return just as it has been brought down.


James Clancy: What I understood the hon. minister to give us was the relative proportion of expenses. I am asking him if he can give the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway per train mile in comparison with those of other railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No ; I am just giving you what has been returned. I think the earnings per train mile will be in the same proportion, oi perhaps less than those of other railways. I am not stating that as within my knowledge, but simply as my present judgment warrants me. Now, in view of such statistical and reliable facts as I am presenting, it is a fair conclusion that the Intercolonial Railway has no right to get a black eye, or to be treated in the sneering way in which it is generally spoken of, as a failure, because it does not produce the same net results that other railways do ; and it is unfair to ascribe these consequences in any material degree to political pressure or to government operation. I think that if any gentleman, knowing the conditions that exist on the Intercolonial, were to converse with the managers of any other railway on this subject, they would say that it is a mistake to suppose that the government road is in an exceptional position in that regard, or is more subject to the influences to which reference has been made. I had a conversation with a prominent railway man, a president of one of the railways in the United States, only a few months ago, and in the course of the conversation I opened up this subject. I told him that the government railway was rather prejudiced in the minds of the people because it was said : You cannot resist pressure, and that must always be detrimental to the management of a government railway. He said:	'I do not
know to what extent pressure of that kind exists in your country, but I can tell you that we in the United States are not by any means free from it. Although we are operating a company railway, we are subject to it. Do not run away with the impression

that corporation railways are exempt from such disabilities ; they exist with respect to them just as you say it is alleged they exist with respect to your government railway.'
Now, the earnings and working expense's of the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway for the year ending the 30th of June last were as follows
Canadian
Grand Trunk. Pacific. Gross earnings .. ..$22,211,813 80 $36,866,875.14 Working expenses .. 14,397,692 81	22,823,200 39
Net earnings	$ 7,814,120 99 $14,043,674 75
If we were to earn a couple of million dollars in excess of our working expenses, our showing would be relatively as good as theirs. Well, I am going to come down to the kernel of this matter, and I am going to show you why we do not earn that much. I am going to show you that the fault does not lie in the management of the road, nor in the fact that it is owned by the government. The fact is not due to any wastefulness, extravagance or wrong-doing of any kind, nor to any causes that are not incidental to other railways as well as government railways. There are two causes. One is a greater cause than the other. I will refer to the minor cause first, though it is not very much inferior to the other. The minor cause is the location of the railway. There is no question that the Intercolonial was not located with reference to business or commercial considerations. I have remarked before, and I remark now, that there was one particular in which political considerations did fatally injure the Intercolonial Railway. That injury was done, not merely once, but for the entire life of the railway. The location of the Intercolonial was most unhappy from the point of view of achieving financial results, and was due entirely to those considerations of state-imperial, if you will-war considerations, large and potent considerations, which were thought to overbalance altogether business considerations. As everybody knows, the location is very unfavourable, not only because of the enormous distances between important points and between the termini of the railway, but because of the inferior character, from a productive business point of view, of a large portion of the country which it traverses. A large portion of the railway does not yield returns at all commensurate with the cost of its operation. That important portion between St. John and Halifax is, I think, paying quite a handsome return over its cost and the expenses of operation ; but the rest of the railway is not, and that is due to the enormous distances over which the traffic has to be hauled, to the small amount of local traffic which comes to the road, and to another consideration of a very potent character, which is, that at almost every important point on the road, at all events from 115J
Halifax nearly to Montreal, it has to face water competition. The Intercolonial Railway has settled land only on one side of it; it has water on the other side. It is a onesided institution in that respect, and it suffers under that disability.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: And the Canadian Pacific Railway on the other side.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, and the Canadian Pacific Railway on the other side. But that is not all. That disability cannot be removed. I doubt if the other can be removed. I had a careful study made and a careful statement furnished to me by the traffic officers of the Intercolonial Railway, as to the general traffic, of tolls and freight charges which govern on the Intercolonial Railway and those which govern on the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway; and the result of that statement, keeping-well on the safe side, is that the rates upon those two railways are from fifty to one hundred per cent higher than those upon the Intercolonial Railway. I am not going to suggest that the rates upon either of the two other roads are higher than they ought to be. I have not the requisite knowledge which would enable me to pass an opinion. But I do know that the rates on the Intercolonial Railway are even lower than I have stated, when you consider the question of distances and the question of scarcity of traffic. It goes without saying that it costs no more money to carry a thousand tons of freight at $10 than at $5 per ton. If then you add fifty per cent, which is the minimum excess of the rates of freights on the other roads as compared with the Intercolonial Railway, to the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway in the carriage of freight, our revenue would be increased by that amount and our expenditure would not be increased one farthing. Let me make a calculation. The gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway on its traffic, not including passenger traffic, for the year 1902 were $3,900,000. Add fifty per cent to that to bring it up to this minimum excess, and you get $1,950,000 of addition. In other words, if we could have collected on the Intercolonial Railway the minimum rates charged by other railways, we would have had $1,950,000 more revenue from freight than we did, and this would have brought our total earnings up to $7,600,000, including passenger traffic. And our working expenses would not have been increased. Deducting working expenses, we would have had a surplus for 1902 of $2,046,000. My hon. friend smiles, but these figures cannot be gainsaid.


John Graham Haggart: I smile when I think of what we have missed by not putting up the rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would smile on the other side

of my face if I were asked to put up the rates. We have no right to put up the rates. Nobody expejcts it. If my hon. friend were in charge, he would not put them up, or if he did, he would take them down again. We cannot put them up. The rates on the Intercolonial Railway are no higher than those which were imposed at the time when part of it was owned and operated by the government of Nova Scotia and another part by the government of New Brunswick. The rates are, I think, substantially the same. When confederation was formed, the Dominion took over the road under the conditions and rates then existing, and from that time down the people of this country, the government and parliament, have all agreed that these rates and conditions should continue, and they exist to-day. Another reason why it would not be possible to raise the rates to any appreciable extent is to be found in the fact that the Intercolonial Railway is subjected at every point to a keen and active water competition. If you were to raise the rates, you would find that you would not get the business. I repeat that we would have $2,000,000 better results if we were to be treated upon even less than the present basis upon which the other two systems are conducting their business. This is a material and fair argument, because those who condemn the management of the Intercolonial Railway do not condemn it because it does not put up its rates. They do not look at that side of the account. They condemn it on account of wastefulness and extravagance and wrong-doings which they never specify and cannot indicate, and because the financial results do not make any kind of comparison with those of the other great railways. You have therefore $2,046,000 which would have gone into the treasury of this country if the rates on freights had been fifty per cent higher than were charged last year. That would have shown forty per cent earnings to sixty per cent working expenses, and everybody would have exclaimed ' what marvellously good management and administration.' You can always furnish evidence of that. All you have to do is tax the people a little heavier, make them pay a little more if possible, and you have this evidence of splendid administration. $2,046,000 would have paid three per cent nearly on the whole cost of the Intercolonial Railway, which is just as good as either of these other companies are doing. Take the rates in the Australian colonies, and you will find that they are a good deal higher than the rates on which I based my argument.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Higher than our rates with fifty per cent added ?


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, higher than the minimum excess over ours. $2,000,000 might have been brought into the treasury if we could have Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
added fifty per cent to our rates, but that money remained in the pockets of the people who have done business over the Intercolonial Railway. They have been taxed that much less, and if the Intercolonial Railway has relieved these people of $2,000,000 taxes and contributed besides in a material degree to the general improvement of business and the development of the country, I am not so sure that the people have not reaped as good results as if that money had gone into the treasury. So beneficial are these results that if the people were thoroughly cognizant of the advantages which have accrued to them from using the Intercolonial Railway- and these advantages are not confined to any one province by any means-they would never cavil at the results. And they would only wish that it had occurred to somebody in times past to construct a railway through their portion of the country instead of aiding to build railways to be owned and managed by private corporations. In making this defence of the Intercolonial management I appeal to the judgment and opinion of those who do business with the road, and I am sure that they will say that they are well satisfied with the manner in which they have been served and that they would be truly sorry if any change were made under which the tolls were changed so as to lay an additional burden on the traflic that is carried.
Now, Sir, I have pointed out these advantages, and I will here endeavour to give to the House a thorough and complete statement of the actual existing conditions. I do not know that, as respects this question of rates and tolls upon the road, the people of Canada have been as fully informed before as I have now informed them. I do not think there is any disadvantage in the people knowing these facts ; I think they are entitled to be apprised of them. And I believe that when they realize all that has been done by the government railroad in the development of these portions of Canada, and the increase of traffic with the other provinces, that the connection it affords has brought about, and when they realize that ail this has been done at such a moderate cost to the country and has imposed so light a burden upon the people, I think they will realize as they have not realized before the magnificent property they possess in the Intercolonial Railway of Canada. I do not think they realize it now, but I hope they will come to that realization.
I am not making, I hope, any personal or individual claim in regard to these results. Only in a very small measure should I be entitled to do so. If I were to award credit for the showing we are able to make, I would award the greatest sjiare to the good men and true, faithful in their duty and loyal to the public, who give their best attention and employ their best energies in the discharge of the duties connected with the Intercolonial service. I think they

are entitled to great credit, indeed, I venture to say tlmt you cannot travel over any railway in Canada on which you will find a better class of men, more attentive, more courteous, or are more deeply interested in their work and in the welfare of the road they serve. 1 am bound to say this in justice to the employees of the road, for so I have heard them spoken of by many who have travelled over the Intercolonial Railway. To these men I would award their proper measure of praise. I am only claiming for the government that we realized what the necessities of the hour demanded, we realized what would be desirable-nay, what would be imperative-if we would rescue the Intercolonial Railway from the alarming condition in which it was ; if we .were to escape a continuance not merely of half million deficits, but of deficits far in excess of half a million ; realized that it was necessary that we should go to work in a business like way, that we should adopt modern methods, that we should act as men who knew that good results were to be achieved only by adopting the means necessary for the economical working of the railway and the carrying of its traffic. It was only because we were impressed with the importance and necessity of going about the working of the Intercolonial Railway from that point of view that I claim we are entitled to credit from the people of this country.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) began his statement concerning the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway with a comparison between the management of the present day and the management of 1896 under my regime. He accounted for a good deal of the large expenditure on revenue account by showing that large sums had been spent in the improvement and maintenance of the road. He made a comparison of the sums spent on maintenance out of revenue account last year and in 1896 which appears very favourable to his own administration. I could not take down all the items, but I shall have an opportunity later on of examining them, and, perhaps, of discussing them more in detail than it is possible for me to do just now. Fancy the minister charged with the management of the Intercolonial Railway, having nearly double the locomotive power and car accommodation that his predecessors had, claiming the extra amount expended in repairs to locomotives, tanks, cars and so on, as an extra sum spent in improving the road and enabling him to compare his management favourably with that of his predecessor. Then he goes on to say that the higher rates of wages paid to keep the road in repair makes a certain aggregate sum over that spent in 1896, and, assuming that the same amount of work is done per day by each man, the whole is to be counted as
paid for the improvement of the road and is iu favour of the management of the present day in comparison with that of 1896. The whole comparison is about as absurd a one as it is possible for a minister of the Crown to make. Because he spent $500,000 more than his predecessors in repairs to passenger cars, stations, roadbed, and so on, he claims this whole amount as an improvement of the road and a benefit to the country, and so much in his favour as compared with his predecessor. The whole thing was simply a part of the hon. gentleman's advocacy of the idea of the government road being extended from the present terminus perhaps of Georgian bay, perhaps to the prairies of the west, perhaps to the Pacific coast. I hear many supporters of the hon. gentleman voicing that opinion. But, before I am done, 1 think that if they are ready to take the Intercolonial Railway under its present auspices as a basis of judgment as to this proposition, they will hardly be so favourably impressed with it. Let me show what the hon. gentleman has expended oil the road since he got into power, in 1897. I gave the figures a couple of years ago, but I would like to put them again before the country. If the country can calmly contemplate such an alarming expenditure-I am not going to say extravagant expenditure-on one of its important works as that which was made for the purpose of having the Intercolonial road extended to a terminus in the city of Montreal, and if they submit to it without complaint, it is their fault and not ours. Our duty is simply to draw the people's attention to the enormous expenditure which is being made by the hon. gentleman in the management of the Intercolonial Railway. In 1897 he expended on capital account, $145,142 over and above the receipts of the road. In 1898 he expended $252,367.20, in 1899, $1,081,929.94 ; in 1900, $1,796,348.29. In that year he purchased the Drummond Railway, for which he paid $1,459,000. In 1901 we find the expenditure still going up, for he expended on capital account $3,633, 836.57. In 1902 he expended $4,665,590.80. Giving him credit for the $92,000 which he claims this year, there was a loss in operating the road of $418,029.39. Subsidies to the Victoria Bridge, $500,000. Now it was not for the purpose of interrupting the hon. gentleman in his remarks that I asked him for a monthly statement of the receipts and expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway, because I knew he had it, at least he ought to have it. He has a monthly statement of the amount which is likely to be expended, and the probable receipts of the next month. He gave us the expenditure on revenue account on the Intercolonial Railway until the 1st of March last, and the receipts from that road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not get any monthly state-

ment, I get a monthly estimate of the actual expenditure on working accounts, and on earnings. I get no such monthly statement, except that when 1he accounts of the month are made up I get a statement of the working expenses of the month. I get the 'weekly statement of the earnings, and when the month is up and they are able to complete the statement, they send it forward as soon as they can. That will show both the earnings of the month and the working expenses. That is the only monthly statement I get.


John Graham Haggart: Does the kon. gentle not get the total expenditure on the Intercolonial during the month ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. Does) the hon. gentleman say he was in the habit of getting it ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so, except for working expenses of operating.


John Graham Haggart: Then it is left entirely to the officials down in Moncton to discriminate between the earning expenses or what should he attached to the revenue account and what should be attached to capital.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, that is fixed in the appropriation.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railways knows perfectly well that when I was Minister of Railways hundreds and thousands of items, amounting to sums of thousands and millions of dollars were charged to revenue account which are now charged to capital account.	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are wrong.


John Graham Haggart: What I asked from the hon. gentleman was this. Surely he has a monthly statement of the receipts and expenditures on the Intercolonial. That is what I wanted. Then I wanted to know what was the amount of expenditure upon capital account up to the 1st of March last.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will get that for the hon. gentleman, but I do not carry it in my head.


John Graham Haggart: I asked him in the politest manner, I thought perhaps he had it before him when he was making his explanations. I am trying to show to the people of this country what has been expended, or what will be expended ou the 1st of June next, on capital account, and what the deficits will be on the Intercolonial.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will give the hon. gentleman the information to-morrow.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, he has got it then ?


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, but I can get it. There is no difficulty in getting it.


John Graham Haggart: Then I am obliged to go to the estimates. I will give as nearly as possible the expenditure for the year. The amount voted for the Intercolonial for 1902-3 was $3,200,000, of which I see, appropriation not required, $978,800. I am debiting tbe minister only with what he has expended of that amount. It is possible that in the supplementary estimates a provision will have to be made for an expenditure during the year further than what is stated in these estimates, and I am pretty certain there will. However, the amount would be $2,281,200 that was expended on capital account last year. He has expended on the Prince Edward Island Railway, on capital account, $2,736,200, that is, adding the deficits from 1897 up to the present year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman complain of that expenditure ?


John Graham Haggart: I am simply making a statement of the expenditure the hon. gentleman has made on railways. The hon. gentleman interrupted me a while ago, and he said that what I was saying did not affect the argument. What pertinence has it to the argument whether I object to tbe expenditure or not ? The amount expended, then, is $2,736,200. But there is besides a large amount, I see, to be added to the capital account in the current year, there is a large amount asked for the Intercolonial and a large amount for the Prince Edward Island Railway. We pay to the Grand Trunk Railway a certain sum every year, $140,000. Deducting the $140,000, which the hon. gentleman has a right to take to his credit the amount capitalized at 3 per cent which has been paid out of the revenue of the Intercolonial for the present year, is $4,526,607. So there was actually expended in cash, $18,798,670, or adding these two amounts together, $23,325,331, from 1897 down to the first of June next. Supposing, Sir, we had a government railway stretching from Montreal across to the Pacific, and supposing it was under the management of the Minister of Railways, what would be the amount expended in five years on capital expenditure on that road ? What position would the country be in with a like expenditure as upon the Intercolonial ? The hon. minister may talk, but these are the bald, naked facts that stick out to view. They came into possession of the Intercolonial Railway with a capital account of a little less than $44,000,000, and at the present day it is nearly $69,000,000. The hon. gentleman talks about the improvements he has made to the road and he says that the amount of rolling stock and the number of locomotives that he found upon the road when he took possession were not sufficient

for the working' of the road. I have from his deputy who sits heside him here, his trusted and efficient man, and from the manager of his road down there of whom he speaks so favourably, a statement that there were more than sufficient locomotives and rolling stock for the Intercolonial Railway and that if I acquired the Drummond County Railway, there was sufficient to run it without purchasing more rolling stock. The hon. gentleman says :	Look how efficient the
Intercolonial Railway is. The balance of mileage instead of being against us to the extent of $80,000, is now $15,000 in our favour. Does the hon. minister know the effect of the statement he is making ? What is the reason ? Simply this; that it is notorious in every part of the country that he has a superabundance of rolling stock, and that it is being used by every railway in every section of the country. That is the cause of the balance being the other way. I put a notice upon' the paper in regard to that question, because I had heard that no railway down near the Intercolonial Railway purchases rolling stock at all. They rely upon running their roads with the locomotives of the Intercolonial Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway borrowed eight locomotives from the hon. gentleman. Nearly all the passenger coaches and freight cars used by the different roads in that section of the country belong to the Intercolonial Railway, and then the hon. minister gets up and boasts of the balance of mileage being in his favour to the extent of $15,000 a year.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.	.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I was dealing with the comparison which the Minister of Railways had made between the expenditure for maintenance upon the Intercolonial Railway in 1902, as compared with the expenditure under my administration in 1896. He spoke of the increased rate of wages at the present day compared with what it was in 1896, but it never seemed to have occurred to the Minister of Railways that if a man did the same work in 1896 that he did in 1902, the increase in wages would be an argument to the minister's disadvantage, because if the rate of wages is $1.25 now and I paid $1 a day in 1896, then if the same man did the same day's work I got for $1 what the Minister of Railways is expending $1.25 for. I do not wish to use any term which might be considered in any way opprobrious, but I think I may say that to my mind the argument of the Minister of Railways is an absurdity. Before six o'clock I spoke of the enormous expenditure which the people of this country were called on to make, a sum
of about $23,000,000, for the purpose of extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. Why, Sir, that amounts to nearly the whole surplus of this country in the time of its prosperity, and it could have been better spent in works of utility which would have been beneficial to Canada. We could have had a government railway, if necessary, from the province of Ontario to the prairie lands of the North-west for nearly the same sum of money which the hon. gentleman has expended in improvements on the Intercolonial Railway. I have no objection to improvements on the Intercolonial Railway, providing the expenditure is used for the advantage of Canada, but the position of the Intercolonial Railway to-day is no better than it was in 1896. It may have increased accommodation and a good many things that way ; it may have better cars, but the road in 1896 was one of the best roads on the continent of America, so far as roadbed is concerned. My instruction to my officers of the department was to keep up the rolling stock to the fullest extent, so as to make the Intercolonial Railway of the highest standard amongst all the railroads on the continent of America. And it was, too. It had rolling stock sufficient for its purpose. When the hon. gentleman came into power he made the statement that the expenditure he would make on the Drummond County to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal would be repaid to the people of the country tlmough the benefits that would be derived from the increased business of the Intercolonial Railway. But the hon. gentleman has a new system of book-keeping. The Intercolonial Railway is in a different category from any other railway in the country in that respect. Other railroads have to pay interest on their bonds and other securities, but the anomaly and paradox in reference to the Intercolonial Railway is that it is government money that is going into it, and it is not expected to pay interest at all on the investment that the country makes in it. We are not only to keep the promise that we made with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the time of confederation, but we are to go on with interminable expenditures until the capital account in that road alone is $68,000,090, and it is not expected that the country is to be recouped in any way for that expenditure. It is to be for the benefit of the people down there, in cheaper freights, in the cheaper carrying of passengers, and it is all done without any political bias or political influence at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: I am glad to hear that the Minister of Railways states that no political influence enters into the administration of the Intercolonial Railway.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: It was so in my day.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh.


John Graham Haggart: Yes ; it was so in my day, and the hon. gentleman says it is so in his day. It is possible, however, that on some great occasions tickets may have been given under his regime to electors for the purpose of enabling them to reach the polls to vote in the right direction.
In consequence of the lights in the Chamber having gone out, Mr. Speaker -announced that the sitting of the House would be suspended for half an hour.
House resumed at 8.55.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, when the lights went out, I was speaking about the protest of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals against the suggestion that any political influence was exercised in the control of the Intercolonial Railway. He assured the House that no political influence was allowed to interfere with it in any manner, which he intimated was in strong contrast with the management of the railway under his predecessors. Well, if the bon. gentleman does not use political influence in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, he has changed his mind since a short time after he became Minister of Railways and Canals. In the town in which 1 reside there were two bridge tenders employed, and when the. hon. gentleman came into power he dismissed these men without a single complaint being,niade against either of them, and appointed political supporters of his in their places. In addition to that, he sent a letter to Mr. Frost, at present a senator, who was at the time representing Reeds and Grenville, stating that there were fifteen employees on the Rideau canal-a good many of them were old sergeants, some of whom had been in the British service for twenty years or more-and asking the hon. gentleman to recommend successors to these men. Mr. Frost stated in this House that he had received that letter ; but he bad enough honour in his composition not to accept the proposition of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and lie refused to name any successors to them. This is the hon. gentleman who declares to this House and the country at large that no political influence is being used in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. He has changed his mind and his method since he came into power, and it is a good thing for his party that he has done so, after that slap in the face which he got from one of his strongest supporters in this House. What has become of the hon. gentleman's promise ? He asked and obtained from this country over .$18,000,000 in cash for the purpose of extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, besides an amount which capitalized would equal $4,000,000, making altogether $22,000,000. He gave authority to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
House to make the statement in Soluner Park, Montreal, that the Intercolonial Railway would recoup to the people of Canada the extra expenditure that was incurred in extending the railway to Montreal, and that the era of deficits would cease. How has he performed that promise ? He comes here to-day and claims a nominal surplus of $96,000. How does he arrive at that surplus? By charging to capital account items which ought to be and which formerly were charged to the ordinary revenue of the Intercolonial Railway. He comes here with a statement which does not compare with those of his predecessors, because his system of book-keeping is entirely different. He does this notwithstanding the fact that the leaders of the Reform party in the House claimed again and again that it was time that the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway was changed. So it is ; it is time the people of Canada knew the difference between cooked balances on the Intercolonial Railway and the real loss that the running of that railway imposes upon them. The real loss to the country from 1867 up to the present time in the running of the Intercolonial Railway is $23,000,000, and the railway is the better 1o the extent of the extra rolling stock that it has, the Drummond Counties Railway, and the terminal facilities in Montreal. The hon. Minister of Railways has done more to prevent the people of this country embarking in a government railway than any other man. He has pointed out what the result would be if the Intercolonial Railway were extended to the Pacific ocean. What would be the result if the charges to capital account on such a railway were in the same proportion as those he has made on the Intercolonial Railway ? The whole revenues of this country, I will venture to say, would not supply the deficits of such a railroad conducted in the same manner as the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman states perfectly correctly that the government can obtain employees for a government railway as cheaply as any corporation in Canada. He states also, what is true, that the supplies for such a road could be got as cheaply by the government as by any private corporation.


An hon. MEMBER.: Except ties.


John Graham Haggart: the small roads in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-which would not rather give the hon. gentleman his $15,000 balance in his favour in order to utilize his rolling stock ?
Let me point out further that the increased receipts on the Intercolonial Railway are due to the increased local trade in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The results attained by building the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal have not fulfilled one-fiftieth part of the hon. gentleman's expectation. Where does he get his increased freight from ? He gets it through the increased development of Nova Scotia 'and New Brunswick, his own province, but the doubling of the amount carried of one single article-lumber. The hon. gentleman states that he has had to contend with enormous difficulties in getting his surplus of $96,000; he has to pay so much more for labour, so much for supplies, so much more for coal. Why does he not start a coal mine of his own ? I know the difficulty the hon. gentleman hast to contend with-a combine amongst the coal mine owners of Nova Scotia. I had to contend with the same. They fix the price and divide the quantity to be furnished the Intercolonial Railway according to the output of the several companies, and they-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) never paid over $2.10 a ton.


John Graham Haggart: That may be. But I had to pay more than the Canadian Pacific or the Grand Trunk for the same coal. The hon. gentleman has virtually told us that he pays for coal far more than he ought to pay. He and his department simply do not use sufficient means to get the product of the mines delivered to the road at reasonable prices. If I remember rightly, we paid nearly $2 per ton at the pit's mouth, which is nearly double the price it ought to be, and I think the hon. minister pays nearly $3. Of course, that helps to account for the large expenditure on the Intercolonial. I have just said that the hon. gentleman has had the benefit of the development in the maritime provinces which did not exist in 1896. And what is the cause of that development ? The cause is the policy of his predecessors, the building up of manufacturing industries and the expansion of the steel and iron manufacturers as well as the increased production of coal resulting from the duty preventing competition from abroad. We started all this development which has reached its climax in Cape Breton and which has given the hon. gentleman as he tells us, the best paying branch of the road's business, carrying freight and passengers between Halifax and Cape Breton. Besides that, the hon. gentleman has had advantages which he shares with every other road on the continent of America. This has been a growing time. There has been abundance Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
all over the continent. There is enormously increased passenger traffic and freight traffic as well-far in excess of any time with which the hon. gentleman makes a comparison. He has advantages of the best times which this country has ever known. Andi what is the result ? By an expenditure of at least $2,000,000 which he ought fairly to have charged to revenue account, he is able to come down with a surplus of barely $96,000. Is this carrying out the promise to the people that he would put life into the old road ? Is this carrying out what he told us when he said that expenditures such as these he was making were like those of a man moving from a back street to a main street, and spending money to increase his business-that the increased expenditure would justify itself by increased revenue ? After all this enormous outlay at the expense of the country, he comes before us with a nominal surplus of $96,000, a surplus which can be manipulated at any time by those who have control of the financial statements of the Intercolonial to show a deficit or a surplus according to the wishes perhaps of the officers of the department, or even of the head of the department himself. The hon. gentleman need not make comparison with 1896, for as I have said, times are different. My expenditure on capital account for the six years in which I had charge of the road, including loss on working, did not amount to one-third of that under the hon. gentleman.
I have spoken longer than I intended to speak at this time. I shall have an opportunity to go into details when the estimates are before us. The information which I expect and hope to get at that time will enable me intelligently to discuss these details. There are other gentlemen in this House who are more fully conversant with these things than I am. But the bold, hard fact sticks out, and meets the view of the most casual observer, that in his management for the last six years the hon. gentleman has shown nothing but an absolute increase of debt upon the road of nearly $18,000,000 in cash, besides $4,000,000 of an obligation to the Grand Trunk. Yet we have heard the hon. gentleman speak in many parts of this country in advocacy of government railways and of further expenditure for that purpose by the people of this country. This, to my mind, is too ridiculous. He may get some of his friends who have no other politics, but further expenditure in the provinces which they represent to approve his policy. But we have a different and higher view. We are in favour of the advancement of this country and are ready to advocate the expenditure of any sums necessary for the development of the country as a whole; but we are not ready to fling further enormous sums into the sink hole that he has made of the Intercolonial I Rajlway to-day.


Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: I had not intended to say anything on this subject to-night, expecting, at a later stage, to go into the hon. minister's (Hon. Mr. Blair's) figures in some detail. But, as the hon. minister has made a rather pointed allusion to myself, or rather to the criticisms which I made upon his accounts last year, and the year before, X think I may be permitted to say a few words now in reply to his general observations. The hon. gentleman, perhaps, does not himself need that I should say one word in answer to the argument which he has made this afternoon. But his remarks seemed to meet with so much applause from hon. gentlemen behind him, that I may be excused if I say a few words to show how utterly fallacious is his argument in making, or appearing to make, a comparison between the operation of the government railway and that of other Canadian railways. I do not think I need occupy much time in showing that, but I think I can show it rather effectively. The hon. gentleman is perfectly aware-I have pointed it out to him before this-that the system on which he keeps his accounts is one which prevents the people from making any attempt to compare his operations and the percentage of his working expenses with those of other railways. I pointed that out more than once, and the hon. gentleman is as well aware of it as I am myself or as any person can possibly be. But, before X take up a few of the items in which the hon. gentleman so far departs from the ordinary system of keeping accounts, I wish to point out the results of the hon. gentleman's operations as he has shown them himself. Iu his report-and I have taken the few figures I have here entirely from his own report-he shows that the gross earnings of all the railways of this country during the year for which this report was made up, amounted to $83,666,502. He shows that the working expenses of all these railways, including the government railways, amounted to $57,343,592. Now, in order to ascertain exactly what the working expenses of the other railways are, apart from the government railways, I deduct his own working expenses and earnings, and the result shows that all the railways outside the government railways have earned during the year $77,747,513, and their working expenses were $53,482,494. Now, Sir, the result of that is that all the railways of Canada, big and little, in new districts and old districts, taking all their operations, earnings and expenses, have on the average worked at sixty-six and one-fifth per cent, while the government railways-I am including the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railway-the operation of which the hon. gentleman is so proud of. were worked at, what do you think, Mr. Speaker ? Ninety-nine per cent. The hon. gentleman earns for this country $1 for every $100 that he takes
in. The result of the operations of the two raliways is, even according to his own statement, and omitting hundreds of thousands of dollars that ought to be charged to working expenses, the result that the hon. gentleman has giveu us as something that he is entitled to be proud of, is $57,891, or a little less than about one-thirteenth of one per cent upon the capital invested ; and this Js the wonderful result that was applauded by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now, it may be quite true as the hon. geu-tleman says, that his traffic is worked at a lower rate than the traffic on other railways.
I do not accept unreservedly the hon. gentleman's figures in this respect ; though I wdl do so for the moment; but it does strike me that it is a most extraordinary statement- and I presume the hon. gentleman was speaking on behalf of the government that we should hear from the government that this railway is worked at such rates that there are $2,000,000 lost every year in railway operation in order that a section of the country should get low rates at the expense of the entire community. I do not know whether that will be a pleasing thing for hon. gentlemen to announce to their constiu-ents ; I should say that it was a most extraordinary statement. The hon. gentleman tells us that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway have certain rates that he says are not unreasonable, and that if he charged those rates upon the railway under his administration he would have earned $2,000,000 more, and he would have had that surplus. Yet the hon. gentleman, having an opportunity to thus .earn $2,000,000 a year, and save something of the many millions he has been expending during the last six or seven years on capital account, prefers to take that money out of the public funds of this country and let the people in the eastern provinces get ahead of the rest of the Dominion by just so much per annum. That is the result of the hon. gentleman s statement.
Now, I hope it is not quite so bad as that. I think perhaps the hon. gentleman has occasionally been carrying freight to St. John, where he has been spending so much money in recent years, at less than cost. I think tlyit is very probable, but I doubt whether the hon. gentleman is carrying all his traffic at these wonderfully low rates. All I can say is that if he has, the rest of this Dominion have got something to say in the matter. We surely have a right to contend that the business on that government railway should be so conducted that if $2,000,000, or $1,000,000, or $500,000, can be earned at reasonable rates, that money should be earned, and the capital expenditure the hon. gentleman is making year by year should be reduced accordingly. Surely that is a plain business proposition.
But I want to show that the hon. gen-tlaman'.s working expenses are not the working expenses as they are understood by

all ordinary railway companies. And before I show that I want to point out that the hon. gentleman's working expenses as they are in his accounts to-day are not at all those of his predecessor, they do not mean the same thing at all. The hon. gentleman's predecessor charged to working expenses many things that the hon. gentleman is now paying out of capital account.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg your pardon.


Samuel Barker: I beg your pardon also. I am speaking of that which I know, and I can say this, that not only is the hon. gentleman charging differently from what his predecessor charged, but he is charging differently from what he himself charged the first couple of years of his administration. The hon. gentleman got new light as lie went on. His predecessor, when he put in new rails on the government railways to replace old rails worn out in service, charged the whole cost to working expenses. The hon. gentleman knows that, he cannot dispute it, his officers will tell him that is so. Not only that, but when his predecessor put in heavier rails he charged the whole cost, even of the additional weight of metal to his working expenses. He was not obliged to do so, it was against himself. When the hon. gentleman began his operations in 1807 he followed the very same course that his predecessor did. But since then, what has the hon. gentleman done ? Why, he takes up the sixty-seven pound rail that was there before, which was worn out by use, and which it was his duty to replace by another sixty-seven pound rail at the cost of his working expenses, and he puts in a new oigfity pound rail. He would be entitled to charge only thirteen pounds, but he charges the whole eighty pounds to capital. I showed that last year and the year before, I gave the figures, I worked it all out on the figures in the hon. gentleman's own report. I showed that the hon. gentleman had charged to capital $436,000 for steel rails, every dollar of which ought to have gone to working expenses. I have not made up the figures in his report for this year to see exactly what amount the hon. gentleman ought to have charged against revenue that he has - charged to capital. But taking the same proportion as in the previous year the hon. gentleman ought now to add about $400,000 for rails to his present working expenses. The hon. gentleman for this year 1901-2 obtained a vote of $600,000 for rails. I have not gone through the accounts closely enough yet to see exactly how much he expended, but he got that appropriation on capital account, and he insisted that he had a right to charge that to capital. It was protested against last year and the year before. The hon. gentleman did not answer the argument but he stuck to his flag and insisted upon getting money on capital account. If the same


Samuel Barker: proportion has been expended there will be $400,000 which should have gone to his working expenses and the $57,000 that he claims as a surplus, does not exist at all. He has a deficit instead of a surplus. I should say here that last year we had Mr. Pottinger, the general manager of the railway, in the witness box before a committee of this House andj I put a question to Mr. Pottinger, as the hon. minister will recollect. I said, Mr. Pottinger, do you as a railway man piretend that you are justified in charging the w'hole cost of these new rails, replacing old rails, to capital account ? The hon. minister knows what Mr. Pottinger's answer was. I quoted it last year and I will quote it again from Hansard. I asked Mr. Pottinger what he thought of charging to capital account all the cost of replacing rails. Mr. Pottinger's answer I quoted then and I quote it again.
Why should I object so long as parliament votes the money ?
That was the reply of the hon. gentleman's chief official whom he lauds here tonight. Why should these railway officials object to parliament voting them money for capital expenditure that they ought to charge to working expenses ? No railway official would object to that. Mr. Pottinger from,his answer never pretended that this was a proper way of charging the money. He never pretended that any other railway company would charge it in that way. Mr. Pottinger admitted inferentially that it was an improper charge, that he had no right to charge it to capital when he said : Why should I object when parliament votes the money ? What could more clearly show that the hon. gentleman is improperly charging to capital what he ought to charge to working expenses ? He is by his method misrepresenting to this House the true state of the account and the true result of the operations of the railway.
There is another feature of the hon. gentleman's accounts that I pointed out last year, and it appears again this year, but in an exaggerated form. I pointed out last year that the hon. gentleman was buying rolling stock, buying cars on capital account that he ought to provide out of working expenses. He had a large number of old cars on hand condemned as unfit for traffic. The hon. gentleman's duty, as would be the duty of any railway manager, as any railway manager acting for an ordinary company would be compelled to do, was to replace these cars out of his working expenses and he should not have been allowed to charge one car, one dollar on capital account, until he had replaced every car that had been worn out in the service, out of his expense account. What did he do last year ? The hon. gentleman had 364 cars, I think, condemned. These cars would have cost him to replace out of his working expenses, $250,000. But the hon. gentleman did not charge them to working expenses.

He just left them as condemned cars and used capital from parliament to enable him to substitute others for them ; and they are there in the condemned list still. I will show that from the report which the hon. gentleman has just issued. The hon. gentleman started his year on the 1st July last with 364 condemned cars. These are the ones that last year I said it was his business to replace out of working expenses before he bought new cars out of capital. The hon. gentleman has had condemned during the year 272 more cars, making a total of 636 condemned cars. He has rebuilt only sixty-one, leaving 575 condemned cars in his stock to-day. Of course, as the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says, he could not be lending cars to the railways in the neighbourhood at twenty-five cents a day if he had 575 dead cars and did not replace them. What did the hon. gentleman do ? It is all here in his report. He purchased during the year on capital account 1,342 new cars. No wonder the hon. gentleman does not do his repairs, and it is not much wonder that he can show $57,000 profit on the operation of the road. If the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway would only manage their accounts in that way they could pay very rosy dividends to their stockholders. I think the Grand Trunk Railway would be able to pay dividends on Its common stock. The hon. gentleman has a simple method, he gets a vote in parliament. The hon. gentleman obtained a vote of $2,000,000 for rolling stock on capital account. He provided 1,342 cars out of capital, and he has 575 cars, lying there condemned and out of service. It is the simplest kind of book-keeping in the world. If the hon. gentleman was subject to an auditor acting for shareholders against officials, that auditor would have told the hon. gentleman that 767 of these 1,342 cars should be charged to capital and 575 to working expenses. The hon. gentleman knows that perfectly well. I suppose it is one of the elementary principles that a going concern must maintain its property out of revenue and not out of capital ; and the hon. gentleman has never made a pretense of showing to this House any justification for this sort of thing that has been going on year after year. The hon. gentleman thought he had me in a corner when he asked on a previous occasion : Did you look into the state of the rolling stock when I took it over ? I told him I did and I gave the status of the rolling stock as handed over to him by his predecessor ; and there was a very small number of cars at the time out of service. I pointed out to the minister year after year he had gone on increasing in a very large degree the number of dead stock on his hands and that all the time he had been adding to the rolling stock out of capital account. When the hon. gentleman boasts, as he did boast a few hours ago, of what he had been doing
and when he said that he had not been borrowing money, that lie had been doing all these things out of the results of the operation of the road, the hon. gentleman must have overlooked his charges to capital for cars and steel rails. The hon. gentleman has added about $20,000,000 to the debt of the country since he has been operating this road. In seven years he has put nearly $12,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway proper and yet the hon. gentleman thinks he is not borrowing anything while operating the road. He reminds me very much of that gentleman in Dickens who, when he gave a promissory note, said : Thank Heaven that is paid. The hon. gentleman thinks when he has expended money on capital account he has not borrowed it, that it has fallen from the clouds. Anything he can stick into capital account just helps to make so much apparent profit in his operations and so much more applause from the hon. gentlemen behind him. Then the hon. gentleman speaks about the economy with which he is buying his stores. Well, I think he must have a wonderful opinion of the short memories of the hon. gentleman behind him. Has the hon. Minister of Railways utterly forgotten what appeared last year in the reports of his own officers about the purchase of those 1,300,000 ties ? The hon. gentleman did not require to put in more than 500,000 ties in any year, and yet in that wonderful season, when the general election was on, he bought 1,300,000 ties, and, according to the reports of his own officials, many of those ties had only four inches face, and were more like scantlings than railway ties. That is his economy ; that is the wonderful management that the hon. gentleman claims credit for. I will say this for his officials, that they ferreted this thing out. The manager-I do not know whether it is the gentleman who has just left the service or not-that gentleman insisted on an inquiry, but it does not appear from first to last that the minister was very active in the investigation. The manager insisted upon the inquiry, and up to a certain point it was carried out at the instance of the official, but if it had not been for that inquiry made, we perhaps would have never have heard of this thing at all. All we do know about the minister's part in it is that at one stage of the proceedings he gave a certain pencil order to one of the contractors. So far as that inquiry did go it disclosed a most disgraceful state of affairs in purchases on the Intercolonial Railway. The minister gave us some details about train mileage and other matters of that kind, which I shall take the opportunity of going into in more detail on another occasion. I will only say now. that the minister knows as well as I do that cost per train mile depends to some extent ppon whether the train mileage is excessive ; whether he isi running fewer cars or lighter trains, or more frequent trains, than would be run by any ordinary manager,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: I only want to make one more remark. I do not know myself about the hiring of cars to other companies. The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says they are hired at 25 cents a day. I can only say this, Mr. Speaker : that if railway companies can hire freight cars at 25 cents a day, no company in this country is very likely to be so foolish as to buy cars while the minister will supply them at that rate. Surely it must be a mistake. It seems to be absurd. It means simply that a railway car lent out by this government is supposed to run from twenty to twenty-five miles a day. I hope that the hon. gentleman will be able to contradict the statement because if he is hiring these cars, and we can only get that rate out of them, the sooner we get out of the business the better.


Mr. G. W. FOWLER (King's, N.B.).: After the able criticism on the present management of the Intercolonial Railway, which was delivered by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mi-. Barker), it is unnecessary for me to take up the time of the


Samuel Barker: House at any length. However, Sir, there was a statement made by the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) which is so contrary to the real facts of the case-facts that are within my own intimate knowledge and within the intimate knowledge of every person in the province of New Brunswick at least-that I must raise my voice in protest against that statement. I refer to his statement with respect to non-interference on the part of officers of the department and on the part of himself with the franchise of the employees of the road. Never in the history of the Intercolonial Railway has there been so much interference with the franchise of its employees as there has been under the management of the present minister. Why, Sir, not content with interfering with the right of the men to vote as they please in federal elections (for which there might be some excuse on the ground of political exigencies), the minister has interfered with their freedom of voting in provincial elections, a thing that was never known of until he took charge of that department. He, or his satellites, has gone so far as even to interfere with the men voting in municipal elections. We had a provincial election in New Brunswick only a few months ago, and the minister came himself in his own private car and took a very stiff hand in that election, with a result which was no doubt very satisfactory to himself. He went to two different points, the city of St. John and the city of Moncton, both large railway centres, where there are a large number of employees who are voters, and in both places he used to the utmost his influence to induce and force and compel the men to vote against their consciences, many of them, for the candidates which the minister favoured. That is a matter of common and notorious knowledge in the province of New Brunswick. He was successful in the constituencies in which these two cities are, and then went to a third place. In that constituency there were no railway employees under his control, and there he was not so successful. The gentleman whom he opposed there had a majority about twelve times as great as his majority in the previous election. Whether that was on account of the presence of the hon. gentleman, I know not ; but that is the fact. I merely make this statement in order that the House may not lie under the wrong impression which the hon. minister attempted to create this afternoon-an impression which could not be made in the province of New Brunswick, where the facts are so well known.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he knows of his own knowledge that I personally used all sorts of pressure and influence in order to coerce the men employed on the Intercolonial Railway to take part or vote in an election. Does the hon. gentleman wish me to understand that that is his statement ?


George William Fowler: That is the statement 1 made, Mr. Speaker, and I reiterate the same statement now. Any person who read the speeches of the hon. gentleman in St. John and Moncton will know that my statement is exactly in accordance with the fact. The vehemence which the hon. gentleman displayed this afternoon when he was trying to urge his followers to applaud him-which as a matter of fact they seemed very loth to do-was as nothing to the vehemence he exhibited on the platform when he was attempting to coerce those employees to vote in favour of his candidates in the late provincial election.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the hon. gentleman any evidence or any personal knowledge of the facts other than what he says appears in reports of my speeches in the newspapers to support the statement he has made ?


George William Fowler: Those I think should be sufficient; but if they are not, I may say that the common rumour throughout the province is to that effect.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: Common knowledge. Common rumour has a very great effect, you know, and is generally founded somewhat on fact, too.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of saying that what the hon. gentleman has said is absolutely and entirely without the slightest foundation. I invite the hon. gentleman to take an early opportunity of reading to this House the reports of the speeches which I delivered, and I venture to say that they will not corroborate the statement he has made.


George William Fowler: Why, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman's reputation were not so well known throughout the province of New Brunswick, the people would be shocked and surprised at the statements he made this afternoon. But knowing him so well as they do, they simply shrug their shoulders and say nothing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman will accept my invitation, I will abide by the result.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I listened with the greatest possible attention to every word that fell from the lips of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals when he made his explanation this afternoon. I sympathized a good deal with the hon. gentleman, because he had a very difficult task in explaining the results of his management of the Intercolonial and other government railways during the past six or seven years. He quoted a great many figures as to the increased traffic, the increased sums paid for wages, the better position of the road, and a whole lot of things which to my mind did not throw very much light on the situation. He was asked by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) during the early part of his speech to give the House some information with regard to the capital expenditure made on account of the railway, during the time he has administered the affairs of the department. I am not aware that he vouchsafed the information asked for; but there are two or three facts which stand out prominently in the administration of the hon. gentleman which cannot be too frequently impressed on the House and the country. The hon. minister made a comparison between the administration of his predecessor in the one single year, 1896, and that of himself in the year 1902. A more unfair and misleading comparison could not have been made, because, as the hon. gentleman knows, the conditions existing in Canada during the past twelve months as compared with the conditions which existed in 1896 rendered it impossible to make a fair comparison between those two years. For an hon. member to try to justify the administration of the Railway Department over which he presides, by making a comparison of the year 1896, a year of unusual depression not only in Canada but throughout the world, with a year of redundant prosperity, especially in that part of the Dominion served by the Intercolonial Railway, is certainly not what we might expect from a gentleman who has had the long parliamentary experience of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways. If he desired to be fair, he would have compared the six years during which my hon. friend from South Lanark administered the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway, with the six years during which he has managed them. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. gentleman himself and to every hon. gentleman who supports him, whether, if he had desired to do simple justice to the hon. member for Lanark, he would have confined his comparison to one single year ? Let me state two or three facts to the House, and I will leave the hon. gentleman to make an explanation of them. Since 1897, when the hon. gentleman assumed the management of the Intercolonial Railway, how much has he expended on capital account ? Is it not a fact that during the past six years he has expended on capital account on the two government railroads $13,890,54? ? Will the hon. gentleman deny these figures ? I obtained them from official documents, and I challenge him to say whether they are correct or not. During the previous six years, when the hon. member for South Lanark was administering those roads, how much was expended on capital account ? $2,835,691. The colossal fact stands out, and it cannot be contra-

dieted or challenged, that during the past six years the hon. Minister of Railways has expended over $11,000,000 more on capital account than his predecessor did during his six years. And what has been the result ? A colleague of the hon. Minister of Railways boasted in Toronto a few years ago that when this administration came into office they found that the western terminus of the Intercolonial Railway was in a ploughed field, and their policy was to bring the railway into the great metropolitan city of Montreal. We all hoped for good and great things from that policy ; but what has been the net result of the operation of the road since then ? During the six years in which the hon. member for South Lanark operated it, the deficits in the receipts as compared with the opera-ing expenses amounted to $949,784. If we were justified in incurring the enormous expenditures which we did in bringing the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, and in equipping it with gilt-edged plant of all kinds, what have we reaped as the result V During the past six years in which the hon. gentleman has been administering the Railway Department, the receipts on the railway have been actually short of meeting the operating expenses by no less than $886,763. All we have gained in those six years in net results, as compared with the previous six years, has been the miserable sum of $60,000, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure on capital account.
The hon. gentleman's deficits in operating expenses during the past six years have' just been $60,000 less than the deficits in operating expenses durifig the previous six years, when the business conditions of this country were not nearly so prosperous. That is all the hon. minister can take any credit for ; and if he thinks parliament was justified in voting these enormous expenditures on capital account in order to save in six years the sum of $60,000, he may take what comfort he can from that opinion. These are facts that cannot be controverted. During the past six years he has spent $11,000,000 more on capital account than 8itl his predecessor in the previous six years, when there was not that revival of trade which has since characterized all parts of Canada ; and he has only succeeded in reducing the balance against us, as between receipts and operating expenses, during the whole of that period by $60,000. But he pleads that there are exceptional conditions in connection with the location of the Intercolonial Railway, which make it impossible to pay as well as other roads. There is the water on the one side and competing lines on the other But did not the same conditions exist before that hon. gentleman assumed the administration of the Railway Department ? Did not his predecessor have precisely a similar condition of things to contend against ? In my humble judgment, the hon. gentleman himself is between the Devil and the deep


Edward Frederick Clarke: sea in his endeavour to invent some plausible explanation, and when the people have time to read carefully his arguments, they will come to the conclusion that the administration of our railway affairs during the past six years has been extravagant, unwise and prodigal, and that they have not received the value they were entitled to from the enormous expenditure made by the hon. gentleman. Let me emphasize what has been so well said by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). He pointed to the argument of the hon. minister that if he had charged as high rates as other roads-which rates he admitted were not unreasonable- his revenue would have been much larger. H admits, therefore, that notwithstanding the fact that this country has run into debt $16,000,000 during the past twelve years, through our capital expenditure on the Intercolonial, yet the freight rates have been lower than they might have been. In other words, that he has failed to earn money that he should have earned in reduction of this huge capital expenditure. What will the people of the other provinces think when that statement goes to them ? Should we not expect better things from this business administration than that they should have persisted in running the Intercolonial Railway at a loss ? Had we not a right to expect some better management by the hon. minister than is shown by this humiliating confession, that althougli he is running the road at a heavy loss, the rates charged on the traffic! are from 50 per cent to 100 per cent less than those charged by other lines ? That is a most astounding admission ; and I would point out to the hon. gentleman, with all possible respect, that it is his duty, under the circumstances, at the earliest possible moment, to so readjust the rates on passenger and freight traffic that at least the expenditure will not exceed the receipts. If the public debt of the country is being added to by millions every year for the purpose of operating the Intercolonial Railway, the people have a right to insist that reasonable rates should be charged ; and if the rates charged are not fair and reasonable, they should be readjusted so that the Intercolonial Railway system may cease to be a sink hole into which millions of public money are being thrown every year. I did not intend addressing the House, but I felt compelled to emphasize the fact that while, under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, the debt of this country for the operation of the government railways has been increased by the enormous sum of $14,777,305, we have, so far as these two reads are concerned, practically nothing to show for that expenditure.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Among the different charges. Mr. Speaker, made by the hon. member for Lannark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) against the manage-

ment of the Intercolonial Railway, there is one in particular which I think should be specially emphasized and discussed. That is the charge that the lion. Minister of Railways is deceiving the country by a false system of accounts. If that charge he true, surely there is not an hon. gentleman sitting behind the hon. Minister of Railways who would support him in this wrong-doing ? If the charge be not true, then it seems to me that my hon. friends from Lanark and Hamilton ought to withdraw it. The charge has been made by these two hon. gentlemen flatly and unequivocally that the Minister of Railways has brought down cooked accounts, and that, by a system of false bookkeeping, he has endeavoured to deceive this House and country. One can hardly iin-magine a more serious charge, and I sincerely hope that the hon. minister will either controvert it or frankly admit that he lias done wrong and promise to do better in the future. My hon. friend from Hamilton states that all railway companies properly administered charge to working expenses, the renewals of rolling stock. For instance, if a railway company, at the outset, spends a million dollars on rails, it charges that amount to capital account, but whenever a rail is worn out and has to be renewed, the cost of the renewal is charged to working expenses. The wisdom and propriety of such a course are evident even to one who is not conversant with the management of railways. But if a different system is followed on the Intercolonial Railway, if the renewals are also charged to capital account, then, in the case, for instance, of the renewal of a rail, you will have two rails charged to capital account, one of which is worn out, but both are assets. Such a system of keeping accounts is certainly not honest, and from it you can obtain an accurate idea of the value of our assets. The same contention holds with regard to the purchase of cars. If when a freight car, which was originally charged to capital account, is worn out, another is purchased to replace it, and the new car is also charged to capital account, yrou have two Items against capital account which are represented only by one asset. If you spent a million dollars on cars,, in the first instance, and then spent another million dollars to replace these, and charged each expenditure to capital account, you have/ a capital account of .$2,000,000, which is represented only by an asset, of $1,000,000. If the accounts of the Intercolonial Railway are kept in this manner, the report of the Minister of Railways, instead of being called a blue-book, should lie called a cook hook. When one thinks of this parliament, the highest court of the land, voting improperly on capital account, moneys which should be charged against working expenses, and when we find a leading official of the road declaring that he is compelled to falsify his hooks in order to make 116
them agree with the parliamentary' vote, surely parliament has no reason to be proud of what it is doing. Surely not even the most ardent supporter of the Minister of Railways will argue that it is proper for parliament to do that which, if done by a humble clerk in a financial institution, would cause him to be sent to one of our provincial penitentiaries. I am not making any charge against the hon. Minister of Railways, because I do not pretend to be conversant with the facts, lint when so serious a charge as that of cooking accounts s made against him, the hon. minister should either refute it and show that he is not keeping his books in a manner different from that followed by other railway companies, dr else bow to tbe inevitable and adopt a proper system of book-keeping.


Mr.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Westmoreland!. The protests that are annually offered against tbe expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway seem to me unworthy of the Canadian sentiment that ought to prevail in this parliament. I have no desire to refer to the Intercolonial Railway from a sectional standpoint, for that railway has not been, in any sense, devoted to the interests of one particular section of this Dominion. It has contributed more to the interchange of thought and the interchange of trade between the different provinces of the Dominion than any other factor we have had. In former years the people of the maritime provinces traded to the south of them across the Bay of Fundy. The building of the Intercolonial Railway contributed, to the bringing together of the people of Ontario and Quebec and the people of the maritime provinces. That seems to he forgotten; and it seems to be forgotten, as well, that the manufacturers and the merchants of Toronto and Montreal, have, by means of the Intercolonial Railway, been enabled to find a very large and profitable trade. The protests which are made against the rates that are charged on the Intercolonial Railway' are based on the idea that this is a sectional advantage. But surely the benefit of any such lessening of charges is for those living in Ontario and Quebec as yvell as for those living in the maritime provinces. We. forget, seemingly, that the Intercolonial Railway was built for a certain purpose. It was built largely as a military road, and I presume it was built where it was built because of political exigencies at the time. But it was built as part of the compact of confederation, and as a national highway, and should be treated in the same way as other highways of the country. How is it that I hear no word of protest from my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) with respect to canal charges ? Only the other day a very large and influential delegation waited upon the right hon. Premier and. in the interest of trade and commerce, in the interest of the people of this Dominion,



36S4
demanded that the tolls on these canals should be entirely removed. Is there any protest against that ? Do you hear any protest on the part of hon. members from the east with respect to the large expenditures made upon the canals and not a dollar realized to the revenues of the Dominion arising from them ? It seems to me that this is slightly unfair. It was not my intention to take part in this discussion; but when I hear hon. members refer to expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway and insist that these expenditures are largely political, I, as one having some knowledge of that field, cannot remain silent. Political influence, you say, is exercised to the detriment of the management of the Intercolonial Railway. Why, if political influence is being exercised, it is being exercised by the same men who, for eighteen or twenty years exercised that influence when their friends, hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. Fault is found with the book-keeping on the Intercolonial Railway, yet the book-keepers are the same men who were there from 1879 to 1896, and the system of book-keeping is the same as it was during that period.


Mr. BOYD.: A different minister.


Mr. EMMERSON.: There is the same manager, the same accountant, the same chief book-keeper-the same men from top to bottom; there has been no change. I am not reflecting upon these men at all In makiug that statement; I simply say that when you charge against this administration Or against the Minister of Railways and Canals, the exercise of political influence you are speaking of something that does not exist. I remember well when there was a change of government in 1878 and, from the head of the Intercolonial, the late C. J. Bridges, down to the very hod carrier in the railway yards at Moncton, they went out by wholesale. The general manager, also Mr. Lutt-rell, the chief superintendent, were removed and hundreds of men in the shops were thrown out of work. And why ? Because of political influence. That continued down to 1896. Any man who was suspected of having political leanings in favour of those then in opposition soon found that he had to seek some other means of livelihood, for he was not allowed to remain in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway. But, has there been a change since then ? The same men who were in the employ of the road when the change of government came in 1S96 are employed there to-day. There has been no change in the officials, no change in the workmen. I am sure that those who are conversant with the actual facts also know this-that in matters of promotion in the Intercolonial Railway it is not only men who are friends of the administration now iu power who are recognized, but all, including those who have been working tooth and nail at every election-as I know from Mr. EMMERSON.
a personal standpoint-ever since 1878, and even down to this year of grace, against the party with which I have been allied for all these years. I say that political influence, if any has been exercised, has been exercised against the present administration, and I say this as the representative of the county of Westmoreland and as knowing whereof I speak. Therefore, I protest against any idea going abroad throughout this country that the administration of the Intercolonial Railway is in any way coloured or tinged with partyism and political influence. If there is such a tinge and colour, it is not with the ' rouge,' as they say in the province of Quebec, but rather with the other colour.
Now, as to the rates on the Intercolonial Railway, they are the same as have been in force since 1878; there have been no material changes; certainly there has been no increase, and, as the hon. minister explained, the conditions are such there, by reason of water competition, that if any attempt were made to charge higher rates it would only result with loss in advancement to the road. The question of political influence is always raised against government ownership of railways. Now, there are many kinds of partisan influence, and I question whether the people of this country should denounce simply the political influence if such does exist under government ownership, as against the political influence that may be exercised in a very different way and by a very different method. I am sure the people of Canada would prefer to have the party in power exercise its political patronage- and I care not what government may be in office-rather than be throttled, by great corporations which have a peculiar method of exercising political influence, a political influence which is even recognized within the precincts of parliament. In your committee rooms when bills are under discussion, and in parliamentary debates, you recognize that political influence, and it does not arise out of, nor has it any connection with, party institutions, but it arises from the corporations of the country. There are none who know this better than hon. gentlemen opposite. It is known throughout the country, and the newspapers of the Dominion, especially the independent newspapers, teem with articles day after day pointing out these influences. I say it is far better in the interests of Canada that we should submit to any disadvantages, to any evils if there are such, arising from the government ownership of railways, than to be bound down by the pernicious influences, I would almost say the damning influences, resulting from the control of great corporations. Hon. gentlemen may wish to make a point against the administration of the Intercolonial, but they all recognize that what I am now stating is true. They all recognize that it would be far better to

submit to political influences in tbe exercise of patronage by government in the administration of a railway, than to submit to these other influences to which I have referred and which I need not elaborate.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman make the charge that members of this House are influenced by corporations in their deliberations in this House ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly not. I am sure no hon. member would be willing to say that any such influences could be exercised.


James Clancy: Then what does the hon. gentleman mean ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I mean exactly what I say. There may be an exercise of influence, of course, in a proper way, in a parliamentary way, and without any results that might be termed unpleasant ; but I am referring to the influences that are abroad in this country arising from the power possessed by great corporations. I make the point simply to show the contrast between any disadvantages there might be in connection with government ownership of railways, and the disadvantages which arise under the system which has largely prevailed in this Dominion and which prevails to a great extent in the United States. If I were to attempt to make an argument for government ownership, I might refer to a great many things which I should not mention now, but which I may have an opportunity to mention later on.
But I cannot permit this occasion to pass without entering my protest against some references which have been made against the maritime provinces. During the course of this debate there have been insinuations made that the construction of this railway and its management have been wholly in the interests of the maritime provinces and in the interests of Quebec through which the Intercolonial runs. This is my third sessio'n in this parliament, and I have listened to many discussions on the Intercolonial, but not yet have I heard my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) the lender of the opposition, get up and express his views witli respect to the rates on the Intercolonial, and with respect to these denunciations which we have heard against the Intercolonial and its management as a government road. As that hon. gentleman represents the city of Halifax, it would be interesting to have an expression of his views on the points which have been raised in that direction. There are other hon. gentlemen coming from the maritime provinces whose opinions we would like to hear on these questions. They remain silent, as does the leader of the opposition, and say nothing in answer to the charges which are thus made. If the canals are established in the interest of trade and commerce, and if no tolls are charged upon these canals, why do we not hear hon. members coming from a particular section of the Do-116$
minion make that fact a subject of complaint ? I want to say that we do not hear hon. members from the extreme west indulging in any such denunciations, but they come from a confined circle, and I am thankful to say it is a confined circle. I hope that the individual members belonging to that particular circle will broaden out in their views, and look upon this matter from a national standpoint, as a railway that is serving the interests of Ontario as well as those of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island ; I hope they will look upon it from the standpoint of a unite4 Canada. Because there may be some things in the management of the Intercolonial which may not meet the views of hon. members,, that does not justify them in attacking the Intercolonial as a sink-hole of expenditure for the whole Dominion. It is unfair to the policy which has been pursued by successive governments, it is unfair to tile founders of confederation who agreed upon that railway in the interest of the whole Dominion. They established it with the idea that it would cement together the several provinces, and it has resulted in much good in that direction.
The Intercolonial to day is, in my judgment, the best asset that the Dominion of Canada has. We have been told that the public debt has been increased to the extent of $23,000,000 by the Intercolonial. What have you to show for it ? You have your road and your rolling stock as a splendid asset. I do not pretend to be a prophet, but I believe from the bottom of my heart that within a few years it will be one of the best paying properties belonging to this Dominion. But do those hon. gentlemen who complain about the increase of the public debt on this account make any complaints against the exceedingly large outlay that was made in subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway ? The Intercolonial I believe represents about $60,000,000 of public money expended on its construction-and in its maintenance, if you will. But the moneys that were paid out in subsidies for the Canadian Pacific Railway exceed that sum by a very large amount? without taking into account the countless acres of land which were given in land grants to that road, lands which to-day are selling for $6 or $7 an acre and sometimes higher. We hear no complaint about that. Yet we do not own to-day a spike of that great highway, we do not own a foot of the land. The money is gone, and we are paying interest on it, and there are no complaints. I say it is manifestly unfair to the people, detrimental to the harmony that should exist between the different provinces, to make these exceptional complaints against the Intercolonial Railway.
Hon. members as a party would reflect greater credit upon themselves, and they would stand better in the country it they looked upon this subject in the way the people of the country look upon it, in the


Adam Carr Bell: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the working of the Intercolonial Railway, I put a question on the Order paper some little time ago which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) asked me to replace by a motion for papers which he said would be brought down immediately it was moved. I do not think these papers have yet been submitted. May I ask the hon. minister if he has submitted the return asked for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I brought it down at once.


Adam Carr Bell: Well, it has not been reported to me. That would be of importance and I would be very glad to look at it in connection with the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in reference to the matter of rates. I am very much in sympathy with the view held by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) and I feel that we members


Henry Robert Emmerson: from the maritime provinces cannot very well remain silent if it be broadly stated here in parliament that that part of Canada is receiving an unfair advantage in having a railway conducted at the expense of Canada generally, which is to confer some special benefit upon us. I really feel that to a very large extent in fairness to our friends from Ontario it must be borne in mind that the remarks that have been made here tonight have been elicited by the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals himself.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How ?


Adam Carr Bell: Because) he made the statement very broadly that the rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway were 50 per cent less than those charged by other lines in Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By the two railways, the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the rates charged in Ontario by the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway were from 100 to 150 per cent in excess of those charged on the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I said from 50 to 100 per cent.


Adam Carr Bell: It strikes me that an examination of the figures showing the freight rates that are charged on the Intercolonial Railway will scarcely bear out the statement made by the hon. minister. In respect to a very large part of the traffic and the revenue of the Intercolonial Railway it is quite evident that his remarks do not apply at all. That is in reference to the passenger traffic. In reference to the receipts from passenger traffic which form a large part of the revenue, I think, we in the lower provinces are paying just as much as they are in any other portion of Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As to what ?


Adam Carr Bell: The passenger traffic.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I confined my remarks distinctly to the question of freight rates. I emphasized that.


Adam Carr Bell: I am simply calling attention-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Or rather I eliminated passenger rates from the receipts.


Adam Carr Bell: I think the hon. minister did that, but I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that so far as passenger traffic is concerned, the people of

the lower provinces are not unduly favoured. They are paying rates at least as high as the rates paid in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will at once see the force of this. Except that ail passengers from any point on the Intercolonial Railway, Moncton and east will get to Montreal for exactly the same rate, no matter how much greater the distance, as they can get to Montreal over the Canadian Pacific Railway; or from St. John over the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, a passenger is carried on a ticket for exactly the same price as the Canadian Pacific Railway charge.


Adam Carr Bell: Of course the point of the hon. gentleman's observation is that the Intercolonial Railway is somewhat longer, and that the passenger is carried a greater number of miles for the same figure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Adam Carr Bell: That is a feature which characterizes all railways in Ontario, and everywhere else throughout Canada. I think that compensation has to be made by railways that are working in .competition, one with the other. Accepting the hon. minister's explanation which is entirely in accordance with my understanding of the matter, I say that so far as passenger traffic is concerned, the lower provinces are not receiving any advantage at the expense of the rest of Canada. If the people of those provinces are unduly favoured it is in reference to freight rates, and I think in so far as local rates are concerned it will be found that they are not very much lower than they are in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes.


Adam Carr Bell: It has been said by the last speaker that the tariff of freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway has been the same for a number of years. I think the hon. minister will scarcely agree with that statement. He must recollect, and the country generally knows perfectly well, that when a gentleman named Mr. Harris was placed in charge of the Intercolonial Railway he raised the freight rates very considerably, so much so that the effect was a strong protest from every province where the Intercolonial Railway was doing business, and if I am not mistaken, and I am a customer of the road to a large extent, and pay freight to a large extent-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With what result ?


Adam Carr Bell: With the result that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction created.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: With the result that the rates came down.


Adam Carr Bell: In some cases they did, but in other cases they remained where Mr. Harris put them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken in stating that as a general proposition. There was a rise in rates upon certain classes of merchandise made by Mr. Harris or what was equivalent to it in the way in which the impost was made. So violent was the public clamour against that action from all parties and all sides that the tariff was reduced, put back to practically where it was before in the manner in which the carriage of the goods and the arrangement of the traffic was adjusted.


Adam Carr Bell: I must accept the*minister's statement because it is a matter which is entirely within his own department, but I think it is a matter of common opinion in Nova Scotia that the rates on certain classes of freight are considerably higher than they were when the minister took charge of the Intercolonial Railway. There can be no question that the freights both upon sawn lumber and logs are considerably higher now than they were before. I think it will be found that the reason why the Intercolonial Railway is making a fairly good showing to-day-and I am not at all going to abandon the argument made by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-it will I think be found that the good statement made by the minister is very largely owing to the manner in which he has adjusted his revenue and his capital account. There is no answer at all to the argument made by the member for Hamilton on that point. Still, I believe that the good showing which the minister is able to make is largely because the hopes he expressed when he took over the Drummond County Railway as part of the Intercolonial Railway, have not been realized, and that he has never succeeded in developing. that large through-traffic in grain and other products which he expected. If we examine his report for the last year, it will be found that the large increases of business on the Intercolonial Railway have been made in local traffic, and that in many departments that through-traffic to which the minister looked with great confidence is diminishing. His good showing is due to the fact that he has not continued to develop the through-traffic which was being conducted at an unprofitable figure, but that he has the advantage of the enormous development in the business of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, and in the lumber business of the lower provinces generally, which has been carried at profitable local rates. A very large proportion of the great expenditure charged to capital upon the Intercolonial Railway was made for the purpose of developing through-traffic and not for the local traffic at all. It is a reasonable criticism made upon the minister by railway men, that the

heavy engines and equipment which he introduced were not at all adapted for local traffic. The result was to place upon the road rolling stock which the road was unable to carry and which involved an enormous expenditure in the direction of improving the track, enlarging the buildings, strengthening and replacing the bridges. What is there in the circumstances of the Intercolonial Railway that would justify such criticisms as are resented by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson)? They are unquestionably not the fact that the Intercolonial Railway was being conducted from year to year either with profit, or at a comparatively small loss to the country. During the regime of the present minister there has been a period of unexampled prosperity-as regards Nova Scotia at all events-during which for a large part of the time the Intercolonial Railway was in a state of congestion, when the sidings for hundreds of miles from the seat of activity at Sydney were filled with traffic awaiting its turn for movement, and yet in the face of all that extraordinary prosperity and that enormous inflow of business the fact remains that in the matter of deficits the present minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) shows a betterment over the history of the last six years of the Conservative regime of only some $60,000. Now, we do not like at all in the lower provinces to have any unkind criticism addressed against us or against the railway management of the Intercolonial Railway. We do not feel that it is pleasant to us to have a feeling engendered in the minds of the people of Canada generally, that the Intercolonial Railway is being conducted in such a way as to unduly favour the people of the lower provinces at the expense of their fellow citizens in the rest of Canada. Therefore it is of the highest importance to the people of the maritime provinces, that the Intercolonial Railway should be economically and efficiently managed, because the result of anything short of first-class management is to evoke this criticism. No people in Canada are so directly interested in the able economical and efficient management of the Intercolonial Railway as are the people of the lower provinces. We are deeply interested in the success of the Minister of Railways, and so far as we are concerned, we would like him to meet with the very highest possible degree of success in maintaining that road in a high state of efficiency, and presenting to this country only such favourable balances as would entirely prevent any criticism of a local character by the representatives of the people of Canada in this House. Ayhile we are ready to stand up for the Minister of Railways and to urge him to give us in the lower provinces efficient management and favourable rates, I am afraid that the protestations which the minister has made so strongly to-day in reference to the total absence of anything of a Mr. BELL.
political character from the management of that railway are not altogether borne out by the facts. I do not believe that it is possible for the Minister of Railways to make the people of the lower provinces, who are familiar with the management of that road, believe that there is an absolute freedom of anything like political pressure so far as the employees of that road are concerned. It is perfectly true, as the minister has said, that in the case of quite a large proportion of his employees they are protected against political interference by their own associations. Their orders and their brotherhoods protect them to a certain extent from the pressure which the minister may feel disposed to bring to bear upon them. I would not go so far as to say that the minister himself personally interferes, but I know that the gentlemen who represent the Liberal party in some constituencies in the lower provinces, do habitually interfere with the employees of the Intercolonial Railway, not only in Dominion elections and provincial elections, but in municipal contests, where we elect our representatives to our county councils. They do that, and they can do it successfully simply because the, people of the county in which I live and of some adjacent counties, have got the impression on their minds that when a local politician or a defeated candidate writes a letter or brings pressure to bear upon the trackman or the sectionmen or the employees of the railway generally, behind that local politician is the authority and the influence of the Minister of Railways. I would not for one moment doubt the minister ; I am perfectly willing to accept his statement, and I would like him to supplement it by making it perfectly understood throughout the lower provinces, and particularly in my own county of Pictou, that no man need be afraid of any threat addressed to him by any local politician or partisan. I trust the minister will make the people understand that behind that threat is not the authority or the power of the Minister of Railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have caused that to be made known upon more than one occasion.


Adam Carr Bell: I am perfectly willing to accept everything that the minister says, but at the same time I am aware of circumstances in my own county where men have been moved about and placed at a disadvantage, when it could have only occurred because it was done in such a way that it did not reach the knowledge of the Minister of Railways, for had it been done with his knowledge he could not acquit himself of the charge of allowing political pressure to be brought to bear upon the employees of the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will take this opportunity of stating the fact, that personally I gave
3C93

most explicit orders during the last Dominion election to the general manager, to notify all the officers and employees of the road that they were to be free to come and go ; that every facility was to be afforded to them irrespective of their politics to get to where they wanted to vote, and to vote according to their own wishes. The general manager had instructions to that effect from me in the most direct and positive manner during the last Dominion contest.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentlemau state why Mr. Russelt left the service of the government railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He wanted to go, I do not know why. I did not dismiss him.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did he not state that political influence was used against him ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He never stated or communicated that to me.


Andrew B. Ingram: He stated so publicly in the press.


Adam Carr Bell: I am perfectly willing to exonerate the minister, and I am familiar with the fact that he did take the course he has indicated here. Still others, using the weight of his authority, I will say entirely without his consent or desire, have brought pressure to hear to iuduce the electors not only to vote, but to do extraordinary things. I will give him an instance that occurred in the last provincial election in Pictou. The law in Nova Scotia prevents Dominion employees from voting in provincial elections. That law was adopted by the anti-confederation party in 1868, and it has been in force ever since ; and during the time the Conservative party was in power, no man who was a Dominion official or had been in receipt of emoluments from the government railway for fifteen days previous to an election ever tendered his vote. In the last election unwilling men, knowing that they were employees of the Dominion government, were forced to go to the polls and tender their votes in the face of the statute designed to prevent them from voting; and in some cases they actually took the oath which was put to them by the officials in polling places, and practically, as far as I may judge, had to commit perjury in order to do so. Does the minister suppose that these railway employees would have done that extraordinary thing unless they were doing it under the force of great compulsion ? It is not at ail likely, and I would like the hon. gentlemau to devote a little of his time, if he can do so. to an inquiry into the circumstances I am now mentioning, in order to satisfy himself whether or not the system of the Intercolonial Railway is as entirely free from political pressure or interference as he has given the House to understand that it is. I am presenting this statement without the slightest desire to give offence to the minister. I am assuming that he is absolutely truthful in what he has said : but I wish him to understand that his name and authority have been used to induce the railway employees under his control to vote ill a way in which in many eases they are most unwilling to vote. Now. I do not altogether blame the minister if he finds it impossible to be everywhere, and to know everything that is being done on the hundreds of miles of railway under his control. But if he will devote himself carefully to an inquiry into the management of some parts of the system which are not protected by the system of brotherhoods, he will find that there is absolutely no other criterion for the appointment of men on the railway than their political partisanship. I do not know one Conservative appointed on the Intercolonial since 189(1.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am told that there have been a good many, but I am not aware of any. I do not know their politics.


Adam Carr Bell: I am not aware of one. So far as the county of Pictou is concerned, the hon. gentleman's preserve is not invaded at all. But it is a matter of current statement that men are introduced into the service in a way that was utterly unknown in the time of his predecessors. Instead of the appo'ntments being made from headquarters, in many cases they are made by local political managers, and men are put to work on the road without receiving their appointment from headquarters. I am not making charges against the minister : I am assuming that in many cases at any rate these things are done without his knowledge. But I would like to guard him from making statements such as he has made here today, when it is a matter of common knowledge and belief in the counties through which the railways run. that there is_ no other influence exerted in appointing or maintaining in office employees of the rail-wav than political pressure. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend at this time to say anything further in criticism of the hon. minister's remarks. I shall he very glad indeed to have the return, which T understand he is to bring down, and I think it will tend to prove that any good showing made by the Intercolonial is entirely due to the fact that the business of the road has not developed in the direction that was expected by the acquisition of the Drummond Counties Railway, but that while the profitable local traffic has been developed, the unprofitable through-traffic has -not been allowed any longer to make adverse balances for the minister.


Mr. .TABEL ROBINSON.: Mr. Speaker. I have listened with a good deal of interest to this debate, and if the statements which have been made are true, I think that both parties must have badly managed the Intercolonial Railway, and it is time that that railway were placed under a commission

so that we would not have this quarrelling for a whole day about its management. Now, I understood from the minister that it is not the intention to allow the government roads to be controlled by the commission which is about to be appointed. The discussion which we have had to-day has shown us plainly that the commission should have control over that railway, above all others. It seems that the book-keeping is not properly done ; but in that case one party says to the other, you are another, as the book-keeping was done in the same manner under the old regime. If that be so, it is time the book-keeping were done properly. To charge steel rails, locomotives, cars, and all that class of material which is continually wearing out, to capital account, seems to me to be a fallacy. I might ns well charge to capital account my binder that is worn out in ten years, or my plough or my harness. These things must be charged against the revenue of my farm. So all those things on the railway that become worn out. should be charged against the revenue. I know something of the history of this road. I remember over forty years ago, when the Trent affair occurred, and troops were sent over from England and landed in Halifax, this country was obliged to bring them in the dead of winter through a thousand miles of snow.
The British army was brought up from Halifax to defend our country against a threatened invasion, and the government of that day very properly considered that they should build a railway from the frontier, over which the troops might be brought at any time without interference. That was the origin, ns I understand it, of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not think it was ever pretended that that road would pay from a commercial standpoint, but I do think that the same rates per mile for hauling should be charged over it as are charged over other roads. I do not think that the Intercolonial Railway should carry merchandise cheaper than other roads carry it, but it seems to me that the only remedy for this state of affairs would be to take the road out of the hands of the government and place it under a commission. I am strongly in favour of a railway to the Pacific being built by the government. I think that it is time that this government had energy and force enough to help the people in the west out of the difficulty they are under of getting their produce to market. We know that they are severely overcharged now, but no doubt, if the Grand Trunk Pacific obtain a charter and subsidies, the men who take hold of the scheme will expect to make fortunes out of it. For my part, I do not see the need of any more Lord Mount Coxes or Lord General Booths, but we want the people to own the railway and get the benefit. With regard to the Intercolonial Railway, it seems to me that both parties have made mistakes, and it is no use in their casting slurs at each Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
other. We had better right about ship aud manrfge the Intercolonial Railway better in the future, and not have it said that every man who works on it must vote Grit or be discharged. We are told that, no matter how good a man may be, no matter how well he may work, he cannot get a position on the Intercolonial Railway or hold it unless he votes Grit. That sort of thing I despise. I care not what may be the religion or politics of a man who works for me, if he does good work. I do hope that these discussions will take place in a better spirit. This afternoon I felt very sorry to see the spirit exhibited by the hon. Minister of Railways. I felt sorry for him, as I do for anybody who gets so angry when he speaks, and I hope it will not occur again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into committee.
Intercolonial Railway-to increase the accommodation at Sydney, $97,000,
Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand why these estimates are being taken up. Inquiry was made last night as to what business would be done to-day. There seemed to be some difficulty among the ministers, but finally they arrived at the conclusion that the Minister of Railways should make his statement, and after that the militia estimates would be taken up. As there was some confusion, I inquired of my right hon. friend the First Minister, and he informed me that the Minister of Railways would make his statement and then the militia estimates would be taken up. As some gentlemen have gone away who are interested in the railway estimates, I think we should not go on with them just now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was not aware that there was any such statement made. I supposed that in the ordinary course, after I had made my statement, we would go on with the railway estimates. But if the hon. gentleman believes that a different impression prevails and would desire that the estimates should not be gone on with, I should be very sorry indeed to persist.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps it would be better, in order that I may keep on safe ground, that I should defer answering, because my impression is that this covers the work that is now under contemplation. But I could not say that it might not be found necessary to do some additional work at Sydney at an early day, unless I were fortified by the information of the general manager. I know of nothing further in contemplation at present, but there may be.


Samuel Barker: Of course, I do not mean to say that the minister should he called upon to promise that in three or four years there might not be some further works to be done. But these are large expenditures to provide terminal accommodation for the road. It is a usual, and, IV think, very proper rule, that the engineer, or whoever is responsible for the work, shall lay out all the works at a point, and that there shall be an understanding at the department of what works are to be undertaken and what the cost is likely to be. If you do not follow that course you may drift into an enormous expenditure which you would not undertake if you knew from the beginning what was involved. Were the House to vote money year after year for a place like this, we ought to have an announcement from the minister that he has obtained a statement from the proper officer of the department as to what is likely to be required and whether the money voted will cover the works in contemplation.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Coming from the town where the money now being voted is to be spent, I may be allowed to say a few words as knowing a little of what is required for the Intercolonial Railway at that place. I would like to say to the hon. member (Mr. Barker) and the committee that the amount now asked for is not by any means sufficient to afford terminal accommodation for a place like Sydney. Being the eastern terminus of the Intercolonial, we should have the facilities of a water terminus. That has not been provided for, and it would take much more than [DOT] this vote, even if this were intended, for that particular purpose, whereas, I understand, it is not intended to provide by this vote water terminal facilities for that port. I
wish to say to the minister here that a much larger sum will be required to provide proper and suitable facilities for the Intercolonial at the town of Sydney.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may explain to the hon. member (Mr. Barker) that these items are not part of a provision for a general scheme. The items which go to make up this $97,000 are self-contained and require no explanation beyond their own sphere,


Samuel Barker: What are they V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The new station house, covered platforms, coal house, car repair shops, a larger electric light plant and so on. These are within a compact area and are part of the necessary station facilities for the end of the road at that point. I have not considered the questions that may be involved in the project of a deep water terminal which my hon. friend (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) has spoken of. If that should be undertaken at a future day, it cannot be said that any part of this work could have been left undone. The other would be a question which would stand entirely by itself and would be taken up as a separate and distinct matter.
Mr.	BARKER.	Will	this $97,1)00	complete that station and all the matters connected with it ?The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. That is my opinion.


Samuel Barker: And this is not a blanket vote for Sydney, but is a total of estimates in the minister's hands and is required for particular works ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes, exactly.
Mr.	INGRAM.	Will	the hon. minister
place on record what the items are ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I have stated them.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not hear the hon. minister do so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimate placed in my hands of the items making up this $97,000 is as follows. New station, $00,000; covered platform, $6,000; coal house, $4,500; car repair shop, $7,000; heating for car repair shop, $1,000; electric light plant, $7,000; fittings and furniture, $1,000; engineering, inspection, contingencies, etc., $10,500, total, $97,000.


Mr. LENNOX.: All new work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Entirely.
Original construction, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is the ordinary item.


Samuel Barker: It is not for anything specific ?	*


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.
To strengthen bridges, $165,100.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am obliged to ask for a revote of $77,000. Owing to the contractors being unable either to procure the material to construct, or, at all events, not being able to furnish us with the bridge structures. We had an appropriation for 1902-03 of $225,000. We expended from the 30th of June, to the 30th of January, $88,489. It is estimated that before the end of the current year we will be able to lay out over $58,000 of that original vote, which will leave $77,711 to be revoted. The balance due on bridges as tendered for is $31,000. The plans will cost $4,000, painting, $1,400; false worlc, $4,500; doubling up of bridge, $35,000; inspection, $1,311,100. There is, you will observe, an additional amount included in this estimate of $87,388. The purposes for what that amount will be expended are : To pay for the bridges already tendered for, in addition to those mentioned, $44,300; doubling up bridges, $33,900, the balance being for painting floors and engineering.


Samuel Barker: Would the hon. minister tell us where those bridges are ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot at this moment, but I will get the information.


James Clancy: Of what kind of material are those bridges made now in existence 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Probably most of them are iron, they were all built many years ago.


Samuel Barker: Is the hon. gentleman charging to capital the whole cost of the new bridges 7,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I am using the old bridges. The hon. gentleman may recall the explanations I have made on two or three occasions with regard to these. I am taking up the bridges which are weak and doubling them. That is, take a weak bridge on a certain stream called ' A; ' take another weak bridge on a stream called ' B; ' take the bridge that is over ' B ' stream and put it alongside the bridge over 1 A ' stream, doubling up the latter. That bridge then becomes of added weight and added strength, and is a complete and satisfactory bridge. I put in a new structure of the proper weight in the place which has become vacant by the removal of the first bridge.


Samuel Barker: Are there any places where these old bridges are put in for the first time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no knowledge of any instance where they do not take the place of old bridges. The bridges which were placed Mr. BARKER.
on the Intercolonial when it was constructed were uniform in type and character, so we have no trouble at all in doubling them up.


Samuel Barker: Do you mean to make a double tracked bridge 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, if you put up two spans, one alongside the other, you get double strength and weight.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister give us a statement of where these bridges are 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: On whose advice was this method of strengthening followed 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: On the advice of the chief engineer.


Adam Carr Bell: What instances could the minister cite of bridges strengthened in this manner 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There have been dozens of them, pretty nearly over the whole line, I should judge.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman say what is the length of the spans of bridges of this character 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could not from memory.


Adam Carr Bell: Are they long or short spans 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will get the information.


Samuel Barker: That item will stand, I suppose 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You can bring the question up again on another item.


Samuel Barker: Let it stand only for this explanation, there will be no comment on it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I fancy we will have something in the supplementaries on which this matter may be brought up again.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be as well to let it stand as a reminder to the hon. gentleman, and then we will have the information.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the minister if this process of doubling up has not been carried on for some time. I think he has been asking this House to vote sums year after year for this same purpose. The hon. gentleman says this work is being done over the whole line, speaking in general terms. I think three years ago the hon. gentleman asked a vote for the same purpose.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have continuously.


James Clancy: Is it because these bridges are becoming weak through use ? He has been using them in the meantime with heavy engines, I presume. Have they ceased from use to have the strength they formerly had?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There has been no change in the system. We have pursued this system since we found it necessary to strengthen the bridges. There have been quite a number done every year.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman know of any other railway in this country that has adopted that method of strength-ing bridges ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not made the inquiry, but I should be very much surprised if there were not others. The hon. gentleman may have a superior knowledge to any that our engineers possess on this question; but I cannot imagine anything that would be more defensible than doubling- up these bridges. The iron is perfectly good, the only trouble is that the bridge is not as strong as it ought to be within the limits of safety. We have been using upon the line now for two full years, and perhaps a good part of the third year, heavy locomotives, and we have in cases, over portions of the line which have these lighter bridges, been obliged to shore them up, to put bents under them and strengthen them before we could run the heavy locomotives over them. I think the general character of the alterations and of increasing the bridge structures has been of the description I have mentioned with the exception of two or three crossing large rivers such as the Miramichi and Resti-gouche. They are exceptions, because, of course, we could not in the same way use these spans for strengthening these bridges. The narrower rivers and streams are crossed by these other bridges, but we have two or three large rivers such as the Miramichi and the Restigouche, or perhaps the Meta-pedia, where these spans are not used.


Andrew B. Ingram: That plan has not heen adopted in regard to the Miramichi bridge, because I see that the Dominion Bridge Company put in an estimate for six spans which would be erected according to a different method altogether.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, a different method. It may turn out, when I make inquiry about the bridges that a large portion of this appropriation, or the whole of it may apply to the Miramichi bridge. In that way, I want to qualify the statement I made that it would be a joining of two bridges together. The prevailing mode of alteration over the whole Intercolonial Railway, with the exception of these large rivers, if my memory serves me, has heen that which I have mentioned.


Samuel Barker: I suppose there is a written report from the engineer recommending these works ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes.


Samuel Barker: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to bringing down that report and laying it on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will bring it down, if I have it.


Adam Carr Bell: In the case of the Miramichi bridge, I suppose the separate spans of such a bridge are sometimes used in this doubling up process ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, we are putting the Miramichi bridge, one span or both, over the Hillsborough river in Prince Edward Island. It is a splendid bridge, it is as good as ever it was for the weight which would he required to be carried there.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would like to ask the hon. minister if in placing these new bridges at the points where they are required the work is done by day labour or contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Where we are putting two bridges together, we do it by our own workmen. If we are putting up a new bridge it is done by the company under contract.


John Dowsley Reid: What company V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When I say the company, I mean the company which has the contract. The bridges are put up to public competition. There are the Dominion Bridge Company, the Canadian Bridge Company, and I am not sure but that there is another. One of the Canadian companies get the contract, and they complete the structure.


James Clancy: Do their contracts include the removal and doubling up of the spans, and the building of new work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, if we are putting two of the older bridges together we do it by men that we have in our own employ. The bridge company, speaking within my best recollection now, have nothing to" do with removing one of these old bridges and joining it to another bridge. Their contract covers the construction of the superstructure itself and putting it up.


James Clancy: That work has to be done while the trains are running, and there are necessarily two parties concerned ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Yes.


James Clancy: And the railway traffic-must go on as best it can, and get over these places with care ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman not been required to employ additional hands on occasions of that kind V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I dare say some of our railway hands may be employed. I think this work is done uniformly on Sunday.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may say to the hon. minister that they can construct a bridge while traffic is going over it, and they are doing it every day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no disturbance at all from it.


Adam Carr Bell: There must be no Presbyterians in that part of the country.
To increase accommodation at Levis, $72,000.


Samuel Barker: The same question arises there as to how far we are to go. Is this to go on year after year, or lias the hon. minister a report from the engineer showing what has been spent there and when this is going to end ? That certainly is a place where a particular work must cover the whole of the requirements. It is not a terminus. It is a station yard or something of that kind.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I presume that work will not be done without a general report from the engineer showing what was to be done. Could the hon. minister tell us whether this will wind everything up, and if not what more we are to expect ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAY'S anti CANALS. My impression in regard to that is that this covers the estimated cost of what is required to be done there. It is a very congested point as everybody knows who has been through Levis.


Adam Carr Bell: There was $75,000 spent last year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I dare say.


John Dowsley Reid: Was the work done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: There was a vote of $75,000 in 1901-2, a vote of $22,000 in 1902-3, and now the hon. minister is asking for $72,000. It does not look as if he had quite known what he wanted ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Oh, yes.


Andrew George Blair: Mr. BARKER, Why do you expect- to spend $72,000 this year, when you only spent $22,000 last year ? One would have expected it to be reversed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The work was all contemplated at the outset. The sum which I am asking it is estimated, will complete what we will have to do.


Samuel Barker: It will complete all the station works ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What does it involve-the building of a new station ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, the station is already built. The situation is a very awkward one. I do not know whether all the hon. gentlemen who are within hearing are acquainted with the situation there or not. In times past, and up to the present, it has been a very dangerous situation. The station has been on the right hand side of the track, and people have been obliged to cross over these tracks to get to and from the ferry. A very great many people, particularly on the arrival and departure of trains, are going and coming across these tracks. It was found necessary that we should transfer the station to the other side. Fortunately, the present station is one that we require and may use to great advantage for freight and office purposes, so that in putting the new station on the other side, we are not by any means failing to utilize the building which has heretofore been occupied as a station. We have put the other over on the water side of the track and we have provided an overhead bridge which will enable the people to get to and from that station without crossing the tracks and without any personal risk or danger. In this item of $72,000 we estimate what the works contemplated will cost. The estimate is as follows New baggage room, $12,000 ; overhead bridge, $10,000 ; concrete platform, $14,000 ; stone curves, $1,105 ; roofs for the platforms, $30,000 ; tank, $1,850 : engineer, $3,000, making a total of $72,000, which I am advised will complete the work.


Samuel Barker: Are they let under contract after tender ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, sir.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the minister no architect in his own department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have engineers, and as a general rule they draw the plans of all our buildings.


Andrew B. Ingram: I see that there is $1,000 paid to an architect for drawing the plans of the Levis station.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no man in the department who would probably describe himself as an expert architect. It was expected that we would put up a nice presentable station at Levis, and it was thought better to secure an architect of standing and reputation to draw the plans.


John Dowsley Reid: There was considerable correspondence last year between the Auditor General and the minister as to the mode of auditing the accounts, which I suppose referred to the charges to capital and revenue accounts. The minister agreed to change the mode of auditing the accounts. Would he kindly say what changes have been made?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That correspondence had no reference to the question of revenue or capital account. The Auditor General seems to have been Very much impressed by the remark made by a gentleman of the opposition in the Public Accounts Committee last year, who thought it was the business of the Auditor General to audit the accounts which were paid at Moncton. The Auditor General, on looking at the statute, came to the conclusion that it was broad enough to enable him to claim the right to withhold payment of any bill until the audit had taken place by himself personally or by some officer that he might appoint. I had several conversations with the Auditor General, and I pointed out to him that this would result In a great deal of inconvenience and no public advantage, because, as the result of many years' experience at Moncton, nothing had transpired to show that the officers at Moncton had failed in the performance of their duty. I pointed out to him that we had a large auditing staff at Moncton which had been there for many years, whose sole duty it was to audit these accounts, and that if he were to audit the accounts, there was no sense at all in paying for two different audits of the same account. I submitted to the demands of the Auditor General, as we could not carry on the business of the Intercolonial Railway unless I did. He is apparently the only person in this country who is to be trusted to properly supervise expenditure and to judge as to what ought be the proper functions of government, and so I submitted with as good a grace as I possibly could. Since then there has been a great deal of inconvenience. For instance, if a sheep happens to be killed on the Intercolonial Railway and the officers inquire into it and report that the sheep ought to be paid for, it not unfrequently happens that correspondence ensues and papers are called for.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: And a doctor's certificate.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Oh, yes ; a doctor's certificate
has to be forthcoming, and these papers oscillate between Moncton on the one hand and the Auditor General on the other ; further investigations are made, and the whole staff is set in motion in order to afford reasonable assurance to the Auditor General that this sheep is actually dead or has been seriously injured.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Or ever had an existence.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. It is under those circumstances that the correspondence took place.


James Clancy: Is it not a fact that the Auditor General, in reply to the hon. member foivHamilton, stated that large sums of money were paid as to which he had absolutely no knowledge ? Did not the correspondence arise out of larger matters than the Minister of Railways refers to ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am free to admit that my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is responsible for the present condition of things, because his remark led the Auditor General to take this view of his duties. If the Public Accounts Committee should meet again at an early date, I wish my hou. friend would withdraw the remark, so that it may be possible for the officers who are engaged in this work at Moncton to do business in a businesslike way upon the Intercolonial Railway. I confess that a great many things much larger than that have to be dealt with. I mention this to show what capacity can be found in a faithful and zealous public officer to grasp a needle as well as to strike at larger objects. One of the difficulties which we have is to get bills passed or paid at all. For a long period of years, ever since I have known anything about the Intercolonial personally, and from what I could gather from others who knew it before I came into the depai'tment, there was a recognized system of audit for printing done in connection with the Intercolonial. The Auditor General has since last session insisted that accounts for printing shall be audited and paid on the same basis on which the printing is done at the Printing Bureau. An examination of that system shows that no charge is made in connection with the investment, the cost of plant, or any of the hundred and one things that are outside of the actual labour and paper ; and there has not been for a year past a single account settled or adjusted by the Auditor.


James Clancy: Can this printing not be done at the bureau ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It cannot be done at the bureau, for it is too far away, and it has never been thought reasonable that it should be done there. The claim is not that the work should be done at the bureau, but that it should only be paid for at bureau prices.

But printers cannot print at tliose prices ; they ought not to be asked to do so, and the law is not different to-day from what it has been for years. Under the law as it is now, and with the same knowledge of what it is, the Auditor has authorized the payment down to the current year of bills at the reasonable commercial price.


John Dowsley Reid: After that explanation the hon. minister cannot find fault with us. He knows that the Auditor General was appointed by the Liberal government, and if he is now putting the brakes on in that way, it must be because he has not the same confidence in this government that he had in their predecessors ; and if we are suspicious in that regard, we certainly have much more reason to be so than he has. However, I would like to ask the hon. minister, whether in case of capital expenditure, for instance for rails, the old rails are disposed of and the amount for which they are sold is placed to the credit of capital account ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I would wish to make it remark or two on the subject of the audit. The hon. gentleman knows that the points on which the discussion occurred in the Tub-lie Accounts Committee were not at all of the nature that he has alluded to. There was no question of deciding upon a claim on a calf being killed or anything of that kind.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is wliat it developed into.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking of what occurred in the committee. In one or two cases we found that after parliament bad authorized the government to spend a certain sum of money at a particular place the government spent twice that sum, without any authority whatever, and 1 asked the Auditor General how it happened that lie had passed those accounts. He said that they were all paid before he knew anything about them. Out of that arose a discussion on the question whether there was a sufficient audit. There is a departmental auditor at Moncton, but that gentleman is precisely in the position of a staff officer on a railway who can be dismissed at any time by the manager. He simply look's after the details between the departments. Such an audit is no protection to the proprietors of the railway, nor would such an audit be a protection to the people of this country. We want somebody to audit the accounts as between the public and the railway department, not a gentleman who will object to a particular item at the peril of the loss of his situation. The hon. gentleman knows that the Auditor General cannot be dismissed by the government, and for that reason matters such as I have alluded to should be audited by him. We should have the protection of such an officer's endorsement of the expenditure, not the endorsement of Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
some gentleman down at Moncton, who knows that he must do exactly as he is told, who will audit a particular account, but who will not criticise the government if it is spending two or three times what it is authorized to spend. That was what led to the discussion in the Public Accounts Committee, as the minister knows perfectly well.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Postmaster General, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Friday.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 29, 1903.